InNorseman Gold v HMRC[2016] UKUT 69 (4 February 2016) the UT found that a company had not made taxable supplies to its subsidiaries.
The issue was whether Norseman had made taxable supplies to its subsidiaries so that it could recover the relevant input tax. HMRC contended that Norseman had not been carrying on an economic activity as it had not been making and had not had the intention to make taxable supplies.
The UT referred inter alia to Commission v Finland (C-246/08) and the proposition that: ‘An activity is as a general rule categorised as economic where it is permanent and is carried out in return for remuneration which is received by a person carrying out the activity’. The UT therefore observed that the first question was whether the supplies actually made by Norseman...
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:
InNorseman Gold v HMRC[2016] UKUT 69 (4 February 2016) the UT found that a company had not made taxable supplies to its subsidiaries.
The issue was whether Norseman had made taxable supplies to its subsidiaries so that it could recover the relevant input tax. HMRC contended that Norseman had not been carrying on an economic activity as it had not been making and had not had the intention to make taxable supplies.
The UT referred inter alia to Commission v Finland (C-246/08) and the proposition that: ‘An activity is as a general rule categorised as economic where it is permanent and is carried out in return for remuneration which is received by a person carrying out the activity’. The UT therefore observed that the first question was whether the supplies actually made by Norseman...
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:
