Wasting money.
Series: Building ; 264(8092) 18 June 1999, 89(1)Publication details: 1999Subject(s): Summary: Considers two cases, "Taylor Woodrow Construction Northern Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise" and an case brought by FL Gamble & Sons, which help clarify the positions with regard to the implementation of the land fill tax. In the first case, Taylor Woodrow argued that waste removed qualified for tax exemption because it facilitated the development, a view which was supported by the VAT Tribunal. In the second case, FL Gamble & Sons claimed that waste stockpiled at a landfill site and later processed to produce soil was not being disposed of by landfill. The VAT Tribunal decided that the initial stockpiling of waste on the site was taxable deposit, even though it was treated afterwards.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS60869 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 101380-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Considers two cases, "Taylor Woodrow Construction Northern Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise" and an case brought by FL Gamble & Sons, which help clarify the positions with regard to the implementation of the land fill tax. In the first case, Taylor Woodrow argued that waste removed qualified for tax exemption because it facilitated the development, a view which was supported by the VAT Tribunal. In the second case, FL Gamble & Sons claimed that waste stockpiled at a landfill site and later processed to produce soil was not being disposed of by landfill. The VAT Tribunal decided that the initial stockpiling of waste on the site was taxable deposit, even though it was treated afterwards.