In WM Morrison Supermarkets Ltd v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 28 May) a company (W) sold disposable barbecues. It accounted for VAT at the standard rate. It subsequently submitted a repayment claim on the basis that it should have treated part of the consideration as attributable to supplies of charcoal and as taxable at the reduced rate. HMRC rejected the claim and W appealed. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal applying the principles laid down in Card Protection Plan Ltd [1999] STC 270. Judge Cannan held that ‘it is not open to a taxpayer to carve out an element of what would otherwise be treated as a single supply in order to apply a reduced rate to that element of the supply’.
The Upper Tribunal upheld this decision. Vos J held that ‘it is precisely because the domestic statute did not expressly identify “charcoal...
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 WM Morrison Supermarkets Ltd v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 28 May) a company (W) sold disposable barbecues. It accounted for VAT at the standard rate. It subsequently submitted a repayment claim on the basis that it should have treated part of the consideration as attributable to supplies of charcoal and as taxable at the reduced rate. HMRC rejected the claim and W appealed. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal applying the principles laid down in Card Protection Plan Ltd [1999] STC 270. Judge Cannan held that ‘it is not open to a taxpayer to carve out an element of what would otherwise be treated as a single supply in order to apply a reduced rate to that element of the supply’.
The Upper Tribunal upheld this decision. Vos J held that ‘it is precisely because the domestic statute did not expressly identify “charcoal...
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:
