In S Moher (t/a Premier Dental Agency) v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 2 April) a woman (M) operated a dental agency which supplied temporary dental staff to dentists. She initially accounted for VAT on her supplies but subsequently submitted a repayment claim covering the period from 1985 to 1996 on the basis that she should have treated them as exempt. HMRC rejected her claim and she appealed. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed her appeal and the Upper Tribunal upheld this decision. On the evidence the nurses and auxiliaries ‘were under the control of the dentist to whom were they were assigned’. M was making supplies of staff and was not making supplies of medical care.
Why it matters: VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 7 Item 2 provides that certain supplies of dental services are exempt from VAT. The...
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 S Moher (t/a Premier Dental Agency) v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 2 April) a woman (M) operated a dental agency which supplied temporary dental staff to dentists. She initially accounted for VAT on her supplies but subsequently submitted a repayment claim covering the period from 1985 to 1996 on the basis that she should have treated them as exempt. HMRC rejected her claim and she appealed. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed her appeal and the Upper Tribunal upheld this decision. On the evidence the nurses and auxiliaries ‘were under the control of the dentist to whom were they were assigned’. M was making supplies of staff and was not making supplies of medical care.
Why it matters: VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 7 Item 2 provides that certain supplies of dental services are exempt from VAT. The...
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:
