Offshore avoidance: VAT dragged into the spotlight

Graham Elliott

Graham Elliott writes that the Ocean Finance judgment might not be as beneficial to HMRC as the department suggests

HMRC has been quick to respond publicly to the judgment of the CJEU in Newey (t/a Ocean Finance). But the judgment might not be as beneficial to HMRC as the department suggests.

There has been much recent publicity about using offshore locations to reduce tax. VAT avoidance deploying offshore arrangements has not had as much profile. A case of note however is Newey (t/a Ocean Finance) (C-653/11) where an operation was transferred to Jersey to save VAT. On 20 June the CJEU provided its guidance as to the importance of contractual terms in such a situation. This was reported in this journal (see ‘Ocean Finance: Economic and commercial reality’ (Anbreen Khan...

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:

Subscribe Now...

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.

Graham Elliott writes that the Ocean Finance judgment might not be as beneficial to HMRC as the department suggests

HMRC has been quick to respond publicly to the judgment of the CJEU in Newey (t/a Ocean Finance). But the judgment might not be as beneficial to HMRC as the department suggests.

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: