This month’s VAT review covers the Court of Appeal decision in Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust which clarifies the test for determining whether supplies are made by a public authority acting as such. Metatron v HMRC involves a strike-out application by HMRC, but is particularly interesting in suggesting that HMRC do not consider Reemtsma-style claims to have survived Brexit. Defined benefit pension funds may not have given up on qualifying for VAT exempt management, but the Advocate General’s opinion in Joined Cases (Case C-639/22 to C-644/22) indicates that indirect links between pension benefits and investment performance are not sufficient to make them Special Investment Funds. And finally, we’ve included a few brief thoughts on the VAT announcements that appeared in last month’s Budget.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
This month’s VAT review covers the Court of Appeal decision in Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust which clarifies the test for determining whether supplies are made by a public authority acting as such. Metatron v HMRC involves a strike-out application by HMRC, but is particularly interesting in suggesting that HMRC do not consider Reemtsma-style claims to have survived Brexit. Defined benefit pension funds may not have given up on qualifying for VAT exempt management, but the Advocate General’s opinion in Joined Cases (Case C-639/22 to C-644/22) indicates that indirect links between pension benefits and investment performance are not sufficient to make them Special Investment Funds. And finally, we’ve included a few brief thoughts on the VAT announcements that appeared in last month’s Budget.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
