The taxpayer won at the FTT by arguing for the use of a floor-based method as a proxy for property overheads, but this decision was overturned on appeal. The UT found that the FTT had failed to address HMRC’s core argument on dual use and agreed that the taxpayer’s method was flawed. The floor-based method does not provide a more precise determination of economic use compared to the standard method.
Source KPMG
Latest Posts in "United Kingdom"
- UK VAT Threshold Debate: Growth-Boosting Increase or Revenue-Raising Decrease at Autumn Budget?
- Chancellor Proposes Raising VAT Registration Threshold to £100,000 to Boost UK Economy
- Tribunal Rules Government Grants Not Consideration for VAT in Further Education Sector
- HMRC Announces New Advisory Fuel Rates for Company Cars Effective September 2025
- ICS2 Implementation for Northern Ireland: Transition Details and Support for Carriers by HMRC