Bolt seeks to continue UK TOMS dispute following Court of Appeal defeat

Summary

The Court of Appeal held that Bolt Services UK Limited’s on-demand private-hire services did not fall within the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme. The Court allowed HMRC’s appeal and reversed the taxpayer’s earlier successes before the First-tier and Upper Tribunals. [judiciary.uk], [judiciary.uk]
The Court considered that the lower tribunals’ high-level characterisation of passenger transport was insufficient. Bolt Services UK Limited had not established that its on-demand minicab supplies were identical or at least comparable to services provided by travel agents or tour operators. [judiciary.uk]
The taxpayer is reported to be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. Although UK legislation changed from 2 January 2026 for private-hire and taxi journeys, the litigation remains important for earlier periods and for interpreting the proper scope of TOMS.

Article

Bolt Services UK Limited is reported to be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court following its defeat in HMRC v Bolt Services UK Limited, [2026] EWCA Civ 720. The underlying Court of Appeal judgment was handed down on 12 June 2026 and concerned whether app-based, on-demand private-hire passenger transport services fell within the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme. [judiciary.uk], [judiciary.uk]

Under TOMS, qualifying travel businesses generally account for VAT on their margin rather than on the full selling price, while being unable to deduct VAT on directly attributable bought-in travel services. The scope of the scheme therefore has a potentially substantial effect on both the amount of VAT payable and the associated compliance methodology.

Bolt Services UK Limited had obtained favourable decisions from both the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. Those tribunals adopted a relatively broad approach, treating passenger transport as a type of service commonly supplied by travel agents or tour operators and concluding that the bought-in drivers’ services were supplied onward without material alteration.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. It considered that the lower tribunals’ “high-level approach” did not give sufficient weight to the requirement, derived from the relevant case law, that the services be identical or at least comparable to those provided by travel agents and tour operators. The Court noted that the factual findings did not establish that travel agents or tour operators provided services the same as, or sufficiently similar to, Bolt Services UK Limited’s on-demand minicab supplies. It consequently allowed HMRC’s appeal and remade the decision against the taxpayer. [judiciary.uk]

The judgment is particularly relevant to platform businesses that buy in a service and resupply it to consumers. It indicates that purchasing and reselling a travel-related service is not, by itself, enough to bring a business within TOMS. A detailed comparison with the nature, context and commercial characteristics of services supplied by travel agents and tour operators may be required.

The UK rules were amended with effect from 2 January 2026 to exclude private-hire and taxi journeys from TOMS unless supplied in conjunction with, and ancillary to, specified other travel services. The immediate financial relevance of the litigation therefore concerns earlier periods. However, any further appeal could affect the broader analytical framework used for accommodation platforms, transport intermediaries and other businesses supplying standalone travel facilities.

The reported Supreme Court application should not be presented as permission having been granted. Until a further order is issued, the Court of Appeal judgment remains the authoritative result. Businesses with protected claims or open periods should assess whether their facts are distinguishable and monitor both the permission process and any related HMRC policy updates.

Source Links