Barnett & Anor (t/a Burghill Valley Golf Club) v Revenue & Customs, First-tier Tribunal (Tax), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Barnett & Anor (t/a Burghill Valley Golf Club) v. Revenue & Customs

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellants, a mother and daughter partnership, operated a golf club and until April 2001 accounted for VAT on sporting services supplied to members and visitors. In April 2001, they restructured their business by incorporating two companies to provide golfing supplies, leasing land and equipment to these companies, which purportedly supplied the services. The purpose was to secure a VAT saving by having the companies qualify for exemption under the VAT Act 1994. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) challenged this arrangement, issuing a ruling in 2004 that the Appellants themselves made the supplies and were liable for VAT, followed by an assessment for unpaid VAT and default interest. The companies later entered voluntary liquidation and the Appellants resumed supplying golfing services and accounting for VAT. The Appellants appealed HMRC’s decision and assessment, disputing who made the supplies and whether the doctrine of abuse applied.

Legal Issues Presented

Who made the supply of sporting services for VAT purposes: the Appellants or the incorporated companies?
In the alternative, whether the doctrine of abuse of rights applied to the business arrangements.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

The companies were independent legal entities with contracts to supply sporting services and managed by independent directors.
The companies issued invoices and receipts to members and visitors, indicating they made the supplies.
HMRC’s pursuit of the Appellants for unpaid VAT was opportunistic following the companies’ liquidation.
The arrangements did not constitute abuse as no tax advantage accrued to the Appellants; any advantage would have accrued to the companies.

HMRC's Arguments

The identity of the supplier for VAT purposes depends on the reality of the arrangements, not merely contractual form.
Despite contracts, the Appellants continued to make the supplies given their control over assets, staff, and finances.
The companies did not qualify for VAT exemption as eligible bodies.
The arrangements amounted to an abuse because the scheme was designed to avoid VAT recovery and remove surpluses from the companies, benefiting the Appellants.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Reed Personnel Services Ltd [1995] STC 588	Contractual position is not determinative of supplier identity for VAT; substance over form applies.	Used to support the principle that all facts must be examined to determine who made the supply.
Belgian State v Temco Europe SA, Case C-284/03	National courts must rigorously scrutinise legal manoeuvres intended to evade VAT provisions and enforce VAT neutrality.	Guided the Tribunal to rigorously assess the substance of the arrangements and disregard artificial structures.
HMCE v Reed Personnel Services Ltd [1995] STC 598	Substance over contractual form in determining VAT supplier.	Supported the approach that contracts alone do not determine who made supplies.
WHA Ltd v HMCE [2004] EWCA Civ 599	All facts must be examined to ascertain the true supplier for VAT purposes.	Confirmed the need to look beyond contracts to the reality of the supply.
Tesco PLC v CCE [2003] EWCA Civ 1367	Examination of the substance and reality of transactions for VAT purposes.	Applied to support the Tribunal’s fact-finding approach.
CCE v First Choice Holidays [2004] STC 1419	Consideration of the true nature of supplies beyond contractual arrangements.	Used to reinforce the principle of substance over form.
Lumar Developments [2006] UK VAT V 19729	Example of a blatant case where the supplier was not the company set up to claim exemption.	Referenced but found less applicable due to less blatant facts in the present case.
The Atrium Club Limited [2009] LON/2005/0485	Determined that a non-profit company made sporting supplies when it had its own staff, equipment, and independence.	Distinguished from present case due to significant factual differences regarding control and resources.
C & E Commissioners v Ferrero UK Limited [1997] STC 881	Caution against over-reliance on other Tribunal decisions as precedents due to fact sensitivity.	Advised caution in applying other Tribunal decisions to the present case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal applied established VAT principles that contractual form is not determinative of who made the supply; instead, the substance and reality of the arrangements must be examined. The Tribunal scrutinised the entire factual matrix, including the nature of the agreements, control over assets and staff, financial arrangements, communications to members, and the operation of the companies. It found that despite the companies being separate legal entities with contracts, they lacked independent resources, staff, and effective control over the golfing services. The Appellants retained ownership of key assets, control over staff (including the General Manager who was employed by them), and financial control, including the ability to terminate agreements on short notice. The companies’ directors were passive and dependent on advice from the Appellants’ employees. Communications to members emphasized continuity and did not identify the companies as the real suppliers. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellants continued to supply the golfing services in substance. Because of this finding, it was unnecessary to decide the alternative issue of abuse of rights, though the Tribunal noted there was no evidence of deliberate abuse by the Appellants.

Holding and Implications

The Tribunal held that the Appellants were the actual suppliers of the sporting services and liable for the VAT assessment. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the restructuring to incorporate companies did not change the true supplier for VAT purposes. The Appellants remain responsible for the unpaid VAT and default interest as assessed by HMRC. The Tribunal made no order for costs and granted leave for the parties to seek determination of the quantum of the assessment if unresolved. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing VAT principles to the facts of this case.