Zipvit had been receiving postal services from Royal Mail since 2006 which services had been treated as exempt (as services supplied by a ‘public postal service’ within article 132(1)(a) of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD)). Then in April 2009 came the CJEU ruling in TNT Post UK (Case C-357/07) which held that the exemption provided for by article 132(1)(a) ‘[did] not apply to supplies of services … for which the terms [had] been individually negotiated’. The agreement between Zipvit and Royal Mail was specific to Zipvit i.e. it had been ‘individually negotiated’. It followed that the supplies that up to that point had been treated as exempt were in truth taxable.
In light of this Zipvit argued that 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:
Zipvit had been receiving postal services from Royal Mail since 2006 which services had been treated as exempt (as services supplied by a ‘public postal service’ within article 132(1)(a) of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD)). Then in April 2009 came the CJEU ruling in TNT Post UK (Case C-357/07) which held that the exemption provided for by article 132(1)(a) ‘[did] not apply to supplies of services … for which the terms [had] been individually negotiated’. The agreement between Zipvit and Royal Mail was specific to Zipvit i.e. it had been ‘individually negotiated’. It followed that the supplies that up to that point had been treated as exempt were in truth taxable.
In light of this Zipvit argued that 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: