In the Spearmint Rhino case it was ruled that there is no VAT on lap dances, however in Wilton Park Ltdthe decision was that VAT was due.
Tag Archives: VAT-principal
VAT: Disclosed and undisclosed agents
There has been substantial case law on whether a business acts as agent or principal, the most recent being:
In this brief article I consider the distinction between disclosed and undisclosed agents and the VAT position of each.
Agent
An agent is a person who has been legally empowered to act on behalf of another entity (a principal). An agent may be employed to represent a client in negotiations and other dealings with third parties under his direction. The agent may be given decision-making authority. The relationship between a principal and agent can be disclosed or undisclosed to a third party. A disclosed agent acts in the name of the principal, whereas an undisclosed agent acts in his own name.
VAT Treatment
Disclosed Agents
A disclosed agent acts in the name of the principal and the client is aware that they are dealing with an agent of the principal. The relevant supply is made by the principal to the client. The agent does not make the supply to the client, but rather, to (usually) the principal in respect of commission for its services of acting as the “middle-man” in the transaction.
Output tax is due on the full selling price of the goods or services supplied by the principal. The value is not reduced by any amount paid to the agent. The agent will invoice the principal for his services and in most cases the principal will recover this as input tax (subject to the usual rules).
Undisclosed Agents
The buyer of goods or services will not (usually) know the name of the principal and will deal with the agent in the agent’s own name. The legislation states that ‘where a taxable person acting in his own name but on behalf of another person takes part in a supply of services, he shall be deemed to have received and supplied those services himself’.
This means that the supply of goods or services by an undisclosed agent is treated as a simultaneous supply to, and by, the agent. The agent is treated as both the purchaser (from the principal) and seller (to the client/customer).
The agent treats the goods as its own purchase – incurring VAT charged by the principal and then declares output tax on the onward sale to the client. The input tax charged by the principal is usually recoverable by the undisclosed agent. In some circumstances, the purchase and sale will have different VAT liabilities, eg; the sale of goods may be a VATable UK supply, but the onward sale could be a zero rated export. Generally, the principal is not put in a less advantageous position by operating through an agent.
Summary
It is sometimes difficult to establish whether an entity acts as agent or principal, and if agent, whether it is in a disclosed or undisclosed capacity. Not only is the VAT treatment different, but the distinction effects where goods or services are deemed to be supplied for VAT purposes. The place of supply rules dictates such matters as VAT registration (UK and overseas) whether (and where) VAT is chargeable and the compliance obligations of the principal and agent.
It is important to analyse the terms of the relevant contracts/agreements between the agent and principal to establish the nature of the relationship. However, it also necessary to consider the commercial reality of transactions between the parties as this may differ from the contract.
Uber to charge VAT
Latest from the courts
Further to my article on the Supreme Court case, Uber went to the High Court seeking to challenge this decision, but the High Court has now upheld it.
This means it is very likely that Uber will be required to charge VAT on its supplies as the court found that taxi firms make contracts directly with their customers because Uber drivers should be treated as workers not contractors. This means that Uber make to supply of taxi services to the fare and not the individual drivers.
The High Court agreed with the Supreme Court and stated that: “… in order to operate lawfully under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 a licensed operator who accepts a booking from a passenger is required to enter as principal into a contractual obligation with the passenger to provide the journey which is the subject of the booking.”
A spokesperson for Uber said: “Every private hire operator in London will be impacted by this decision, and should comply with the verdict in full.”
Although not a VAT case itself, this decision is the latest in a long list of VAT agent/principal cases, the most important being:
It is crucial that businesses review their position if there is any doubt at all whether agent status applies to their business model.
VAT: Adecco Court of Appeal case. Agent or principal?
Latest from the courts
In the recent Court of Appeal (CA) case of Adecco here the issue was whether the services provided by Adecco – an employment bureau which supplied its clients with temporary staff (temps) were by way of it acting as principal or agent.
Background
Details of the issues as considered in the FTT and UT were covered here
Overview
As is often the case in these types of arrangements, there are some matters that point towards the appellant acting as agent, and others indicating that the proper VAT treatment is that of principal. The important difference, of course, being whether output tax is due on the “commission” received by Adecco or on the full payment made to it (which includes the salaries of the relevant workers).
Decision
The CA decided that the supply of temporary staff by Adecco was as principal and consequently, VAT was due on the full amount received, not just the commission retained.
Reasoning
The CA focussed on the contractual position. Among the reasons provided for this decision were as follows (I have somewhat summarised). I think it worthwhile looking in some detail at these:
- There was no question of the temps having provided their services under contracts with the clients: no such contracts existed. The contractual position must be that the temps’ services were provided to clients in pursuance of the contracts between Adecco and its clients and Adecco and the temps.
- Although the contract between Adecco and a temp referred to the temp undertaking an assignment “for a client” and providing services “to the client”, it also spoke of the client requiring the temp’s services “through Adecco” and of the temp being supplied “through Adecco”.
- While temps were to be subject to the control of clients, that was something that the temps agreed with Adecco, not the clients. The fact that the contract between Adecco and a temp barred any third party from having rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 confirms that the relevant provisions were to be enforceable only by Adecco, which, on the strength of them, was able to agree with its clients that the temps should be under their control. Adecco can fairly be described as conferring such control on its clients. (Broadly; the employment regulations required Adecco to treat itself as a principal with the result that that it could not therefore treat itself as an agent).
- Adecco paid temps on its own behalf, not as agent for the clients.
- Adecco by did not drop out of the picture once it had introduced a temp to a client. It was responsible for paying the temp (and for handling national insurance contributions and the like) and had to do so regardless of whether it received payment from the client Adecco also enjoyed rights of termination and suspension. It is noteworthy (as the UT said) that the contract between Adecco and a temp proceeded on the basis that a temp’s unauthorised absence could “result in a breach of obligations which we owe to the client”.
- Adecco did not perform just administrative functions in relation to the temps. The temps, after all, were entitled to be paid by Adecco, not the clients.
- Adecco charged a client a single sum for each hour a temp worked. It did not split its fees into remuneration for the temp and commission for itself.
- The fact that Adecco had no control over a temp in advance of his taking up his assignment with the client did not matter.
- Adecco undoubtedly supplied the services of employed temps to its clients.
- In all the circumstances, both contractually and as a matter of economic and commercial reality, the temps’ services were supplied to clients via Adecco. In other words, Adecco did not merely supply its clients with introductory and ancillary services, and VAT was payable on the totality of what it was paid by clients.
Action
Clearly this was not the outcome the appellant desired, and it may impact similar arrangements in place for other businesses. Although found on the precise nature of the relevant contracts, the outcome of this case is not limited to employment bureaux and similar but must be considered in most cases where commission is received by an “agent”. These may include, inter alia; taxi services, driving schools, transport, travel agents, training/education, online services, repairs, warrantee work and many other types of business. It is crucial that contracts are regularly reviewed the ensure that the appropriate VAT treatment is applied and that they are clear on the agent/principal relationship. If there is any doubt, please contact us as it is often one of the most ambiguous areas of VAT.