Summaries of interesting VAT cases for the SME owner.
In The Prudential Assurance Company Limited v HMRC [2025] UKSC34, the Supreme Court (SC) agreed with an earlier Court of Appeal (CoA) decision, finding that VAT was due on services provided between two companies that were members of the same VAT group. The services were not invoiced or paid until after the supplier had left the group, meaning that the intra-group disregard did not apply.
In Brian David Webb v HMRC [2025] TC09611, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that a former builder was not carrying on an economic activity for VAT purposes and was therefore unable to recover VAT attributable to his properties.
In JPMorgan Chase Bank NA v HMRC [2025] UKUT 188, the Upper Tribunal (UT) found that the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) had not erred in law when it found that the disregard for intra-group supplies did not apply to services supplied between group members.
In Elphysic Limited & Ors v HMRC [2025] UKUT0236, the Upper Tribunal (UT) found that HMRC had the power to deregister a company for VAT, where the VAT registration number was used for fraudulent purposes.
In United Carpets (Franchisor) Limited v HMRC [2025] TC09596, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that flooring fitting services made by independent self-employed fitters were not part of a single supply of goods and services made by the appellant who supplied the flooring materials.
In Airline Placement Limited v HMRC [2025] TC09595, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that 'security bonds' paid by trainee pilots (cadets) were consideration for the supply of a taxable service to the cadets.
HMRC have published 'Revenue and Customs Brief 4 (2025): VAT on the management of pension funds', which announces a further change to HMRC's policy on the recovery of VAT incurred on the management of pension funds.
