Chris Reece of Ernst & Young brings us more VAT Tribunal summaries. This week he covers 20701 – 20731. These are up-to-date to 14 July 2008
Dispensing time
The appellant is an optician. Apportionment of the appellant's supplies between taxable and exempt depended on the proportion of time certain members of staff spent in 'dispensing' spectacles. A self-invigilation produced a figure of 73% and HMRC agreed to proceed on this basis. However the appellant later claimed that 90% was the true figure but without producing any evidence to support it. The Tribunal preferred the lower figure which was apparently based on actual experience and so dismissed the appeal.
Mcburney Clelland & Boyd...
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:
Chris Reece of Ernst & Young brings us more VAT Tribunal summaries. This week he covers 20701 – 20731. These are up-to-date to 14 July 2008
Dispensing time
The appellant is an optician. Apportionment of the appellant's supplies between taxable and exempt depended on the proportion of time certain members of staff spent in 'dispensing' spectacles. A self-invigilation produced a figure of 73% and HMRC agreed to proceed on this basis. However the appellant later claimed that 90% was the true figure but without producing any evidence to support it. The Tribunal preferred the lower figure which was apparently based on actual experience and so dismissed the appeal.
Mcburney Clelland & Boyd...
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:
