Waqar Shah (Mishcon de Reya) revisits the controversial decision in Zipvit where the customer lost its ability to claim input tax credit for the VAT which its supplier should have accounted to HMRC.
The Upper Tribunal (UT) in Zipvit [2016] UKUT 294 (reported in Tax Journal 8 July 2016) upheld in part the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) that the taxpayer was unable to recover VAT it claimed was embedded in amounts paid to Royal Mail for postal services. This was despite Proudman J criticising the FTT for going ‘off on a frolic of its own’ in incorrectly analysing some of the key legal principles at issue.
The facts in this case were as follows. Zipvit paid for postal services supplied by Royal Mail and was provided with an invoice which stated that there was no VAT paid as...
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:
Waqar Shah (Mishcon de Reya) revisits the controversial decision in Zipvit where the customer lost its ability to claim input tax credit for the VAT which its supplier should have accounted to HMRC.
The Upper Tribunal (UT) in Zipvit [2016] UKUT 294 (reported in Tax Journal 8 July 2016) upheld in part the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) that the taxpayer was unable to recover VAT it claimed was embedded in amounts paid to Royal Mail for postal services. This was despite Proudman J criticising the FTT for going ‘off on a frolic of its own’ in incorrectly analysing some of the key legal principles at issue.
The facts in this case were as follows. Zipvit paid for postal services supplied by Royal Mail and was provided with an invoice which stated that there was no VAT paid as...
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:
