UT/2023/000067 - [2024] UKUT 00106 (TCC)

Having set out the parties’ submissions, the FTT set out its reasoning at [52] - [55]:

“52.

BullionVault’s Terms and Conditions include the following:

‘BullionVault acknowledges that the bullion you own exists, is in the vault, is yours, and that being physical it is ultimately capable of being sub divided into measurable amounts of material which you could take into your possession, subject to paying the physical withdrawal fee according to the Tariff.’

53.

The agreement between HMRC and LBMA states that supplies to and from an LBMA member to a non-member are zero-rated provided the transaction does not lead to the physical delivery. Bullion will be regarded as having been removed when effective control is transferred from an LBMA member to a non-member. The term effective physical control includes cases where bullion leaves the possession of an LBMA member but remains under the member’s control and responsibility.

54.

BullionVault’s Terms and Conditions make it clear that the gold bullion belongs to the customer and could be taken into the customer’s possession. The fact that there will be additional fees and procedures for the customer to have their gold bullion delivered to them or made available to them means that the exemption does not apply to the Appellant.

55.

The gold bullion is therefore delivered or available to be taken away within the meaning of section 7.1 of the Notice and accordingly the Appellant should have complied with the requirements set out in the Regulations.”

Accordingly, the FTT dismissed QASL’s appeal.