Case Law

A claims handling service was found not to come within the meaning of the provision of insurance in the case of Aspiro SA C-40/15

The identity of the recipients of services, and the legal form under which they benefit from them, are irrelevant when determining whether the supplies of such services are exempt. Canterbury Hockey Club v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Case C-253/07

Medical services provided to enable an employer to take decisions on the recruitment of a worker did not fall within the meaning of provision of medical care and therefore were not exempt. Dr Peter L. d’Ambrumenil, Dispute Resolution Services Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Case C-307/01

The right to install a vending machine in a pub and to operate and maintain it under the terms of an agreement between the vendor and the pub owner was not a letting of immovable property as it was “not the passive provision of an area or space, together with the grant to the other party of a right to occupy it as though he were the owner and to exclude all other persons from the enjoyment of that right”. Sinclair Collis Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Case C-275/01

Commissioner of Customs and Excise v CSC Financial Services Ltd Case C-235/00 considered whether the provision of call centre services was an exempt ‘transaction in securities’ or ‘negotiation in securities’.

For an organisation to be regarded as a "non profit-making" organisation, this must be based on all of its activities and may be so regarded even when the organisation systematically aims to make a profit, but such profits are used by it in supplying its services. Kennemer Golf & Country Club v Inspecteur Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen Haarlem Case C-174/00

The ECJ ruled that that an insurance transaction necessarily implies the existence of a contractual relationship between the beneficiary of the insurance service and the insured. It followed that a transaction where an insurance company, in return for market value remuneration, carried out the business activities of a wholly owned subsidiary and which continued to conclude insurance contracts in its own name, did not constitute an insurance transaction. Skandia Case C-240/99

A supply which is made by a person who does not have any interest in the immoveable property and which consists of an assignment of a lease of that property from the lessee is not an exempt supply of property. Commissioners of Custom and Excise v Cantor Fitzgerald International Case C-108/99

ECJ held that where the duration of the “right of enjoyment of the immovable property” has not been agreed by the parties to a contract, such contract cannot be regarded as a “letting”. Therefore, the provision of access to roads on payment of a toll could not be considered an exempt “letting “ of immovable goods. Commission of the European Communities v Ireland Case C-358/97

Card Protection Plan Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Case C-349/96 considered the issue of single and multiple supplies. ECJ held that there was a single supply where one or more elements is to be regarded as constituting the principal service, whereas the other elements are to be regarded as ancillary services which share the same tax treatment as the principal service. This is referred to in VAT legislation as a “composite supply”.

Sparekassernes Datacenter v Skatteministeriet Case C-2/95 concerned outsourcing of financial transactions and whether the service qualified for VAT exemption. ECJ ruled that the service must in its own right qualify for VAT exemption. It must form a distinct whole, fulfilling in effect the specific, essential aspect of the transaction. The work carried out by Sparekassernes altered the legal and financial relationship of the parties - hence its work was an integral part of the bank's financial service.

Debt collection cannot be seen as applying solely to the service of chasing and recovering overdue payments on behalf of the creditor. Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v AXA UK plc Case C-175/09

In Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club Limited, Case C-495/12, the ECJ found that green fees charged by members’ clubs are VAT exempt.

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club Limited [2013]CJEU C-495/12 examined whether the payment of green fees fell within the category of the specific exemption provided under Article 132(1)(m) of Directive 2006/112 which provides for an exemption for “the supply of certain services closely linked to sport or physical education by non-profit-making organisations to persons taking part in sport or physical education”

This tax appeal case concerned the VAT treatment of services of a locum doctor to a GP clinic. 126TACD2020

This appeal concerns a dispute as to whether the Appellant was an accountable person for VAT. 116TACD2021

Whether acupuncture, chiropricatic and related psychological services were exempt from VAT. 33TACD2022