In HMRC v Infinity Distribution [2016] EWCA Civ 1014 (25 October 2016) the Court of Appeal found that evidence purporting to establish that alleged supplies had not actually taken place was admissible even in the absence of a misconduct claim by HMRC.
This was an appeal against a case management decision of the UT which related to a group of conjoined appeals. The first group (‘the Invalid Invoice Appeals’) arose from HMRC’s refusal to allow Infinity to deduct VAT allegedly paid by it in relation to taxable supplies to it of mobile phones on the ground that the relevant VAT invoices did not comply with the VAT Regulations reg 14(1)(g)(h). In particular the invoices did not contain a sufficient description of the goods and of the quantities. HMRC contended that none of the alleged supplies had occurred because...
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 Infinity Distribution [2016] EWCA Civ 1014 (25 October 2016) the Court of Appeal found that evidence purporting to establish that alleged supplies had not actually taken place was admissible even in the absence of a misconduct claim by HMRC.
This was an appeal against a case management decision of the UT which related to a group of conjoined appeals. The first group (‘the Invalid Invoice Appeals’) arose from HMRC’s refusal to allow Infinity to deduct VAT allegedly paid by it in relation to taxable supplies to it of mobile phones on the ground that the relevant VAT invoices did not comply with the VAT Regulations reg 14(1)(g)(h). In particular the invoices did not contain a sufficient description of the goods and of the quantities. HMRC contended that none of the alleged supplies had occurred because...
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:
