![UT/2024/000002 - [2025] UKUT 00188 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Specimen Invoice
Specimen Invoice
The Appellant points out that the FTT did not refer to the specimen invoices referred to in the GMSAs in its decision, although they were before it. We were referred to the one set out in Appendix A of the 2010 iteration of the GMSA which showed the following details:
The provider (CBNA) and recipient (First Chicago Leasing Corporation). The total charge for services provided (122,28) with the service description as “Support Services”.
The Receiving Business Areas (again with a one line entry “Support Services” for the amount of 122,28)
A more detailed breakdown of the charges” by reference to “Customer Business Area” although in this case there is only a one line entry of 122,28 (“Americas Management Allocation”).
- 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