In Reed Employment Ltd v HMRC (No 3) (TC01069 – 11 April) a company (R) which operated an employment agency had accounted for VAT on the whole of its receipts from its clients.
In 1997 it submitted a substantial repayment claim covering the period since 1991 on the grounds that it should only have accounted for VAT on its commission.
In 2003 following the ECJ decision in Marks & Spencer plc v C & E Commrs (No 4) [2002] STC 1036 Customs made a repayment. R made a further claim dating back to 1973 seeking to recover output tax relating to supplies to clients which were wholly or partly exempt or were not registered for VAT. Customs rejected this claim and R appealed.
In March 2009 following the ECJ decision in...
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 Reed Employment Ltd v HMRC (No 3) (TC01069 – 11 April) a company (R) which operated an employment agency had accounted for VAT on the whole of its receipts from its clients.
In 1997 it submitted a substantial repayment claim covering the period since 1991 on the grounds that it should only have accounted for VAT on its commission.
In 2003 following the ECJ decision in Marks & Spencer plc v C & E Commrs (No 4) [2002] STC 1036 Customs made a repayment. R made a further claim dating back to 1973 seeking to recover output tax relating to supplies to clients which were wholly or partly exempt or were not registered for VAT. Customs rejected this claim and R appealed.
In March 2009 following the ECJ decision in...
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:
