header-logo header-logo

28 September 2017
Issue: 7763 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Value added tax

Rasul v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2017] UKUT 357 (TCC), [2017] All ER (D) 88 (Sep)

Assessments issued by the respondent Revenue and Customs Commission on 9 March 2011 for VAT due for periods ending before 9 March 2009 had been made within the time limit set out in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 s 73(6)(b).The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) held that the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) had been entitled to conclude that the Revenue’s evidence indicated that it had been of the opinion that it could not attach sufficient weight to the evidence it had obtained at the meeting on 4 September 2009, at least without attempting to verify it, at a subsequent meeting with the appellant taxpayer on 20 April 2010.

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

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW strengthens global insurance practice and Greater China offering with London Partner hire

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon boosts Energy and Utilities practice with appointment of David McEwing

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson adds international construction arbitration partner in London push

NEWS
Law firm trainees are choosing US firms over their UK comparators, according to Chambers’ annual report on UK trainee satisfaction
A former senior judge has warned peers against scrapping juries for fraud and financial crimes, ahead of the Courts and Tribunals Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords this week
Civil practitioners face changes spanning debt recovery, workplace harassment and possession claims, alongside guidance on insolvency challenges and children proceedings

Finding matrimonial wealth is as challenging as dividing it, as family disputes draw practitioners into asset tracing, offshore structures and insolvency

Agreement between opponents offers no guarantee that a court will approve a retrospective increase to a costs budget
back-to-top-scroll