Tag Archives: vat-consideration

VAT and influencers

By Marcus Ward 14 March 2024

A Warning

There has been a great deal of debate on the subject of VAT and influencers, with HMRC issuing assessments for underdeclared output tax on “gifts” received by them.

What is an influencer?

An influencer is someone who has certain power to affect the purchasing decisions of others because of their; authority, knowledge, position, or relationship with their audience. These individuals are social relationship assets with which brands can collaborate to achieve their marketing objectives.

In recent years the growth of social media means that influencers have grown in importance. According to recent statistics, the projected number of global social media users in 2023 was 4.89 billion. This is a 6.5% rise from the previous year.

What is the VAT issue?

Business gifts to influencers

A business is not required to account for VAT on certain dealings if they meet certain conditions. For free gifts, the condition is that the total cost of all gifts to the same person is less than £50 in a 12-month period. Further, if the goods are “free samples” – used for marketing purposes and provided in a quantity that lets potential customers test the product, then the £50 rule does not apply. If an influencer receives free gifts or samples, there are no VAT implications for them.

HMRC Action

However, we understand that HMRC has decided that, in the majority of cases, the supply of goods to influencers were not ‘free gifts” but rather consideration for a taxable supply of marketing or advertising. They were also not considered free samples as, generally, influencers would not be in the position to test the goods, having no expertise in the field. It is also concluded that influencers, in most cases were “in business“.

The payment for the marketing, promotion or advertising services (the VAT treatment is similar, regardless of how the services are categorised) is by way of the supply of goods, rather than monetary consideration. That is; consideration is flowing in both directions. Consequently, output tax is due on this amount if the influencer is, or should be, VAT registered.

What is the value of the supply?

Non-monetary consideration

Non-monetary consideration includes goods or services supplied as payment, for example in a “barter” (including part exchange) agreement. If the supply is for a consideration not consisting or not wholly consisting of money, its value shall be taken to be such amount in money as, with the addition of the VAT chargeable, is equivalent to the consideration. Where a supply of any goods or services is not the only matter to which a consideration in money relates, the supply is deemed to be for such part of the consideration as is properly attributable to it.

In determining the taxable amount, the only advantages received by a supplier that are relevant are those obtained in return for making the supply should be recognised. Non-monetary consideration has the value of the alternative monetary payment that would normally have been given for the supply.

VAT Registration

If an influencer receives gifts valued at over £90,000 in any 12-month period, or these gifts plus other monetary consideration, VAT registration is mandatory.

The interaction between Transfer Pricing and VAT

By Marcus Ward 20 February 2024

Are Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments subject to VAT? – Usually no, but…

What is TP?

A transfer price is the price charged in a transaction between two parties. The transfer pricing legislation concerns itself with the prices charged in transactions between connected parties as, in such circumstances, the price charged may not necessarily be that which would have been charged if the parties had not been connected.

The UK’s transfer pricing legislation details how transactions between connected parties are handled and in common with many other countries is based on the internationally recognised ‘arm’s length principle’.

The UK allows only for a transfer pricing adjustment to increase taxable profits or reduce a tax loss. It is not possible to decrease profits or increase a tax loss.

The UK’s transfer pricing legislation also applies to transactions between any connected UK entities.

The arm’s length principle applies to transactions between connected parties. For tax purposes such transactions are treated by reference to the profit that would have arisen if the transactions had been carried out under comparable conditions by independent parties.

So, is a TP adjustment additional consideration for a supply?

VAT

Value of the supply – what is the consideration?

TP is a direct tax concept which does not necessarily align with VAT considerations. Unhelpfully, there are no provisions in UK legislation which provides for the VAT treatment of TP adjustments. Additionally, there is no case law on this subject.

As a TP adjustment is solely for direct tax purposes, it does not usually affect the value of the supply for VAT purposes. Consequently, such adjustments are usually outside the scope of VAT.

However, price adjustments of previous supply of goods/services must be recognised for VAT market value rules only when:

the supply is taxable
the relevant input tax is not fully recoverable and
HMRC issues an ‘Open Market Value Notice’ to the parties requiring them to apply market values for VAT.

VAT Act 1994, Schedule 6, Part 2, para 1 gives HMRC the vires to issue such a Notice.

Latest

We understand that a case: Arcomet Romania is due to be heard by the CJEU on whether TP adjustments represent consideration and we await the outcome which may provide clarity. (Although after Brexit, the previous position: that the UK VAT Act is to be interpreted with EU case law and general principles of EU law has ended. UK courts whilst still relying on the UK VAT Act and its EU VAT Directive principles, will be able to deviate from ECJ case law).

VAT: Discounts – value of supply. The TalkTalk case

By Marcus Ward 11 January 2023

In the First Tier tribunal (FTT) case of TalkTalk Telecom Limited the issue was the amount of consideration received on which output tax was due. Specifically, whether “prompt payment discounts” which were offered, but not taken up by customers, reduced the value of a supply.

Background

TalkTalk offered most of its retail customers the option of receiving a 15% discount on its services if their monthly bills were paid within 24 hours.

TalkTalk accounted for output tax on the basis that the consideration received was reduced by the discount, whether or not customers had in fact paid within the 24 hours. In other words; whether or not the discount had actually been applied so that customers paid less.

The appellant considered that this approach was consistent with Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 6 Para 4(1), which provides:

“Where goods or services are supplied for a consideration in money and on terms allowing a discount for prompt payment, the consideration shall be taken for the purposes of section 19 as reduced by the discount, whether or not payment is made in accordance with those terms.”

HMRC’s contention was that the offer only reduced the consideration for VAT purposes where customers had actually paid the reduced amount, and that there was no reduction when the discount was not taken up.

Decision

The above legislation only applies to services supplied “on terms allowing a discount for prompt payment”. In deciding whether this was the case in this appeal the FTT analysed the contractual position.

The contracts were governed by terms and conditions (T&Cs) published on TTL’s website. This discount was not referred to in the T&Cs, but on a separate dedicated page within the same website.

The judge decided that the discount contractual term comes into existence at exactly the same moment as the payment and the supply. There was not a contractual term under the T&C’s under which a lower amount was payable if payments were made earlier. On this point, TalkTalk contended that the T&Cs were varied by the subsequent discount option, and, as a result, the services had been “supplied…on terms allowing a discount for prompt payment” as required by Para 4(1), but this argument was rejected.

As per the Virgin Media Upper Tribunal case the Tribunal considered that the position was different between services billed in advance, and services billed in arrears.

Advance payments

The contractual variation did not include an offer for the customer to pay a discounted amount at some point in the future, so Para 4(1) did not apply to services billed in advance.

Payment in arrears

The FTT ruled that customers accepted the discount offer after delivery of the services. The supply had therefore been made on the terms set out in the T&Cs, and the customer was therefore contractually required to pay the full amount. The discount option was an offer by the appellant to accept a lower sum with an earlier payment date to discharge that pre-existing contractual obligation. As a matter of law, this was an offer to accept a post-supply rebate of consideration already due and therefore it could not be a discount.

The appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Another case which highlights both the complexity of the rules on consideration and the importance of contracts. At stake here was VAT of £10,606,226.00 which was deemed to be underpaid during a four-month period only. If in doubt – take advice!

VAT: Education and Health & Welfare – new HMRC guidance

By Marcus Ward 23 August 2022

The subject of education often gives rise to complex VAT issues – as the number of Tribunal cases illustrates.

Background

A number of schools provide early or pre-school education (before compulsory education). All children aged four should be able to access an early education place and some early education and childcare services offer free part-time early or pre-school education to three year olds. This is paid for at the discretion of Local Authorities. Places for children under three in voluntary or private pre-school settings are paid for mainly by parents.

Update

In light of, inter alia, the Yarburgh Children’s Trust, Wakefield College , Longbridge and St Paul’s Community Project, HMRC has updated to reflect changes to it’s policy in respect of charities supplying; crèche, pre-school education, nursery, after-school clubs and playgroup facilities.

Business test

HMRC’s past position was that if a charity supplied nursery and crèche facilities for a consideration that was fixed at a level designed to only cover its costs, this was not a business activity for VAT purposes. Now the two-part test derived from the Wakefield College Court of Appeal case will be applied:

Test One

The activity results in a supply of goods or services for consideration. This requires a legal relationship between the supplier and the recipient. The initial question is whether the supply is made for a consideration. An activity that does not involve the making of supplies for consideration is not a business activity.

Test Two

The supply is made for the purpose of obtaining income therefrom (remuneration)

General

The provision of pre-school education (without charge) is non-business; breakfast clubs and after-school child-minding/homework clubs remain non-business in the Local Authority sector even when a charge is made. This is on condition that the school offers the service strictly to its own pupils and that the fee charged is designed to no more than cover overhead costs.

Law

VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6 – Education

VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, Item 9 – Health and Welfare

VAT: The Reverse Charge

By Marcus Ward 24 June 2022

Normally, the supplier is the person who must account to the tax authorities for any VAT due on the supply. However, in certain situations, the position is reversed, and it is the customer who must account for any VAT due. Don’t get caught out!

Purchasing services from abroad

These will be obtained free of VAT from an overseas supplier. What is known as the ‘reverse charge’ (RC) procedure must be applied. Where the RC applies, the recipient of the services must act as both the supplier and the recipient of the services. On the same VAT return, the recipient must account for output tax, calculated on the full value of the supply received, and (subject to partial exemption and non-business rules) include the VAT charged as input tax.

The effect of these provisions is that the reverse charge has no net cost to the recipient if he can attribute the input tax to taxable supplies and can therefore reclaim it in full. If he cannot, the effect is to put him in the same position as if had received the supply from a UK supplier rather than from one outside the UK. Thus, creating a level playing field between purchasing from the UK and overseas.

Accounting for VAT and recovery of input tax.

Where the RC procedure applies, the recipient of the services must act as both the supplier and the recipient of the services. On the same VAT return, the recipient must

account for output tax, calculated on the full value of the supply received, in Box 1
(subject to partial exemption and non-business rules) include the VAT stated in box 1 as input tax in Box 4
include the full value of the supply in both Boxes 6 and 7

Value of supply

The value of the deemed supply is to be taken to be the consideration in money for which the services were in fact supplied or, where the consideration did not consist or not wholly consist of money, such amount in money as is equivalent to that consideration. The consideration payable to the overseas supplier for the services excludes UK VAT but includes any taxes levied abroad.

VAT: The meaning of “business” and “non-business”- New guidance

By Marcus Ward 15 June 2022

HMRC has issued new guidance: Revenue and Customs Brief 10(2022) on how to determine if an entity carries out business or non-business (NB) activities. This goes to the core of the tax and establishes whether a person:

is registerable for VAT
charges output tax
can recover input tax

It mainly affects charities, NFP, an organisation which receives grants or subsidies and entities which are carrying out NB activities.

Previous tests

Since 1981 previous cases (mainly Lord Fisher and Morrison’s Academy) have set out the following business tests:

Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
Are the taxable supplies that are being made of a kind which, subject to differences of detail, are commonly made by those who seek to profit from them?

Changes

The guidance states that the ‘predominant concern’ is now irrelevant. The focus is on whether there is a direct link between the services the recipient receives, and the payment made rather than on the wider context of the organisation’s charitable objectives or motive. This is as a result of the Longbridge case.

I often think it helps if a person bears in mind here the comment in the EC case of Tolsma translated as: “…the question is whether services carried on by [a person] were carried on for the payment or simply with the payment”.

There is now a two-part test derived from the Wakefield College Court of Appeal case.

Test One:

Test Two:

The supply is made for the purpose of obtaining income therefrom (remuneration)

More on the definition of taxable supply here.

Where there is a direct or sufficient nexus between the supplies provided and the payments made, the activity is regarded as business (a taxable supply). The Wakefield case made a distinction between consideration and remuneration. Simply because a payment is received for a service provided does not itself mean that the activity is business. For an activity to be regarded as economic it must be carried out for the purpose of obtaining income (remuneration) even if the charge is below cost.

HMRC states that although it will no longer apply the above Lord Fisher tests, it accepts that they “can be used as a set of tools designed to help identify those factors which should be considered.” So Lord Fisher lives on in some form.

Further information

More detail is provided by HMRC in the updated Internal Guidance VBNB10000

Further reading

The following articles consider case law and other relevant business/NB issues:

Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft

Healthwatch Hampshire CIC

Pertempts Limited

VAT: What is consideration and why is it important?

By Marcus Ward 18 March 2022

VAT Basics

Consideration – background

There is no definition of consideration in legislation. The meaning was originally taken from contract law, but after the European Court of Justice ruled that the term is to be given the Community meaning and is not to be variously interpreted by Member States the UK adopted that approach.

The expression “consideration” means everything received in return for the supply of goods or the provision of services, including incidental expenses (packing, transport, insurance etc). Consideration is a payment for the supply of goods or services. It is usually a payment in money, but can also be of a “non-monetary” nature, such as goods or services supplied in return.

The phrase “in return for the supply” is interpreted to mean that there must be a direct link between the supply and the consideration.

Therefore, in order that a supply for a consideration can be made, there must be at least two parties and a written or oral agreement between them under which something is done or supplied for the consideration. There is a direct link between the supply and the consideration because the supplier expects something in return for his supply and would not fulfil his obligation unless he thought that payment would be forthcoming.

Profit

It is important to recognise that the concept of consideration and profit are wholly different, and the fact that a business makes no profit on a supply does not mean that there is no consideration for it. Whether payment yields a profit or loss is immaterial and has no bearing on whether or not it is consideration for VAT purposes.

Importance

If consideration is not recognised, or undervalued, a business can expect HMRC assessments and penalties. Overstating consideration will result in an overpayment of tax.

if there is no consideration, there is no supply.

Consideration hallmarks

Consideration is defined widely to bring within the tax everything which the taxable person receives as consideration for the goods or services supplied.
The consideration must be capable of being expressed in money.
There must be some form of bargain or transaction between the parties.
A payment should be related to what the payer receives although the fact that people pay the same amount for varying benefits does not stop it from being consideration.

Consequently, if the provision of goods or services is incapable of being expressed in money, it is not consideration and is outside the scope of VAT.

Indicators of no consideration

The absence of any consensual element on the part of the payer.
A lack of control by the payer over the services provided.

Valuation of consideration

This may seem obvious, but as the amount of case law demonstrates, this is not always the case. The starting point is:

Monetary consideration

Monetary consideration includes cash and payment by cheque, credit card, bank transfer, contactless payment, deduction from pay, etc. This is set out in The VAT Act 1994, section 19(2).

Non-monetary consideration

Non-monetary consideration includes goods or services supplied as payment, for example in a “barter” (including part exchange) agreement. Services provided include the giving up of a right, refraining from doing something, agreeing to suffer some loss etc in return for the supply. At first sight these may appear to be merely conditions of an agreement, but are in fact consideration for a supply. If the supply is for a consideration not consisting or not wholly consisting of money, its value shall be taken to be such amount in money as, with the addition of the VAT chargeable, is equivalent to the consideration. Where a supply of any goods or services is not the only matter to which a consideration in money relates, the supply is deemed to be for such part of the consideration as is properly attributable to it.

What is not consideration

Donations

If a monetary donation is freely given, it is not consideration for any supply and so is outside the scope of VAT. In this situation, the donation has to be unconditional, and the following points dictate whether this is the case.

Does the donor receive anything in return for the payment?
Are there any conditions attached to the payment?
What will the payments be used for?
If the donor does not benefit directly, does any third party receive a benefit?
Is there a contract and what are the terms and conditions?

Donations must be contrasted to sponsorship.

It is necessary to distinguish between donations and sponsorship payments. Whereas a donation means the donor does not expect anything in return, sponsorship involves the sponsor receiving identifiable benefits. These benefits may include advertising, publicity or use of facilities and any sponsorship payment is within the scope of VAT.

Open Market Value

The VAT Act 1994, section 19 (5) states that “…the open market value of a supply of goods or services shall be taken to be the amount that would fall to be taken as its value …if the supply were for such consideration in money as would be payable by a person standing in no such relationship with any person as would affect that consideration”.

Difficult areas

Commonly, areas which give rise to VAT consideration problems include, but are not limited to:

when consideration is provided in return for supplies of differing VAT liabilities
Special Valuation Provisions in The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 6
supplies to staff or goods for own use
discounts and special offers (eg; persons providing selling or introductory services to traders who receive goods for a reduced cash payment, or BOGOF)
barter transactions – when each supply has a different value
part-exchange
apportionment of monetary consideration
separate/composite supplies
supplies between connected parties
direct selling structures
gifts, prizes, and reward goods.
imports
prompt payment discounts
deemed supplies
non-business use of business assets or of services supplied to a business
reverse charges
reduced rate accommodation
supplies expressed in foreign currencies
transfer pricing
business gifts/samples
caravans sold with contents
self supplies
club membership benefits
correspondence courses
opticians and hearing aid dispensers (exempt services vs standard rated goods)
rebates/refunds
disbursements
tour operators (TOMS)
partial exemption

Further reading

For purposes of research or interest, the following cases on consideration are worth reading:

Staatssecretaries van Financien v Cooperatieve Aardapplenbewarr-plaats ((1981) ECR 445; (1981) – The Dutch Potato case for ease!

BAZ Bausystem Gmbh v Finanzamt Munchen Fur Korperschaften

Apple & Pear Development Council (APDC), (ECJ (1988) STC 221; (1988)2 CMLR 394)

Tolsma C-16/93 (1994 STC 509)

Naturally Yours Cosmetics Ltd

Empire Stores Ltd

VAT: Latest on early termination and compensation payments

By Marcus Ward 8 February 2022

HMRC has published a new Revenue and Customs Brief 2(2022) which replaces Revenue and Customs Brief 12 (2020): VAT early termination fees and compensation payments.

It introduces a revised policy on early termination payments and compensation fees. Following representations from industry the Brief issued in September 2020 was suspended in January 2021. HMRC has reviewed the policy in the light of those representations and is adopting a revised policy which will take effect from 1 April 2022. The new policy will result in fewer early termination payments being subject to VAT than in the 2020 guidance.

The new Brief also advises businesses that adopted the treatment outlined in Brief 12 (2020) on what action they should now take.

Background

Whether a payment is for a VAT supply depends on whether anything is being done in return for a consideration. Where a party agrees to do something in return for a fee there is a supply. How that fee is described does not affect whether there is a supply for VAT. What matters is whether something is done and if there is a direct link between what is done and the payment received, and reciprocity between the supplier and the customer (see VATSC05100).

Previous HMRC guidance stated that when customers are charged to withdraw from agreements to receive goods or services, these charges were not generally for a supply and were outside the scope of VAT.

Following the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgments in Meo (C-295/17) and most recently in Vodafone Portugal (C-43/19), it is evident that some of these charges are additional consideration for the supply of goods or services. Most early termination fees and some cancellation fees are therefore liable for VAT if the goods or services for which the fees have been paid are liable for VAT, even if they are described as compensation or damages.

The main impact of the revised policy is that fees charged when customers terminate a contract early will be regarded as further consideration for the contracted supply. For example, if a customer is charged a fee for exiting a mobile phone contract early, or if they terminate a car hire contract early, it will be liable for VAT.

The new guidance can be found at VATSC05910, VATSC05920 and VATSC05930.

VAT: Latest on holding companies and input tax recovery

By Marcus Ward 21 January 2019

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of W Resources plc (WRP) the enduring matter of input tax recovery by a holding company was considered. This follows similar considerations in the cases of Norseman and BAA and HMRC’s updated guidance on the matter. This case considered whether a holding company could recover input tax incurred on certain costs. This is turn depended on whether the holding company intended to make taxable supplies. Specifically; the intention to recharge professional expenses incurred to two non VAT-grouped subsidiary companies contingent on those companies receiving income at a future time.

Background

WRP acquired two subsidiary companies. The subsidiary company’s business the exploration and exploitation of tungsten in the EU. WRP contended that it incurred the relevant input tax

to enable the subsidiaries to raise funds to carry out their exploration activities
to exercise financial control over the subsidiaries
to obtain geological expertise, project management and supervision and day to day management and supervision for the subsidiaries so that they could carry on their exploration and exploitation activities

HMRC denied the claim of input tax on the basis that the WRP was not carrying on an economic activity or making supplies for a consideration (such that it should not be VAT registered).

It was common ground that, if it was decided that all of the supplies which were made by the WRP to the subsidiary companies (following their acquisition by the appellant) were supplies made for a consideration and in the course of carrying on an “economic activity”, then the input tax which was incurred during the preparatory phase should be recoverable.

So, the issue was – were the intended recharges so uncertain such that there could be no direct link to an economic activity?

Decision

The appeal was dismissed.

Although the judge distinguished Norseman (above) where there was only a vague intention to make charges to subsidiary companies and here the position was different because there was a fixed intention that WRP would be able to invoice in due course for its supplies of services at an amount quantified by reference to the value of the services received but only if the relevant subsidiary began to generate revenues, the fact that it was uncertain whether the subsidiaries would generate income was to sufficient to break the link between supply and consideration. The fact that the intended charges were contingent was fatal to the appeal.

Commentary

The judge appears to have come to the decision reluctantly and entertained the thought that “the contrary is certainly arguable”. This case demonstrates, yet again, the difficulties in determining future intentions of a business. Such intentions dictate whether a business may VAT register and/or recover input tax. It is often difficult to evidence intentions and HMRC seem intent to challenge input tax recovery in such circumstances and will be buoyed by this result.

This case again emphasises the importance of holding companies having appropriate processes and ensuring that proper documentation is in place to evidence, not only the intention to make taxable supplies of management charges, but that those charges were actually made to subsidiaries.

Often significant costs can be incurred by a holding company in cases such as acquisitions and restructuring. It is important that these costs are incurred by, and invoiced to, the appropriate entity in order for the VAT on them to be recovered. Consideration should be given to how the input tax is recovered before it is incurred, and the appropriate structure put in place if possible.

Further information and advice on inter-company charges may be found here

VAT – There is no such thing as a free lunch

By Marcus Ward 3 January 2018

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal case of ING Intermediate Holdings Ltd the issue was whether the provision of “free” banking actually constituted a supply for VAT purposes.

Background

The appeal concerned the recoverability of input tax. ING wished to recover (via deduction against the outputs of a separate investment business) a proportion of VAT expenses incurred in connection with a “deposit-taking” business. ING contended that this activity did not involve any VATable supply. HMRC contended, and did so successfully before both prior tribunals, that it is more than a deposit-taking business and involved the provision of banking services.

The issue

The relevant services were supplied to the public, and the user of the services were not charged a fee. Consequently, the essential issue was; whether the “free” banking services were provided for consideration and, if so, how that consideration ought to be quantified for VAT purposes. If there was a consideration, there was a supply, and that supply would be exempt; thus not providing a right to recovery of input tax for the appellant.

Technical

There is no definition of consideration in either the EC Principal VAT Directive or the VAT Act 1994. In the UK, the meaning was originally taken from contract law, but the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has confirmed that the term is to be given the Community meaning and is not to be variously interpreted by Member States. The Community definition used in ECJ cases is taken from the EC 2nd VAT Directive Annex A13 as follows even though this Directive is no longer in force:

“…the expression “consideration” means everything received in return for the supply of goods or the provision of services, including incidental expenses (packing, transport, insurance etc), that is to say not only the cash amounts charged but also, for example, the value of the goods received in exchange or, in the case of goods or services supplied by order of a public authority, the amount of the compensation received.”

NB: In order for there to be consideration, it must be able to be quantifiable and able to be expressed in monetary terms.

Decision

The CA decided that although there was no distinct charge to the users of the service, there was a supply of services for a consideration. That consideration was the difference between what the customer obtained from the relevant account, and what he could have obtained from an account which was not free, but provided better returns (the interest rate offered must have contained some deduction for the services provided). This was capable of being expressed in monetary terms (although it is interesting to note that the CA stated that it would be undesirable to say which method should be applied, although the court was “entirely satisfied” that it could be done).

Consequently there was a supply for VAT purposes and ING’s appeal was therefore dismissed.

Commentary

HMRC quite often argue that there is a supply when in fact, there is no supply. However, they did have a decent argument in this case and I understand that they are likely to apply this to a number of other long running disputes. Please contact us if you consider that this case could affect your business or your client’s business.