Case law: Abbey v the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Language: English Series: Property Week ; 70(22) 3 June 2005, 67(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: Discuses the case ([2005] EWHC 1187, unreported, L129866) involving a sale-and-leaseback agreement entered into by Abbey with Mapeley. The two companies ceated a virtual assignment by which Abbey would transfer all the economic burdens and benefits of the shorter leases to Mapely but pay a fee similar to the rent it would have paid under a normal leaseback. Customs and Excise claimed this fee should be charged VAT as it was a taxable supply of agency. However the court held that VAT was not chargeable as the arrangement should be regarded as a letting,nor would VAT be chargeable on property where Abbey had been granted the subleases and had transferred the economic benefit to Mapeley.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L130051 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 130051-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Discuses the case ([2005] EWHC 1187, unreported, L129866) involving a sale-and-leaseback agreement entered into by Abbey with Mapeley. The two companies ceated a virtual assignment by which Abbey would transfer all the economic burdens and benefits of the shorter leases to Mapely but pay a fee similar to the rent it would have paid under a normal leaseback. Customs and Excise claimed this fee should be charged VAT as it was a taxable supply of agency. However the court held that VAT was not chargeable as the arrangement should be regarded as a letting,nor would VAT be chargeable on property where Abbey had been granted the subleases and had transferred the economic benefit to Mapeley.