Aspinall's Club Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 2003 |
| Date | 01 January 2003 |
| Court | Value Added Tax Tribunal |
VAT Tribunal
Partial exemption - Approval of special method - Casino - Jurisdiction of the tribunal - Whether commissioners' refusal to allow special method unreasonable - Whether proposed method fair and reasonable - The appellant owned a high-class licensed gaming club in the West End of London - It had apportioned input tax attributable to taxable and exempt supplies by use of a special method based on floor areas, but the commissioners withdrew the method as being "fundamentally flawed" in that it failed to acknowledge the large areas devoted to complimentary catering - The commissioners informed the appellant that until an alternative method was agreed, the standard method based on the values of taxable and exempt income applied - Subsequently, the appellant proposed a special method again based on floor area, but with an apportionment to reflect the number of taxable and complimentary meals provided - This, too, was rejected by the commissioners - The first issue for the tribunal was to determine its jurisdiction in this appeal - It decided that its approach should be that established by the Court of Appeal in John Dee Ltd v C & E Commrs [1995] BVC 361 - This was to consider whether the commissioners had acted in a way in which no reasonable panel of commissioners could have acted or whether they had taken into account some irrelevant matter or had disregarded something to which they should have given weight, or whether the commissioners had erred on a point of law - The tribunal, having established its jurisdiction, held, in principle, that a partial exemption method based on floor area may be more reliable than a turnover-based method, as the value of supplies might have no bearing on how goods and services are used in making taxable and exempt supplies - However, to be acceptable, such a method must be capable of fairly reflecting the use made of the premises for the different types of business - In this case, although only one per cent of the supplies made by the appellant were taxable the appellant claimed on the basis of floor area that up to 55 per cent of its input tax was recoverable - The catering activities were not conducted by the appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
London Clubs Management Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs
...determinative of the question whether the new PESM was a fair and reasonable proxy for use. (Aspinall's Club Ltd Decision No. 17,797; [2003] BVC 4032 distinguished; Banbury Visionplus Ltd v R & C Commrs [2006] BVC 552 applied.) 4. HMRC's submissions to the effect that the PESM was unfair in......
-
Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
...41 Having referred to the decision of Warren J in St Helen's School and that of the VAT and Duties Tribunal in Aspinall's Club Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (2002) (VAT Decision No. 17797), he went on: "41. That case and the reasoning of the Tribunal, with which I agree, is illust......
-
R & C Commissioners v Hippodrome Casino Ltd
...where the use of a floorspace-based apportionment by a casino was in issue. Etherton LJ considered the decision in Aspinall’s Club Ltd[2003] BVC 4032 to be good illustration of the application of the relevant principles in the context of gaming and associated catering. There, the standard m......
-
Vision Express Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs
... ... is well supported by analogy with the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the very different business of the gaming premises in Aspinall's Club Ltd. (2002) Decision 17797 ... That case concerned a floor area attribution of input tax in relation to a casino which provided exempt gaming ... ...