In Daytona Surf Ltd v HMRC (TC01238 – 13 July) a company (D) submitted a VAT return claiming a substantial repayment.
HMRC began an enquiry and rejected part of the claim on the grounds that D had provided no evidence that it had actually paid the invoices so that the effect of VATA 1994 s 26A was that the tax was not deductible.
D appealed. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and dismissed D’s appeal.
(D had also claimed input tax on supplies from unregistered traders: an appeal against the disallowance of these claims was also dismissed.)
Why it matters: The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s view that the effect of VATA 1994 s 26A was that input tax was not deductible where the claimant had failed to provide evidence that it had paid the tax shown on...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Daytona Surf Ltd v HMRC (TC01238 – 13 July) a company (D) submitted a VAT return claiming a substantial repayment.
HMRC began an enquiry and rejected part of the claim on the grounds that D had provided no evidence that it had actually paid the invoices so that the effect of VATA 1994 s 26A was that the tax was not deductible.
D appealed. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and dismissed D’s appeal.
(D had also claimed input tax on supplies from unregistered traders: an appeal against the disallowance of these claims was also dismissed.)
Why it matters: The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s view that the effect of VATA 1994 s 26A was that input tax was not deductible where the claimant had failed to provide evidence that it had paid the tax shown on...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")