In S Moher (t/a Premier Dental Agency) v HMRC (TC01148 – 19 May) a woman operated a dental agency which supplied temporary dental staff to dentists.
She initially accounted for VAT on her supplies but subsequently submitted a repayment claim covering the period from 1985 to 1996 on the basis that she should have treated them as exempt.
HMRC rejected her claim and the tribunal dismissed her appeal. Judge Khan observed that ‘there is nothing in the Sixth Directive that requires Member States to exempt supplies of staff to dentists’.
Why it matters: The First-tier Tribunal confirmed the general view that where an employment agency supplies dental staff to dentists the supply is chargeable to VAT and cannot be treated as exempt.
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 S Moher (t/a Premier Dental Agency) v HMRC (TC01148 – 19 May) a woman operated a dental agency which supplied temporary dental staff to dentists.
She initially accounted for VAT on her supplies but subsequently submitted a repayment claim covering the period from 1985 to 1996 on the basis that she should have treated them as exempt.
HMRC rejected her claim and the tribunal dismissed her appeal. Judge Khan observed that ‘there is nothing in the Sixth Directive that requires Member States to exempt supplies of staff to dentists’.
Why it matters: The First-tier Tribunal confirmed the general view that where an employment agency supplies dental staff to dentists the supply is chargeable to VAT and cannot be treated as exempt.
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)")