In Littlewoods Retail Ltd v HMRC (and related applications) (No 3) (Ch D – 4 November) several retail companies had claimed a repayment of VAT on the basis that commission which they paid to agents should have been treated as a discount. HMRC accepted the claims in principle (while disputing the amounts of the claims) and made repayments with simple interest under VATA 1994 s 78. The companies took proceedings contending that the effect of the HL decision in CIR v Sempra Metals Ltd [2007] STC 1559 was they were entitled to compound interest. The Ch D heard the companies’ claims and referred four specific questions to the ECJ. Vos J expressed the provisional opinion that ‘that EU law does not give a taxable person a right to payment of compound interest representing the use value of the money in cases where 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 Littlewoods Retail Ltd v HMRC (and related applications) (No 3) (Ch D – 4 November) several retail companies had claimed a repayment of VAT on the basis that commission which they paid to agents should have been treated as a discount. HMRC accepted the claims in principle (while disputing the amounts of the claims) and made repayments with simple interest under VATA 1994 s 78. The companies took proceedings contending that the effect of the HL decision in CIR v Sempra Metals Ltd [2007] STC 1559 was they were entitled to compound interest. The Ch D heard the companies’ claims and referred four specific questions to the ECJ. Vos J expressed the provisional opinion that ‘that EU law does not give a taxable person a right to payment of compound interest representing the use value of the money in cases where 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:
