1
© 2016 Grant Thornton UK LLP. All rights reserved. ‘Grant Thornton’ refers to the brand under which the Grant Thornton member firms provide assurance, tax and advisory services to their clients and/or refers to one or more member firms, as the context requires. Grant Thornton UK LLP is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL). GTIL and the member firms are not a worldwide partnership. GTIL and each member firm is a separate legal entity. Services are delivered by the member firms. GTIL does not provide services to clients. GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not obligate, one another and are not liable for one another’s acts or omissions. This publication has been prepared only as a guide. No responsibility can be accepted by us for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material in this publication. grant-thornton.co.uk GRT100456 Summary Over the decades since the introduction of VAT, a number of principles of EU law have emerged. These include the principles of fiscal neutrality, legal certainty, proportionality, legitimate expectation and abuse of law. None of these principles are written down but they have developed over many years of the Court of Justice jurisprudence. It is in relation to the latter principle that the University of Huddersfield found itself in a 20 year battle with HMRC. The Court of Appeal has now issued a judgment confirming that the principle of abuse of law applied to a VAT planning arrangement implemented by the University which gave it a VAT advantage contrary to the purpose of the VAT Directive. 17 May 2016 Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal has released its judgment in the University of Huddersfield VAT case. The question to be resolved in this long-running case was whether a VAT planning scheme implemented by the university fell foul of the EU law principle of abuse of law. The university had purchased an old mill in Huddersfield which needed to be substantially refurbished. Without anything further, the VAT payable on the refurbishment works would not have been claimable in full as the university intended to use the refurbished building for the purpose of an exempt activity (the provision of university education). Having sought advice, the university implemented a VAT saving scheme. The scheme involved the establishment of a trust and an in-house construction company. It was found by the First-tier Tax Tribunal that the sole purpose of establishing the trust was to facilitate the VAT planning scheme and the issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the scheme provided a VAT advantage to the university which was contrary to the purpose of the VAT Directive. Although the First-tier Tax Tribunal considered that the arrangements were not abusive, the Upper Tribunal (on appeal) and now the Court of Appeal have found that the First-tier's conclusions were wrong. The Court of Appeal concluded that the purpose of the Directive was to ensure that taxpayers that make exempt supplies do not recover VAT which they are not entitled to reclaim. Clearly, the VAT planning arrangement implemented by the university put it in a position where, even though the building was to be used for the provision of exempt education, it had recovered all of the VAT incurred on the refurbishment works. The Court of Appeal decided that this was contrary to the purpose of the Directive and, accordingly the scheme constituted an abuse of law. Comment – at the time that this scheme was implemented (1996), this kind of VAT planning was fairly commonplace. It is only with the emergence of the EU law principles, including the principle of abuse of law, that HMRC began to challenge such arrangements. However, in light of these now established principles, arrangements regarded by HMRC as artificial which provide a tax advantage contrary to the Directive's purpose are likely to be challenged by HMRC and dismissed by the courts. University of Huddersfield Case Alert Contact Stuart Brodie Scotland [email protected] (0)14 1223 0683 Karen Robb London & South East [email protected] (0)20 772 82556

Case Alert University of Huddersfield - Court of Appeal

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

© 2016 Grant Thornton UK LLP. All rights reserved.

‘Grant Thornton’ refers to the brand under which the Grant Thornton member firms

provide assurance, tax and advisory services to their clients and/or refers to one or

more member firms, as the context requires.

Grant Thornton UK LLP is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL).

GTIL and the member firms are not a worldwide partnership. GTIL and each member

firm is a separate legal entity. Services are delivered by the member firms. GTIL does

not provide services to clients. GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not

obligate, one another and are not liable for one another’s acts or omissions.

This publication has been prepared only as a guide. No responsibility can be accepted

by us for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of

any material in this publication.

grant-thornton.co.uk

GRT100456

Summary Over the decades since the

introduction of VAT, a number of

principles of EU law have emerged.

These include the principles of fiscal

neutrality, legal certainty,

proportionality, legitimate

expectation and abuse of law.

None of these principles are written

down but they have developed over

many years of the Court of Justice

jurisprudence.

It is in relation to the latter principle

that the University of Huddersfield

found itself in a 20 year battle with

HMRC. The Court of Appeal has

now issued a judgment confirming

that the principle of abuse of law

applied to a VAT planning

arrangement implemented by the

University which gave it a VAT

advantage contrary to the purpose

of the VAT Directive.

17 May 2016

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has released its judgment in the University of Huddersfield VAT case. The question to be resolved in this long-running case was whether a VAT planning scheme implemented by the university fell foul of the EU law principle of abuse of law. The university had purchased an old mill in Huddersfield which needed to be substantially refurbished. Without anything further, the VAT payable on the refurbishment works would not have been claimable in full as the university intended to use the refurbished building for the purpose of an exempt activity (the provision of university education). Having sought advice, the university implemented a VAT saving scheme.

The scheme involved the establishment of a trust and an in-house construction company. It was found by the First-tier Tax Tribunal that the sole purpose of establishing the trust was to facilitate the VAT planning scheme and the issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the scheme provided a VAT advantage to the university which was contrary to the purpose of the VAT Directive. Although the First-tier Tax Tribunal considered that the arrangements were not abusive, the Upper Tribunal (on appeal) and now the Court of Appeal have found that the First-tier's conclusions were wrong. The Court of Appeal concluded that the purpose of the Directive was to ensure that taxpayers that make exempt supplies do not recover VAT which they are not entitled to reclaim. Clearly, the VAT planning arrangement implemented by the university put it in a position where, even though the building was to be used for the provision of exempt education, it had recovered all of the VAT incurred on the refurbishment works. The Court of Appeal decided that this was contrary to the purpose of the Directive and, accordingly the scheme constituted an abuse of law.

Comment – at the time that this scheme was implemented (1996), this kind of VAT planning was fairly commonplace. It is only with the emergence of the EU law principles, including the principle of abuse of law, that HMRC began to challenge such arrangements. However, in light of these now established principles, arrangements regarded by HMRC as artificial which provide a tax advantage contrary to the Directive's purpose are likely to be challenged by HMRC and dismissed by the courts.

University of Huddersfield

Case Alert

Contact Stuart Brodie Scotland [email protected] (0)14 1223 0683

Karen Robb London & South East [email protected] (0)20 772 82556