This month’s VAT review covers the Court of Appeal decision in Tower Bridge GP confirming the importance of obtaining an invoice meeting the formal conditions for a valid VAT invoice (specifically, the VAT registration number of the supplier) for input VAT recovery. The CJEU decision in Staatssecretaris vanFinanciën v X also highlights that where taxpayers fail to claim input VAT within the national time limits then the provisions dealing with adjustment of VAT recovery cannot circumvent those time limits. In Netbusters (UK) Ltd, the UT has held that supplies of pitches together with associated league management services fell within the VAT exemption for supplies of land. Finally, the European Commission has launched a call for evidence to assist in its forthcoming evaluation of the framework for administrative cooperation on VAT and the fight against VAT fraud.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
This month’s VAT review covers the Court of Appeal decision in Tower Bridge GP confirming the importance of obtaining an invoice meeting the formal conditions for a valid VAT invoice (specifically, the VAT registration number of the supplier) for input VAT recovery. The CJEU decision in Staatssecretaris vanFinanciën v X also highlights that where taxpayers fail to claim input VAT within the national time limits then the provisions dealing with adjustment of VAT recovery cannot circumvent those time limits. In Netbusters (UK) Ltd, the UT has held that supplies of pitches together with associated league management services fell within the VAT exemption for supplies of land. Finally, the European Commission has launched a call for evidence to assist in its forthcoming evaluation of the framework for administrative cooperation on VAT and the fight against VAT fraud.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
