Mirror Group plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners; Cantor Fitzgerald International v Customs and Excise Commissioners
Mirror Group plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners; Cantor Fitzgerald International v Customs and Excise Commissioners
- 2002
- Weekly Law Reports [2002] 2 WLR 288-312(25) .
Court of Justice of the European Communities 9 October 2001. The claimant company (M) in the first case agreed to lease five floors of a building in London, with an option for the lease of further floors in the future. M was in a position to obtain favourable terms as the landlord regarded them as a desirable tenant. The landlord would pay M a sum as an 'inducement' to enter the arrangement, to be paid in instalments, as and when it took leases of further floors under the option agreement. M subsequently occupied the initial five floors and later exercised options in respect of other floors. The claimants (C) in the second case took an assignment of the residue of a lease of offices, and the lessee paid a sum of money to the claimant. The claimants in both cases argued that value added tax was not payable on the sums paid to them. "Held", that under article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive it was only supplies of goods or services that were subject to VAT, and not the consideration paid for them. Both judgments available on http://europa.eu.int/cj/index.htm.
MIRROR GROUP PLC V CUSTOM AND EXCISE COMMISSIONERS
CANTOR FITZGERALD V CUSTOM AND EXCISE COMMISSIONERS
VALUE ADDED TAX
EXEMPTIONS
REVENUE
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
LEASES
Court of Justice of the European Communities 9 October 2001. The claimant company (M) in the first case agreed to lease five floors of a building in London, with an option for the lease of further floors in the future. M was in a position to obtain favourable terms as the landlord regarded them as a desirable tenant. The landlord would pay M a sum as an 'inducement' to enter the arrangement, to be paid in instalments, as and when it took leases of further floors under the option agreement. M subsequently occupied the initial five floors and later exercised options in respect of other floors. The claimants (C) in the second case took an assignment of the residue of a lease of offices, and the lessee paid a sum of money to the claimant. The claimants in both cases argued that value added tax was not payable on the sums paid to them. "Held", that under article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive it was only supplies of goods or services that were subject to VAT, and not the consideration paid for them. Both judgments available on http://europa.eu.int/cj/index.htm.
MIRROR GROUP PLC V CUSTOM AND EXCISE COMMISSIONERS
CANTOR FITZGERALD V CUSTOM AND EXCISE COMMISSIONERS
VALUE ADDED TAX
EXEMPTIONS
REVENUE
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
LEASES