Tax cases

Go to page of 388

SELECT A SUBJECT

All Admin Avoidance Business Capital Gains Income Tax Inheritance Tax International Investigations Investments VAT

Tax case: Gould and another (trading as Garry's Private Hire) (SpC 604)

Tax case: Smith and others (SpC 605)

Tax case: Limitgood Ltd and another (SpC 612)

Tax case: Forbes v Assets Recovery Agency (No 2)

Tax case: Island Consulting (SpC 618)

Most favoured?

The claimant provided flight security services in the Czech Republic. It had recourse to training courses in Germany, which in 2002 were subject to German VAT. The claimant applied for a VAT refund but this was denied on the ground that under German turnover tax law, a non EC trader could only be credited with input tax if there was no turnover tax in its country or, if there was such a tax, it was credited to undertakings established in Germany. At the relevant time, the Czech Republic did not grant input tax refunds to German traders.

Too late!

HMRC applied for an extension of time to appeal against a tribunal VAT decision. Under Civil Procedure Rules SI 1998/3132, 52PD 23.8(2)(b), the appellant who wished to appeal had 56 days after the date of the decision in which to do it.

Limited freedom

A Finnish company which was wholly owned by a company established in the UK made a transfer to the parent company. It was ruled that an intra group financial transfer was not tax deductible under Finnish law when made to a parent company in a different EC state. Such a transfer within Finnish companies both resident in Finland would be allowable.
The claimant appealed saying that this went against article 43 of the EC Treaty which referred to the freedom of establishment.

Sempra Metals Ltd (formerly Metallgesellschaft Ltd) v CIR and others, House of Lords, 18 July 2007

Electronic risk

The claimant supplied, installed and maintained computer hardware and software for the insurance industry. The software enabled insurance brokers to carry out certain transactions with insurers, over the claimant's communication systems.
Customs ruled that the claimant's software was able to assess and accept risk on behalf of the insurers. Later in April 2004, Customs said that the claimant's services were not VAT exempt, and issued an assessment in January 2005.
The claimant applied for judicial review in April 2005.

Exempt credit

Under an agency agreement acting in the name of DVAG, a German company (the claimant) acted as a financial adviser for potential clients with a view to them obtaining credit. If a contract was concluded, the lender paid a commission to DVAG, which then paid a commission to the claimant. The claimant said that the commission was VAT exempt.