header-logo header-logo

Value added tax

26 January 2012
Issue: 7498 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Simpson & Marwick v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2011] UKUT 498 (TCC), [2012] All ER (D) 93 (Jan)

 

The purpose of s 36 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 was to permit the refunding of VAT in respect of bad debts, to ensure that the taxpayer who collected the VAT on behalf of the revenue was not left out of pocket by a failure to obtain payment from his customer. That purpose required that the whole of the VAT that had not been recovered from the customer should be refunded; otherwise the taxpayer was out of pocket. Section 36, reading the first three subsections together, permitted a refund of the amount of VAT chargeable by reference to an amount equal to the amount of the consideration so written off. The amount written off was, demonstrably, all VAT. The compound preposition “by reference to” indicated that, in determining the amount of the refund, reference had to be had to the consideration that was written off. If that amount was only VAT, that fact had to be taken
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll