Mainpay Ltd v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2021] UKUT 0270 (TCC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Mellor,Judge Guy Brannan |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] UKUT 0270 (TCC) |
| Subject Matter | 1 November 2021 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Published date | 03 November 2021 |
[2021 ] UKUT 0270 (TCC)
Appeal number: UT/2020/00361
VALUE ADDED TAX– whether a supply of medical care by company supplying
consultants and GP Specialists indirectly to NHS– Group 7 Schedule 9 VATA 1994
and Article 132 of the Principal VAT Directive
UPPER TRIBUNAL
(TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER)
MAINPAY LIMITED
Appellant
-and-
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents
Sitting in public by way of remote video Microsoft Teams hearing treated as taking
place in London on 16 June 2021 with further written submissions on 1 September 2021
Michael Firth, counsel, for the Appellant
Jennifer Newstead Taylor, counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to
HM Revenue & Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021
TRIBUNAL:
MR JUSTICE MELLOR
JUDGE GUY BRANNAN
2
DECISION
Introduction
1. The Appellant, Mainpay Limited (“Mainpay”), appeals against the decision (“the
Decision”) of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Cannan and Mr Stafford) (“the FTT”) on
29 April 2020 dismissing Mainpay’s appeal.
2. The question in this appeal is whether Mainpay is supplying medical care within
the meaning of Group 7 Schedu le 9 Value Added Tax Act 1994 (“VATA”) , so that its
supplies are thus exempt from VAT, or whether it is making a standard rated supply of
staff .
3. Mainpay supplied medical consultants (“con sultants”) and specialist general
practitione rs (“ GP Specialists”) to an intermediary company – an agency ‒ called
Acciden t & Emergency Agency Limited (“A&E”). A&E then supplied the consultants
and GP Specialists to various hospital clients, generally NHS Trusts. The supplies
which are the subject of this appeal were made in the period 1 November 2010 to 31
January 2014 (“the Relevant Period”).
4. The FTT held that Mainpay’s supplies were not exempt fro m VAT but were,
instead, standard rated. Mainpay now appeals that decision on six Grounds of Appeal,
with the permission of the FTT on the f irst five Grounds and the permissi on of this
Tribunal on the sixth.
5. References in square brackets in this decision are references to the Decision unless
the context otherwise requires. References to the Court of Justice of the European
Union (“CJEU”) include references to the European Court of Justice of the European
Communities.
6. For the reasons given below, we dismiss this appeal.
The relevant statutory provisions
7. The Principal VAT Direc tive 2006/112/EC (“the Directive”) makes provision in
Article 132(1)(b) and (c) (superceding Article 13A(1) Sixth Directive) f or the
exemption from VAT of certain transactions:
“1. Member States shall exempt the following transactions:
…
(b) hospital and medical care and closely related activities undertaken
by bodies governed by public law or, under social conditions
comparable with those applicable to bodies governed by public law, by
hospitals, centres for medical treatment or diagnosis and other duly
recognised establishments of a similar nature;
(c) the provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and
paramedical professions as defined by the Member State concerned….”
To continue reading
Request your trial