This month’s briefing covers two cases dealing with input VAT recovery on supplies within corporate groups. The CJEU decision in Morgan Stanley (Case C-165/17) deals with input VAT recovery where a branch incurs input VAT in one member state which is used, in part at least, by its head office in another member state. The FTT decision in W Resources, in contrast, provides a warning against relying on informal arrangements for the payment of management services between a holding company and a subsidiary. In Metropolitan International Schools, the Court of Appeal has resisted the suggestion that the provisions of VATA 1994 s 84(10) can be interpreted widely so as to give the FTT, in effect, a judicial review jurisdiction ‘by the back door’. Last, but certainly not least, HMRC is stepping up its no-deal Brexit planning with the publication of a number of SIs.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
This month’s briefing covers two cases dealing with input VAT recovery on supplies within corporate groups. The CJEU decision in Morgan Stanley (Case C-165/17) deals with input VAT recovery where a branch incurs input VAT in one member state which is used, in part at least, by its head office in another member state. The FTT decision in W Resources, in contrast, provides a warning against relying on informal arrangements for the payment of management services between a holding company and a subsidiary. In Metropolitan International Schools, the Court of Appeal has resisted the suggestion that the provisions of VATA 1994 s 84(10) can be interpreted widely so as to give the FTT, in effect, a judicial review jurisdiction ‘by the back door’. Last, but certainly not least, HMRC is stepping up its no-deal Brexit planning with the publication of a number of SIs.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
