Gaming machines
In HMRC v The Rank Group PLC (No. 2) (Upper Tribunal – 5 October) a group of companies operated large numbers of ‘slot machines’. The effect of VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 4 Note 3 as originally enacted was that the takings from the machines were taxable under UK law but in 2005 the group lodged a repayment claim contending that the provisions of Note 3 should be treated as invalid under EC law because similar machines falling within Gaming Act 1968 s 21 had been exempt from VAT. HMRC rejected the claim and the representative member (R) appealed. The CA directed that the case should be referred to the CJEU for rulings on the interpretation of Article 13B(f) of the EC Sixth Directive. The CJEU held ([2012] STC 23) that ‘the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as meaning that no account should...
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:
Gaming machines
In HMRC v The Rank Group PLC (No. 2) (Upper Tribunal – 5 October) a group of companies operated large numbers of ‘slot machines’. The effect of VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 4 Note 3 as originally enacted was that the takings from the machines were taxable under UK law but in 2005 the group lodged a repayment claim contending that the provisions of Note 3 should be treated as invalid under EC law because similar machines falling within Gaming Act 1968 s 21 had been exempt from VAT. HMRC rejected the claim and the representative member (R) appealed. The CA directed that the case should be referred to the CJEU for rulings on the interpretation of Article 13B(f) of the EC Sixth Directive. The CJEU held ([2012] STC 23) that ‘the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as meaning that no account should...
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: