In Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees and others v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 830 (16 December 2016), the FTT allowed Wheels to amend its grounds of appeal so that the case could be stayed pending the decision in United Biscuits (HC14A01221).
Wheels, a benefit pension fund, received investment management services. A claim for repayment under VATA 1994 s 80 had been submitted. Wheels’ case was that the failure to treat them as special investment funds was inconsistent with the principle of fiscal neutrality because pension funds were carrying out the same transactions as authorised unit trusts, investment trust companies and open ended investment companies, which were treated as special investment funds by the UK. The CJEU had found (Case C-424/11) that an investment fund pooling the assets of a retirement pension scheme was not a ‘special investment fund’.
On the case’s return to the FTT, Wheels applied for a stay of proceedings pending the determination in the High Court of United Biscuits. The FTT required however that Wheels amend their grounds of appeal to incorporate the arguments put forward in United Biscuits.
The FTT noted that refusing the application would, in effect, be dismissing the Wheels’ appeal without consideration of the new argument. It also observed that Wheels was not seeking to enlarge its original claim by extending it to supplies that were not originally included in it. The supplies in respect of which Wheels claimed a repayment remained the same as did the method of calculating the amount of the repayment. The balance of ‘fairness and justice’ was therefore in favour of allowing Wheels to amend its grounds of appeal.
Why it matters: Wheels’ claim was stayed pending the High Court’s decision in United Biscuits. Other pension funds may wish to follow Wheels’ example and amend their grounds of appeal.
In Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees and others v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 830 (16 December 2016), the FTT allowed Wheels to amend its grounds of appeal so that the case could be stayed pending the decision in United Biscuits (HC14A01221).
Wheels, a benefit pension fund, received investment management services. A claim for repayment under VATA 1994 s 80 had been submitted. Wheels’ case was that the failure to treat them as special investment funds was inconsistent with the principle of fiscal neutrality because pension funds were carrying out the same transactions as authorised unit trusts, investment trust companies and open ended investment companies, which were treated as special investment funds by the UK. The CJEU had found (Case C-424/11) that an investment fund pooling the assets of a retirement pension scheme was not a ‘special investment fund’.
On the case’s return to the FTT, Wheels applied for a stay of proceedings pending the determination in the High Court of United Biscuits. The FTT required however that Wheels amend their grounds of appeal to incorporate the arguments put forward in United Biscuits.
The FTT noted that refusing the application would, in effect, be dismissing the Wheels’ appeal without consideration of the new argument. It also observed that Wheels was not seeking to enlarge its original claim by extending it to supplies that were not originally included in it. The supplies in respect of which Wheels claimed a repayment remained the same as did the method of calculating the amount of the repayment. The balance of ‘fairness and justice’ was therefore in favour of allowing Wheels to amend its grounds of appeal.
Why it matters: Wheels’ claim was stayed pending the High Court’s decision in United Biscuits. Other pension funds may wish to follow Wheels’ example and amend their grounds of appeal.
