The Appellant had been formed many years ago, the division of activities having been required by the Charity Commissioners in order that GSP's and the trust's activities should be purely recreational. For many years, whilst GSP and thus the trust conducted all the sporting activities, any activities that were not strictly sporting or recreational, had been conducted by the Appellant, rather than by GSP. These activities were conducted on land, the freehold of which was owned by the relevant local council, over which GSP initially had a 99-year lease, and over which, prior to the major construction work involved in this appeal, the residue of that original lease was surrendered, in return for the re-grant of a 125-year lease.ģ. They included a football pitch, a running track, a banked cycle circuit, countless covered and open-air tennis courts, a dry ski-slope, badminton courts and several other sporting facilities. We were invited to a site visit, in which we saw that the facilities, covering a 54-acre site, were very comprehensive and extremely impressive. The Appellant's parent company, Gosling Sports Park ( GSP ), a company limited by guarantee, operated as the trustee of a charitable trust that provided recreational and sporting facilities for members.
Gsp5 moveable points full#
Whilst that is the main point in issue in this appeal, there were a number of further complications, and we consider that the clearest way to explain matters is to give an unusually full description of the facts and issues in this Introduction.Ģ.
This was an appeal in relation to whether very significant capital costs, claimed by the Appellant to have been incurred by it, on making major alterations completely changing the internal lay-out and configuration of a large pre-existing steel-clad warehouse-type building, were costs directly and immediately connected with the supplies (all, or possibly only the great majority, of which were standard-rated supplies) allegedly made by the Appellant. James Henderson, counsel, on behalf of the AppellantĬhristiaan Zwart, counsel, on behalf of the Respondentsġ. Sitting in public at 45 Bedford Square in London on 6 to 8 February 2012 THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Gsp5 moveable points how to#
Value Added Tax - Whether capital costs, incurred by the Appellant, were directly and immediately related to supplies made by the Appellant, so as to rank as deductible input tax - how supplies under a licence, rather than a lease or sub-lease were treated for VAT purposes - how to deal with a relatively minor category of supplies made by the Appellant to its parent company - decision in principle - Appeal allowedįIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL Reference no: LON/2009/0691 JUSTICE WARREN�S SUGGESTION OF APPLYING THE OLD JUSTICE WARREN OBSERVES, THIS CONCLUSION CAN LORD MAY RESERVE THE RIGHT REGULARLY TO VISIT THE PROPERTY LET.ĬOMMISSIONERS DO NOT INTEND TO MAKE ANY SUBMISSIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT, WERE
LORD NEED NOT BE STRICTLY LINKED TO THE PASSIVE LORD, AND THE APPELLANT ALMOST CERTAINLY SOME FORM OF LICENSEE. LORD (THE COUNCIL) TO DAMAGES, OR THE RIGHT TO FORFEIT THESE REQUIREMENTS HAD NOTĬOMMISSIONERS THAT RENDERED IT ESSENTIAL THAT IT COMMISSIONERS.� IT WAS ACCEPTED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS HAD NOT BEEN MET, ANDĬOMMISSIONERS, IN ORDER THAT GSP AND THE TRUST WOULD CONDUCT EXCLUSIVELYĬOMMISSIONERS, TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT HAD A MAJOR BEARING ONĬOMMISSIONERS HAD BEEN OBTAINED.
0 kommentar(er)
