Tag Archives: VAT-multiple-supplies

VAT: Removal of linked goods concession

By   20 January 2026
0

HMRC has published Revenue and Customs Brief 1 (2026): Removal of the linked goods concession

This brief confirms that the Extra Statutory Concession (ESC) described in paragraph 3.7 of Notice 48 is no longer required. HMRC considers that the supplies previously eligible to be treated as single supplies under the concession should be treated as single supplies under the legislation, as confirmed by existing case law.

Examples of such cases: here, here here here and here. 

Businesses should now refer to HMRC’s policy as described in VATSC11113 – Supply: Single and multiple supplies: HMRC’s approach: The general approach.

Note

A VAT ESC is a formal relaxation by HMRC permitting a tax treatment not strictly permitted by law, to resolve minor anomalies, prevent hardship, or simplify administration. These provide businesses relief they would not otherwise get, but it has no legal force and isn’t for tax avoidance.

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: More on separate and single supplies. The KFC dip pot case

By   10 June 2024
0

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier tribunal case of Queenscourt Limited the issue was whether dip pots supplied as part of a takeaway meal deal are a separate zero-rated supply (of cold food) or whether they are part of a single VATable supply of hot food.

Background

The appellant had originally accounted for output tax on the basis that dip pots formed part of a single standard rated supply with other food. However, following advice, it then formed the view that zero-rating applied to these pots and submitted a claim for overpaid output tax. HMRC agreed to repay the VAT claimed.

Subsequently, a further claim as made on a similar basis for a later period. This was considered by a different officer who refused to make the repayment on the basis that there was no separate supply of the dip pots. This called into question whether the payment of the initial claim was correct. The officer considered the previous repayment to have been incorrect and issued assessments in order to recover the amount which had been repaid.

Queenscourt now appealed both against the decision to refuse the repayment claimed in the second error correction notice and also against the recovery assessment relating to the first error correction notice.  Moreover, the recovery assessments are invalid as there has been no change in circumstances and no new facts have come to light since HMRC agreed to repay the tax. Alternatively, it argues that HMRC are prevented from recovering the tax, either on the basis of legitimate expectation or estoppel by convention, in each case arising as a result of HMRC’s original agreement that that tax should be repaid.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed.

  • On the dip point issue, the FTT stated that it was unlikely the dip would be eaten on its own, or as an end in itself, unlike the coleslaw or cookie elements – It is a means of better enjoying the hot food. Consequently, it is an element of a standard rated single composite supply of hot takeaway food.
  • Legitimate expectation – Whilst the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to consider arguments based on legitimate expectation in the context of an appeal against a recovery assessment, it is not in this case sufficiently unfair for HMRC to resile from their initial acceptance of the claim made in the first error correction notice and to apply the correct tax treatment.
  • Estoppel – HMRC is not estopped from making or relying on their recovery assessments as there has been no detrimental reliance on the original position taken by HMRC in connection with any subsequent mutual dealings.

Commentary

It is difficult to see the end of single/multiple supply cases, as my previous articles consider:

Here, here, here, here, and how to categorise a supply here.

VAT Single and Multiple Supplies

By   11 May 2021
0

Accounting for VAT can be problematic when the supply of goods and services consist of multiple components. In such cases it is necessary to consider whether each component of the supply should be assessed independently or whether the components should be dealt with as one.

Precise treatment is not specifically addressed in UK or European Law and instead a decision is made based upon a review of the essential features of the transaction. For instance, a meal on an airplane is a normal feature of the zero rated travel provided and is not considered a separate standard rated supply to the travel itself. Conversely a meal on a river cruise is a separate supply to that of the zero rated cruise itself and as such is a separate standard rated supply.

A single price is not therefore a decisive indicator of a single supply. Instead what needs to be considered is whether there is just one principal supply or several distinct independent supplies that are provided.

Through the development of case law and HMRC guidance the following situations have been clarified. I have written about the most important, recent cases here, here, here, here and here.

The 50% rule

If a distinct supply represents 50% or more of the overall cost it can not be considered ancillary to the principal supply. In such cases an apportionment will usually be required.

Postal charges

VAT on postage follows the treatment of VAT on the main supply. For example, for mail order items the postage on book is zero rated, whereas the postage on a printer is standard rated.

There are however situations where postage is treated as a separate supply to the goods if, for example, the postage is not expected and is an additional request by the customer.

Subscriptions

If there is one particular reason for the subscription then the fee is considered to be one single supply. If there are separate reasons for the subscription then the fee should be proportioned accordingly and the appropriate VAT treatment should be applied to each element of the supply.

Printed matter

Usually books, newspapers, magazines and music are zero rated whilst items seen as stationery such as membership cards and notebooks are standard rated. For materials supplied with items that can be used independently then there are two supplies, for example a film supplied with a magazine.

A package test can also be applied, where if there are more zero rated items then standard rated items the entire package becomes zero rated, or vice versa.

Two part tariffs

If there are two payments relating to a single supply, the two payments are treated as one and the VAT treatment follows that of the one supply.

Supplies involving land

Services provided on land tend to be viewed as one complete supply. The land aspect is not usually a separate service that the customer receives and instead allows the main service to be provided.

One instance where this may not apply is service charges, which may need to be apportioned if they contain independent supplies such as rent and cleaning. Independent supplies are made if the customer can choose which of the services they would like.

Summary

Card Protection Plan Ltd has become a landmark case in determining the VAT treatment for single and multiple supplies. In this case the ECJ ruled that standard rated handling charges were not distinct from the supply of exempt insurance. It was noted that ‘a supply that comprises a single service from an economic point of view should not be artificially split’. Notably many subsequent court decisions have since followed this outcome thereby suggesting a general lean towards viewing cases as single supplies where there are reasonable grounds to do so.