In HMRC v MG Rover Group Ltd; Standard Chartered plc v HMRC [2016] UKUT 434 (19 October 2016) the UT found that VATA 1994 s 43 required as permitted by the Principal VAT Directive art 4(4) repayment rights under VATA 1994 s 80 to be held only by the representative member both before and after the relevant trader had left the group or the group had been dissolved.
The decisions of the FTT in Standard Chartered plc v HMRC; Lloyds Banking Group plc v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 316 and MG Rover Group Limited v HMRCBMW (UK) Holdings and Rover Company Limited v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 327 turned on the interaction between the grouping provisions in VATA 1994 s 43 when a company moved into or out of a VAT group and the entitlement to repayment under...
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 MG Rover Group Ltd; Standard Chartered plc v HMRC [2016] UKUT 434 (19 October 2016) the UT found that VATA 1994 s 43 required as permitted by the Principal VAT Directive art 4(4) repayment rights under VATA 1994 s 80 to be held only by the representative member both before and after the relevant trader had left the group or the group had been dissolved.
The decisions of the FTT in Standard Chartered plc v HMRC; Lloyds Banking Group plc v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 316 and MG Rover Group Limited v HMRCBMW (UK) Holdings and Rover Company Limited v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 327 turned on the interaction between the grouping provisions in VATA 1994 s 43 when a company moved into or out of a VAT group and the entitlement to repayment under...
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:
