header-logo header-logo

VAT

24 February 2017
Issue: 7735 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Gala 1 Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2016] UKUT 564 (TCC), [2017] All ER (D) 130 (Feb)

The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by Gala 1 Ltd (the taxpayer) against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that the taxpayer was not entitled to recover claims for recovery of wrongly paid VAT made on behalf of its VAT group of companies on the basis that, applying s 43 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, the only person entitled to such repayment was the representative member of the group and not the company which had made the provision of goods or services.

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll