TC09677 - [2025] UKFTT 01282 (TC)

There is no dispute between the parties regarding the circumstances leading up to this application. Having considered the evidence adduced by both parties, I find the facts to be as follows.

Uber initiated their appeal against VAT assessments in 2023, triggering the statutory requirement under section 84(3) VAT Act 1994 to deposit the disputed tax sums, in this case in the amount of £1.446 billion.

On 15 January 2024, HMRC applied to stay Uber’s appeal, submitting that the outcome of the Bolt Appeal would materially assist in determining the appeal and the stay would be expedient. Uber opposed the stay on the grounds of commercial prejudice and delay. On 4 March 2024, the FTT granted HMRC’s application as follows:

“10.

This application turns on whether a decision in the Bolt UT Appeal would be of material assistance to the FTT in resolving the issues in Uber’s appeal and, if so, whether it would be expedient to stay Uber’s appeal. In my view, the answer to both points is clearly yes in this case.

11.

There can be no doubt that the UT’s decision in the Bolt UT Appeal, whatever it may be, will be useful, if not determinative, in deciding Uber’s appeal. The issue of whether mobile ride-hailing services fall within the scope of the TOMS had not been considered before Bolt’s appeal to the FTT. That issue is central to Uber’s appeal. The UT’s decision in the Bolt UT Appeal will provide authoritative and binding guidance on the approach to be taken to the evidence and legal submissions on the application of the TOMS to mobile ride hailing services. In all the circumstances, I consider that the decision of the UT will be of material assistance to the FTT hearing Uber’s appeal.

12.

As to whether it is expedient to stay Uber’s appeal, I consider that, notwithstanding the points made by Uber above, the benefits of a stay outweigh any prejudice that may be caused by a delay in hearing Uber’s appeal in the FTT. I acknowledge that it may not be expedient to stay proceedings where, for example, there is likely to be significant delay in hearing the case which would prejudice the obtaining of evidence. However, it seems to me that the risk of staleness is slight even if Uber’s worst fears come true and Bolt’s appeal makes it way to the Supreme Court. Witness statements have been served and they can be used to refresh witnesses’ memories. In any event, there is no reason to believe that the UT will not consider the Bolt UT Appeal within 12 months or a little longer at the latest. More importantly, the parties and the FTT will be greatly assisted in the proper consideration of the issues, and therefore the evidence needed in the appeal, by having the decision of the UT in the Bolt UT Appeal. The overriding objective of the FTT Rules is to enable the FTT to deal with cases fairly and justly and that includes in rule 2(2)(e):

“avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues.”

In my opinion, a refusal to grant a stay in this case thereby denying the FTT hearing Uber’s appeal the benefit of the UT guidance would clearly not be compatible with proper consideration of the issues in this appeal.

13.

Uber also argues that a stay will prevent it obtaining certainty as to its tax position at the earliest possible opportunity which is prejudicial because of the enormous sums at stake which are critical to Uber’s business in the UK. I do not accept that submission. As Uber has stated in its submissions, there may (probably will) be further appeals whatever the outcome of the Bolt UT Appeal and, therefore, the uncertainty will continue whether or not Uber’s appeal is heard in the FTT. There can be no certainty about the final outcome of Uber’s appeal until the conclusion of the Bolt appeal process. Even if Uber’s appeal were heard by the FTT, it would be at risk until all appeals in Bolt’s case had been concluded. If that happened, all the time and effort spent in bringing Uber’s appeal to a hearing in the FTT would have been wasted.

14.

Uber contends that, regardless of the outcome of the Bolt UT Appeal or any further appeal, there will need to be a judicial determination of Uber’s appeal. Such a submission flies in the face of the nature of the proceedings in the Bolt UT Appeal. If HMRC’s grounds of appeal in the Bolt UT Appeal are rejected then I consider that Uber’s appeal would be bound to succeed and it is almost inconceivable that there would need to be a hearing. I can see, however, that there may need to be a hearing of Uber’s appeal if HMRC were to succeed on only some of their grounds in the Bolt UT Appeal. Even in that case, it is very likely in my view that the guidance of the UT will assist the parties and the FTT in identifying what evidence is or is not relevant to the legal and factual issues in the appeal thus saving costs and time.

DIRECTION

15.

For the reasons set out above, I grant HMRC’s application for a direction under rule 5(3)(j) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 and DIRECT that:

(1)

This appeal is stayed until 35 days after the appeal of HMRC v Bolt Services UK Limited proceeding in the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) under reference UT/2024/000008 is finally determined and all time limits are extended accordingly.

(2)

Any party may apply at any time for this direction to be amended, suspended or set aside.”

Uber was refused permission to appeal the stay decision by the FTT on 19 March 2024 and by the UT on 24 May 2024.

On 24 March 2025, the UT released its decision in the Bolt Appeal ruling in favour of Bolt, and on 25 April 2025 HMRC confirmed it would not enforce new VAT assessments against Uber pending the outcome of its appeal against the UT decision.

On 29 April 2025, Uber submitted a claim under section 80(1A) VAT Act 1994 seeking repayment of the Deposited Sums. Uber referred to HMRC’s guidance in VRM10000, which states that repayment should ordinarily follow an adverse UT decision unless there is a genuine risk of non-recovery. Uber challenges HMRC’s delay and procedural handling of the claim. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that it duplicates the appeal, the Deposited Sums preserve the appeal, there is no provision for the repayment of the Deposited Sums while the appeals are pending, and that it would be prejudicial to their responsibility to protect the revenue to pay claims while the litigation continues. HMRC’s decision to refuse the claim is an appealable matter but not one which is currently before me to consider.

On 28 May 2025, the UT granted HMRC permission to appeal their decision in the Bolt Appeal to the Court of Appeal.

On 17 June 2025, Uber responded to HMRC’s concerns about revenue protection, offering financial guarantees and demonstrating its parent company’s substantial resources. HMRC maintained their position that there is a genuine risk of non-recovery and, in accordance with their guidance in VRM10000, refused to accept the guarantees in place of the Deposited Sums. Uber’s position is that HMRC’s refusal to repay is inconsistent with its own policy, inconsistent with its decision not to enforce future assessments. and lacks justification given Uber’s financial guarantees. That decision is not an appealable matter, and therefore not a matter which is currently before me to consider.

In their correspondence to HMRC on 1 July 2025, Uber referred to the effect of hardship on any obligation to deposit the tax in dispute. No formal hardship claim has previously been made.

During the hearing, I heard witness evidence from Balaji Krishnamurthy, Vice President Strategic Finance and Investor Relations of Uber Technologies, Inc, and Charif Guemmout, a Senior Director, Tax for Uber B.V. I consider the evidence given by both witnesses to be credible and reliable, and on the basis of that evidence I find that:

I have made limited findings in respect of Uber’s financial position in view of the confidentiality applications which have been granted, and because I do not consider it necessary to make detailed financial findings in order to deal with this application.