The Vision Direct group has two contracts with customers who order contact lenses online. The first contract is with Vision Direct BV (VDBV), a company based in the Netherlands, for selling the goods. The second contract is with Vision Dispensing Ltd (VDL) for the supply of dispensing services. VDL operates a warehouse in the UK, dispatches the goods, and provides customer support. VDL receives 18% of the fee paid by the customer. The dispute is about the liability of VDL’s dispensing services, with HMRC arguing they are standard rated and the taxpayer arguing they are exempt. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) looked at various evidence, including the Vision Direct website, the Services Agreement between VDL and VDBV, and the terms and conditions of customer contracts. The FTT discussed the interpretation of “medical care” and referenced previous cases. It found that VDL’s services can be considered as medical care based on the comprehensive information provided on the website. The FTT also considered whether the provision of the website is part of VDL’s supply and concluded that it is provided by VDBV.
Source KPMG
