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 .