header-logo header-logo

21 September 2012
Issue: 7530 / Categories: Case law , Tax , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Value Added Tax

Matthew Davies trading as Special Occasions/2XL Limos v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] UKUT 130 (TCC), [2012] All ER (D) 59 (Sep) Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Judge Howard Nowlan and Judge Greg Sinfield, 24 Apr 2012

If vehicles in question have been adapted so as to carry less than ten persons, that fact is fatal to any claim that the supplies of transport services with the vehicles in question should be zero-rated under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, Sch 8, Group 8 Item 4(a). It is immaterial that the vehicles might have been originally designed for the transportation of ten or more persons.

Nigel Gibbon of Northgate Company Services Ltd for the taxpayer. Ewan West (instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to Revenue and Customs) for the Revenue.

The Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VAT 1994), Sch 8, Group 8 Item 4(a) provided that zero rating applied to “transport of passengers… in any vehicle, ship or aircraft, designed or adapted to carry not less than 10 passengers”.

The taxpayer’s

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
back-to-top-scroll