Scope of securities exemption
Scope of securities exemption
In developing CBNA’s submissions, Mr Hitchmough, took us through, skilfully and in some detail, the evolution of the case-law relating to the three financial service exemptions (the payment exemption, the securities exemption and the exemption in respect of special investment funds). Mr Beal likewise addressed this jurisprudence in HMRC’s response.
In broad terms both parties draw support in their interpretation of the securities exemption from other exemptions but in a different way. CBNA say the securities exemption is not like the payment exemption but has commonality with the principles in relation to the exemption for special investment funds. HMRC on the other hand say the securities and payment exemptions are more akin; they are both transaction based exemptions and distinct from the special investment fund exemption which refers to management of funds (which is based on activity). In our view it is sufficient for present purposes to turn directly to two of the CJEU cases specifically concerned with the securities exemption in order to expose the relevant principles.
- 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)