![UT/2024/000002 - [2025] UKUT 00188 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Heading
Case Number: UT/2024/000002
Rolls Building, London
VAT – Intra-group provision of services by infrastructure providing entity within group – issue arising over whether supply or supplies taxable under s43(2A) and (2B) VATA – whether single supply of support functions or multiple supplies of trading infrastructure services specific to particular business areas – whether if more than one supply whether any exempt under Payment or Securities exemption (Schedule 9, Group 5 VATA Article 135(1)(d) and/or (f) Principal VAT Directive) – appeal dismissed
Heard on: 10-14 March 2025
Judgment date: 16 June 2025
Before
JUDGE SWAMI RAGHAVAN
JUDGE PHYLLIS RAMSHAW
Between
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.
Appellant
and
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents
Representation:
For the Appellant: Andrew Hitchmough KC and Laura Poots KC instructed by Baker McKenzie
For the Respondents: Kieron Beal KC, Andrew Macnab, Counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
DECISION
- 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