header-logo header-logo

Value added tax

17 August 2012
Issue: 7527 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of Capital Accommodation (London) Ltd (in Liquidation)) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] UKUT 276 (TCC), [2012] All ER (D) 68 (Aug)

Regulation 35 of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/2518), conferred a discretion on the Revenue to impose requirements as to the time in which a taxable person should correct an error. The Revenue might, in the exercise of that discretion, lay down requirements in advance as to the time within which a taxable person might bring forward a proposed correction. The discretion was not limited to issuing requirements once a taxable person had come forward to identify an error or after the Revenue had identified an error. By issuing the guidance, and previous versions of it, with its requirements as to the time within which applications to correct errors should be made, the Revenue had exercised its discretion in line with those powers. The time limits imposed by the guidance were in line with the time limits in other relevant and connected provisions in the regime set out

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

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll