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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

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