In Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd v HMRC (and related appeals) (TC01381 – 22 August) a company (C) provided fund management services to several companies which administered defined-benefit occupational pension schemes.
C accounted for VAT on its supplies on the basis that the recipients did not qualify for exemption under VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 5.
Following the ECJ decision in JP Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust plc v HMRC [2007] 1 ECR 5517 C submitted a repayment claim contending that its supplies qualified for exemption under EC law. HMRC rejected the claim.
The recipient companies appealed to the First-tier Tribunal contending that they qualified as ‘special investment funds’ within Article 135(1)(g) of EC Directive 2006/112/EC.
The tribunal referred the case to the ECJ...
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 Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd v HMRC (and related appeals) (TC01381 – 22 August) a company (C) provided fund management services to several companies which administered defined-benefit occupational pension schemes.
C accounted for VAT on its supplies on the basis that the recipients did not qualify for exemption under VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 5.
Following the ECJ decision in JP Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust plc v HMRC [2007] 1 ECR 5517 C submitted a repayment claim contending that its supplies qualified for exemption under EC law. HMRC rejected the claim.
The recipient companies appealed to the First-tier Tribunal contending that they qualified as ‘special investment funds’ within Article 135(1)(g) of EC Directive 2006/112/EC.
The tribunal referred the case to the ECJ...
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)")