Your shopping cart is empty

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a must be a duck - or it might not: the MBNA decision.

Publication date: 01 Dec 06 | Source: AUSTRALIAN GST JOURNAL

Issue: Vol.6 no. 11 2006

Pages: pp.141-145

A recent decision of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, in the UK is a useful tool to assist our reflection on the state of play of value added taxes generally but the Australian version, in particular. The decision was in MBNA Europe Bank Limited v The Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs was handed dowm on 22 September 2006. The decision represents an appeal from the Manchester VAT Tribunal. The case deals with the VAT treatment of securitisation.

This item is not available for download from this website. Please contact the Tax Institute library for assistance. Charges will apply.

Author profile

Michael Evans CTA
Photo of author, Michael EVANS Michael Evans is in his 47th year of working in the Australian taxation system. His current roles include: • a Senior Fellow of University of Melbourne where he conducts a GST principles subject in the University’s Masters level tax courses; and • a member of the design and examinations panel of the Taxation Institute’s CTA3 panel; • The General Editor of the Australian GST journal. Over recent years, has provided advice and assistance on the design and legislation of indirect taxation systems, for: • The Australian and State Treasuries; • The International Taxation and Investment Centre’s missions in Myanmar; and • The Canadian Ministry of Finance - Current at 26 April 2017
Click here to expand/collapse more articles by Michael EVANS.