Category Archives: Agent/principal

VAT: Extent of exemption for healthcare. The X-GmbH CJEU case

By Marcus Ward 10 March 2020

Latest from the courts

In the CJEU case of X, a German business, the issue was whether services provided by telephone could be treated as exempt. The decision is not available in English in the link above, so thanks to Google translate and very rusty schoolboy language skills!

Background

X provided a healthcare hotline to people covered by certain insurance. The types of services carried out where in respect of medical issues; medical advice, answers to queries, explanations of possible diagnoses and treatments, and patient support programmes for certain conditions. The service was provided by suitably qualified nurses, medical staff and doctors.

The issue

Was this service exempt from VAT as personal care considering it was “support” provided by telephone? He relevant legislation is Article 132(1)(c) of the VAT Directive. A separate issue was whether the staff required additional proof of their professional qualifications to qualify as an exempt service by telephone. The advice was provided via a computer assisted assessment, using targeted questions allowing X to assess the patient’s situation and to advise accordingly. Consequently, there was a degree of automation involved.

The German authorities considered that the supplies fell short of the exemption and raised assessments for output tax due on the services.

Decision

The CJEU has ruled that personal care is not dependent on where it is carried out and there is no bar to it being conducted by telephone. X contended that its services were directly connected with illness and was medical care and, as a result of its activities, the cost of subsequent treatment was reduced.

The court established that the supply was exempt if it met two tests:

it must be a service of personal care, and
it must be carried out within the framework of the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions as defined by the Member State concerned

Therefore, healthcare services carried out by telephone may fall within the exemption, but only if they meet all the conditions for applying this exemption. The test was not how the services were delivered.

Whether X’s services met the exemption conditions depended on case law and whether they were to;

diagnose, treat and cure illnesses or health anomalies
protect (including maintaining or restoring) the health of individuals.
explain diagnosis and therapies
propose modifications to treatments and medication

Such services were likely to have a ‘therapeutic purpose’. However, simply; directing patients to factsheets, providing specialists’ contact details and communicating information is insufficient to qualify for exemption and would be regarded as of a (taxable) administrational nature.

Summary

The services provided by telephone, consisting of providing advice on health and illness, were likely to be exempt, if they pursue a ‘therapeutic aim’. However, this was for the German referring court to verify. On the “additional qualifications” point, EU law does not define medical professions, so it is the responsibility of each Member State to determine the necessary qualifications. In the UK, these qualifications are set out at VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 7, item 1 (mainly; registered or enrolled as a doctor, optician, osteopath, chiropractor, nurse or midwife). It was decided that Article 132(1)(c) does not require that those X’s staff which provide telephone services to obtain additional professional qualifications.

Commentary

There is often significant uncertainty when businesses provide “healthcare”, This has mainly manifested in questions of whether staff or medical services are actually provided (and in more wide-ranging cases, whether the provision of staff is by way of agent or principal). However, with technology moving faster than ever, it is helpful to have these guidelines and the understanding that it is not just “old-fashioned” medical services which are covered by the exemption.

VAT: Payment handling charges – The Virgin Media case

By Marcus Ward 5 February 2020

Latest from the courts

In the Virgin Media Ltd First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case a number of issues were considered. These were:

whether payment handling charges were exempt via: The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, items (1) and (5)
whether the supply was separate from other media services
which VAT group member made the supply?
whether there was an intra-group supply
whether there was an abuse of rights

Background

Virgin Media Limited (VML) provided cable TV, broadband and telephone services (media services) to members of the public. It was the representative member of a VAT Group which also contained Virgin Media Payment Limited (VMPL).

If customers choose not to pay by direct debit, they were required to pay a £5 “handling charge”. The handling charge was paid to VMPL and passed to VML on a daily basis. The issue was; what was the correct VAT treatment of the charge?

Contentions

The appellant argued that the £5 charge was optional for the customer and the collection of it was carried out by VMPL and was exempt as the transfer or receipt of, or any dealing with, money. Further, that, despite being members of the same VAT group, there was nothing in the legislation which forced the VAT group to treat supplies by separate entities within that group as a single supply to a recipient outside the group.

HMRC contended that there was a single taxable supply and thus no exempt services were provided and, in fact, VMPL was not making a supply at all (and therefore not to VML as the group representative member). In the first alternative, if it were decided that there was a supply, such a supply was an ancillary component of a single taxable supply by VML as representative group member and not by VMPL as per the Card Protection Plan case. In the second alternative, if both decisions above went against HMRC, that the service provided by VMPL fell outside the exemption so that it was taxable in its own right.

Decision

It was found that:

there was a single supply made to customers
the supply was made by VML as the representative member of the VAT group
the £5 handling charge was an integral part of the overall supply
if not integral, the handling charge was an ancillary supply such that it took on the VAT treatment of the substantive supply
therefore, VMPL does not make any supply to the end users of the overall service
if VMPL does make a supply, it is an intra-group supply to VML which s disregarded for VAT purposes
VMPL does not have a free-standing fiscal identity for VAT purposes
if the FTT is wrong on the above points and VMPL does make a supply of payment handling services to customers, these supplies are taxable and not exempt (per Bookit and NEC) as the supply is simply technical and administrative and does not amount to debt collection
the arrangements do not constitute an abusive practice. The essential aim of the transactions are not to secure a tax advantage so HMRC’s argument on abuse fails

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and a reference to the CJEU was considered inappropriate and output tax was due on the full amount received by the group from customers.

Summary

This was a complex case which suffered significant delays. It does help clarify a number of interconnected issues and demonstrates the amount of care required when planning company structures and the VAT analysis of them.

Claiming VAT from the EU after Brexit

By Marcus Ward 1 October 2019

More work, confusion and administration for VAT after Brexit.

After a No-Deal Brexit it will not be possible to recover input tax incurred in other EU Member States by using HMRC’s online service. This is known as; the electronic cross-border refund system which enables a business that incurs VAT on expenditure in a Member State where it is not established and makes no supplies, to recover that VAT directly from that Member State (the Member State of refund).

HMRC state that this will be the case after 5pm on 31 October 2019, but we shall have to wait and see on the precise timing.

HMRC has published meagre guidance on the new method of recovering overseas VAT (for some of us at a certain age, it is the “old” EC 8th Directive method).

Claiming a refund after Brexit

Unhelpfully, each EU Member State has its own process for refunding VAT to businesses based outside the EU (as UK businesses will be post Brexit). This is similar to the existing EC 13^th Directive claims. A UK Business will need to use the process for the EU country where it is claiming a refund; even for unclaimed expenses incurred before Brexit.

A business will have to wade through the requirements and the EC provides assistance here.

This will be a complete headache for claimants and underlines the benefits of a harmonised system. Each claim form is different in each Member State, each form must be completed in the language of the country in which VAT is being claimed, and these forms are very bureaucratic; some run to over ten pages…. It will also be necessary to obtain and provide a Certificate of Status (CoS).

In summary

CoS

HMRC can issue a form VAT66A which may be used by claimants to prove that they are engaged in business activities at the time of the claim. A CoS is only valid for twelve months. Once it has expired you will need to submit a new CoS.

EC 13^th Directive claim

A non-EU based business may make a claim for recovery of VAT incurred in the EU. Typically, these are costs such as; employee travel and subsistence, service charges, exhibition costs, imports of goods, training, purchases of goods in the UK, and clinical trials etc.

The scheme is available for any businesses that are not VAT registered anywhere in the EU, have no place of business or other residence in the EU and do not make any supplies there.

The usual rules that apply to UK business claiming input tax also apply to 13th Directive claims. Consequently, the likes of; business entertainment, car purchase, non-business use and supplies used for exempt activities are usually barred.

Process

The business must obtain a CoS to accompany a claim. The application form is a VAT65A and is available here Original invoices which show the VAT charged must be submitted with the claim form and business certificate. Applications without a certificate, or certificates and claim forms received after the relevant deadline are not accepted. It is possible for a business to appoint an agent to register to enable them to make refund applications on behalf of that business.

VAT: What is an economic activity? The Pertemps’ case

By Marcus Ward 12 August 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Pertemps Limited the issue was whether the operation of the respondent’s salary sacrifice scheme to provide travel and subsistence payments to employees was a supply for VAT purposes and, indeed, whether it was an economic activity at all.

I have considered what is an economic activity (business) many times, examples here, here, here and here. It is a perennial VAT issue and goes to the very heart of the tax. EU legislation talks of economic activity, which is taken to be “business activity” in the UK. There is no legal definition of either economic or business activity so case law on this point is very important.

Background

Employees of the respondent were offered the option of;

being paid a salary, from which they would have to meet any travel and subsistence expenses, or
participating in Pertemps’ scheme where they would be paid their travel and subsistence expenses but receive a reduced salary.

The amount of the reduction was equal to the amount of the expense payment plus a fixed amount to defray the costs of running the scheme. The issue was whether the charge for using the scheme was taxable.

HMRC’s appeal against the FTT decision [2018] UKFTT 369 (TC) was based on the view that the scheme involved a taxable supply of services by Pertemps to its participating employees such that output tax was due of the fixed payments. The FTT concluded that Pertemps did supply services to the employees. but the supply was not within the scope of VAT because the operation of the scheme was not an economic activity. It allowed Pertemps’ appeal. The FTT also held that, if there had been a supply, it would have been exempt.

Decision

The UT decided that, although the FTT erred in law when it concluded that Pertemps made a supply of services to the employees who participated in the scheme, it was correct when it concluded that Pertemps was not carrying on any economic activity when it provided the scheme for employees. The charge only arose in the context of the employment relationship, and it could not be compared to an open market supply of accountancy services.

Therefore, HMRC’s appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Care should always be taken with salary sacrifice schemes. Some, but not all, sacrifices are subject to output tax. HMRC internal guidance on the subject here. This case is a helpful clarification on the matter of certain charges to staff. It also adds another layer to the age-old issue of what constitutes a business activity. VAT is only due on business supplies, and it is crucial to appreciate what is, and isn’t an economic activity. This is especially important in respect of charities and NFP bodies.

HMRC VAT Helpline failures

By Marcus Ward 5 July 2019

If any of you have had the unfortunate necessity to use the VAT Helpline you will know the frustration, unhelpfulness and general exasperation of trying to get a reasonable response from the department. Well, it isn’t just you.

In correspondence between the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee and the Chief Executive and Permanent Secretary of HMRC here the previously highlighted issue of the deterioration of the performance of the HMRC VAT Helpline is addressed.

The extremely poor performance is ascribed, by the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) to:

the lack of an adequate pilot for the roll-out of Making Tax Digital (MTD) – details here
the pressures of Brexit on HMRC resources.

And HMRC state that:

their telephony performance has been impacted by ongoing recruitment and staffing shortfalls
recruitment for a no deal EU exit was slower than expected
they had to divert resources from usual business to issues with a No-Deal Brexit
the target of five minutes waiting time for the VAT Helpline has not been met
they are developing a new way of measuring performance
there are issues with some MTD businesses experiencing problems with paying VAT by direct debit

An annex to the letter, providing VAT call data from January to May 2019, shows

helpline demand increased by over 40% between January and May but the number of calls answered fell over this period
in May, HMRC answered less than 42% of the calls which made it beyond their recorded messages, compared to 72% in January
average speed of answer for those calls which were answered rose from around seven minutes in January to more than 16 minutes in May (in addition to the time spent navigating the initial recorded messages)
of the calls answered, the proportion which were answered within ten minutes fell from 64% in January to just 9% in May

Commentary

It is appreciated that some of the excuses are “reasonable” (to use HMRC parlance) and matters are not within HMRC’s influence, however, the service provided is, frankly, unacceptable. Businesses need HMRC assistance for all sorts of reasons and if it is not forthcoming, errors may be made resulting in potential penalties and interest, loss of income, deals failing, accounting compromised and uncertainty and complexity, VAT becoming a cost, and customers lost.

It is not as though HMRC have not been warned about pushing MTD through without adequate testing of systems and software at a time when Brexit was always going to make huge demands of the department. The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee published a damning report last year here which recommended delaying the introduction of MTD. Also, the CIOT has consistently warned of the risks of implementing MTD for VAT at the same time as Brexit.

Support for business and tax agents is sadly very lacking and it appears that insufficient resources have been devoted to this. There has been an overall lack of planning, combined with a political will to push ahead with MTD regardless. It really is not good enough. And we are not even yet through the implementation of MTD for VAT with larger and more complex business yet to join the fray. That, added to the fact that many glitches have already been identified, does not give any reason to be optimistic about the future for either MTD or the VAT Helpline.

As CIOT say: while HMRC have the scale to move resources within its organisation, that is a luxury that most businesses do not enjoy.

VAT: Brexit – Intending Trader registration for overseas businesses

By Marcus Ward 14 June 2019

With the continuing uncertainty over a No-Deal Brexit, which appears to be a more likely prospect given recent political events, HMRC has made a statement on the process of registering non-UK EU businesses as intending traders in the UK.

Background

What is an intending trader?

An intending trader is a person who, on the date of the registration request:

is carrying on a business
has not started making taxable supplies
has an intention to make taxable supplies in the future

If the business satisfies HMRC of its intention, HMRC must VAT register it. VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, 9 (b). It is, in some cases, difficult to convince that there is a genuine intention to make taxable supplies. This often comes down to documentary evidence.

Why do overseas businesses need to register as intending traders?

In the event of a No-deal Brexit, it is assumed that the EU VAT simplification that relieves the current obligation to be registered in the UK will no longer available. As a consequence, the EU supplier will itself become responsible for accounting for VAT on sales deemed to be made in the UK. In order to do this, the business will require a UK VAT registration. As the simplification is in place until Brexit, the registration will be required the very day after the UK leaves the EU – currently 1 November 2019.

Therefore, many EU businesses have applied for UK VAT registration as intending traders. That is, they do not currently make supplies, but intend to in the future (from 1 November 2109).

The issue

The Chartered Institute of Taxation has reported that businesses applying for intending trader registrations are experiencing difficulties with the process.

In response, HMRC have stated:

“Businesses in the position you have described can register for VAT using the Advanced Notification facility, by registering online requesting a voluntary registration from an advanced date of 1 November 2019. In the ‘business activity’ section they should enter trade class/SIC code 99000 European Community. In the free text box they should describe accurately what the business does and ensure there is a positive amount entered in the ‘taxable turnover in the next 12 months’ box. If this is not done the application will be rejected. This information will enable the VAT Registration Team (VRT) to identify and actively manage any registration that is conditional on the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

If there is a change to the date of withdrawal from the EU, the VRT will amend the Advanced Notification date to match this new date. If the UK enters a transitional period or agrees a deal with the EU that allows current arrangements to continue then the registration will be cancelled. The approval of an Advanced Notification registration in these circumstances is only made as a contingency for the UK leaving the EU without a deal and the VAT number may not be used unless that happens. The business will receive an automated notification of an Advanced Notification VAT Registration and the VRT may follow this up with a manual letter to further explain the conditions and both.

With the UK having agreed an extension to the date of withdrawal from the EU, we would not expect businesses to use this facility until closer to the 1st November.”

It is clearly prudent for overseas businesses which make certain supplies in the UK to properly prepare for a No-Deal Brexit. However, experience insists that many have not identified or made provisions for this outcome.

We are able to assist and advise other EU Member State businesses on this process.

VAT: Holiday Lets – don’t get caught out

By Marcus Ward 14 June 2019

Further to the usual complexity with VAT and property, I have been increasingly asked about the VAT position of holiday lets, so this is a timely piece on the subject.

All residential letting is exempt… except holiday lets, which are standard rated at 20%. So, what is the difference? A house is a house, but the VAT treatment depends on how the property is advertised or “held out”.

If a property is held out for holiday accommodation, then the rental income is taxable.

What is holiday accommodation?

Holiday accommodation includes, but is not restricted to; any house, flat, chalet, villa, beach hut, tent, caravan or houseboat. Accommodation advertised or held out as suitable for holiday or leisure use is always treated as holiday accommodation. Also, increasingly, it is common for farms and estates to have cottages and converted barns within their grounds, which are exploited as furnished holiday lets so this use must be recognised for VAT purposes. Residential accommodation that just happens to be situated at a holiday resort is not necessarily holiday accommodation.

This treats holiday lets the same way as; hotels, inns and B&B were VAT applies, which is fair.

Off-season lettings

If holiday accommodation is let during off-season, it should be treated as exempt from VAT provided it is let as residential accommodation for more than 28 days and holiday trade in the area is clearly seasonal.

What does this mean?

If the letting business exceeds the VAT registration threshold, currently £85,000, it must register for VAT. This usually means that either the business would lose a sixth of its income to HMRC or its letting fees would increase by 20% – which is not usually an option in a particularly price sensitive market. The only upside to registration is that VAT incurred on costs relating to the letting (input tax) would be recoverable. This may be on expenditure such as; agents’ fees, maintenance, refurbishments, laundry, websites and advertising etc.

Agents

If a property owner provides a property to a holiday letting agent and the agent itself provides the letting directly to the end users, this does not avoid the standard rating, even if the agent pays a guaranteed rent to the freeholder. This can catch some property owners out.

Sale of the property

When the owner sells the property, although it may have been used for standard rated purposes, the sale is usually treated as exempt. However, zero rating may be available for the first sale or long lease if it is a new dwelling with no occupancy restrictions. The sale of a “pure” holiday property is likely to be standard rated if it is less than three years old. To add to the complexity, it is also possible that the sale may qualify as a VAT free Transfer Of A Going Concern (TOGC). These are important distinctions because they determine, not only if VAT is chargeable, but, if the sale is exempt, there is usually a clawback of input tax previously claimed, potentially visa the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS).

Overseas properties

A final point: please do not forget overseas property lets. My article here sets out the tax risks.

Summary

There are a lot of VAT pitfalls for a business providing holiday lettings. But for a single site business, unless the property is large or very high end, it is likely that the income will below £85,000 and VAT can be ignored. However, it is important to monitor income and costs to establish whether:

registration is required
registration is beneficial (usually, but not exclusively, for major refurbishment projects).

As always, please contact me if you, or your clients, have any queries.

The future of VAT and online marketplaces

By Marcus Ward 7 May 2019

Latest

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently held a forum which considered how to level the playing field between traditional and online businesses and to collect the correct amount of tax. It is recognised that the current rules and different application of those rules in different countries has led to VAT not being collected in full in respect of online transactions.

OECD

The OECD Global Forum on VAT is a platform for a global dialogue on international VAT standards and key issues of VAT policy and operation.

The report

The subsequent report The role of digital platforms in the collection of VAT/GST on online sales focuses on the design of rules and mechanisms for the effective collection of VAT on digital sales of goods, services and intangibles, including sales by offshore digital sellers. It states that it provides “practical guidance to tax authorities on the design and implementation of a variety of solutions for enlisting the platforms economy, including e-commerce marketplaces and other digital platforms, in the effective and efficient collection of VAT/GST on digital sales”.

Background

Tax action is necessary as global B2C e-commerce sales of goods alone are now estimated to be worth in the region of USD 2 trillion annually with projections indicating they may reach USD 4.5 trillion by 2021, USD 1 trillion of which is estimated to be cross-border e-commerce with approximately 1.6 billion consumers buying online. This clearly represents considerable VAT revenue which is at stake.

See details on online evasion here

Issues

The problems which have been identified in previous report are:

imports of low-value parcels from online sales which are treated as VAT free in many jurisdictions, and
the strong growth in the trade of services and intangibles, particularly B2C, on which often no, or an inappropriately low amount of VAT is levied due to the complexity of enforcing VAT payment on such supplies

Exemptions for imports of low-value goods have become increasingly controversial in the growing digital economy. At the time when most of these exemptions were introduced, internet shopping did not exist and the level of imports benefitting from the relief was relatively small. Over recent years, many countries have seen a significant and rapid growth in the volume of low-value imports of goods on which VAT is not collected. This results in decreased VAT revenues and unfair competitive pressures on domestic retailers who are required to charge VAT on their sales.

Summary

The focus was on the rôle of digital platforms. These are capable of collecting a vast amount of data. The report stated that it is reasonable to require this information/data to be shared and that is proportionately relevant for VAT compliance purposes, ie; necessary to satisfy the tax authorities that the tax for a supply has been charged and accounted for correctly by the underlying supplier.

The two potential models are:

to make the digital platform fully liable for the payment and remittance of VAT on the online sales they facilitate
or, alternatively, to limit the responsibility of the digital platforms to simply assisting authorities in the collection of VAT

Implementation

Two options could be considered for the implementation of any information sharing obligation for digital platforms in connection to online sales:

provision of information on request. Under this option, a jurisdiction requires that a digital platform retains records of the sales that are subject to VAT in that jurisdiction, and that this information be made available on request.
systematic provision of information. Via this option, a digital platform is required to systematically and periodically provide information on online sales carried out via the platform to the tax authority of the jurisdiction of taxation.

Overall

The report is a good “solid” and long study (I cannot however, recommend it as holiday reading, although the above précis may assist). The proposed solutions are sensible, considered and workable and are likely to, at least, provide more equality and a better way for tax authorities to collect tax which is due.

Changes to recovery of VAT on imports

By Marcus Ward 15 April 2019

HMRC have recently issued RCB 2 (2019) which sets out HMRC’s view on Toll Manufacturers (TM). TM is an arrangement in which a company which has a specialised equipment processes raw materials or semi-finished goods for another company. It may also be called toll processing. Typically, a TM will import, say, pharmaceutical goods, process and distribute them within the UK for clinical trials on behalf of an overseas owner.

HMRC has become aware that a number of UK TMs have paid import VAT on behalf of overseas customers have also claimed a corresponding deduction for input tax under VAT Act 1994 Section 24. However, there is no provision in UK law for such deduction.

Current treatment

TMs will usually act as importer and recover import VAT via a C79 despite them not being the owner of the goods (the owner instructs the TM to carry out works on their goods on their behalf).

HMRC has now confirmed that this VAT treatment is incorrect, and it will no longer be permitted.

New treatment

Only the owner of the goods will be treated as the importer and be able to recover import VAT. TMs will no longer be able to claim this VAT.

However, HMRC will not require TMs to make adjustments to past claims and the treatment will only be required going forward.

Introduction

The change comes into effect from 15 July 2019

Affect

Affected TMs are likely to need to make significant changes to their systems before that date.

Overseas owners of the relevant goods will either need to:

register for UK VAT and claim the import VAT on a “regular” return, or
make a claim via the Thirteenth VAT Directive (86/560/EEC)

NB: In cases where title has passed before import into the UK (businesses sell on the goods before importing them into the UK so ownership and title has passed to the new owner, however the business that sold the goods acts as importer on UK import declarations, pays the import VAT to HMRC and receives the import VAT certificate – C79) the correct procedure is for the new owner of the goods to be the importer of record and reclaim the import VAT and not the previous owner.

As with many areas of VAT, a No-Deal Brexit is likely to increase the complications for such cross-border transactions in the future.

Please contact us if you have any queries or require assistance on this matter.

VAT: Place of supply of “erotic services”

By Marcus Ward 19 February 2019

Latest from the courts

Readers of a nervous disposition may want to look away now.

In the case of Geelen C-568/17 (in French) the advocate General (AG) was asked for an opinion on the supply of what was coyly called webcam sessions.

Background

The defendant in the main proceedings, Mr Geelen, was a VAT registered person in The Netherlands. He provided the services of the organisation and provision of interactive erotic sessions broadcast live over the Internet. The models were located in the Philippines and Mr Geelen provided them with the necessary hardware and software to transmit the sessions over the Internet. Customers contacted the models via a website after creating an account for this purpose. The sessions were broadcast live and were interactive, which meant that customers had the opportunity to communicate with the models and give them instructions. The services provided by the defendant were intended for the Dutch market. I set out the arrangements here, as I am sure that none of my readers will be aware of such things * polite cough *

This is interesting as an example of technology overtaking legislation which was enacted before such services could even be contemplated (well, by the people drafting the VAT legislation anyway).

The issue

The issue was where was the place of supply of these services. If they were in The Netherlands, then Dutch VAT would apply, but if they were deemed to be outside the EU, no EU VAT would be payable. The tax authorities considered that such services were subject to VAT in The Netherlands and issued a tax assessment notice.

Technical

Generally, the rule is that for B2C services the place of supply (POS) is where the supplier belongs. However, there is an exception for cultural, artistic, and entertainment activities. These are taxed where performed (outside the EU in this case if the exception is applicable).

Opinion

It was the AG’s opinion that, in the first place, there was no doubt that the services in question were entertaining…

However, he opined that the only way to provide cultural activities, entertainment, education, etc. was either to bring service users together at the actual place of service delivery, or to provide a service at the location of the users.

The technological development that has taken place since the relevant legislation was drafted has enabled services in which beneficiaries participate remotely, sometimes even actively, in a cultural, entertainment or other event, without necessarily doing so in real time. In a cultural reference: The “unity of action, time and place”, to refer to the categories of classical theatre, was thus upset.

In the AG’s opinion, these services were not intended to be covered by the exception. Consequently, these were not services “supplied where performed” and the general B2C rules applied, so the POS was The Netherlands and Dutch VAT was applicable. It was concluded that performance does not take place where the models are based, or where the consumer was located, but where Mr Geelen brought together all elements of the supply.

Summary

The legislation must be interpreted as meaning that the services of organising and providing live interactive webcam sex do not constitute services for entertainment purposes within the meaning of the relevant provisions.