UT/2024/000008 - [2025] UKUT 00100 (TCC)

The final ground relating to Issue 1 concerns the FTT’s alternative reasoning for its conclusion – that, if it was necessary for Bolt to make other supplies in addition to the provision of transport for the supplies of transport to fall within the scheme, the additional services provided by Bolt were sufficient to meet the requirement (FTT [113]).

Ms Mitrophanous KC confirmed that it was not HMRC’s case that a multiplicity of services was required for the application of the special scheme. The basis for the FTT’s alternative conclusion was therefore incorrect (see the interpretation of Star Coaches in the CJEU decision in Alpenchalets (Alpenchalets [33])). However, it was HMRC’s case that passenger transport services provided by Bolt were not comparable with supplies made by travel agents and tour operators; and the addition of the other services provided by Bolt could not bring those services provided within the scheme.

We have set out our views on the comparability issues above. The issues raised by this ground of appeal are addressed in that discussion. Given our conclusions on Grounds 1, 1a, 2 and 2a, we do not need to decide this ground, and we do not do so.