InStoke by Nayland Golf and Leisure v HMRC[2017] UKFTT 246 (3 April 2017) the FTT found that a golf club which belonged to a commercial company was a non-profit making body.
A company Stoke by Nayland Golf and Leisure (SNGL) had been set up by Boxford Group (which owned the Copella fruit juice brand) to operate a golf and leisure centre which until then had been operated by Boxford Group itself. The issue was whether SNGL was an ‘eligible body’ so that its supplies were exempt under VATA 1994 Sch 9 group 10 item 3. This depended on whether SNGL was a non-profit making body.
The FTT referred to the opinion of the advocate general in Kennemer Golf & Country Club (Case C-174/00) which had been followed by the CJEU: ‘The concept of...
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:
InStoke by Nayland Golf and Leisure v HMRC[2017] UKFTT 246 (3 April 2017) the FTT found that a golf club which belonged to a commercial company was a non-profit making body.
A company Stoke by Nayland Golf and Leisure (SNGL) had been set up by Boxford Group (which owned the Copella fruit juice brand) to operate a golf and leisure centre which until then had been operated by Boxford Group itself. The issue was whether SNGL was an ‘eligible body’ so that its supplies were exempt under VATA 1994 Sch 9 group 10 item 3. This depended on whether SNGL was a non-profit making body.
The FTT referred to the opinion of the advocate general in Kennemer Golf & Country Club (Case C-174/00) which had been followed by the CJEU: ‘The concept of...
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:
