, , , ,

Investment Trust Companies (In Liquidation) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Chancery Division

26 March 2013

[2013] EWHC 665 (Ch)

AKA “ITC No 2”

Henderson J


Bailli Official Judgement here (@BAILII)

ITC No 1 here – Henderson makes the point that ITC No 2 is a continuation of ITC No 1 stating at para 3 of No 2″

and I would stress at the outset that the present judgment should be read as a continuation of my earlier judgment, to which reference should be made for the background to the case, for my decision on all of the issues in dispute apart from the final one, and for my description of the final issue and the arguments on it which were addressed to me.”

I will update this post when I have read the latest judgment in full and formed an opinion but in brief, the 2 cases together deal with reclaiming VAT paid in error – the error here being that insurance services supplied were thought to be standard rated at the time they were supplied but should in fact have been exempt. The fact that VAT was charged was due to HMG getting the law wrong. Legislation was subsequently amended and claims for repayment were made by various suppliers and end users under s80 VATA 1994.

Henderson J adjourned final determination of certain points in March 2012 until the Supreme Court had delivered its decision in the “FII” litigation (decision here) and the ECJ decision in Littlewoods (Case C-591/10 here)


VIA Westlaw – you will need to be a subscriber to access this link Investment Trust Companies (In Liquidation) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners | Westlaw UK.