header-logo header-logo

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

Value added tax

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
back-to-top-scroll