Analysis of Supreme Court’s decision in Moulsdale v CRC: Elizabeth Small writes for Taxation

Corporate Tax Partner, Elizabeth Small touches on the Supreme Court’s decision in Moulsdale v CRC, concluding that taxpayers using anti-avoidance provisions against HMRC and arguing for a wide construction of the anti-avoidance rules are never going to gain much traction with the courts.

Small touches on the fact that Mr Moulsdale thought it was worthwhile going all the way to the Supreme Court (Moulsdale trading as Moulsdale Properties v CRC (Scotland) [2023] UKSC 12) to argue this point (disagreeing with HMRC’s assessment that he should have charged VAT) where he, trading as Moulsdale Properties (Moulsdale):

• purchased office property (paying VAT on the purchase price) – the price was over £250,000 so the property was an item subject to the capital goods scheme;
• exercised an option to tax over the property (recovering as allowable input VAT most of the VAT paid on the purchase price); and
• in 2014, sold the property without charging VAT?

Read the full article here.