TC09640 - [2025] UKFTT 01114 (TC)

Fecha: 13-Jun-2025

The issues

The issues

51.

We must determine:

(1)

The correct interpretation of Item 5.

(2)

Whether the Appellant has established, on the facts, that it has received services which should properly have been treated as exempt under Item 5.

52.

To determine these issues, we were addressed generally regarding our approach to interpretation, specifically on the correct interpretation of Item 5 and on the evidence available to us in light of our conclusions on the procedural issues set out above.

53.

The parties have an agreed position regarding the effect of Brexit in this appeal as set out in the Appellant’s skeleton argument:

“23.
VATA 1994 has effect in relation to this appeal in the same way that it had effect immediately prior to IP completion day: section 2(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“EUWA 2018”).
24.
The amendments made to EUWA 2018 by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (“REULA 2023”) and the savings in respect of VAT in section 28 of the Finance Act 2024 (“FA 2024”) have no application to events that occurred before the end of 2023: section 22(5) REULA 2023. Section 28 FA 2024 applies as regards events occurring after 2023.
25.
The principle of the supremacy of EU law continues to apply in this appeal, so far as relevant to the interpretation, disapplication or quashing of law made before IP completion day (which includes all the domestic legislation relevant in this appeal): section 5(2) EU(W)A 2018, pre-REULA amendment and section 28 FA 2024 savings (as regards pre-2024 events); section 28(4) and (6)(b) FA 2024 and section 5(2) EUWA 2018 (as regards post-2023 events). Thus, the principle of conforming construction remains.
26.
CJEU judgments made on or before 11 pm on 31 December 2020 are binding on this Tribunal. CJEU judgments made after that date are not binding, but the UK courts are free to have regard to them so far as they are relevant to the matter before the court: section 6 EUWA 2018.”