Antiques Within Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 89 (TC) (31 January 2013)

Antiques Within Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 89 (TC) (31 January 2013)

The Tribunal found that the stallholders received two distinct and independent supplies: (1) an exempt supply of a designated area of space (right over land), and (2) a standard rated supply of a sales facility. Neither supply was merely ancillary to the other. Therefore, the assessment by the Commissioners was not upheld in full, and the appeal was allowed in part.

Citation
[2013] UKFTT 89 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Antiques Within Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
31 January 2013
Procedural Posture
VAT Assessment Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Value Added Tax, Supply Classification, Exempt Vs Standard Rated Supply, Right Over Land, Sales Service, Apportionment
Tax Law Value Added Tax Supply Classification Exempt Vs Standard Rated Supply Right Over Land Sales Service Apportionment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antiques Within Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Assessment Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the supply by Antiques Within Ltd to stallholders was a single exempt supply of a right over land, a single standard rated supply of a sales service, or two distinct supplies with different VAT treatments.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the stallholders received two distinct and independent supplies: (1) an exempt supply of a designated area of space (right over land), and (2) a standard rated supply of a sales facility. Neither supply was merely ancillary to the other. Therefore, the assessment by the Commissioners was not upheld in full, and the appeal was allowed in part.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Assessment not upheld in full; parties to consider and negotiate apportionment; if apportionment is disputed, matter may be brought back before the Tribunal within 21 days.