Zipvit Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 649 (TC) (03 July 2014)

Zipvit Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 649 (TC) (03 July 2014)

Although Mailmedia supplies were standard rated under UK law by virtue of conforming interpretation with EU law, Zipvit is not entitled to input tax recovery because VAT was neither due nor paid by Royal Mail to HMRC, and no VAT invoices were issued. The right to deduct input tax under Article 168 PVD requires VAT to be legally enforceable and due from the supplier, which was not the case here.

Citation
[2014] UKFTT 649 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Zipvit Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
03 July 2014
Procedural Posture
VAT Input Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Exemption, Input Tax Recovery, Direct Effect of EU Law, Conforming Interpretation, Postal Services
Tax Law European Union Law VAT Exemption Input Tax Recovery Direct Effect of EU Law Conforming Interpretation Postal Services

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zipvit Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Input Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mailmedia supplies by Royal Mail to Zipvit were standard rated under UK law
  2. 2 Whether Zipvit is entitled to input tax credit for VAT not invoiced or paid
  3. 3 Whether direct effect of EU law entitles Zipvit to input tax deduction

Ratio Decidendi

Although Mailmedia supplies were standard rated under UK law by virtue of conforming interpretation with EU law, Zipvit is not entitled to input tax recovery because VAT was neither due nor paid by Royal Mail to HMRC, and no VAT invoices were issued. The right to deduct input tax under Article 168 PVD requires VAT to be legally enforceable and due from the supplier, which was not the case here.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Preliminary issue decided against the appellant
  • No input tax recovery allowed for Mailmedia supplies without VAT due or paid and without VAT invoices