In HMRC v Bratt Auto Contracts and Bratt Auto Services [2016] UKUT 90 (19 February 2016) the UT allowed HMRC’s appeal against the FTT’s decision finding that a claim for VAT repayment must be allocated to the relevant VAT period.
Following the CJEU’s decisions in Elida Gibbs (C-317/94) and European Commission v Italy (C-45/95) solicitors for the two appellant companies (BAC and BAS) had written to HMRC purporting to claim the repayment of wrongly paid output tax. The letter had been sent on the penultimate day of the time limit for making such claims. The letter stated the value of BAS’s claim as a global figure not separated into individual amounts for each of the VAT periods within the year. It also indicated that BAC intended to make a claim on the same basis. HMRC had rejected the claim on the...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In HMRC v Bratt Auto Contracts and Bratt Auto Services [2016] UKUT 90 (19 February 2016) the UT allowed HMRC’s appeal against the FTT’s decision finding that a claim for VAT repayment must be allocated to the relevant VAT period.
Following the CJEU’s decisions in Elida Gibbs (C-317/94) and European Commission v Italy (C-45/95) solicitors for the two appellant companies (BAC and BAS) had written to HMRC purporting to claim the repayment of wrongly paid output tax. The letter had been sent on the penultimate day of the time limit for making such claims. The letter stated the value of BAS’s claim as a global figure not separated into individual amounts for each of the VAT periods within the year. It also indicated that BAC intended to make a claim on the same basis. HMRC had rejected the claim on the...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
