Ten years after first deciding the matter, the First-tier Tribunal has once again, in P Newey (t/a Ocean Finance) v HMRC [2020] UKFTT 366 (TC), found that a VAT-saving arrangement involving Jersey companies did not amount to an abuse of law for VAT purposes. As a result, the parties are now broadly where they were after the first FTT decision. Despite the lengthy litigation and a referral to the CJEU, a number of outstanding questions remain, including whether the Upper Tribunal set the bar too high for the test of VAT abuse by deciding that the relevant arrangements must be ‘wholly artificial’.
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:
Ten years after first deciding the matter, the First-tier Tribunal has once again, in P Newey (t/a Ocean Finance) v HMRC [2020] UKFTT 366 (TC), found that a VAT-saving arrangement involving Jersey companies did not amount to an abuse of law for VAT purposes. As a result, the parties are now broadly where they were after the first FTT decision. Despite the lengthy litigation and a referral to the CJEU, a number of outstanding questions remain, including whether the Upper Tribunal set the bar too high for the test of VAT abuse by deciding that the relevant arrangements must be ‘wholly artificial’.
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:
