Interbet Trading Ltd (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 03 August 1978 |
| Date | 03 August 1978 |
| Court | Value Added Tax Tribunal |
VAT Tribunal
Registration - Jersey company supplied information to persons in United Kingdom for reward - Information passed to customers by United Kingdom company - Whether United Kingdom company acted as agent of Jersey company - Whether Jersey company should be registered as taxable person - section 8 subsec-or-para (4)Finance Act 1972, sec. 8(4) (as amended by section 8AFinance Act 1977, sec. 8A).
The appellant, a Jersey company, carried on business providing racing tips for reward. By a contract with an English company, the latter agreed to transmit information to the appellant's customers in the United Kingdom, to collect all moneys owing to the appellant and account for them, to distribute the appellant's advertising material and provide administrative services required by the appellant. By the agreement the United Kingdom company had no authority to enter into contracts on the appellant's behalf and was not to act as a fixed place of business, branch or management of the appellant in the United Kingdom. The Commissioners decided that the appellant was liable to registration as a taxable person since it made taxable supplies in the United Kingdom.
Held, dismissing the taxpayer's appeal:
1. The United Kingdom company acted as agent of the Jersey company for the purposes of section 8sec. 8 as amended.
2. The appellant made supplies to individuals in the United Kingdom by means of its agent, so the appellant was deemed to have a business establishment in this country.
3. The appellant was required to be registered as a taxable person.
[The Tribunal set out the facts summarised above and continued as follows.]
… We can shortly dispose of the appeal against the 20 May 1977 decision. In the first place that decision does not seem to us to constitute a decision of the Commissioners against which an appeal lies to a tribunal: it is no more than an intimation of an intention on their part to put into effect their earlier decision dated 2 September 1976, the appeal against which decision had been struck out by the Manchester Tribunal. In the second place, and if we are incorrect in that view, the 20 May 1977 decision was sent by the Commissioners to an address in Jersey and, following the decision in Interbet Trading Limited(1977) VATTR 63, we hold that we have no jurisdiction and that an appeal against the 20 May 1977 decision does not lie to a Tribunal because no Tribunal centre has been appointed to deal with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Chinese Channel Ltd (HK)
...DFDS A/S VAT(LON/93/2396) No 12,588; [1995] BVC 1184 Dori v Recreb Srl (Case C-91/92) [1994] ECR I-3325 Interbet Trading Ltd (No. 2) VAT(1978) 1 BVC 1085 Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA(Case C-106/89) [1990] ECR I-4135[1993] 1 CEC 124 Murphy v Bord Telecom Eire......
-
WH Payne & Company
...VAT(LON/91/1718) No. 7311; [1992] BVC 1442 DFDS A/S VAT(LON/93/2396) [1995] BVC 1184 Interbet Trading Ltd (No. 2) VAT(1978) VATTR 235; (1978) 1 BVC 1085 Kidd & Zigrino Ltd (1974) VATTR 173 Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA(Case C-106/89) [1990] ECR I-4135; [1991]......