VAT law and HMRC’s guidance on BDR at the time stipulated that relief is not available where retention of title clauses were present in the contracts, AUL argued this was the case. However, in a previous case, Saint Gobain, the appellant tried to argue the same but the FTT and UT dismissed stating that there was no evidence to show that previous claims for the period have not been made.
Source Constable
Latest Posts in "United Kingdom"
- Supreme Court Rules Against VAT Recovery on Hotel La Tour’s Fundraising Share Sale Costs
- UK Supreme Court Rules VAT on Share Sale Fees Not Recoverable for Business Funding
- UK Eases VAT Grouping Rules to Attract Foreign Investment and Simplify Cross-Border Compliance
- Tribunal Rules Bespoke Autobiography Books by Story Terrace Qualify for VAT Zero-Rating
- Full VAT Recovery Allowed on Product Photography Costs in Littlewoods v HMRC Tribunal Decision
