The Supreme Court’s decision in DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd v HMRC [2022] UKSC 26 provides useful clarification on two issues arising in VAT disputes: the one-year time bar rule for assessments and HMRC’s power to refuse to pay a VAT credit.
The decision concerned an appeal made by DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd which was the holding company and VAT representative member of a group that ran optician and other health businesses mainly trading as Optical Express.
While the group’s work supplying glasses is VATable the provision of eye tests and other optician services is not making it a partially exempt VAT group. Partially exempt businesses can under VATA 1994 s 19(4) recover some...
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 Supreme Court’s decision in DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd v HMRC [2022] UKSC 26 provides useful clarification on two issues arising in VAT disputes: the one-year time bar rule for assessments and HMRC’s power to refuse to pay a VAT credit.
The decision concerned an appeal made by DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd which was the holding company and VAT representative member of a group that ran optician and other health businesses mainly trading as Optical Express.
While the group’s work supplying glasses is VATable the provision of eye tests and other optician services is not making it a partially exempt VAT group. Partially exempt businesses can under VATA 1994 s 19(4) recover some...
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: