The decision in Reed Employment Ltd v HMRC (No. 3) (Upper Tribunal – 5 March) follows on from the 2003 CJEU decision in Marks & Spencer PLC v C&E Commrs (No. 4). A company (R) which operated an employment agency made a repayment 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 2009 following the CJEU decision in Marks & Spencer PLC v C&E Commrs (No. 5) and while its appeal was pending R made two additional repayment claims in respect of supplies to clients who were taxable (and thus were able to recover output tax in full). HMRC...
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:
The decision in Reed Employment Ltd v HMRC (No. 3) (Upper Tribunal – 5 March) follows on from the 2003 CJEU decision in Marks & Spencer PLC v C&E Commrs (No. 4). A company (R) which operated an employment agency made a repayment 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 2009 following the CJEU decision in Marks & Spencer PLC v C&E Commrs (No. 5) and while its appeal was pending R made two additional repayment claims in respect of supplies to clients who were taxable (and thus were able to recover output tax in full). HMRC...
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:
