- The FTT held that Tapi acted as an agent when arranging carpet fitting, not as a principal reselling the service.
- Independent fitters supplied the fitting directly to customers, with customers paying the fitters themselves.
- HMRC argued Tapi bought the fitting from the fitter and resold it to customers, but the Tribunal rejected that view.
- The decision turned on the contracts and the commercial reality, both of which supported Tapi’s agency model.
- The case is relevant beyond carpets: labels like “agent” only work if the contracts, payments, and actual operations all match.
Source: deeksvat.co.uk
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.
