In the case at hand, the court examines whether 3D intended to supply personal protective equipment (PPE) as a business activity. It concludes that 3D was seeking to enter into contracts to supply PPE for payment and cover its costs through these charges, indicating an intention to make taxable supplies in the future. The court considers various factors, such as the company’s serious pursuit of activities, development of systems, and recognition in the market. It determines that 3D was already demonstrating the features of a business and was looking to charge for PPE supplies beyond notional fees. Therefore, the court finds that 3D intended to engage in a business activity related to PPE supply.
Source: bailii.org
Latest Posts in "United Kingdom"
- VAT Input Tax Denial Under Kittel Principle – Appeals Allowed Against HMRC
- SK Metals Ltd v HMRC: VAT Input Tax Deductibility and MTIC Fraud Knowledge
- UK Chancellor Considers VAT Rate Adjustments and Threshold Changes in Upcoming Budget
- Upper Tribunal Rules Cosmetic Treatments by Medical Professionals Can Qualify for VAT Exemption
- High Court Rules Interest Payable on VAT in Contract Dispute Settlement
