In Masterlease Ltd v HMRC (TC00621 – 17 August) a company (M) claimed a repayment of VAT relating to supplies of cars under hire-purchase agreements where the cars were repossessed before all the instalments had been paid. HMRC made a repayment with an offset for output tax which it considered that M should have accounted for on the subsequent sale of the cars on the grounds that the ‘same condition’ requirement of VAT (Cars) Order SI 1992/3122 Article 4(1)(a) had not been satisfied.
M appealed. The tribunal issued a preliminary decision in principle holding that HMRC was entitled in principle to make the set-off and giving guidance on the question of whether a car was disposed of ‘in the same condition as it was when repossessed’. Judge Wallace held that ‘the phrase “same condition” must be qualified...
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 Masterlease Ltd v HMRC (TC00621 – 17 August) a company (M) claimed a repayment of VAT relating to supplies of cars under hire-purchase agreements where the cars were repossessed before all the instalments had been paid. HMRC made a repayment with an offset for output tax which it considered that M should have accounted for on the subsequent sale of the cars on the grounds that the ‘same condition’ requirement of VAT (Cars) Order SI 1992/3122 Article 4(1)(a) had not been satisfied.
M appealed. The tribunal issued a preliminary decision in principle holding that HMRC was entitled in principle to make the set-off and giving guidance on the question of whether a car was disposed of ‘in the same condition as it was when repossessed’. Judge Wallace held that ‘the phrase “same condition” must be qualified...
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:
