In HMRC v DPAS [2016] UKUT 373 (15 August 2016) the UT decided to refer the question of whether the services provided under a dental plan were exempt to the CJEU.
DPAS provided practice branded dental plans under arrangements which had been changed in January 2012. Dental plans were arrangements between a dentist and his or her patient under which the dentist agreed to provide a certain level of dental care for a monthly fee. The plan also included insurance and payment administration services provided by DPAS. The issue was whether DPAS provided services to patients; and if so whether these services were exempt as ‘transactions concerning payments and transfers’ (Principal VAT Directive art 131(1)(d)).
The UT had partially decided the case in November 2015 (see Tax Journal 17 November 2015). However it had directed that...
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 DPAS [2016] UKUT 373 (15 August 2016) the UT decided to refer the question of whether the services provided under a dental plan were exempt to the CJEU.
DPAS provided practice branded dental plans under arrangements which had been changed in January 2012. Dental plans were arrangements between a dentist and his or her patient under which the dentist agreed to provide a certain level of dental care for a monthly fee. The plan also included insurance and payment administration services provided by DPAS. The issue was whether DPAS provided services to patients; and if so whether these services were exempt as ‘transactions concerning payments and transfers’ (Principal VAT Directive art 131(1)(d)).
The UT had partially decided the case in November 2015 (see Tax Journal 17 November 2015). However it had directed that...
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:
