Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
Taxation- Judgement Day
Member rating: No Rating | Words: 2841 | Submitted: Mon Dec 17 2007
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
1. INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 BACKGROUND 3 2. SUMMARY OF CONTENT 4 2.1 MAIN CONCERNS 4 2.2 FACTS 4 2.3 ARGUMENTS 5 2.31 Arguments by WHS 5 2.32 Arguments by HMCR 5 2.4 DECISION 6 3. STATUTORY REFERENCES 7 4. CASE LAW 9 4.1 MAIN ISSUES:- 9 4.2 TAX PAYER ARGUMENTS:- 9 4.3 COURT INTERPRETATION OF "JUDGMENT": - 10 4.4 DECISION: - 10 5. HMRC MANUALS 11 5.1 V1-24A: TRADERS RECORDS 11 5.2 V-24B: OFFICERS POWERS 12 6. CONCLUSION 13 6.1 OVERALL VIEW 13 6.2 NEED FOR NEW LEGISLATION 14 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 15 1. Introduction 1.1 Background With reference to the Tax Journal "Judgement Day", issue no 540, 20th March 2000, by Ian Somerville, this article reviews VAT implications for WHS of assumed thefts. The author analyses the consequences that company can face when working out its VAT liability where there is a danger of its staff taking the cash out after the sales are made or the stock stolen by shoplifters. WH Smith Retail Ltd encompasses retailers such as Virgin, Our Price and Waterstones operate using either scheme J or F1. Below the author has summarised the main points of this Tax case, highlighting the implication retailers can face regarding their VAT liability of unrecorded sales or theft of cash with reference to statutory provisions and relevant references...
Get instant access
- Instant, unlimited access to our documents in full
- Swap your work for free access, or pay £4.99
- To see the full version of this document and 149,484 others
