header-logo header-logo

Value added tax

17 August 2012
Issue: 7527 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of Capital Accommodation (London) Ltd (in Liquidation)) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] UKUT 276 (TCC), [2012] All ER (D) 68 (Aug)

Regulation 35 of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/2518), conferred a discretion on the Revenue to impose requirements as to the time in which a taxable person should correct an error. The Revenue might, in the exercise of that discretion, lay down requirements in advance as to the time within which a taxable person might bring forward a proposed correction. The discretion was not limited to issuing requirements once a taxable person had come forward to identify an error or after the Revenue had identified an error. By issuing the guidance, and previous versions of it, with its requirements as to the time within which applications to correct errors should be made, the Revenue had exercised its discretion in line with those powers. The time limits imposed by the guidance were in line with the time limits in other relevant and connected provisions in the regime set out

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll