Peter Mantle barrister Monckton Chambers who acted for HMRC in Baines & Ernst reviews the defence of unjust enrichment in VAT
Has there been a sea-change? In HMRC v Baines & Ernst1 the Court of Appeal had one of its first opportunities to consider the VAT unjust enrichment defence. The Court told HMRC that it had adduced no evidence to prove 'passing on'. An experienced VAT Tribunal and the High Court had both concluded that the unjust enrichment defence had been proved by HMRC for all or part of the claim period. That case though I see no reason to regard it as a watershed certainly provides an occasion to take stock of the unjust enrichment defence in VAT. It will provide a useful precedent for...
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:
Peter Mantle barrister Monckton Chambers who acted for HMRC in Baines & Ernst reviews the defence of unjust enrichment in VAT
Has there been a sea-change? In HMRC v Baines & Ernst1 the Court of Appeal had one of its first opportunities to consider the VAT unjust enrichment defence. The Court told HMRC that it had adduced no evidence to prove 'passing on'. An experienced VAT Tribunal and the High Court had both concluded that the unjust enrichment defence had been proved by HMRC for all or part of the claim period. That case though I see no reason to regard it as a watershed certainly provides an occasion to take stock of the unjust enrichment defence in VAT. It will provide a useful precedent for...
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:
90a1d87b-c1b5-43c3-a720-cd324830adee.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=1b2d0a7e_1)
