Recovery of input tax on taxable supplies wrongly treated as exempt
In Zipvit v HMRC [2016] UKUT 294 (27 June 2016) the UT found that Zipvit which had received supplies of services that had been treated as exempt by the supplier but had subsequently been found to be taxable was not entitled to an input tax credit in respect of those supplies.
Zipvit supplied vitamins and minerals by mail order. It used the services of Royal Mail to send its mail orders and to distribute advertisements. Both Royal Mail and HMRC believed that the supplies made by Royal Mail were exempt and no VAT invoices were issued for these supplies. In April 2009 the CJEU ruled in R (oao TNT Post UK Limited) v HMRC (Case C-357/07) that the postal exemption did not apply to individually negotiated supplies; so it became clear that the...
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:
Recovery of input tax on taxable supplies wrongly treated as exempt
In Zipvit v HMRC [2016] UKUT 294 (27 June 2016) the UT found that Zipvit which had received supplies of services that had been treated as exempt by the supplier but had subsequently been found to be taxable was not entitled to an input tax credit in respect of those supplies.
Zipvit supplied vitamins and minerals by mail order. It used the services of Royal Mail to send its mail orders and to distribute advertisements. Both Royal Mail and HMRC believed that the supplies made by Royal Mail were exempt and no VAT invoices were issued for these supplies. In April 2009 the CJEU ruled in R (oao TNT Post UK Limited) v HMRC (Case C-357/07) that the postal exemption did not apply to individually negotiated supplies; so it became clear that the...
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)")