In HMRC v The Rank Group plc (ECJ Case C-259/10) a company (M) supplied ‘mechanised cash bingo’. HMRC issued a ruling that it was required to account for tax on these supplies. The representative member of M's VAT group (R) appealed contending that they should be treated as exempt under Article 13B(f) of the EC Sixth Directive and that VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 4 Note 1(b) should be treated as invalid since it made an unjustified distinction between supplies within Gaming Act 1968 s 14 (which it treated as taxable) and supplies within Gaming Act 1968 s 21 (which it treated as exempt). Companies in R’s group also operated large numbers of ‘slot machines’. The effect of VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 4 Note 3 as originally enacted was that the takings from the machines were taxable...
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 The Rank Group plc (ECJ Case C-259/10) a company (M) supplied ‘mechanised cash bingo’. HMRC issued a ruling that it was required to account for tax on these supplies. The representative member of M's VAT group (R) appealed contending that they should be treated as exempt under Article 13B(f) of the EC Sixth Directive and that VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 4 Note 1(b) should be treated as invalid since it made an unjustified distinction between supplies within Gaming Act 1968 s 14 (which it treated as taxable) and supplies within Gaming Act 1968 s 21 (which it treated as exempt). Companies in R’s group also operated large numbers of ‘slot machines’. The effect of VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 4 Note 3 as originally enacted was that the takings from the machines were taxable...
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:
