Loraine Mayo (Levy and Levy) considers a recent case which illustrates the importance of getting the evidence right before the First-tier Tribunal.
The case of NK Motors v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 0201 (TC) (reported in Tax Journal 5 June 2015) at the First-tier Tribunal is another case on the vexed issue of apportioning input VAT between taxable and exempt supplies. In this case the issue for the FTT was an appellant which owned various properties only some of which were subject to the election to waive exemption (the option to tax). The exempt supply of services related to a stable livery business run by an associated company of the appellant which used a farm under a licence granted by the appellant. The non-exempt supplies as argued for by the appellant related to general repairs to outbuildings rather than specific work carried...
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:
Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.
Home >Articles > NK Motors v HMRC and the importance of evidence
NK Motors v HMRC and the importance of evidence
Loraine Mayo (Levy and Levy) considers a recent case which illustrates the importance of getting the evidence right before the First-tier Tribunal.
The case of NK Motors v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 0201 (TC) (reported in Tax Journal 5 June 2015) at the First-tier Tribunal is another case on the vexed issue of apportioning input VAT between taxable and exempt supplies. In this case the issue for the FTT was an appellant which owned various properties only some of which were subject to the election to waive exemption (the option to tax). The exempt supply of services related to a stable livery business run by an associated company of the appellant which used a farm under a licence granted by the appellant. The non-exempt supplies as argued for by the appellant related to general repairs to outbuildings rather than specific work carried...
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)")