- The FTT ruled in favor of United Carpets, determining there were separate supplies of goods and services, not a single composite supply.
- Three distinct agreements were identified: between UC and the customer, UC and the fitters, and the fitters and the customer.
- Independent fitters maintained control over their operations and were paid directly by customers.
- UC’s public law argument on legitimate expectation was rejected as HMRC’s communications were not clear or unambiguous.
- The case highlights the need for thorough factual analysis in litigation, which HMRC failed to do, leading to UC’s successful appeal.
Source: rpclegal.com
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
Latest Posts in "United Kingdom"
- Post-Brexit VAT Shifts: Reverse Charge and the New Digital Landscape
- Isle of Wight NHS Trust Wins VAT Exemption Case for Locum Medical Practitioners Supply
- Tribunal Rules on VAT Exemption for Locum Medical Practitioners Supplied by Agencies
- VAT Appeal Dismissed: Nitrous Oxide in Cream Chargers Not Zero-Rated as Food
- FTT Dismisses Akhtar’s Appeal Against HMRC’s Best Judgement VAT Assessments Due to Missing Records
