In Iveco v HMRC (TC03141 – 6 December 2013) the issue was whether a claim for repayment of VAT wrongly paid was time barred. The claim related to the payment of bonuses to purchasers of commercial vehicles – which amounted to reductions of the price paid.
The Sixth VAT Directive article 11C(1) provides for a retrospective adjustment to the taxable amount where there has been a price adjustment after the time of supply. The UK did not give effect to article 11(C) until 1 January 1990 in the 1989 regulations (SI 1989/2248 reg 7) superseded by the 1995 VAT regulations (SI 1995/2514 reg 38). Finally FA 1989 s 24 (the precursor of VATA 1994 s 80) provided for a time-limit for repayment claims HMRC therefore argued that Iveco’s claim was time-barred.
The tribunal pointed out that the time limit in...
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 Iveco v HMRC (TC03141 – 6 December 2013) the issue was whether a claim for repayment of VAT wrongly paid was time barred. The claim related to the payment of bonuses to purchasers of commercial vehicles – which amounted to reductions of the price paid.
The Sixth VAT Directive article 11C(1) provides for a retrospective adjustment to the taxable amount where there has been a price adjustment after the time of supply. The UK did not give effect to article 11(C) until 1 January 1990 in the 1989 regulations (SI 1989/2248 reg 7) superseded by the 1995 VAT regulations (SI 1995/2514 reg 38). Finally FA 1989 s 24 (the precursor of VATA 1994 s 80) provided for a time-limit for repayment claims HMRC therefore argued that Iveco’s claim was time-barred.
The tribunal pointed out that the time limit in...
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)")