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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll