APD: should the legislation be read in the light of technological developments?
In Ryanair v HMRC (A3/2013/1517 – 4 April 2013) Ryanair lost its appeal against the refusal of HMRC to repay over £10m of air passenger duty which Ryanair claimed it had overpaid over a four year period.
The issue was whether Ryanair was entitled to an exemption for connected flights. Ryanair had also applied for judicial review of HMRC’s refusal but its claim had been dismissed by the UT.
Under FA 1994 s 30 a passenger who takes two connected flights is deemed to make a single journey. This means that in the case of a passenger who begins his journey abroad but takes a connecting flight in the UK the whole journey is exempt from APD as a single journey originating outside the UK. The Air Passenger Duty (Connected Flights) Order SI 1994/1821...
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:
APD: should the legislation be read in the light of technological developments?
In Ryanair v HMRC (A3/2013/1517 – 4 April 2013) Ryanair lost its appeal against the refusal of HMRC to repay over £10m of air passenger duty which Ryanair claimed it had overpaid over a four year period.
The issue was whether Ryanair was entitled to an exemption for connected flights. Ryanair had also applied for judicial review of HMRC’s refusal but its claim had been dismissed by the UT.
Under FA 1994 s 30 a passenger who takes two connected flights is deemed to make a single journey. This means that in the case of a passenger who begins his journey abroad but takes a connecting flight in the UK the whole journey is exempt from APD as a single journey originating outside the UK. The Air Passenger Duty (Connected Flights) Order SI 1994/1821...
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:
