In HMRC v P Newey (t/a Ocean Finance) (CJEU Case C-653/11) a financial adviser (N) who was registered for VAT was the controlling shareholder of a Jersey company (AC) which provided loan broking services in the UK. HMRC issued an assessment on N charging VAT of more than £10 000 000 on the basis that he should be treated as supplying the loan broking services and was liable to a ‘reverse charge’ under VATA 1994 s 8(1) in respect of advertising services supplied by another Jersey company (W). N appealed.
The First-Tier Tribunal allowed his appeal but the Upper Tribunal directed that the case should be referred to the CJEU for a ruling on whether the national court should depart from a strict contractual analysis. The CJEU held that ‘contractual terms even though they constitute...
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 P Newey (t/a Ocean Finance) (CJEU Case C-653/11) a financial adviser (N) who was registered for VAT was the controlling shareholder of a Jersey company (AC) which provided loan broking services in the UK. HMRC issued an assessment on N charging VAT of more than £10 000 000 on the basis that he should be treated as supplying the loan broking services and was liable to a ‘reverse charge’ under VATA 1994 s 8(1) in respect of advertising services supplied by another Jersey company (W). N appealed.
The First-Tier Tribunal allowed his appeal but the Upper Tribunal directed that the case should be referred to the CJEU for a ruling on whether the national court should depart from a strict contractual analysis. The CJEU held that ‘contractual terms even though they constitute...
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:
