![TC09680 - [2025] UKFTT 01332 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
Inadvertence
Inadvertence
I am abundantly sure of the following:
When drafting the 2002 Order the draftsman intended to include all bodies that could enact primary legislation. That is apparent from the definition of “Act”. I infer the draftsman will have omitted the National Assembly for Wales because it could not then enact primary legislation and he will either (i) not have anticipated it would be given that power in the future, or (ii) anticipated that if it was granted that power in the future consequential changes would have been made to Note 8 to include Acts/Measures of the National Assembly for Wales.
When GWA 2006 was enacted it was through inadvertence that Note 8 was not amended to include Acts/Measures of the National Assembly for Wales.
No reason has been advanced to the contrary by Cascade, to suggest a rationale why it might have been a deliberate policy choice to standard-rate welfare services that were regulated pursuant to an Act/Measure of the National Assembly for Wales.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Legislative Framework
- EU VAT Legislation
- Welsh devolution and the regulation of social care in Wales
- Parties’ Arguments
- HMRC’s case
- Drafting error
- Updating construction
- Conforming interpretation
- Cascade’s response
- Conforming interpretation
- Discussion
- Drafting error
- Intended purpose of the statute
- Inadvertence
- The provision that Parliament would have made
- Conclusion
- Updating construction
- Conforming interpretation
- Alleged breach of EU law
- Is a conforming interpretation possible?
- Conclusions