Tag Archives: VAT-FTT

VAT: Which entity receives a supply? The Star Services case

By Marcus Ward 8 September 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Star Services Oxford Limited (Star) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was the identity of the entity receiving the supply, whether it held a valid tax invoice, and whether input tax could be claimed.

Background

The appellant claimed input tax incurred on rental payments to Oxford City Council. This was disallowed by HMRC on the grounds that the rental agreement was with Mr Latifi (a sole proprietor in a property rental business) and not the company which was VAT registered.

After the rental agreement was signed the business was incorporated and carried on a bed and breakfast activities from the premises, along with two separate sub-lets to third parties. One party paid rent to Star and one directly to Mr Latifi.

Contentions

HMRC argued that:

Mr Latifi and the Appellant are separate legal entities, both of whom are required to register for VAT separately if carrying on taxable business activities
the assessment was correct as the company was not entitled to an input tax credit as it was not the person who had incurred the liability
the Appellant did not hold a valid VAT invoice, which entitles it to deduct the input tax

Star contended:

there was a technical error in the lease agreement
the assessment was excessive
subsequent to the assessment, the lease was registered to the Appellant
the lease was acquired in Mr Latifi’s name because the Appellant did not exist at the time that the lease agreement was entered into. At the relevant time there was an innocent omission to transfer the lease from Mr Latifi’s name to the Appellant’s name, and the delay was caused by forgetfulness
a company may, under The VAT Act 1994 s. 24(6)(c) and if permitted by Regulations, claim input tax on the pre-incorporation supplies received for its business
the Appellant has accounted for the VAT (therefore there was no loss of tax)
the fact that Mr Latifi is beneficial owner of both “the company” (by virtue of controlling shares and directorship) and “the property” must have an impact on the decision to assess

Decision

The appeal was dismissed.

The Appellant was not entitled to claim input tax on the invoices and HMRC were correct to disallow input tax. It did not receive the supply and it did not hold a VAT invoice.

It was decided that the legal relationship was between Oxford City Council and Mr Latifi. This is because the lease agreement was between these parties and not the Appellant.

It was found that the rent from one sub-tenant was paid to Mr Latifi directly and is not accounted for by the Appellant and that the reassigned lease has no bearing on the property rental activities undertaken by Mr Latifi prior to the reassignment.

The rules on pre-incorporation supplies* do not apply in this case because Mr Latifi, as sole proprietor, and the Appellant, are separate legal entities, requiring separate VAT registration.

Interestingly, a recent case was relied on: In Tower Bridge GP Ltd the Court of Appeal ruled that absent a valid VAT invoice showing the supplier’s VAT number and the customer’s name, the right to deduct input tax on that invoice could not be exercised.

Summary

An unfortunate oversight was sufficient for HMRC to refuse the input tax claim. This case does have a whiff of unfairness about it, but by applying the letter of the law the outcome is unarguable. The contentions here are similar to those in the Aitmatov Academy case.

Another case of taking care with claims.

* A business may, generally, claim the VAT incurred on services it has purchased for its taxable business purposes during the six months prior to VAT registration .
The VAT Act 1994, s 24(6) (c) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Reg 111.

VAT: Business or non-business? The Towards Zero Foundation case

By Marcus Ward 16 August 2022

Latest from the courts

In the The Towards Zero Foundation First Tier Tribunal case the issue was whether part of the appellant’s activities could be “stripped out”, classified as non-business, and therefore result in a loss of input tax.

This case follows a long succession of recent cases on the distinction between business (economic activity) and non-business. I have considered these in other articles:

Northumbria Healthcare

Wakefield College (referred to at this Tribunal)

Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft

Healthwatch Hampshire CIC

Pertempts Limited

and new HMRC guidance on the subject.

VAT attributable to non-business activities is not input tax and cannot be reclaimed. However, if the non-business activity is part of wider business activities then it may be recovered as input tax.

Background

The Appellant is a charity. Its primary objective is to achieve zero road traffic fatalities principally through the operation of New Car Assessment Programmes (NCAP) – testing car safety.

When it received money as consideration for carrying out the testing, it was agreed by all parties that that this represented economic activity.

As part of this activity, the charity purchased new cars (so called “mystery shopping” exercises) and carried out tests at its own expense. In this start-up phase for an NCAP it is necessary to test vehicles without manufacturer support as the independence of the testing programme is critical in order to establish consumer credibility.

The results of the tests (usually giving rise to substandard or unsatisfactory outcomes) are published and the Appellant generates publicity of the results through social media, news coverage, trade press etc. These results inform and influence customer buying behaviour which in turn drives manufacturers to improve the safety features.

As the market sophistication increases the NCAP star ratings for vehicles are used by the manufacturers in promotion of its vehicles.

The aim of the Appellant is for each jurisdictional NCAP to ultimately become self-funding through manufacturer testing fees.

Contentions

HMRC argued that when the appellant carried out tests on purchased vehicles this should be recognised as a specific activity which could not be a business as it generated no income – the tests should be considered in isolation. Consequently, the input tax which was recovered was blocked and an assessment was issued to disallow the claim.

The Foundation contended that it published the results of those tests, and this resulted in the commercial need for manufacturers to improve safety standards by way of commissions for further research. This research was funded by the car makers and was therefore economic activity. The “free” testing needed to be undertaken so as to create a market for manufacturer funded testing – the initial testing was just one element of the overall taxable supply. Consequently, all residual input tax incurred is attributed to its taxable business activities and fully recoverable.

Decision

The FTT found that it was clear that manufacturers would not proactively seek to have vehicles tested without an initial unfavourable baseline assessment. If the free testing had been a genuinely independent activity HMRC would be correct, but the evidence did not support this analysis. It found that the provision of free testing was an inherent and integral part of the appellant’s business activity.

This being the case there was no reason to attribute any VAT to non-business activities, and the input tax weas fully claimable.

Commentary

Another reminder, if one were needed, of the importance of correctly establishing whether the activities of a body (usually charities, but not exclusively) are business or non-business. The consequences will affect both the quantum of output tax and claiming VAT on expenditure. More on the topic here.

The decision was as anticipated, but this case illustrates HMRC’s willingness to challenge (often unsuccessfully) VAT treatment in similar situations.

VAT: No invoice – no claim. The Tower Bridge GP Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 9 August 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal (CoA) case of Tower Bridge GP Ltd the issue was whether the appellant could claim input tax in a situation where it did not (and does not) hold a valid tax invoice.

Background

Tower Bridge was the representative member of a VAT group which contained Cantor Fitzgerald Europe Ltd (CFE). CFE traded in carbon credits. These carbon credit transactions were connected to VAT fraud.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that CFE neither knew, nor should have known, that the transactions it entered into before 15 June 2009 were connected to VAT fraud but that it should have known that its transactions were connected to fraud from 15 June 2009. The appeal relates only to transactions entered into before that date.

CFE purchased carbon credits from Stratex Alliance Limited (“Stratex”) The carbon credits supplied to CFE were to be used by the business for the purpose of its own onward taxable transactions (in carbon credits). The total of VAT involved was £5,605,119.74.

The Stratex invoices were not valid VAT invoices. They did not show a VAT registration number for Stratex, nor did they name CFE as the customer. Although Stratex was a taxable person, it transpired that Stratex was not registered for VAT (and therefore could not include a valid VAT number on its invoices) and that it fraudulently defaulted on its obligation to account to HMRC for the sums charged as output tax on these invoices.

Subsequent investigations by HMRC resulted in Stratex not being able to be traced.

Contentions

The appellant contended that it is entitled to make the deduction either as of right, or because HMRC unlawfully refused to use its discretion to allow the claim by accepting alternative evidence.

HMRC denied Tower Bridge the recovery of the input tax on the Stratex invoices on the basis that the invoices did not meet the formal legal requirements to be valid VAT invoices. HMRC also refused to exercise their discretion to allow recovery of the input tax on the basis that:

Stratex was not registered for VAT
the transactions were connected to fraud
CFE failed to conduct reasonable due diligence in relation to the transactions

Decision

Dismissing this appeal, the CoA ruled that where an invoice does not contain the information required by legislation (The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 No 2518 Part III, Regulation 14), or contains an error in that information, which is incapable of correction, the right to deduct cannot be exercised. The appellant did not have the ability to make a claim as of right.

The Court then considered whether HMRC ought to have permitted Tower Bridge to make a claim using alternative evidence. It found that the attack on HMRC’s exercise of discretion fails for the reasons contended by HMRC (above). These were perfectly legitimate matters for HMRC to take into account in deciding whether to exercise the first discretion in the taxable person’s favour.

CFE had failed to carry out “the most basic of checks on Stratex”.

So, the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

This was hardly a surprising outcome considering that if an exception were to be made, there would be a loss to the public purse consisting of the input tax, with no corresponding gain to the public purse from the output tax that Stratex ought to have paid, but fraudulently did not.

This case demonstrates the importance of obtaining a proper tax invoice and to carry out checks on its validity. Additionally, there is a need to conduct accurate due diligence on the supply chain. I have summarised the importance of Care with input tax claims which includes a helpful list of checks which must be carried out.

VAT: Welfare services – School Holiday Clubs

By Marcus Ward 27 June 2022

HMRC has published updated guidance on childcare following the decision in the RSR Sports Limited (RSR) case. The issue being what supplies fell within the definition of “services… closely linked to the protection of children and young persons” and supplies of “welfare services” – VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 9.

The guidance in VATWELF3032 states that RSR could be distinguished from Sports Academies (Decision No TC05171), a case where the tribunal had held that the activities element predominated.

The important key features were:

the members of staff were merely supervising activities
they did not hold any coaching or teaching qualifications
there was no external standard to which the services were being provided
the activities were merely an adjunct to the essential service which was childcare

Other providers supplying services can similarly exempt their supplies where the facts demonstrate that they qualify and exhibit the key features set out by the FTT in RSR.

HMRC no longer interprets activity-based clubs to include those clubs exhibiting these key features. Such clubs can therefore, qualify for the welfare exemption if they otherwise meet the conditions.

VAT: Exempt insurance intermediation. The Staysure case

By Marcus Ward 8 June 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Staysure.Co.UK Limited First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether services of service of generating insurance leads for the appellant fell within the insurance exemption or whether the reverse charge (please see guide below) should be applied.

Background

Staysure is an FCA regulated insurance broker based in the UK which provided travel insurance for people aged 50 or over, home insurance, cover for holiday homes and motor vehicles. It received services from an associated company belonging in Gibraltar.

The services amounted to:

the provision of insurance leads online and offline

placing targeted advertising in the press, television and online

owning and operating the domain and related website: staysure.co.uk

providing insurance quotations via a bespoke quote engine which employed complex algorithms to produce a personalised price for each customer and resulted in an offer which was competitive from the customer’s perspective while also maximising profit for Staysure, the underwriter, and the service provider

reporting on where prospective customers were falling out of the quotation and lead selection process, and in so doing demonstrate opportunities for further product development

If the services were not covered by the relevant exemption, they would be subject to a reverse charge via The Value Added Taxes Act 1994 section 8 by Staysure. As the recipient was not fully taxable, this would create an actual cost when the charge was applied. HMRC considered the service taxable and:

registered Staysure on the strength of the deemed self-supply

assessed for the input tax which was created by the reverse charge.

The assessment was circa £8 million, penalties of over £1 million plus interest. This was on the basis that HMRC concluded that the supply was taxable marketing rather than exempt intermediary services.

Decision

The court decided that the marketing and technology was used to find clients and introduce them to the insurer. The supplier was not supplying advertising, but qualified leads produced by that advertising. The quote engine was not merely technical assistance, but a sophisticated technology which assessed the conditions on which customers might be offered insurance. Consequently, these services were exempt as the supplies of an insurance intermediary (The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 2, item 4) and Staysure was not required to account for UK VAT under the reverse charge.

The appeal was allowed. The services were within the insurance exemption, essentially because they were linked to essential aspects of the work carried out by Staysure, namely the finding of prospective clients and their introduction to the insurer with a view to the conclusion of insurance contracts.

Technical

This is another case on the application of the reverse charge. I looked at a previous case here

However, the judge helpfully summarised the following principles on insurance intermediation after considering previous case law.

whether a person is an insurance broker or an insurance agent depends on what they do. How they choose to describe themselves or their activities is not determinative

it is not necessary for a person to be carrying out all the functions of an insurance agent or broker for the exemption to be satisfied

it is essential that the person has a relationship with both the insurer and the insured party, but this does not need to be a contractual relationship. The requirement that the person has a relationship with the insurer is satisfied where the person is the subcontractor of a broker, which in turn has a relationship with the insurer

where the person is a subcontractor of a broker, the exemption is satisfied:
- where the relationship with the customer is indirect or where the subcontractor is one of a chain of persons bringing together an insurance company and a potential insured, but;
- the subcontractor’s services must be linked to the essential aspects of the work of an insurance broker or agent, namely the finding of prospective clients and their introduction to the insurer with a view to the conclusion of insurance contracts

Commentary

Care should always be taken when outsourcing/offshoring services or in fact, when any business restructuring takes place. The VAT impact of doing so could provide costly. In this case, the distinction between intermediary and marketing services was considered. It went in the taxpayer’s favour, but slightly different arrangements could have created a large VAT hit.

Guide

Reverse charge on services received from overseas

Normally, the supplier of a service is the person who must account to the tax authorities for any VAT due on the supply. However, in certain situations, the position is reversed and it is the customer who must account for any VAT due. This is known as the ‘Reverse Charge’ procedure. Generally, the Reverse Charge must be applied to services which are received by a business in the UK VAT free from overseas.

Accounting for VAT and recovery of input tax.

Where the Reverse Charge procedure applies, the recipient of the services must act as both the supplier and the recipient of the services.

Value of supply

The value of the deemed supply is to be taken to be the consideration in money for which the services were in fact supplied or, where the consideration did not consist or not wholly consist of money, such amount in money as is equivalent to that consideration. The consideration payable to the overseas supplier for the services excludes UK VAT but includes any taxes levied abroad.

Time of supply.

The time of supply of such services is the date the supplies are paid for or, if the consideration is not in money, the last day of the VAT period in which the services are performed.

The outcome

The effect of the provisions is that the Reverse Charge has no net cost to the recipient if he can attribute the input tax to taxable supplies and can therefore reclaim it in full. If he cannot, the effect is to put him in the same position as if had received the supply from a UK supplier rather than from one outside the UK. Thus the charge aims to avoid cross border VAT rate shopping. It is not possible to attribute the input tax created directly to the deemed (taxable) supply.

VAT: Are preparatory ground works for burial chambers exempt? The Hodge case

By Marcus Ward 23 May 2022

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Hodge and Deery Limited the issue was whether ground works preparatory to installing flexi vault burial chambers exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, group 8, item 2 – “The making of arrangements for or in connection with the disposal of the remains of the dead.”

Background

The vaulting system was installed in graveyards with unstable soil structures which can result in issues with toxins and in subsidence of an existing grave when another grave is dug in the adjacent plot. The burial plots are ready for use and the element above the plots is landscaped (which was undertaken by a third-party).

The appellant’s case

The appellant considered that the installation of the flexible burial vaults should be treated as the advance digging of multiple graves. It should not be regarded differently from the preparation of “normal” graves. The sole purpose of the preparation of a grave is to dispose of the remains of the dead and it should not matter that the undertaker does not prepare the grave himself.

HMRC’s case

HMRC considered that the installation of flexible burial vaults do not fall within the exemption because:

item 2 must be construed to confine the exemption to those supplies directly involved with the disposal of the remains of a particular dead person
item 2 is confined to supplies directly made by the funeral director with care and custody of the deceased. It does not extend to sub-contractors of the funeral director
the appellant had no responsibility for the deceased
although the availability of zero rating in connection with the provision of new housing can be available to sub-contractors involved in the supply of new housing, this exemption cannot extend to sub-contractors in the same way, as the sub-contractors cannot be concerned with the body of the deceased

Decision

The judge considered that the services resulted in the provision of many graves for the disposal of the remains of the dead and that the result of the services satisfied the object of the exemption. The digging of graves is central to the disposal of the remains of the dead, the services are made in connection with the disposal of the remains of the dead and within Item 2.

Commentary

In this case, it did not matter that the services are provided in advance, and nor did it matter that the services are not provided in connection with a specific funeral. It also confirms that the funeral director or undertaker need not provide all the services themselves. It seems obvious that the digging of graves is pivotal to the disposal of the remains of the dead and once it was established that a third party could dig the grave, the appeal was bound to be successful.

VAT: The importance of due diligence. The 50 Five (UK) Limited case

By Marcus Ward 10 May 2022

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of 50 Five (UK) Limited the issue was the VAT rate applicable to energy saving materials. An additional twist was that there was a sale of the business between the tax point of the relevant supplies and HMRC’s assessment.

Background

The appeal was brought in the name of the Appellant in respect of assessments raised by HMRC against the company prior to the date on which it was purchased by the present owners. The present owners were not made aware of the assessment at the time of purchase. It had not been disclosed to them as part of the due diligence which was undertaken.

The Appellant’s business was that of supply and installation of heating and hot water systems. The customers were supplied with fully installed systems. The Appellant did not ask the customers to separately source the parts for such systems and then simply fit them. These supplies were treated as those of energy saving materials and the reduced rate of 5% was applied.

HMRC raised an assessment after taking the view that the supply should have properly been standard rated at 20%.

Decision

The FTT decided that legislation which permits the sale of energy saving materials at the reduced rate of VAT apply only where the supply of those materials is independent of an installation service. In this case, as the Appellant was the provider of the goods, and also the installer, the supply to the end customer was standard rated (a composite supply).

It was noted that this outcome was counter intuitive and the result does indeed seem unfair to the taxpayer, but as there was no reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding, it was struck out. The assessment and interest was now payable by the new owners.

Commentary

An unfortunate outcome for the new owners, but it highlights three VAT issues:

always carry out appropriate due diligence when buying a business. VAT is often an issue and if the buyer had discovered the assessment, it could have either abandoned the purchase, or negotiated on the price
never assume that a lesser rate of VAT applies without carrying out appropriate research or seeking advice
always consider whether a supply is separate or composite. This is a difficult area of the tax as the amount of case law testifies

The only recourse the new owners have now is taking action against the sellers of the business.

VAT: Is dog grooming taught in schools? The Dogs Delight case

By Marcus Ward 15 February 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Julie Lalou t/a Dogs Delight First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether the teaching of dog grooming qualified as private tuition and was therefore exempt.

Background

The Appellant operated a business providing dog grooming and dog grooming courses. The appeal was concerned only with the supplies of dog grooming tuition as it was accepted that dog grooming in itself is taxable.

Technical

The sole issue in dispute in this appeal was whether the supplies fall within the private tuition exemption as for provided by The Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, item 2 “The supply of private tuition, in a subject ordinarily taught in a school or university, by an individual teacher acting independently of an employer”.

HMRC’s view was that “to be eligible for exemption dog grooming would need to be a course that is ‘ordinarily’ taught in schools and universities which it is not…”

The appellant wrote to HMRC giving a list of seven “local Colleges and Universities where the Level 3 Dog Grooming Diploma is ordinarily taught”. The appellant went on to state “There are many more within the UK” which were said to represent around 30% of English colleges. Further it was stated that the business was a City & Guilds approved centre and that the courses were not recreational.

Decision

It was accepted that the courses that the appellant taught involved her making supplies of tuition in that she transferred to her students skills and knowledge.

But, unsurprisingly, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant had failed to demonstrate that dog grooming is taught at a wide number of schools and universities

The court also determined that the appellant needed to provide some evidence of whether dog grooming was taught at schools and universities in the EU (again, something she had failed to do).

Commentary

The exemption for private tuition is fraught with complexities and the amount of case law on the subject is significant, which indicates the difficulties in analysing the VAT position. An example here. It is important to establish what is being provided and that research is carried out to consider the degree of ubiquity of the subject in education. A general guide to education here. The phrase “ordinarily taught” is rather nebulous and it would be prudent to obtain as much evidence as possible that a subject is s commonly or ordinarily taught in schools and universities if a supply is treated as exempt.

VAT: Roof panels are not insulation. The Greenspace case

By Marcus Ward 2 December 2021

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Greenspace Limited the issue was whether insulated roof panels were “energy-saving materials” per VAT Act 1994, sect 29A, Schedule 7A, group 2, items 1 and 2 and thus liable at the reduced rate of 5%. Or rather at the standard rate of 20% on the basis that they were a supply of a roof itself.

Background

The appellant supplied and installed roof panels for conservatories which comprised a layer of close-cell extruded polystyrene foam (Styrofoam) around 71mm thick. The Styrofoam was covered with a thin aluminium layer and a protective powder coating which are together around 2mm thick. The supplies were made to residential customers and the panels were fitted onto their pre-existing conservatory roofs. The Panels were slotted into place on the existing roof structure and Greenspace did not replace its customers’ existing roof framework when doing this; the struts and glazing bars that supported the previous glass or polycarbonate panels were left in place. Consequently, the Panels were not self-supporting and could only be used if the customer already had an existing conservatory roof structure.

The decision

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided in 2020 that the panels were not “insulation for a roof” but were a new roof in their own right, and that the appellant’s supplies did not therefore qualify for the reduced rate of VAT (unlike insulation that could be separately attached to a roof, the panels actually formed the roof).

The UT dismissed the new appeal and found that the FTT had not been obliged to compare the roof after Greenspace had installed its panels to the original roof. The frame that was retained could not itself be described as a roof, and the provision of the Thermotec panels which made the conservatory weatherproof as well as insulating it could properly be categorised as the provision of a new roof.

One of Greenspace’s grounds of appeal was that the FTT decision was vitiated by the assumption that because the panels took the form of roof coverings, they were necessarily incapable of constituting “insulation for … roofs”. The appellant argued that as this was a flawed assumption (that Greenspace’s supplies “must” be treated as something more than insulation) the decision should be set aside. This contention was rejected by the UT judge.

Commentary

A fine distinction is often required to be made to establish the correct VAT treatment of a supply. In this case a degree of semantics was required to determine whether the panels were energy-saving materials (even when they certainly saved energy). On such small things turned the assessment of £2.6 million here. It always pays to double check VAT treatments rather than making assumptions.

VAT: Input tax recovery. The Mpala Mufwankolo case

By Marcus Ward 15 November 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Mr Mufwankolo the dispute was whether the appellant was able to recover VAT charged by the landlord of the property from which he ran his business – a licenced retail outlet on Tottenham High Road.

Background

The landlord had opted to tax the commercial property and charged VAT on the rent. The appellant was a sole proprietor; however, the lease was in the name of Mr Mufwankolo’s wife, and the rent demands showed her name and not that of the sole proprietor. It was contended by the appellant, but not evidenced, that the lease had originally been in both his and his wife’s names, despite his wife being the sole signatory.

The issues

Could the appellant recover input tax?

Did the business receive the supply?
Was there appropriate evidence?

It was clear that the business operated from the relevant property and consequently, in normal circumstances, the rent would be a genuine cost component of the business.

The Decision

The FTT found that there was no entitlement to an input tax claim and the appeal was dismissed. The lease was solely in the wife’s name and the business was the applicant as a sole proprietor. (There was an obvious potential for a partnership and an argument that a partnership was originally intended was advanced. The status of registration was challenged in 2003, but, crucially, not pursued).

It was possible for the property to be sub-let by the wife to the husband, however, this did not affect the VAT treatment as matters stood. Additionally, there was no evidence that the appellant actually paid any of the rent, as this was done by the tenant. There were no VAT invoices addressed to the sole proprietor.

Given the facts, there was no supply to the appellant, so there was no input tax to claim, and the issue of acceptable evidence fell away.

It was a certainty that the appeal could not succeed.

Commentary

There were a number of ways that this VAT cost could have easily been avoided had a little thought been given to the VAT arrangements. An oversight that created an avoidable tax hit.

A helpful guide to input tax considerations here: Care with input tax claims.

Legislation

The VAT Act 1994 Section 3 – Taxable person

The VAT Act 1994 Section 4 – Taxable supply

The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (1) – Input tax

The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (6) – Input tax claim evidence