In J & B Hopkins v HMRC [2018] UKUT 382 (23 November 2018) the UT found that J&B could not recover VAT it had mistakenly not charged from HMRC.
HMRC assessed J&B at the standard rate on supplies made by J&B to Rok Building Ltd which had mistakenly been treated as zero-rated. Rok had correctly zero-rated its onward supplies to its customer a charity. As Rok’s supplies to the charity were zero-rated Rok should have been able to recover any VAT charged to it by J&B. The contract between J&B and Rok provided that the contract sum was exclusive of VAT but J&B did not issue Rok with a new invoice including the VAT when the mistake was discovered as Rok had gone into liquidation. J&B contended that the assessments were contrary to EU law because HMRC would be unjustly enriched by the amount of VAT...
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 J & B Hopkins v HMRC [2018] UKUT 382 (23 November 2018) the UT found that J&B could not recover VAT it had mistakenly not charged from HMRC.
HMRC assessed J&B at the standard rate on supplies made by J&B to Rok Building Ltd which had mistakenly been treated as zero-rated. Rok had correctly zero-rated its onward supplies to its customer a charity. As Rok’s supplies to the charity were zero-rated Rok should have been able to recover any VAT charged to it by J&B. The contract between J&B and Rok provided that the contract sum was exclusive of VAT but J&B did not issue Rok with a new invoice including the VAT when the mistake was discovered as Rok had gone into liquidation. J&B contended that the assessments were contrary to EU law because HMRC would be unjustly enriched by the amount of VAT...
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:
