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"
- 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
