Leeds City Council v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Bishopp,Judge Aleksander |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] UKUT 0596 (TCC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Date | 03 December 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Tax,3 December 2013 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
[2013] UKUT 0596 (TCC)
Appeal number: FTC/27/2012
VALUE ADDED TAX — claim for repayment of VAT — failure of UK to
implement Article 4.5 of Sixth VAT Directive — erroneous guidance issued by HMRC
— curtailment of limitation period for claims — section 80 VAT Act 1994 — whether
compatible with EU legal principles —appeal dismissed
UPPER TRIBUNAL
TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER
LEEDS CITY COUNCIL Appellant
- and –
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents
Tribunal: Judge Colin Bishopp
Judge Nicholas Aleksander
Sitting in public in London on 7 and 8 February 2013
Julian Ghosh QC, Jonathan Bremner and Zizhen Yang, counsel, instructed by
Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP, for the Appellant
Andrew Macnab, counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM
Revenue and Customs, for the Defendants and Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
2
DECISION
Introduction
1. This is yet another instalment in the prolonged litigation following the ill-fated
reduction in 1996 of the time limit for reclaiming repayment of VAT paid by mistake 5 to the Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”), as they now are. The
appellants, Leeds City Council (“Leeds”), have sought to recover various amounts of
VAT paid to HMRC in periods falling both before and after the reduction of the time
limit. HMRC agree that the sums paid did not represent VAT due to them, but they
have refused to repay amounts for which Leeds accounted after 4 December 1996 on 10 the grounds that, they say, the time limit which applies to the claims, commonly
known as the “three-year cap”, took effect from that date and is offended. Leeds’
case, in short, is that the time limit does not apply to the claims it has made.
2. On 11 May 2007 Leeds made claims in accordance with s 80 of the Value
Added Tax Act 1994 (“VATA”) for repayment of VAT over-declared on: 15
(a) charges for memorial items placed in cemeteries, for the VAT periods
from April 1977 to July 2001;
(b) library charges, for the VAT periods from April 1990 to December 2000;
and
(c) excess parking charges, for the VAT periods from January 1984 to 20 August 1999.
3. On 27 March 2009 Leeds made a further claim, also in accordance with s 80,
for repayment of VAT over-declared on:
(a) trade waste collection charges, for the VAT periods from March 1974 to
March 2008; and 25
(b) administration charges in respect of housing improvement loans, for the
VAT periods from October 1999 to March 2009.
4. HMRC have met all of those claims so far as they relate to periods ending on or
before 4 December 1996. They have also met so much of the claims in respect of
trade waste collection charges as relate to periods ended within the three years before 30 the claims were made. They have refused to meet the remainder of the claims and in
doing so have relied only on the three-year cap. There is a separate dispute about the
administration charges, to which we refer at para 26 below, which is not before us
and which does not affect the outcome of this appeal.
5. Leeds appealed to the VAT and Duties Tribunal against the decision rejecting 35 part of the first claim, and to the Tax Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal against the
partial rejection of the second claim. The first appeal was transferred automatically to
the First-tier Tribunal by virtue of the Transfer of Tribunal Functions and Revenue
To continue reading
Request your trial