This month’s VAT review covers the FTT decision in CCLA Investment Management that certain funds not covered by VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 5 Item 10 were nevertheless entitled to exempt investment management services via the direct effect of provisions of the Principal VAT Directive. The Telent Technology Services case involves some complex arguments around the scope of estoppel in VAT proceedings, with both the taxpayer and HMRC seeking to argue that the other was estopped from either making a claim or raising certain arguments. Finally, there is now more definite news on the extension of VAT to private school fees with the publication of an HMT technical note.
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:
This month’s VAT review covers the FTT decision in CCLA Investment Management that certain funds not covered by VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 5 Item 10 were nevertheless entitled to exempt investment management services via the direct effect of provisions of the Principal VAT Directive. The Telent Technology Services case involves some complex arguments around the scope of estoppel in VAT proceedings, with both the taxpayer and HMRC seeking to argue that the other was estopped from either making a claim or raising certain arguments. Finally, there is now more definite news on the extension of VAT to private school fees with the publication of an HMT technical note.
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:
