In Zipvit Ltd v HMRC (Case C-156/20) the CJEU held that where a contract for services provides for VAT to be charged in addition a taxable person cannot claim to deduct an amount of VAT for which it has not been charged and which it has therefore not passed on to the final consumer. This decision puts to rest a long-running test case in relation to claims for input tax recovery brought by Zipvit and other businesses which received postal services from Royal Mail that ought to have been treated as taxable. The decision means that where a price is expressed to be exclusive of VAT and the supplier does not charge VAT in addition but it is subsequently shown that the supply was taxable the recipient of the supply cannot claim input VAT unless additional VAT is actually charged to it by the supplier. The...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Zipvit Ltd v HMRC (Case C-156/20) the CJEU held that where a contract for services provides for VAT to be charged in addition a taxable person cannot claim to deduct an amount of VAT for which it has not been charged and which it has therefore not passed on to the final consumer. This decision puts to rest a long-running test case in relation to claims for input tax recovery brought by Zipvit and other businesses which received postal services from Royal Mail that ought to have been treated as taxable. The decision means that where a price is expressed to be exclusive of VAT and the supplier does not charge VAT in addition but it is subsequently shown that the supply was taxable the recipient of the supply cannot claim input VAT unless additional VAT is actually charged to it by the supplier. The...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
