Category Archives: Disputes

Customs Duty – Latest from the courts: Amoena (UK) Ltd

By   21 July 2016
0

In this month’s case of Amoena (UK) Ltd the Supreme Court considered whether Customs Duty was payable on a mastectomy bra imported by the taxpayer. For a change, this report is not on VAT.

It was decided that no customs duty was payable on such imports.

The issue was whether the bra should be classified via the Combined Nomenclature as a “brassiere” and as such subject to  duty at 6.5%, or as an “‘orthopaedic appliance” in which case no Customs Duty would be payable.

The evidence presented by on behalf of the taxpayer was that the bra is an “artificial part of the body” or “other appliance worn to compensate for a defect or disability” such that it was an orthopaedic appliance.  The Supreme Court decided in the taxpayer’s favour.  This case has progressed along the appeal route and the decisions have swayed back and forth.

Initially, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that the correct classification should be as a brassiere. The Upper Tribunal reversed the decision and ruled that no Customs Duty was payable.  The Court of Appeal then upheld the FTT’s initial decision that Customs Duty was payable at import. Finally, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal.

If nothing else, this case demonstrates the need for perseverance and the value of fighting for what you believe. I think the correct (and most beneficial for a lot of people) result was reached.

Full case here 

VAT – The “business” of shooting; a tale

By   15 July 2016
0

Sometimes one is involved in a dispute which goes to the core of the tax.  This is a case which highlights basic VAT principles, HMRC’s approach to an issue and the lengths to which a taxpayer has to go to defend his position.

Are you sitting comfortably?

A day out in the countryside; striding across beautiful landscape, amongst friends, enjoying each other’s’ company and a bit of sport – can this really be the subject of such intense debate with HMRC? Well, unfortunately this seems to be the case when it comes to the operation of a day’s shooting. In the eyes of the taxman, whether or not a profit or a surplus is achieved, shooting, conducted in the course of furtherance of a business is subject to VAT.

This is not usually an issue which shooting syndicates find themselves having to address; they are not concerned with the ins and outs of what constitutes a business for the purposes of the VAT legislation. However, HMRC was pursuing this issue in earnest and they have a team devoted solely to attacking shoots.

Who is HMRC targeting?

HMRC seem to be focusing on syndicate run shoots which are not registered for VAT but who HMRC believe are operating on business principles. If an organisation is operating as a business then it may be liable to register for VAT if certain income thresholds are exceeded. The shoot will then have to charge output VAT on the supplies it makes.  In my case there would have been a significant assessment plus penalties and interest which could double the past VAT bill.

How is HMRC attacking the issue?

HMRC is looking closely at the specific activities of syndicate shoots in order to build an argument demonstrating that the organisation of the shoot is run on “sound business principles”.  The reason that there is room for debate on this matter is that what constitutes a business is not explicitly defined anywhere in the VAT legislation either in UK or EC law. Rather, the issue has been defined in case law.

The defining case was Lord Fisher, which co-incidentally also concerned a shoot. This case is relied upon throughout the VAT world to give guidance on what constitutes a business – and not just in respect of shoots but for all types of activity.

Anyway, back to this syndicate…

I was involved in a battle lasting four years which concerned a local shoot run for over five decades by a group of friends and which was provided only for the benefit of the syndicate members. The shoot was not open to the common commercial market place or members of the public and the shoot did not advertise. HMRC spent a great deal of time trying to understand the finer details of the running of this shoot and concluded that it was a business

We advised The Shoot to appeal to the VAT Tribunal against HMRC’s decision to levy VAT on its activities.

They key to the syndicate’s defence was to demonstrate that no true business would operate commercially in the way that The Shoot does.  If it did, it would be completely unprofitable and would soon be out of business. To demonstrate this effectively, every aspect of the shoot was examined in detail and compared and contrasted with the way a commercial shoot operates. This involved everything from the lunch arrangements, CVs of the gamekeepers and how beautiful the land is, right through to whether chicks or poults are purchased and whether local deer were sold to the highest bidder. However, the most important factor was the demonstration that the syndicate does not have a profit built in to the cost structure and the amounts that the syndicate members contribute. The syndicate is run on a cost sharing basis and is not “an activity likely to be carried out by a private undertaking on a market, organised within a professional framework and generally performed in the interest of generating a profit.”

It all sounds so simple to those familiar with the industry but unfortunately from a VAT ‘business’ perspective it has been a long, stressful and costly argument for the appellant to make.  A few days before the case was to be heard at the Tribunal, HMRC withdrew their assessment and conceded the case.

HMRC had seen the many witness statements filed by the members of the syndicate waxing lyrical about how this was an age-old hobby run by a few friends and in no way could it be considered a commercial business. They had seen the expert witness report written by a specialist in the field. The distinctions made between commercial and syndicate shooting were made very clear. They had also seen the powerful argument which concluded that the shoot “cannot seriously be suggested to amount to a ‘business’ for the purpose of the VAT code”.

What this means?

Of course this victory over HMRC was a fantastic result for the members of the The Shoot, but from a practical point of view quite frustrating in that the case was not heard; denying other entities the benefit of the predicted victory.  Alas, it was one case that HMRC could not afford to lose.

It is therefore likely that HMRC will continue to target other shoots where they think they can ‘win’ or at least not be challenged.

Have you been affected? – What should you do next?

If this makes for frighteningly familiar reading and you or your local syndicate shoot are, or have been, under HMRC investigation then it is vital that you should take professional advice.  As we orchestrated the defence for The Shoot we are the leading advisers in such matters.

 For completeness, the six tests derived from the Lord Fisher case (and others) are: 
  1. Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
  2. Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
  3. Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
  4. Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
  5. Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
  6. 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?
 The recent case of Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft is also helpful in looking at what a business is details here

VAT – Latest from the courts: Royal Mail claims (Zipvit)

By   4 July 2016
0

The Upper Tribunal (UTT) decided that VAT incurred on the receipt of certain postal services is not recoverable.

 Brief background

It is estimated that businesses could have recovered more than £220 million of credit for input tax on RM’s postal services had the decision gone in their favour.

It has previously been decided that certain supplies made by Royal Mail (RM), including Parcelforce, to its customers were taxable. This was on the basis of the TNT CJEU case. RM had treated them as exempt. HMRC was out of time to collect output tax, but claims made by recipients of RM’s services were able to make retrospective claims. These claims were predicated on the basis that the amount paid to RM included VAT at the appropriate rate (it was embedded in the charge) and that UK VAT legislation stipulates that the “taxable amount” for any supply, is the amount paid by the customer including any VAT included in the price.

Decision

The UTT has agreed with the verdict in the FTT hearing that the appellant: Zipvit Limited (along with many other taxpayers) was unable to recover input tax claimed to be embedded the value of the supply by RM.  Regardless of the arguments on the embedded input tax point (and interesting comments on the absence of a correspondingly equal amount declared as output tax by RM) the UTT agreed with the overall finding by the FTT.  Although a This is a highly technical issue, the deciding point was the simple fact that as the claimant did not have valid tax invoices to support the claim it was invalid.  Additionally, it was decided that although HMRC may consider alternative evidence, in these circumstances they were not obliged to accept other documentation and that Zipvit’s claim therefore failed.

Action

We are aware of many appeals being stood behind Zipvit. This case clearly is unhelpful for claims, but it may not be the end of the process.  We will advise on any further progress of the appeal when that information is available.

Please contact us if you have any queries on this case.

Full case here Zipvit Limited

VAT – Charities and donations. Latest from the courts

By   22 June 2016
0

What is a donation?

In the widely anticipated case of Friends of the Earth Trust Ltd (TC05165) the issue was; what constitutes a donation for VAT purposes? This is a perpetually thorny issue for charities.

True donations are outside the scope of VAT which usually produces a beneficial outcome for charities as no output tax is due on these payments. However, if any consideration is provided by a charity then it is likely that a taxable supply is being made.  This subject often creates disputes and is another difficult area with which charities and NFP bodies have to contend.

This case is slightly unusual as the appellant was arguing that payments received from the public are taxable supplies.

Background

The charity incurred input tax on the expenses of training of street fundraisers (chuggers) who were used to sign up members of the public to a commitment to make regular direct debit payments to the charity. I am sure we have all encountered this type of fundraising.

The recovery of this input tax was dependent on whether the money collected in this way represented taxable supplies made by the charity, or were simply donations.  If it was non-business income (donations) it was not possible to recover the relevant input tax.

Contentions on the consideration point

Supporters of the charity who paid £3 or more per month received a magazine and various other benefits. Those paying less than £3 received no benefits.

The charity contended that taxable supplies were being made, albeit that the supply was wholly or overwhelmingly zero rated (the supply of printed matter). Further, there was a direct and immediate link between the expenditure on the training of the fundraisers and the benefits obtained (by a certain class of supporter). This would mean that there would be no output tax on the payments, but recovery of the relevant input tax.

HMRC formed the view that the direct debit payments were donations and as a result a non-business activity such that the attributable input tax was irrecoverable.

The Decision

The Tribunal, citing, inter alia, the FTT’s decision in The Serpentine Trust Ltd v The Commrs for Revenue and Customs, decided that “..it is quite clear when viewed objectively that the £3 minimum monthly payment was not “for” the magazine and benefits, or in other words a quid pro quo for them. The magazine and benefits were quid cum quo, the transaction being that the payment was a gift to the appellant to be used in its charitable work and that the appellant would send the supporter free copies…”.

The Chairman stated that the evidence, when viewed in the round, is simply not consistent with the transaction objectively being one where the person was paying a subscription for the magazine and other benefits. And that it was a donation to support the appellant’s charitable activities. The fact that the taxpayer only provided the benefits if the minimum payment of £3 was made did not turn the payment into value given in return for the magazine and other benefits. It still retained its character as a donation. It was just as consistent with the transaction being one whereby the taxpayer undertook to send a free copy of the magazine where donations were made above a certain level.

The Tribunal therefore concluded that the payments were donations to the taxpayer and so the relevant input tax on the fundraising costs was not claimable.

This case demonstrates the uncertainty over the distinction between taxable supplies and donations and that every case is decided on precise facts.  Please contact us if this has rung any alarm bells, or perhaps provided an opportunity to review a charity or NFP body’s income. Our charity services here

VAT – Latest from the courts: A round up of partial exemption

By   20 June 2016
0

The partial exemption calculation

The calculation is required to quantify the amount of input tax a partly exempt business is able to claim. A partly exempt business is one which makes a mixture of taxable and non-taxable (eg; exempt) supplies. Input tax attributable to exempt activities is not recoverable.

With certain businesses HMRC accept that the usual “partial exemption standard method” based on taxable turnover versus exempt turnover is either impractical, distortive, or inappropriate. In such cases the business submits an application for a partial exemption special method (PESM). This may be based on many various factors such as; floorspace, staff numbers, transaction counts, management accounting etc (or any combination). If HMRC accept that the proposal is fair and reasonable, a formal agreement will be entered into by both parties.

The question in this case was when a PESM is agreed with HMRC is there a requirement to round up figures to a whole percentage point?

According to the CJEU decision in Kreissparkasse Wiedenbrück the answer is no. It was decided that, via EC legislation, in cases where there is a PESM agreement in place there was no obligation to round up.

The view was that as a significant amount of PESMs are “sophisticated” (compared to the partial exemption standard method) they achieve a more accurate allocation of input tax between taxable and exempt activities and rounding would counter this accuracy.

Full case here

Please contact us if your business is partly exempt and you either have a PESM in place, are in the process of agreeing one, or feel that your input tax recovery is suffering by the use of the standard method.

VAT – Apportionment issues: complex and costly

By   24 May 2016
0

The dictionary definition of the verb to apportion is “to distribute or allocate proportionally; divide and assign according to some rule of proportional distribution”.

So why is apportionment important in the world of VAT and where would a business encounter the need to apportion? I thought that it might be useful to take an overall look at the subject as it is one of, if not the most, contentious areas of VAT. If affects both output tax declarations and input tax claims, so I have looked at these two areas separately. If an apportionment is inaccurate it will either result in paying too much tax, or risking penalties and additional attention from HMRC; both of which are to be avoided!

The overriding point in all these examples is that any apportionment must be “fair and reasonable”.

Supplies

The following are examples of where a business needs to apportion the value of sales:

  • Retail sales

Retailers find it difficult to account for VAT in the normal way so they use what is known as a retail scheme. There are various schemes but they all provide a formula for calculating VAT on sales at the standard, reduced and zero rate. This is needed for shops that sell goods at different rates, eg; food, clothing and books alongside standard rated supplies.  As an example, in Apportionment Scheme 1 a business works out the value of its purchases for retail sale at different rates of VAT and applies those proportions to its sales.

  • Construction

A good example here is if a developer employs a contractor to construct a new building which contains retail units on the ground floor with flats above.  The construction of the commercial part is standard rated, but the building of the residential element is zero rated.  The contractor has to apportion his supply between the two VAT rates.  This apportionment could be made with reference to floorspace, costs, value or any other method which provides a fair and reasonable result.  The value of supplies relating to property is often high, so it is important that the apportionment is accurate and not open to challenge from HMRC.  I recommend that agreement on the method used is agreed with HMRC prior to the supply in order to avoid any subsequent issues.

  • Property letting

Let us assume that in the construction example above, when the construction is complete, the developer lets the whole building to a third party. He chooses to opt to tax the property in order to recover the attributable input tax.  The option has no effect on the residential element which will represent an exempt supply. Consequently, an apportionment must be made between the letting income in respect of the shops and flats.

  • Subscriptions

There has been a great deal of case law on whether subscriptions to certain organisations by which the subscriber obtains various benefits represent a single supply at a certain VAT rate, or separate supplies at different rates. A common example is zero rated printed matter with other exempt or standard rated supplies.

  • Take away

Most are familiar with the furore over the “pasty tax” and even with the U-turn, the provision of food/catering is often the subject of disputes over apportionment.  Broadly; the sale of cold food for take away is zero rated and hot food and eat in (catering) is standard rated.  There have been myriad cases on what’s hot and what’s not, what constitutes a premises (for eat in), and how food is “held out” for sale. The recent Subway dispute highlights the subtleties in this area. I have successfully claimed significant amounts of overpaid output tax based on this kind of apportionment and it is always worth reviewing a business’s position.  New products are arriving all the time and circumstances of a business can change.  A word of warning here; HMRC regularly mount covert observation exercises to record the proportion of customers eating in to those taking away.  They also carry out “test eats” so it is crucial that any method used to apportion sales is accurate and supportable.

  • Opticians

Opticians have a difficult time of it with VAT.  Examinations and advice services are exempt healthcare, but the sale of goods; spectacles and contact lenses, is standard rated.  Almost always a customer/patient pays a single amount which covers the services as well as the goods. Apportionment in these cases is very difficult and has been the subject of disagreement and tribunal cases for many years; some of which I have been involved in.  Not only is the sales value apportionment complex, but many opticians are partly exempt which causes additional difficulties. I recommend that all opticians review their VAT position.

Input tax recovery

  • Business/Non-Business (BNB)

If an entity is involved in both business and non-business activities, eg; a charity which provides free advice and also has a shop which sells donated goods. It is unable to recover all of the VAT it incurs.  VAT attributable to non-business activities is not input tax and cannot be reclaimed.  Therefore it is necessary to calculate the quantum of VAT attributable to BNB activities, that VAT which cannot be attributed is called overhead VAT and must be apportioned between BNB activities.  There are many varied ways of doing this as the VAT legislation does not specify any particular method.  Therefore it is important to consider all of the available alternatives. Examples of these are; income, expenditure, time, floorspace, transaction count etc.

  • Partial exemption

Similarly to BNB if a business makes exempt supplies, eg; certain property letting, insurance and financial products, it cannot recover input tax attributable to those exempt supplies (unless the value is de minimis). Overhead input tax needs to be apportioned between taxable and exempt supplies.  The standard method of doing this is to apply the ratio of taxable versus exempt supply values to the overhead tax. However, there are many “special methods” available, but these have to be agreed with HMRC.  Partial exemption is often complex and always results in an actual VAT cost to a business, so it is always worthwhile to review the position regularly.  Exemption is not a relief to a business.

  • Attribution

In both BNB and partial exemption situations before considering overheads all VAT must, as far as possible, be attributed to either taxable or exempt and non-business activities. This in itself is a form of apportionment and it is often not clear how the supply received has been used by a business, that is; of which activity is it a cost component?

  • Business entertainment

At certain events staff may attend along with other guests who are not employed. The recovery of input tax in respect of staff entertainment is recoverable but (generally) entertaining non staff members is blocked. Therefore an apportionment of the VAT incurred on such entertainment is required.

  • Business and private use of an asset

If a company owns, say, a yacht or a helicopter and uses it for a director’s own private use, but it is chartered to third parties when not being used (business use) an apportionment must be made between the two activities. The most usual way of doing this is on a time basis. Apportionment will also be required in the example of a business owning a holiday home used for both business and private purposes. Input tax relating to private (non-business) use is always blocked.

  • Motoring expenses

It is common for a staff member to use a car for both business and private purposes.  Input tax is only recoverable in respect of the business use so an apportionment is required.  This may be done by keeping detailed mileage records, or more simply by applying the Road Fuel Scale Charge which is a set figure per month which represents a disallowance for private use.

The above examples are not exhaustive but I hope they give a flavour to the subject.

If your business apportions, or should apportion, values for either income or expenditure I strongly recommend a review on the method.  There is often no “right answer” for an apportionment and I often find that HMRC impose unnecessarily harsh demands on a taxpayer.  Additionally, many business are unaware of alternatives or are resistant to challenging HMRC even when they have a good case.

VAT – Latest from the courts. More on separate and composite supplies and land exemption

By   17 May 2016
0

TC05078 Blue Chip Hotels Ltd

This is a FTT case which considered the VAT analysis of a supply in two ways. The appellant was an hotel which offered a wedding “package”. The package comprised; a room which was licensed for civil wedding ceremonies, the hire of other rooms, catering, accommodation, car parking and the use of the grounds for photographs.  The only activity carried out in the “wedding room” was the wedding ceremony itself.  The hotel treated the hire of the wedding room as exempt and added VAT to the remainder of the package.

The two technical points were:

  1.  Was the supply of the wedding room a separate supply to the rest of the wedding package as advanced by the taxpayer, or was it one element of the overall package to which standard rating applied?, and;
  2. If an independent supply, was it an exempt supply of land under VAT Act, Schedule 9, Group 1 as argued by the appellant?

Somewhat to the puzzlement of the Tribunal, HMRC had accepted that if the wedding room was supplied without any other element of the wedding package it could be treated as an exempt supply of land.

On the first point the Tribunal decided that the hire of the wedding room should be treated as a separate supply for VAT purposes. However, this was only relevant if the taxpayer could demonstrate that the provision of the wedding room was a supply of land.

On the second point, the issue was whether what the hotel supplied was more than the mere hire of the wedding room as a passive letting of land. The tribunal was of the view that an additional service was being provided, this being the service of a legal wedding ceremony which could be carried out only because of the licensed nature of the wedding room.  That is; what was being paid for was the right to participate in a particular event, only part of which entailed the provision of the physical space in which that event occurred.

The Tribunal concluded that the supply of the wedding room could not be treated as an exempt supply of land via VAT Act, Schedule 9, Group 1, the provision of licensed premises in which a civil wedding could legally be carried out went beyond the passive letting of land and was outside the scope of the exemption.

This seems to go against the decision in Drumtochty Castle Ltd (TC2111) inter alia, where the Tribunal found that in similar circumstances to those in this instant case that what was being offered was a single package such that exemption could not be applied to certain elements. Although it may simply demonstrate that even subtle differences in the facts can result in a different VAT outcome.  As previously observed in a number of these types of cases, it is crucial to analyse precisely what is being provided, even in cases where the VAT treatment has remained unchanged for a number of years.  Case law develops at a very fast rate and legislation changes regularly, both of which can affect the tax position.

VAT – Spot The Ball – Latest from the courts

By   9 May 2016
0

Is Spot The Ball a game? And if it is, is it a game of chance? (And therefore exempt from VAT).

In the case of IFX Investment Company Ltd & ORS the main issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) were wrong to hold that the appellants’ “Spot The Ball” competitions was exempt under the gaming exemption in Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9 Group 4. To fall within the gaming exemption, Spot The Ball must be a “game of chance” within the meaning of the Gaming Act 1968. The dispute was over the word “game” and the words “of chance”.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) considered whether the FtT decision in favour of the appellant that the supply was exempt or whether HMRC’s successful appeal to the Upper-tier Tribunal (UtT) should stand.

The court heard form the promoters that while there was an element of skill in determining roughly where the panel that decided where the ball should be would actually place it, the precise placement of the cross was essentially a matter of chance.  HMRC insisted that the competitors were not “playing a game” as they advanced the argument that a “game” required interaction between the players. and therefore Spot The Ball could not be considered playing a game of chance such that the supply is standard rated.

The UtT  deemed that Spot The Ball is “played” in “solitary isolation” and does not involve any interaction between competitors. The only contract is between the operator and the individual competitor. Additionally the act of placing a cross on the coupon was not “playing”

The CoA disagreed with the UtT’s decision and concluded that the FtT made a finding that Spot The Ball was a game of chance and there was no reason to disturb this decision. The FtT was correct to hold that there is no inter-player interaction rule. Previous case law clearly contemplates that there can be a game without the contestants being in communication with each other. Consequently, it restored the FtT’s decision and the supplies are exempt.

This case has brought home to me two (non-VAT) things; 1) That Spot The Ball is still around, and that 2) I always thought that one had to actually put a cross where the ball actually was, rather than where a judging panel thought the ball was likely to be.  One lives and learns. I’m also constantly surprised that “the pools” still exist in these days of lotteries and lotto and other promotions.

Case here

VAT – Latest from the courts; use and enjoyment provisions

By   25 April 2016
0

Telefonica Europe Plc and Telefonica UK Limited 

The VAT Use and Enjoyment provisions set out an additional layer of rules which establish the place of supply of certain services. They apply to; telecommunications and broadcasting services; electronically supplied services (for business customers); hired goods; and hired means of transport. Broadly, effective use and enjoyment takes place where a recipient actually consumes the services, regardless of any contractual arrangements, payment, or beneficial interest. The intention of this provision is to correct instances of distortion which remain as a result of considering only where the provider and the customer belong. HMRC give the example of supplies such as telecommunications services which are actually consumed outside the EC, to be subject to UK VAT. Of course, the converse is that it would be distortive for there to be no EC VAT on such services where they are consumed in the UK.

In the Upper Tribunal case of Telefonica Europe Plc and Telefonica UK Limited the dispute involved the way in which the appellant calculated the value of its mobile telephone services which were used and enjoyed outside the EC (and thus UK VAT free). Over a number of years Telefonica had an agreement with HMRC whereby the amount of outside the EC supplies was calculated by reference to revenue, ie; comparing call, text and data income relating to non-EC supplies to total income.

HMRC subsequently formed the view that this method of calculation was distortive because higher charges were made to non-EC users than EC consumers.  HMRC proposed a “usage methodology” which used call times, texts sent and volume of data used. As may be expected, this resulted in a lower percentage of supplies that were outside the scope of UK VAT thus increasing HMRC’s VAT take.

The appellant contended that the usage methodology was contrary to EC and UK VAT legislation.  Not surprisingly, the UTT rejected this argument, deciding that Telefonica had not established that HMRC’s proposal was unlawful.

So then the outcome would be expected to be that the usage methodology should be used, but no.  It was decided that the most accurate method would be one based on the time a customer has access to the network outside the EC; which differs from both the usage and revenue methods. 

This type of dispute is quite common and also appears regularly in partial exemption situations. There are nearly always alternative ways to view apportionment calculations and it pays to obtain professional advice; not only to ensure that a fair result is achieved, but as assistance with negotiations (which may avoid having to go to Tribunal).  

VAT Latest from the courts: Stocks Fly Fishery – single or multiple supply?

By   19 April 2016
0

As many will know, there is a significant amount of case law concerning what may be treated as a composite supply at one VAT rate, and what are separate supplies at different VAT rates.  The latest in this series is the First Tier Tribunal case of Stocks Fly Fishery

The appellant is a trout fishery  in the Forest of Bowland. They argued that they supplied standard rated fishing and a distinct zero rated supply of fish for human consumption.

They provided two types of daily ticket which was required to fish the reservoir. The first was a sporting ticket, which entitled an angler to fish, but any fish caught must be returned to the water. The second was a take ticket which also enabled a person to fish but any fish caught (up to a certain number) may be taken away for food.  A take ticket was more expensive than a sporting ticket. The more fish that were taken away, the more expensive the take ticket was.  The taxpayer formed the opinion that it made two supplies; one of fishing which was agreed to be standard rated, and one of food for human consumption (the trout) which was zero rated. The value of the zero rated element was said to be the difference between the sporting ticket price and that of the take ticket.

The issue was whether the ability to take away the fish for food was a separate supply, or ancillary to the substantive supply of fishing.

The appellant cited  Hughes v Pendragon Sabre Ltd (t/a Porsche Centre Bolton) while HMRC relied on Chalk Springs Fisheries (1987) (LON/86/706) Roger Cambrai Haynes (1988) (LON/87/624) and Card Protection Plan Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

As an observation, the chairman in the Chalk Springs Fisheries case stated “…No trout is, in my view, supplied to him at all. Instead the fisherman must go out and catch them, if he can.”  This was obviously quite unhelpful to the appellant. Additionally, the chairman was obliged to follow the well-known Card Protection Plan case which sets out guidance on matters such as this.

Decision

The FTT decided that the essential feature of the transaction was fishing and the dominant motive of anglers going to the fishery was to fish, regardless of which type of ticket was purchased. Therefore, the right to fish had to be regarded as constituting the principal service and the right to kill and keep the trout fish, if caught, should be regarded as ancillary to that principal purpose. Therefore there was a single standard rated supply of fishing.

It is always worth reviewing whether supplies made by a business can, and ought, to be treated separately, or as a single bundle. The existence of such a massive amount of case law on this subject indicates that this issue will continue to run and run.

Please contact us should this matter raise any concerns or present a possible opportunity.