The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v The Investment Trust Companies

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v The Investment Trust Companies

Customers who paid undue VAT do not have a common law claim for restitution against the Commissioners; any enrichment was only to the extent of VAT actually received, and section 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 bars such claims. The statutory scheme is compatible with EU law, as it provides an effective remedy except where time-barred.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; Respondent/appellant: The Investment Trust Companies (in liquidation)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Commissioners’ appeal allowed; Lead Claimants’ cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unjust Enrichment, VAT, Mistake of Law, Statutory Exclusion, Limitation Periods, Compatibility With EU Law
Tax Law Restitution EU Law Unjust Enrichment VAT Mistake of Law Statutory Exclusion Limitation Periods +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Appellant/respondent

The Investment Trust Companies (in liquidation)

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether customers who paid undue VAT have a common law claim against the Commissioners for restitution
  2. 2 Whether section 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 bars such a claim
  3. 3 Whether the statutory scheme is compatible with EU law

Ratio Decidendi

Customers who paid undue VAT do not have a common law claim for restitution against the Commissioners; any enrichment was only to the extent of VAT actually received, and section 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 bars such claims. The statutory scheme is compatible with EU law, as it provides an effective remedy except where time-barred.

Court Disposition

Commissioners’ appeal allowed; Lead Claimants’ cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • No restitution to Lead Claimants from Commissioners for VAT paid during dead periods.
  • Lead Claimants’ remedy lies against Managers, not Commissioners.