We were referred to the case of Customs and Excise Commissioners v Rosner [1994] STC 228 (the case dealing with the predecessor provision to section 24 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, namely section 14 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983, which, so far as is relevant, is in identical terms), Layton J (as he then was) provided the following guidance on the meaning of the phrase "to be used for the purpose of any business carried on" by the taxpayer:
The rule that in order for an input tax claim to be valid, the claim must be supported by a VAT invoice is derived from the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, regulation 13 and 29(2)(a). (SI 1995/2518).
Sums claimed as input tax by Zenith were in fact in respect of fees paid to Zenners by Mr Turner in his personal capacity to defend a claim brought against him by the executors of his late father's estate, they were not sums incurred by him acting on behalf of Zenith. Similarly the VAT claimed as input tax by Zenith in respect of Farmer & Shirress's and A J Powell's fees were not in respect of services to Zenith, but were in respect of legal services provided to the executors of Mr Turner's late father's estate, and again cannot therefore be said to be in respect of Zenith's business, which is a publishing business.
We have seen a Court Order made by the Cambridge County Court in respect of the claims brought by Christopher Maton against both Mr Turner and Zenith. Whilst the claim against Zenith was dismissed, the claim against Mr Turner was upheld. Mr Turner was ordered to pay Mr Maton's cost, and the VAT claimed as input tax by Zenith is in respect of those costs paid by Mr Turner pursuant to that Court Order of 29 September 2005, and therefore again are not costs properly incurred by Zenith in pursuit of its business. In any event the costs themselves were cost incurred by Mr Maton and not by Zenith, or anyone acting on behalf of Zenith.
We note that Mr Turner and Mrs Nicolette Bernice Turner (who we assume to be Mr Turner's wife) are separately registered as a VAT partnership as a 'Business and Management Consultancy'. The sums claimed as input tax on behalf of Zenith were at no time claimed on behalf of that separate business.
For all the above reasons this appeal is dismissed. There is no order for costs.
LON 2006/1349