Tag Archives: VAT-single-supply

VAT: Composite or separate supplies – The A & D McFarlane case

By   10 March 2026
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 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 .

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 .