This month’s VAT review covers the decision of the CJEU in Cabot Plastic Belgium (Case C-232/22) that a toll manufacturer did not amount to a fixed establishment of its parent for the purposes of receiving the services it provided to its parent. Staying with the EU, the AG in TP (Case C288/22) has opined that the fee charged by a lawyer for their role as a member of a board of directors was not subject to VAT as it was not consideration for an independent economic activity. In the UK, two cases have considered the scope for legitimate expectation claims, one in the context of HMRC inspections (Realreed) and one in the context of an industry MoU (Glint Pay Services). Finally, the government is consulting on proposed reforms to the Terminal Markets Order to modernise its application.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
This month’s VAT review covers the decision of the CJEU in Cabot Plastic Belgium (Case C-232/22) that a toll manufacturer did not amount to a fixed establishment of its parent for the purposes of receiving the services it provided to its parent. Staying with the EU, the AG in TP (Case C288/22) has opined that the fee charged by a lawyer for their role as a member of a board of directors was not subject to VAT as it was not consideration for an independent economic activity. In the UK, two cases have considered the scope for legitimate expectation claims, one in the context of HMRC inspections (Realreed) and one in the context of an industry MoU (Glint Pay Services). Finally, the government is consulting on proposed reforms to the Terminal Markets Order to modernise its application.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
