In 2014 the First-tier Tribunal released two decisions (Standard Chartered plc v HMRC; Lloyds Banking Group plc v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 316 (TC) and MG Rover Group Ltd v HMRC and others [2014] UKFTT (TC) 327) on the same day. Both cases dealt with the subject of which entity in a VAT group was entitled to a refund of historically paid VAT – was this the real world supplier (RWS) or the VAT group representative member? Unfortunately for businesses and advisors alike the decisions could not have been more contradictory. What’s more due to the number of appellants involved in each case it was inevitable that the judgments would not be satisfactory to all and that proved to be the case....
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 2014 the First-tier Tribunal released two decisions (Standard Chartered plc v HMRC; Lloyds Banking Group plc v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 316 (TC) and MG Rover Group Ltd v HMRC and others [2014] UKFTT (TC) 327) on the same day. Both cases dealt with the subject of which entity in a VAT group was entitled to a refund of historically paid VAT – was this the real world supplier (RWS) or the VAT group representative member? Unfortunately for businesses and advisors alike the decisions could not have been more contradictory. What’s more due to the number of appellants involved in each case it was inevitable that the judgments would not be satisfactory to all and that proved to be the case....
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: