In HMRC v Earlsferry Thistle Golf Club (FTC/74/2013 – 2 June 2014) the UT held that the FTT has no jurisdiction to hear a claim for repayment of VAT wrongly paid by the recipient of the relevant supply.
The premises of a golf club (ET) adjoined those of another golf club (GC). ET paid GC an annual fee to allow ET’s members to play on GC’s golf course. GC charged VAT on the fee. However following the Canterbury Hockey Club decision [2008] ECR I-7821 ET considered that the fees should have been exempt.
GC obtained a repayment of part of the VAT and ET applied to HMRC for the repayment of the balance. HMRC denied the claim on the basis that a repayment claim (under VATA 1994 s 80) could only be made by the person who had...
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 Earlsferry Thistle Golf Club (FTC/74/2013 – 2 June 2014) the UT held that the FTT has no jurisdiction to hear a claim for repayment of VAT wrongly paid by the recipient of the relevant supply.
The premises of a golf club (ET) adjoined those of another golf club (GC). ET paid GC an annual fee to allow ET’s members to play on GC’s golf course. GC charged VAT on the fee. However following the Canterbury Hockey Club decision [2008] ECR I-7821 ET considered that the fees should have been exempt.
GC obtained a repayment of part of the VAT and ET applied to HMRC for the repayment of the balance. HMRC denied the claim on the basis that a repayment claim (under VATA 1994 s 80) could only be made by the person who had...
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:
