In The Queen (on the application of R Clarke and others) v HMRC [2017] UKUT 379 (29 September 2017) the High Court rejected an application for judicial review of HMRC’s decision not to compensate the taxpayer beyond the scope of its Business Brief.
The claimants ran residential care homes. Until 2002 HMRC treated the supplies of services by these care homes as exempt under VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 7. The High Court held however in Kingscrest [2002] EWHC 410 (Ch) that the exemption did not cover supplies by care homes. The wording of the exemption was subsequently amended to cover the supplies of care home services. HMRC set out its policy for the ‘pre-Kingscrest period’ in Business Brief (BB) 28/04: care homes did not have to register for VAT in respect of the pre-Kingscrest period because HMRC was prepared to remit...
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 The Queen (on the application of R Clarke and others) v HMRC [2017] UKUT 379 (29 September 2017) the High Court rejected an application for judicial review of HMRC’s decision not to compensate the taxpayer beyond the scope of its Business Brief.
The claimants ran residential care homes. Until 2002 HMRC treated the supplies of services by these care homes as exempt under VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 7. The High Court held however in Kingscrest [2002] EWHC 410 (Ch) that the exemption did not cover supplies by care homes. The wording of the exemption was subsequently amended to cover the supplies of care home services. HMRC set out its policy for the ‘pre-Kingscrest period’ in Business Brief (BB) 28/04: care homes did not have to register for VAT in respect of the pre-Kingscrest period because HMRC was prepared to remit...
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:
