Abbotsley Ltd and Others v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Arnold,Judge Hellier |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] UKUT 0191 (TCC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Tax,19 June 2018 |
| Date | 19 June 2018 |
| Published date | 19 June 2018 |
[2018] UKUT 0191 (TCC)
Appeal numbers
UT/2016/0025, 0026 and 0027
VAT – whether affiliation fees paid by golf clubs to golf associations standard-rated
or exempt by virtue of Value Added Tax Act 1994 Schedule 9 Group 10 Item 3 –
whether exemption applied to supplies to profit-making bodies – whether supplies
relating to standardised handicaps essential to sport
UPPER TRIBUNAL
TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER
(1) ABBOTSLEY LIMITED
(2) CROMWELL GOLF CLUB
(3) CAMBRIDGE MERIDIAN GOLF CLUB
Appellants
- and –
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER
MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents
Tribunal: The Hon Mr Justice Arnold and Judge Charles Hellier
Sitting in public at the Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL on 22-23 May 2018
Timothy Brown for the Appellants
Raymond Hill, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to
HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2018
Page 2
DECISION
Introduction
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)
(Judge Swami Raghavan) dated 11 December 2015 ([2015] UKFTT 662 (TC))
dismissing an appeal by the Appellants against a decision of the Commissioners
of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) that affiliation fees paid by
the Appellants to golf governing bodies are exempt from VAT by virtue of
Value Added Tax Act 1994 Schedule 9 Group 10 Item 3.
2. The case is unusual for two reasons. First, the Appellants argue that the relevant
supplies are standard-rated, while it is HMRC who argue that they are exempt.
The Appellants told the FTT that their object was to highlight the unfair
distortion of competition between proprietary and members’ golf clubs arising
from the different way they are treated for VAT purposes.
3. Secondly, the appeal has reached this Tribunal by an unusual route. Permission
to appeal against the FTT’s decision was refused both by the FTT and by this
Tribunal. The Appellants sought judicial review of this Tribunal’s decision to
refuse permission to appeal. Edis J sitting in the Administrative Court granted
the Appellants permission to apply for judicial review on two grounds, although
he refused it on a third ground. HMRC then withdrew their opposition to the
substantive application for judicial review. As a result, the Appellants were
granted permission to appeal on the two grounds for which Edis J had given
permission.
4. The FTT’s decision addressed a wider range of issues than we are concerned
with. In particular, it was part of the Appellants’ case before the FTT that the
Value Added Tax (Sports, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order
1999 (“the 1999 Order”) did not correctly implement the relevant provisions of
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system
of value added tax (“the Principal VAT Directive”) and the Appellants sought
a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Edis J refused
permission to apply for judicial review in respect of this issue, and it is therefore
not before us.
5. The FTT’s decision was given after a three-day hearing at which the FTT heard
oral evidence from six witnesses. In addition, the FTT received written evidence
from a further 19 witnesses. The FTT’s decision is a detailed and careful one
running to 144 paragraphs. There is no challenge to the FTT’s findings of fact.
The grounds of appeal for which the Appellants have permission are restricted
to two alleged errors of law.
6. As we will explain, certain issues were raised by the Appellants during the
hearing of the appeal which are not within the scope of the grounds for which
To continue reading
Request your trial