Tag Archives: VAT-FTT

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.

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: 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 .

VAT: The United Carpets case – single of multiple supplies?

By   5 August 2025
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 United Carpets (Franchisor) Limited (UC) the issue was whether the appellant made a single supply of flooring and fitting or whether there were two separate supplies

Background

UC is a retailer of flooring (including carpets, underlay, vinyl and wood flooring), as well as beds. A customer who purchased flooring from the appellant was given the option to have an independent, self-employed, fitter to carry out the fitting of the purchased flooring. Each store has a pool of fitters who take on fitting work referred to them by the appellant. If the customer chooses, the fitter will attend the customer’s home to fit the flooring, as directed by the customer. The fitter is then paid by the customer for that work, with the money being received and retained, in full, by the fitter.

The fitters are self-employed and they use their own tools, and drive their own vehicles. They also have their own public liability insurance and are not covered by any of the appellant’s insurance policies. They are not paid by the UC and are not on the UC’s payroll. Since they are self-employed, the fitters have no ongoing obligations to the appellant (or vice versa) and can take on referrals as they please. The appellant does not hold any formal records for the fitters and is not aware of how much the fitters earn by way of the referrals. The rates charged by the fitters are determined by the fitters themselves.

The appellant’s Terms and Conditions of Sale included the following statements:

“The carpet fitting and delivery services provided by the Installer are supplied under a separate contract from the supply of goods to the Customer by the Company (UC). The Company is not responsible for the delivery or fitting of the Goods to the Customer.

“Full payment for the fitting services is due upon fitting payable by cash or cheque directly to the Installer. As detailed on the invoice, payment for the carpet fitting is made directly to the Installer under a separate contractual agreement between the Customer and the Installer…”

The issue

Whether the supplies of fitting services made to customers following the referral to the fitter by UC were supplies made by the self-employed carpet fitters who performed the services, or by UC as a single supply of flooring and fitting such that output tax was due from UC on both the retail sales and the fitting fees.

Contentions

HMRC determined that the appellant had incorrectly treated the supply of carpet fitting and contended that it supplied fitting services via sub-contractors and assessed the appellant for output tax on the fitting fees. HMRC further contend that the appellant made those supplies as part of a single supply, comprising both the flooring and the fitting services. Assessments were raised to recover the deemed underdeclared output tax.

UC’s position is that the self-employed fitters were completely independent, and that the fitting services do not form a single supply. Consequently, VAT was only due on the retail sales and not the fitting income.

Decision

The FTT concluded that there were two separate supplies:

  • the supply of goods by UC to the customer, and
  • the supply of services by the fitter to the customer.

After a review of the contractual documentation and the economic and commercial reality, the court was satisfied that there were three agreements:

  • between UC and the customer
  • between UC and the fitter
  • between the fitter and the customer

The fitter provided services to the end consumer who was liable to pay the fitter.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the assessments were set aside.

A significant amount of case law was cited (a list too long to reproduce here) but included were the cases of: Secret Hotels 2 Limited v HMRC; All Answers Ltd v HMRC and Tolsma v Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting Leeuwarden which were considered and applied.

Commentary

Yet another case on the perennial composite/single supply issue. This case was more straightforward than many on this subject 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. Both 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 proper VAT position .

VAT: Are poppadoms crisps? The Walkers Snack Foods case

By   4 June 2025
0

Latest from the courts  

In the Walkers Snack Foods Ltd Upper Tribunal (UT) case the issue was whether Sensations Poppadoms are similar to potato crisps and consequently excluded from the zero rating for food.

The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that the product was similar to crisps and that it was to be treated as being excepted items from zero-rating and was therefore standard rated.

Background

The salient matter was whether the poppadoms were “made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch” and were “similar” to potato crisps via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, item 1, excepted item 5.

Value Added Tax – excepted item 5 to item 1, Group 1, Part II, Schedule 8 Value Added Tax Act 1994 – whether First-tier Tribunal erred in law in finding Sensations Poppadoms were “made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch” and were “similar” to potato crisps

This sets out that the following is excepted from the zero rate for “Food of a kind used for human consumption”.

“5. Any of the following when packaged for human consumption without further preparation, namely, potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs, and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch, and savoury food products obtained by the swelling of cereals or cereal products; and salted or roasted nuts other than nuts in shell.”

Contentions

The appellant argued that the poppadoms should be zero-rated for VAT purposes because they fall within Item 1 of Group 1 as they are food, and that they are not included in the list of exceptions.

 HMRC contended that that the product fell within excepted item 5 of Group 1, because they are products similar to potato crisps…

Decision 

  • The UT agreed with the FTT that the words “made from the potato” can extend to products made from potato granules and was neither untenable nor a plain misapplication of the law to the facts. 
  • The UT recalled that the FTT had concluded that Sensations Poppadoms contained “more than enough potato content” for it to be reasonable to conclude that they were “made from the potato… or from potato starch”. Sensations Poppadoms have a combined potato content (potato granules and potato starch) of 39%-40%, so the potato content is significant. The question for the UT was whether the FTT reached a conclusion which no reasonable tribunal properly construing the statute could have reached. The UT answered “no”.
  • The UT noted that the FTT determined that Sensations Poppadoms were similar to potato crisps based on a multifactorial assessment of various factors, including; packaging, appearance, texture and taste. The FTT noted that while the manufacturing processes differ, the statute allows for similarity among products made from potato starch and flour. The FTT found that the potato content in Sensations Poppadoms contributed to a neutral flavour, which did not significantly distinguish them from potato crisps. Broadly, the UT agreed with this determination.

Consequently, for the above reasons the UT dismissed the appeal and the product is subject to the standard rate.

Commentary

Yet another case on the liability of ‘snack foods’. So now we know that: Doritos, Monster Munch, Wotsits and Poppadums are standard rated, however Pringles, Skips and Twiglets are VAT free. This demonstrates the complexity of classifying food and these decisions throw up more complications for producers as this market develops quickly as the public’s taste moves on.

VAT: Whether an online tool an ‘examination service’? The Generic Maths case.

By   12 May 2025
0

Latest from the courts.

In the Generic Maths Limited First Tier Tribunal case the issue was whether the appellant’s product; ‘ConquerMaths’ amounted to examination services so to be exempt via The VATA 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, Item 3.

Background

Generic Maths provided an online tool which was intended to be of benefit to students or their parents/teachers. The following facts concerning ConquerMaths were found:

  • it does not lead to any qualifications
  • users can drop in and out of the offering (unlike the way they might have to proceed if following a course leading to a qualification)
  • it includes many hundreds of available diagnostic tests that test students’ knowledge of the principles that will be taught on the various subjects
  • several short tutoring videos are included, although the number of videos is small in comparison to the number of diagnostic tests
  • the average user spends 75 minutes on diagnostic tests compared to five minutes on videos
  • the appellant’s witnesses described the product as diagnostic assessments, formative assessments, and summative assessments
  • in addition to the diagnostic tests, the product includes worksheets in an exam format. Pupils are encouraged to complete these offline and then feed the results into the system

The issue

Simply put; was the product predominantly a tool that provides assessments enabling those using the product to determine what level of maths ability the student has reached and identify any gaps in knowledge and therefore an exempt supply since it falls into the category “examination services”? Or, as HMRC contended, was it an online mathematical tutorial tool which was standard rated as it was a composite supply the predominant element of which was education and that the supply was not one of examination services? (There was no argument that these were exempt educational services).

The tests

The FTT considered that the correct test for determining the nature of the appellant’s supplies was an objective test, based on how they would be characterised by the typical consumer. On that basis, ConquerMaths was a teaching product designed to improve maths understanding, not an examination service.

Additionally, if the correct test was rather a functional test, the result would be the similar.

Decision

The Tribunal did not consider that the product was a supply of examination services within Item 3. It found that the assessment had been made using best judgment by HMRC and accordingly that the appeal should be dismissed.

Commentary

This is probably the correct decision, although the examination and education exemptions are open to interpretation. Care should be taken by taxpayers that the exemption is correctly applied. Although the definition of examination services is wider than formal public examinations, it was not wide enough to encompass ConquerMaths.

VAT: Tribunal costs

By   23 April 2025
0

    Latest from the courts

    In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Eurolaser IT Ltd regarding Kittel and Mecsek assessments and penalties:

    • whether an agent knew or should have known of fraud in supply chain – yes
    • whether such knowledge/means of knowledge to be attributed to Appellant – yes
    • whether Mecsek requires HMRC to show reasonable steps not taken by Appellant – yes
    • whether reasonable steps taken – no
    • unsurprisingly, the appeal was refused

    one interesting aspect was the award of costs.

    Generally, in FTT cases the rule is that each party will usually bear its own costs.

    However, it is worth recapping how the award of costs works via The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. In this instant case, the Appellant had not ‘opted out’ of the costs protection regime set out in rule 10(c)(ii) of the Rules. Consequently, the FTT ordered that Eurolaser must pay HMRC’s costs – a sting in the tail. So, what are the rules? (Where relevant here)

    Orders for costs

    “10.—(1) The Tribunal may only make an order in respect of costs (or, in Scotland, expenses)—

    (a) under section 29(4) of the 2007 Act (wasted costs) [and costs incurred in applying for such costs];

    (b) if the Tribunal considers that a party or their representative has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings; 

    (c) if—

    (i) the proceedings have been allocated as a Complex case under rule 23 (allocation of cases to categories); and

    (ii) the taxpayer (or, where more than one party is a taxpayer, one of them) has not sent or delivered a written request to the Tribunal, within 28 days of receiving notice that the case had been allocated as a Complex case, that the proceedings be excluded from potential liability for costs or expenses under this sub-paragraph”

    So, in “Complex” cases, an Appellant must submit a request that the case is excluded from the potential liability of costs being awarded, and HMRC must request repayment of its costs incurred in defending the case.

    What are Complex cases?

    These are complicated cases which:

    • require lengthy or complex evidence
    • require a lengthy hearing
    • involve complex or important principles or issues
    • involve large amounts or tax or penalties

    such cases are allocated to a ‘track’ within the FTT system.

    Other cost awards

    It is also worth remembering that costs can be awarded if the appeal is brought unreasonably. This usually means that it is vexatious or frivolous, so proper advice should be sought when considering an appeal.

    VAT: Are hair transplants ‘medical care’? – The Advanced Hair Technology Ltd case

    By   12 March 2025
    0

    Latest from the courts

    In the Advanced Hair Technology Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether hair transplants are exempt supplies of medical care, or were they for ‘cosmetic’ purposes and consequently standard rated?

    Background

    Advanced Hair Technology Ltd (AHT) was a  medical practice trading as The Farjo Hair Institute which specialised in hair restoration surgery. It treated conditions related to hair loss, in particular androgenetic alopecia (AGA). Dr Farjo who carried out the work is qualified is a medical practitioner with the Royal College of Surgeons. The output tax which HMRC deemed due was circa £2,500,000.

    The sole issue was what AHT provided covered by the definition ‘medical care’?

    Legislation

    The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 1 covers services which are for the primary purpose of protecting, restoring, or maintaining health: “medical care”.                                                                 

    Contentions

    AHT argued that it was treating patients for medical conditions, as opposed to providing aesthetic surgery and consequently, its supplies were exempt. The appellant explained that several patients believed that hair loss had affected their self-confidence and so the surgery improved their overall health (which includes a mental health element). Furthermore, the surgery helps to protect the skin from future photodamage, minor trauma and thermal insult.

    HMRC contended that none of the patients had any recorded prior psychiatric conditions, eg; depression or anxiety, nor had any stated that they were looking to benefit from the surgery beyond it improving their appearance and confidence. Additionally,  no recipients of the treatment said that they were seeking any of the above physical protections.

    Therefore, the treatment was a standard rated cosmetic procedure.

    Decision

    The meaning of ‘medical care’ was considered by the Court of Appeal in its decision in Mercy Global [2023] EWCA Civ 1073.

    The court agreed with HMRC that a “principal purpose” test must be applied in all cases.

    The evidence before the FTT was that by the age of 70 at least 80% of caucasian men suffer from hair loss as a result of AGA, and this is part of the normal process of aging. AGA is not considered a medical condition but rather a symptom.

    AHT’s contention that the procedures serve a therapeutic purpose related to psychological issues was dismissed due to a lack of evidence from qualified practitioners. This reinforced the FTT’s view that the treatments were primarily cosmetic, rather than for medical reasons because altering one’s physical appearance was for aesthetic purposes.

    The relevant supplies were therefore outside the exemption.

    The appeal was dismissed.

    Commentary

    The judgment provides some guidance on the interpretation of the definition of medical care for the purposes of the exemption and follows similar recent cases which we covered here:

    Skin Science

    Skin Rich

    X

    The concept of the “provision of medical care” does not include medical interventions carried out for a purpose other than that of diagnosing, treating and in so far as possible, curing diseases or health disorders and it is the purpose of the medical intervention rather than merely the qualifications of the person providing it that is key in determining the VAT liability.

    There has been an ongoing debate as to what constitutes medical care. Over 20 years ago I was advising a large London clinic on this very point and much turned on whether patients’ mental health was improved by undergoing what many would regard as cosmetic procedures. We were somewhat handicapped in our arguments by the fact that many of the patients were lap dancers undergoing breast augmentation on the direction of the owner of a certain club…

    It is worth remembering that not all services provided by a medically registered practitioner are exempt. The question of whether the medical care exemption is engaged in any given case will turn on the particular facts .

    Interestingly, the judge here stated that the medical exemption may apply to some patients whose hair loss was a result of trauma caused by cancer treatment.

    VAT: Supply of self-contained apartments covered by TOMS? The Sonder UT case

    By   21 January 2025
    0

    Latest from the courts

    In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Sonder Europe Limited (Sonder) the issue was whether apartments leased to Sonder and used to provide short-term accommodation to corporate and leisure travellers were supplies of a designated travel service via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) and whether the bought-in supply was used for the direct benefit of travellers (as required by TOMS).

    Background

    Sonder leased apartments from landlords on a medium to long-term basis and used them to provide accommodation to travellers on a short-term basis (one night to a month; the average stay being five nights). Sonder furnished some apartments as well as undertaking occasional decorating and maintenance.

    The sole issue was whether these supplies are covered by TOMS. TOMS is not optional.

    Initially in the FTT it was decided that output tax was due via TOMS. This was an appeal by HMRC against that First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision.

    The issue

    Whether VAT was accountable using TOMS – on the margin, or on the full amount received from travellers by Sonder.

    Legislation

    TOMS is authorised by the VAT Act 1994, section 53 and via SI 1987/1806.

    Arguments

    Sonder contended that the supply was “for the direct benefit of the traveller” as required by the VAT (Tour Operators) Order 1987 and that the accommodation was provided “…without material alteration or further processing”. Consequently, TOMS applied. The FTT decided that Sonder did not materially alter or process the apartments.

    HMRC maintained that the FTT decision was based on the physical alternations made rather than the actual characteristics of the supplies. Consequently, these were not supplies covered by the 1987 Order and output tax was due on the total income received for these services.

     Decision

    The UT upheld HMRC’s appeal and decided that TOMS did not apply n these circumstances The UT found that the FTT’s decision was in error in that it did not have regard to whether the services bought in were supplied to it for the direct benefit of travellers. Furthermore, the short-term leases to occupy property as holiday accommodation were materially altered from interests in land for a period of years supplied by the landlords.

    The services received by Sonder from the landlords were not for the direct benefit of the travellers and Sonder’s supplies were not for the benefit of the users without material alteration and further processing. Consequently, there was not a supply of bought-in services, but rather an ‘in-house’ supply which was not covered by TOMS.

    To the UT, the position was even clearer in relation to unfurnished apartments. Sonder acquired an interest in land for a term of years in an unfurnished apartment. It furnished the apartment and then supplied a short-term licence to a traveller to occupy as holiday accommodation. What was supplied to the traveller was materially different to what was supplied to Sonder.

    Commentary

     Another illustration of the complexities of TOMS and the significant impact on a business of getting the rules wrong. The fact that the UT remade the decision demonstrates that different interpretations are possible on similar facts. Moreover, even slight differences in business models can result in different VAT outcomes.