In HMRC v SAE Education [2016] UKUT 193 (25 April 2016) the UT found that a corporate body was not a college of a university so that it was not an eligible body under VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 6 item 1.
The issue was whether supplies of education made by SAE were exempt or standard-rated. This depended upon whether SAE was an ‘eligible body’. SAE argued that it was a college of Middlesex University (MU) and as such fell within note 1(b).
The UT referred to Pendragon [2015] UKSC 37 as authority for the proposition that the UT’s power to interfere with findings of facts by the FTT depended upon its finding ‘errors of approach’ in the FTT’s decision.
The UT was satisfied that the FTT had made such errors. A multi-step evaluation of the relationship...
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 SAE Education [2016] UKUT 193 (25 April 2016) the UT found that a corporate body was not a college of a university so that it was not an eligible body under VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 6 item 1.
The issue was whether supplies of education made by SAE were exempt or standard-rated. This depended upon whether SAE was an ‘eligible body’. SAE argued that it was a college of Middlesex University (MU) and as such fell within note 1(b).
The UT referred to Pendragon [2015] UKSC 37 as authority for the proposition that the UT’s power to interfere with findings of facts by the FTT depended upon its finding ‘errors of approach’ in the FTT’s decision.
The UT was satisfied that the FTT had made such errors. A multi-step evaluation of the relationship...
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:
