In HMRC v Moorbury Ltd (Upper Tribunal – 23 September) a college of education entered into a scheme involving a wholly-owned subsidiary company (M) intended to secure the recovery of input tax on the construction and refurbishment of some buildings at its campus. HMRC considered that the scheme was an ‘abuse’ applying the principles laid down in Halifax plc v C & E Commrs and issued assessments to recover the input tax.
The college and M subsequently accepted that the scheme had been an ‘abuse’ but proceeded with their appeal against the assessments contending that the ‘redefinition’ of the relevant transactions should include credit for output tax which M had accounted for in the course of the transactions. HMRC issued a ruling that because M had not made a claim under VATA 1994 s 80 within the statutory time...
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 Moorbury Ltd (Upper Tribunal – 23 September) a college of education entered into a scheme involving a wholly-owned subsidiary company (M) intended to secure the recovery of input tax on the construction and refurbishment of some buildings at its campus. HMRC considered that the scheme was an ‘abuse’ applying the principles laid down in Halifax plc v C & E Commrs and issued assessments to recover the input tax.
The college and M subsequently accepted that the scheme had been an ‘abuse’ but proceeded with their appeal against the assessments contending that the ‘redefinition’ of the relevant transactions should include credit for output tax which M had accounted for in the course of the transactions. HMRC issued a ruling that because M had not made a claim under VATA 1994 s 80 within the statutory time...
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:
