Contractual materials
Contractual materials
In broad outline the materials comprised an umbrella agreement, the Global Master Services Agreement (“GMSA”) containing generic provisions for the inter (Footnote: 1)-company provision of services from CBNA to its Affiliates. That in turn referenced further detail in an Expense Allocation Policy (“EAP”). The particular services a given Affiliate received were provided pursuant to an Addendum to the GMSA which the relevant affiliate entered into.
The FTT described the GMSA at [89] as “the legal framework, terms and conditions under which services were provided on an inter-company basis between CBNA and its Affiliates, including SPLC…”.
The GMSA, which came into effect on 1 January 2006 (“the 2006 GMSA”), was then revised and amended in 2010 and 2015 although nothing turns on those changes for the purposes of this appeal. As mentioned below, a further GMSA was entered into on 30 September 2019 (“the 2019 GMSA”). Although that was current during a small part of the relevant period the significance of the changes it made as regard the prior periods are a matter of dispute.
The interoffice memorandum attaching the 2006 GMSA explained how the GMSA “was to be used to substantiate expense allocations and payments among Affiliates of JPMC”, that the agreements referenced other documents (the EAP and Product and Pricing Guide (a granular list of over 5000 cost/expenses products)) accessible on the internal website, and how each affiliate was to execute an Addendum to indicate its agreement to be bound.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Legal principles relevant to single vs multiple supplies issue
- The FTT Decision - background facts
- Group structure
- Contractual materials
- The 2006 GMSA
- The Addendum
- The Expense Allocation Policy
- Specimen Invoice
- The Inter-entity tax invoicing tool
- Actual invoices
- The 2019 GMSA
- The FTT’s reasoning on the single vs multiple supply issue
- Grounds of appeal
- Ground 1: The FTT misconstrued key aspects of the contracts in issue before it
- Discussion
- Ground 2 : the FTT ignored other aspects of those contracts that were material
- Key provisions of the 2019 GMSA inconsistent?
- Ground 3: The FTT concluded that because the contracts reflected economic reality, it was not necessary to ‘go behind’ them, and so failed to (i) recognise the limitations of those contracts and (ii)
- Ground 4: the FTT misapplied the key factors of indivisibility and indispensability, equating those factors with the existence of ‘close links’ and ‘necessity’
- Ground 5: The FTT misapplied the concept of separate availability
- Ground 6: The FTT placed undue (and in any event incorrect) reliance on invoicing
- Other submissions – who is the typical consumer?
- Conclusion on single vs. multiple supplies grounds
- The exemption issue
- Law
- The FTT Decision regarding the Exemption issue
- Scope of securities exemption
- Case-law on securities exemption
- Discussion on scope of securities exemption
- CBNA’s ground of appeal that the FTT’s conclusion was inconsistent with other findings
- Negotiation in securities?
- Edwards v Bairstow errors
- CBNA’s challenge to application of principles to facts
- Conclusion on exemption issue
- The classification issue
- Conclusions
![UT/2024/000002 - [2025] UKUT 00188 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)