Tag Archives: VAT-latest-from-the-courts

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: 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: Tax point of telecommunications – The Lycamobile case

By   7 August 2024
0

Latest from the courts

In the Lycamobile UK Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether VAT was chargeable on the supply of a “Plan Bundle” at the time when it was sold and by reference to the whole of the consideration that was paid for it, or whether VAT was instead chargeable only when, and only to the extent that, the allowances in the Plan Bundle were actually used. The time of supply (tax point) was important because not only would it dictate when output tax was due, but more importantly here, if the appeal succeeded, there would be no supply of the element of the bundle which was not used, so no output tax would be due on it.

Background

The Plan Bundles comprised rights to future telecommunication services; telephone calls, text messages and data (together, “Allowances”). There were hundreds of different Plan Bundles sold by the Appellant and the precise composition of those Plan Bundles varied.

Contentions

Lycamobile considered that that the services contained within each Plan Bundle were supplied only as and when the Allowances were used, so that the consideration which was received for each Plan Bundle would be recognised for VAT purposes only to the extent that the Plan Bundle was actually used. In the alternative, these supplies could be considered as multi-purpose vouchers such that output tax was not due when they were issued, but when the service was used. Very briefly, the contention was that it was possible that not all of the use would be standard rated in the UK.

Unsurprisingly, HMRC argued that that those services were supplied when the relevant Plan Bundle was sold (up-front) and output tax was due on the amount paid, regardless of usage.

Decision

The Tribunal placed emphasis on “the legal and economic context” and “the purpose of the customers in paying their consideration”.

It decided that the terms of the Plan Bundle created a legal relationship between Lycamobile and the customer. The Bundle was itself the provision of telecommunication services when sold. The customers were aware that they were entitled to use their Allowances and could decide whether to, or not. As a consequence, consumption was aligned with payment and created a tax point at the time of that payment. There was a direct link between those services and the consideration paid by the customer.

The Tribunal also considered the vouchers point. There were significant changes to the rules for Face Value Vouchers on 1 January 2019 (the supplies spanned this date), but the FTT found that the Plan Bundles were not monetary entitlements for future services under either set of rules, so the tax point rules for vouchers did not apply here.

The appeal was dismissed and HMRC assessments totalling over £51 million were upheld.

Commentary

Not an unexpected result, but an illustration of the importance of; tax points, legal and economic realities, and what customers think they are paying for. All important aspects in analysing what is being provided, and when.