Lee Squires and Fiona Bantock (Hogan Lovells) report the latest VAT developments that matter.
In HMRC v MG Rover Group Ltd; Standard Chartered Plc v HMRC [2016] UKUT 434 (TCC) (reported in Tax Journal 28 October 2017) the Upper Tribunal (UT) considered two joined appeals both concerned with VAT groups where the supplying entity had left the VAT group before a claim for overpaid VAT was made. At first instance differently constituted FTTs came to opposite conclusions as to which company was entitled to make the claim following de-grouping.
Broadly the FTT in MG Rover held that the company entitled to make the claim is the one which ignoring the effects of VAT grouping would have been treated as making the supply to which the claim for overpaid VAT relates. By contrast ...
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:
Lee Squires and Fiona Bantock (Hogan Lovells) report the latest VAT developments that matter.
In HMRC v MG Rover Group Ltd; Standard Chartered Plc v HMRC [2016] UKUT 434 (TCC) (reported in Tax Journal 28 October 2017) the Upper Tribunal (UT) considered two joined appeals both concerned with VAT groups where the supplying entity had left the VAT group before a claim for overpaid VAT was made. At first instance differently constituted FTTs came to opposite conclusions as to which company was entitled to make the claim following de-grouping.
Broadly the FTT in MG Rover held that the company entitled to make the claim is the one which ignoring the effects of VAT grouping would have been treated as making the supply to which the claim for overpaid VAT relates. By contrast ...
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: