Context: VAT – Exemption under Article 135(1)(a) of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD) – for insurance and reinsurance transactions, including related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents – economic purpose and commercial reality of Appellant’s services were not that of insurance transactions but making claims for compensation in respect of mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI) – not acting as an insurance agent nor performing services related to insurance transactions – appeal dismissed
Company submitting claims for mis-sold PPI considered themselves to be an insurance agent and fall under the insurance intermediary VAT exemption. Claims Advisory Group lost their appeal – their services were too remote and concerned with the way that PPI was sold and not the policy itself.
Decision:
The FTT did not err in law in making its decision. The FTT was correct to conclude that the Appellant’s supplies to its customers were not insurance transactions, and in the alternative were not services performed by an insurance agent that were related to insurance transactions. The appeal is dismissed
Source
See also
Latest Posts in "United Kingdom"
- HMRC Guidance: Domestic reverse charge procedure (VAT Notice 735)
- Tribunal Finds Blind-Eye Knowledge Equals Deliberate Inaccuracy in Option to Tax Case
- Sonder Appeal Postponed: Court Grants Stay Amid Funding and Precedent Uncertainty
- Tribunal Rules Nursery Hot Meal Supplies Are Standard-Rated Catering, Not Zero-Rated Food
- Access Cards for Disabled Users Qualify for VAT Zero-Rating, Tribunal Rules
