Tag Archives: tribunal

VAT Success Stories

By   26 May 2026
0
I often write about how it is important to seek VAT advice at the right time, see triggerpoints. So, I thought that I’d give some practical examples on where we have saved our clients money, time and aggravation.

Investment company

HMRC denied claims for input tax incurred on costs relating to the potential acquisition of an overseas business and threatened to deregister the plc as it was not, currently, making taxable supplies. Additionally, HMRC contended that even if VAT registration was appropriate, the input tax incurred did not relate to taxable supplies and was therefore blocked.

We were able to persuade HMRC that our client had a right to be VAT registered because It intended to make taxable supplies (supplies with a place of supply outside the UK which would have been taxable if made in the UK) and that the input tax was recoverable as it related to these intended taxable supplies (management charges to the acquired business). This is a hot topic at the moment, but we were able to eventually demonstrate, with considerable and detailed evidence that there was a true intention.

This meant that UK VAT registration was correct and input tax running into hundreds of thousands of pounds incurred in the UK was repaid.

Restaurant

We identified and submitted a claim for a West End restaurant for nearly £200,000 overpaid output tax. We finally agreed the repayment with HMRC after dealing with issues such as the quantum of the claim and unjust enrichment.

Developer

Our property developing client specialises in very high-end residential projects in exclusive parts of London. They built a dwelling using an existing façade and part of a side elevation. We contended that it was a new build (zero rated sale and no VAT on construction costs and full input tax recovery on other costs). HMRC took the view that it was work on an existing dwelling so that 5% applied and input tax was not recoverable. After site visits, detailed plans, current and historical photograph evidence HMRC accepted the holy grail of new build. The overall cost of the project was tens of millions.

Charity

A charity client was supplying services to the NHS. The issue was whether they were standard rated supplies of staff or exempt medical services. We argued successfully that, despite previous rulings, the supplies were exempt, which benefited all parties. Our client was able to deregister from VAT, but not only that, we persuaded HMRC that input tax previously claimed could be kept. This was a rather pleasant surprise outcome.  We also avoided any penalties and interest so that VAT did not represent a cost to the charity in any way. If the VAT was required to be repaid to HMRC it is likely that the charity would have been wound up.

Shoot

A group of friends met to shoot game as a hobby. They made financial contributions to the syndicate in order to take part. HMRC considered that this was a business activity and threatened to go back over 40 years and assess for output tax on the syndicate’s takings which amounted to many hundreds of thousands of pounds and would have meant the shoot could not continue. We appealed the decision to retrospectively register the syndicate.

After a four-year battle HMRC settled on the steps of the Tribunal. We were able to demonstrate that the syndicate was 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.” – A happy client.

Chemist

We assisted a chemist client who, for unfortunate reasons, had not been able to submit proper VAT returns for a number of years.  We were able to reconstruct the VAT records which showed a repayment of circa £500,000 of VAT was due.  We successfully negotiated with HMRC and assisted with the inspection which was generated by the claim.

The message? Never accept a HMRC decision, and seek good advice!

VAT: Public EV charging update

By   18 May 2026
0

Further to the Charge My Street Limited case, which we considered here HMRC has published Policy Paper Revenue and Customs Brief 4 (2026): VAT liability of supplies of electricity from public electric vehicle charge points.

This paper sets out the VAT treatment of supplies of electricity from public EV charging points.

HMRC’s position remains that charging electric vehicles at public charge points is standard rated for VAT. 

Supplies of fuel and power to a domestic premises are subject to the reduced rate of VAT at 5%. HMRC’s long-standing policy is that electric vehicle charge points located in public areas do not qualify as domestic premises and the standard rate of VAT applies to the supply of electricity at these locations.

The First-tier Tribunal found in favour of Charge My Street Limited. It concluded that Note 5(g) of Item 1 of Group 1 of Schedule 7A to the VAT Act 1994 covers supplies of electricity to an identified person at any identifiable premises, provided the total supplied does not exceed 1,000 kWh in a calendar month. The FTT clarified there is no additional requirement for the premises to be owned or controlled by the person receiving the supply, nor do the premises need to be buildings. This means locations such as public car parks may be included. The FTT decided that supplies of EV charging at public charging stations fell within the de minimis limit for supplies of electricity, and so were deemed to be for domestic use and, accordingly, subject to the reduced rate.

HMRC has applied for permission to appeal the First-tier Tribunal’s decision.

HMRC Updates on VAT appeals

By   20 April 2026
0

HMRC has updated its list of VAT appeals, which sets out the status of HMRC appeals and recent cases which they consider have potential implications for other taxpayers.

This is a list of VAT appeals that HMRC has lost, or partly lost, that could have implications for other businesses.

The list is updated regularly and details of finalised cases are retained for six months.

VAT: Composite or separate supplies – The A & D McFarlane case

By   10 March 2026
0

Latest from the courts

Yet more on composite or separate supplies. As a background to the issue please see previous relevant cases here here here and here. This is the latest the seemingly endless and conflicting series of cases on whether certain supplies are multiple or single. 

In the First-Tier Tribunal case (FTT) of Alan and Diane McFarland the appellants operated a ‘bed and breakfast’ for other people’s cattle.

The issue

The VAT issue was whether there were separate supplies:

  • zero-rated supply of animal food
  • exempt supply of land.

Additionally, the appellant contended that the supply of animal food was a principal supply, and everything else, including the land, was ancillary. 

HMRC took the view that there was a single taxable supply of ‘animal care’ and not separate supplies of exempt stabling and zero-rated feed. It also rejected the claim that the appellant had an exclusive right of occupation over any defined area, noting that there was no agreement conferring such a right with the consequence that this could not be an exempt supply. On the zero-rated animal foodstuffs point; HMRC concluded that the supplies do not qualify for zero-rating as the food provided formed part of the overall service of animal husbandry.

Legislation

  • Exemption: right over land or any licence to occupy land – The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 1,  item 1
  • Zero-rating: animal feeding stuffs – The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, Item 2.

Decision

The FTT found that there was a single standard rated supply of ‘looking after’ cattle. The supply made by the appellant fell squarely within the Levob (Levob Verzekeringen BV [C-41/04]) category, being so closely linked that they form, objectively, a single, indivisible economic supply, which it would be artificial to split. – HMRC notes on Levob here.

The supply was a fully integrated package of services directed towards the rearing and finishing of cattle. This included: daily mixing and provision of feed, management of water and housing, maintenance of handling facilities, statutory record‑keeping, and disease‑control obligations. These activities were inseparable in practice and indispensable for the operation of the recipient’s cattle‑finishing business. Neither the accommodation nor the feed, nor any other individual component, was offered or taken independently. There was a single price for the complete service. There was also a single invoice and a single description of the supply on the invoice. There was no indication on the invoice that both exempt and zero-rated services were being supplied.

The appellant provided a single composite service of animal rearing and management, to which all elements, including accommodation and feed, were merely constituent elements.

The Tribunal also dismissed the alternative argument of the that the supply of food was the principal supply, with all other elements, including accommodation and the wider activities being merely ancillary. The provision of food was not an aim in itself. The food could not sensibly be separated from the accommodation, handling, record-keeping and welfare-related functions that were also performed. It was, therefore, not the principal supply but an integrated component of the single composite supply.

The appeal was consequently dismissed.

Commentary

Yet another case on the perennial composite/single supply issue. This case was relatively straightforward and the outcome was no surprise. It is essential that businesses that potentially deal with agent/principal matters or make supplies at different VAT rates consider their position. Contracts, other documentation and the commercial reality need to be considered. We recommend that in such circumstances a review is carried out specifically to establish the correct VAT position .

Charging EVs at public stations is at 5% VAT – The Charge My Street case

By   10 March 2026
0

Latest from the courts

Reduced VAT rate for public EV charging

In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Charge My Street Limited (CMS) the issue was whether the supply of electric vehicle (EV) charging in public places qualified for the reduced rate of VAT – 5%.

The appellant contended that the reduced rate applied to its supplies because they were provided at a premises and were below the de minimis – 1000 kilowatt hours (kWh) a month applicable to domestic use of electricity.

HMRC formed the view that these supplies were standard rated at 20% on the basis that what was being provided was not for ‘domestic use’. Furthermore, the de minimis was breached because the supply should be calculated by reference only to the period during which the electricity was actually being provided, rather than to a specific person at any premises in a month.

Legislation

The relevant legislation is found at The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 7A, Group 1, Item 1, Note 5(g),

Decision

The FTT found that ‘premises’ for this purpose did not require any concept of legal ownership by the recipient of the electricity, nor was it confined to buildings, but could include defined public spaces, such as car parks. The judge also accepted CMS’s argument that the de minimis limit is measured in terms of how much electricity is provided by a supplier to a person at any premises in the relevant month. It was accepted that public EV charging would always be under the 1000 kWh limit.

The FTT allowed appellant’s appeal in principle.

VAT: Partial exemption input tax attribution. The Littlewoods case

By   13 January 2026
0
Latest from the courts
 
In the Littlewoods Limited First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was the ability to recover input tax incurred on photography costs.
Background
Littlewoods used photographers for the creation of product specific photographs for use in catalogues and in connection with its online retail store. It made claims to recover this input tax, but HMRC refused a full refund. This appeal was against that decision.
The appellant is partly exempt. It makes taxable sales of goods and also makes exempt supplies of finance and insurance. This means that it is unable to recover all input tax it incurs.
Contentions
 
The appellant argued that the photography costs were directly attributable to the sale of the products photographed and was consequently fully recoverable.
HMRC contended that not all of the VAT was claimable because an element was referable to the exempt supplies (ie: the input tax was incurred to support both the online taxable sale of goods and of exempt finance). Therefore, an apportionment was required.
Decision
 
The appeal was allowed.
 
The Tribunal considered that each use made of the photographs to be exclusively in the making of taxable supplies of retail goods. Any link to credit or insurance was, in its view, at the most, indirect but, given the nature of the costs, probably non-existent. Consequently, the photography did not promote any finance or insurance products so that no restriction of the input tax claims was required.
Commentary
Yet another case on input tax attribution. As someone once said; partial exemption is more of an art than a science…
The judge distinguished this appeal from the N Brown case as the circumstances were different and that the court applied the wrong legal test in terms of the micro/macro level of business per the Royal Opera House case.

VAT treatment of the supply of locum doctors

By   16 December 2025
0

HMRC has issued Revenue and Customs brief 9 (2025)  which covers the VAT liability of the supply of temporary medical staff (locum doctors).

This change to HMRC’s previous view (that these supplies were taxable) is a consequence of the First-Tier Tribunal’s decision in Isle of Wight NHS Trust case which ruled in favour of the Trust, finding that the supply of locums is an exempt service. 

The Brief also provides guidance for businesses who wish to claim a refund of overdeclared output tax following the decision.

Who can claim import VAT? The TSI Instruments case

By   5 November 2025
0

Latest from the courts

In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case of TSI Instruments Limited the issue was whether the appellant could claim import VAT when it was not the owner of the imported goods. The amount of VAT at stake was circa £8.5 million.

Background

TSI Instruments (TSI) imported scientific equipment owned by its customers for repair. The main activity of TSI in the UK is the service, repair and calibration of TSI Group goods which had previously been sold to customers around the world.

TSI is named as the importer and paid the charges made by the shipping company for dealing with the declaration and customs clearance formalities on behalf of TSI as well as paying the import VAT which it claimed.

Contentions

HMRC refused to repay the claims on the basis that only the entity with title to the goods is able to deduct the import VAT.

The appellant argued there is no requirement in the legislation that the importer should be the owner of the goods in order for import VAT to be credited. TSI asserted that, as long as the goods are imported for the purposes of its taxable business and it bears the costs of the import, the import VAT can be credited as input tax.

Decision

The FTT ruled that TSI was not entitled to claim input VAT credit for import VAT paid on goods it did not own, and the appeal was dismissed. Via both EU and UK VAT law, the right to deduct import VAT is restricted to the actual owner of the goods or the entity which has the right to dispose of the goods as their owner (or where the cost or value of the goods is reflected in the price of specific output transactions or in the price of goods and services supplied in the course of their economic activities). Since TSI did not own the goods, and their value was not included in the repair service price, the FTT ruled against TSI.

Commentary

This position could have been avoided by planning being put in place. TSI could have used Inward Processing Relief or the owner of the goods could have been the importer.

Legislation/HMRC guidance

VIT13300 – Import VAT may only be claimed by the owner of the goods who would be entitled to reclaim the import VAT either in accordance with s24 VATA 1994 (if registered for VAT in the UK) or under part XXI of the VAT Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/2518) if they are not registered for VAT in the UK, provided they satisfy the legislative conditions. For further information see Notice 723A.

HMRC published Revenue and Customs Briefs 2 (2019) and Brief 15 (2020) which restated HMRC’s long-standing policy that it is the owner of the imported goods who is entitled to recover the import VAT under current UK legislation. These Briefs clarify, but do not change, HMRC’s policy.

VAT: Overages – new guidance

By   6 October 2025
0

HMRC has issued new internal guidance on overages.

Land and property transactions are often complex and high value for VAT purposes. One area which we have been increasingly involved with is overages.

What is an overage?

An overage is an agreement whereby a purchaser of land agrees to pay the vendor an additional sum of money, in addition to the purchase price, following the occurrence of a future specified event that enhances the value of the land. This entitles the seller to a proportion of the enhanced value following the initial sale. Overages may also be called clawbacks, or uplifts.

Overages are popular with landowners who sell with the benefit of development potential and with buyers who may be able to purchase land at an initial low price with a condition that further payment will be made contingent on land increasing in value in the future – this may be as a result, of, say, obtaining Planning Permission.

VAT Treatment

HMRC consider that the VAT liability of overage should be considered separately from the VAT liability of the initial sale. HMRC’s policy is that the VAT liability of an overage payment will generally be determined at the time of supply of the overage payment, rather than when the original land sale completed.

Overage payments where an option to tax is made after the initial grant – where an option to tax is made after the property has been sold to the buyer, any subsequent overage payment may be liable to the standard rate of VAT as a result of VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10, Paragraph 31 (unless the option to tax has been disapplied, eg; where a property intended for use as a dwelling). In such situations, where the overage payment is made after the dwellings are constructed on the land, and the original grant was taxable by virtue of the option to tax, the option can be excluded in relation to the overage payment.

New commercial buildings – overage payments:

  • Where there is a grant of a freehold interest in a new (or incomplete) commercial building, the overage will always be taxable at the standard rate – it does not become exempt simply because three years or more have elapsed since the building was completed. This will remain the position if the overage falls due after the designation ‘new’ has expired after three years.  
  • Where there has been a freehold sale of bare, un-opted land subject to an overage obligation, the liability of the overage payment will remain exempt even if a new commercial building is constructed on the site before the overage is paid. 

This means that the VAT liability of the overage is determined by reference to the description of the land at the time that the original sale of the land takes place. 

More on overages here. This covers HMRC’s previous views on overages .

VAT: Can Nitrous Oxide be zero-rated food? The Telamara case – no laughing matter

By   1 October 2025
0

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Telamara Limited the issue was whether Nitrous Oxide (N₂O) used exclusively for culinary use can be zero-rated.

Background

The appellant supplied N₂O canisters which were used as cream chargers. These were used for whipping cream and creating foams and mousses, and to infuse liquids. The relevant invoices described the product as; “Dairy products misc. Cream/beverage infusers 600 x 8g cylinder”. The chargers were not for medical use. The chargers were certified as Halal products.

Telamara’s customers were wholesalers and the units in which the chargers were sold were in boxes of 600. The packaging states that the contents of the chargers should not be inhaled. If consumed on its own N₂O is tasteless and all but imperceptible and its only effect is on the consistency of the whipped food.

The contentions

Telamara considered that the sale of the canisters should be zero-rated because they were for culinary use as food of a kind for human consumption via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8 VAT Act 1994, Group 1, Item 1. It was accepted that the N₂O would not be “eaten on its own” but it nevertheless was said to form an ingredient of all of the food substances into which it was incorporated by infusion or by use of the cream whipper, changing the state and nature of those foods. Furthermore, the appellant claimed unfairness because HMRC had been unable to provide clear guidance on the correct VAT treatment when the business started but HMRC subsequently became certain the supplies were standard rated.

Unsurprisingly, HMRC disagreed, formed a view that the supplies were not of food, and raised an assessment for the output tax it deemed to be due on the standard rated supplies.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. It was found that the chargers were not food because N₂O:

  • had no nutritional value
  • is a food additive, not food
  • does not add to the calories of food
  • is odourless, colourless, and tasteless
  • is a gas and therefore incapable of being either eaten or drunk

The Tribunal concluded that the gases were standard rated as they were not food of a kind used for human consumption. It concluded that no informed and broad-minded person considering whether the gases were food would conclude that they were.

Commentary

Yet another “Is it food?” case adding to a long list. The Tribunal helpfully set out (drawing from an extensive and thorough review of the very many cases which have considered the scope of zero-rating of food) the required exercise considering and weighing up the following factors to answer the question of whether something is food:

(1) Nutritional value

(2) Palatability

(3) Form of the product

(4) Manner of/directions for consumption

(5) Frequency of consumption

(6) Marketing

(7) Purpose of the product

(8) Range of uses

(9) Constituent ingredients

(10) Dictionary definition of food

Summary

Is it food? is not as a straightforward question as it may seem!

We recommend that any business which is involved in ‘food” or “food-like” products should undertake a review in light of this case. We can, of course, help with this .