In JSM Construction v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 474 the FTT found that a VAT refund case should not be categorised as a complex case.
JSM is an engineering contractor in the utilities sector. It had engaged a provider of labour to fulfil its contracts. The provider had been liquidated and JSM had sought repayment of input tax. The repayment had been denied by HMRC on the ground that it was not clear whether the supplies had been made. JSM had appealed and had requested that the case be categorised as complex. The FTT had allocated the case to the standard category. JSM had applied under the FTT Rules rule 23(3) for its appeal to be re-allocated as a complex case as it wished to be within the costs regime of rule 10(1)(c) which only applies to complex cases.
Applying...
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 JSM Construction v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 474 the FTT found that a VAT refund case should not be categorised as a complex case.
JSM is an engineering contractor in the utilities sector. It had engaged a provider of labour to fulfil its contracts. The provider had been liquidated and JSM had sought repayment of input tax. The repayment had been denied by HMRC on the ground that it was not clear whether the supplies had been made. JSM had appealed and had requested that the case be categorised as complex. The FTT had allocated the case to the standard category. JSM had applied under the FTT Rules rule 23(3) for its appeal to be re-allocated as a complex case as it wished to be within the costs regime of rule 10(1)(c) which only applies to complex cases.
Applying...
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:
