In HMRC v Grattan plc (No 6) (Upper Tribunal – 3 October) the Upper Tribunal has dismissed HMRC’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal decision to refer a question regarding the compounding of interest to the ECJ.
The company (G) sold goods by mail order through agents. It paid commission to these agents. Initially it did not claim a deduction for this commission.
However following the ECJ decision in Marks & Spencer plc v C & E Commrs (No 4) ([2002] STC 1036) it claimed a retrospective deduction backdated to April 1973.
HMRC accepted that the effect of Article 11C(1) of the EC Sixth Directive was that G was entitled to such a deduction for the period from 1 January 1978 but rejected G’s claim for the period from 1973 to 1977 on the basis...
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 Grattan plc (No 6) (Upper Tribunal – 3 October) the Upper Tribunal has dismissed HMRC’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal decision to refer a question regarding the compounding of interest to the ECJ.
The company (G) sold goods by mail order through agents. It paid commission to these agents. Initially it did not claim a deduction for this commission.
However following the ECJ decision in Marks & Spencer plc v C & E Commrs (No 4) ([2002] STC 1036) it claimed a retrospective deduction backdated to April 1973.
HMRC accepted that the effect of Article 11C(1) of the EC Sixth Directive was that G was entitled to such a deduction for the period from 1 January 1978 but rejected G’s claim for the period from 1973 to 1977 on the basis...
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:
