Ampleaward Ltd v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Miles,Judge Richards |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 0170 (TCC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Tax,29 May 2020 |
| Date | 29 May 2020 |
| Published date | 29 May 2020 |
[2020] UKUT 0170 (TCC)
Appeal number: UT/2019/0050
VAT – Place of supply – construction of s18(3) of the Value Added Tax Act
1994 in the light of the Principal VAT Directive – whether s18(3) limited to
goods warehoused in the UK – no – appeal allowed
UPPER TRIBUNAL
(TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER)
AMPLEAWARD LIMITED
Appellant
-and-
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents
Sitting in public by way of remote video hearing on 27 and 28 April 2020
Kieron Beal QC and Michael Firth, instructed by Morrisons Solicitors LLP and TT Tax
for the Appellant
Natasha Barnes and Paul Reynolds, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to
HM Revenue & Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020
TRIBUNAL
MR JUSTICE MILES
JUDGE JONATHAN RICHARDS
2
DECISION
1. The Appellant appeals against a decision (the “Decision”) of the First-tier Tribunal
(Tax Chamber) (the “FTT”) released on 11 February 2019. In the Decision, the FTT
determined four preliminary issues relevant to an assessment to acquisition VAT of
£1,308,648 that HMRC made in respect of the Appellant’s VAT periods 09/12 to 03/16.
2. The appeals before us took the form of a “fully remote” video hearing over the
Skype for Business platform. All parties were content for the hearing to take that form.
The factual background
3. The proceedings concern the correct VAT analysis of a series of transactions in
alcohol involving multiple jurisdictions. The FTT reached its determination of the
preliminary issues by reference to an assumed factual background. We will base our
analysis on the same assumed factual background which can be summarised as follows:
(1) The Appellant is an alcohol wholesaler that has at all material times been
registered for UK VAT and approved to own excise duty suspended
alcoholic goods in tax warehouses in the UK.
(2) During the period in question, the Appellant purchased alcohol from a
supplier (the “Supplier”) established in a member state of the EU other than
the UK (the “Supplier Jurisdiction”).
(3) The Appellant did not, however, take delivery of the alcohol in the UK.
Instead, the Supplier delivered the alcohol to a bonded warehouse (with
which the Appellant had an account) located in a third EU member state
1
(the “Delivery Jurisdiction”).
(4) The Supplier included the Appellant’s UK VAT registration number in
its domestic VAT returns. That enabled the Supplier to treat the sale of the
alcohol as an exempt movement of goods across an EU border for the
purposes of VAT in the Supplier Jurisdiction.
(5) The Appellant was not registered for VAT in the Delivery Jurisdiction.
It did not itself account for VAT in respect of the acquisition of the alcohol
in the Delivery Jurisdiction. (The reason why the Appellant did not account
for VAT in the Delivery Jurisdiction, and the steps it took to comply with
VAT law in the Delivery Jurisdiction are not material to our decision and
we will not, therefore set them out.)
(6) The Appellant would then on-sell the alcohol to a customer (the
“Customer”) established in a fourth member state
2
(the “Customer
Jurisdiction”). The alcohol would be physically located in the Delivery
1
i.e. a member state other than the UK or the Supplier Jurisdiction
2
i.e. neither the UK, the Supplier Jurisdiction nor the Delivery Jurisdiction
To continue reading
Request your trial