YMCA Birmingham and Others v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Marcus Smith,Judge Cannan |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 0143 (TCC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Tax,1 May 2020 |
| Date | 01 May 2020 |
| Published date | 01 May 2020 |
[2020] UKUT 0143 (TCC)
Appeal number: UT/2019/0019
VAT – exemption – welfare services – art 132(1)(g) VAT Directive – Item 9
Group 7 sch 9 VATA 1994 – Supporting People Programme – housing related
support – relevance of identity of recipient of supplies – meaning of distressed
persons – meaning of instruction
UPPER TRIBUNAL
TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER
(1) YMCA BIRMINGHAM
(2) YMCA BLACK COUNTRY GROUP
(3) YMCA LEICESTER
(4) YMCA BURTON UPON TRENT AND
DISTRICT
Appellants
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents
TRIBUNAL:
The Honourable Mr Justice Marcus Smith
Judge Jonathan Cannan
Sitting in public via a remote hearing deemed to be at The Rolls Building, Fetter
Lane, London EC4A 1NL on 22 April 2020
Etienne Wong and Hammad Baig, instructed by Booker Associates, for the
Appellants
Natasha Barnes, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue
and Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020
DECISION
A. INTRODUCTION
(1) Parties and this appeal
1. The “YMCA” – or The Young Men’s Christian Association – is a well-
5
known worldwide organisation founded in 1844. In England, the YMCA operates
through 114 bodies, each registered as a charity and each separately registered for
VAT.
2. The Appellants, in this appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery
Chamber), are four such bodies. By four decisions of the Commissioners for Her
10
Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”), HMRC decided that provision of
“housing related support services” constituted the supply of welfare services that
were exempt for VAT purposes.
3. The Appellants appealed those decisions to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax
Chamber) (the “FTT”). By a single decision given in each of these four appeals
1
15
dated 21 June 2018, the FTT (Judge Peter Kempster) dismissed the appeals (the
“Decision”). With the permission of Judge Kempster, the Appellants appeal the
Decision to this Tribunal.
(2) Factual background
4. The factual background is fully set out in the Decision. This section draws
20
heavily on the facts as found by Judge Kempster. As is well-known, appeals to
this Tribunal are on points of law only. None of the parties directly sought to
challenge the facts found in the Decision although (as we describe) some of the
Appellants’ grounds of appeal came close to being a on questions of fact, not law.
5. In April 2003, the Department for Communities and Local Government
25
launched the Supporting People Programme or “SPP”. The aims of the SPP were,
in essence, to provide housing related support services to vulnerable people.
2
Under the SPP, several funding streams were brought into a single ringfenced
grant of £1.8 billion to local authorities to provide these housing related support
services (the “SPP Grant”).
3
The government allocated the SPP Grant to
30
administering local government authorities, who assumed responsibility for
implementing the programme within their local area.
4
1
Appeal Nos TC/2015/6751, TC/2015/6737, TC/2016/5817 and TC/20 17/3062.
2
Decision at [4].
3
Decision at [5].
4
Decision at [6].
To continue reading
Request your trial