header-logo header-logo

16 September 2016
Issue: 7714 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Value Added Tax

Longridge on the Thames v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2016] EWCA Civ 930, [2016] All ER (D) 24 (Sep)

 

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) which had decided that the relevant test for deciding whether the taxpayer charity was carrying on an economic activity for VAT purposes was whether in carrying out its activities generally the taxpayer was carrying on a business. The court allowed the Revenue’s appeal on the basis that the tribunal had misdirected itself in law by applying the wrong test which should have been whether there was a direct link between the service and the money received by the service-provider. 

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll