Rotherham Golf Academy Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 57 (TC) (24 April 2009)

Rotherham Golf Academy Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 57 (TC) (24 April 2009)

The agreements, though labelled as leases, were in substance not leases but arrangements for the appellant to delegate day-to-day running of its own business. The appellant retained control, set prices and hours, and the so-called lessees had no real business risk or autonomy. The arrangements were shams designed to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 57
Parties
Appellant: Rotherham Golf Academy Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (VAT)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 April 2009
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Exemption, Supply of Services, Lease Vs. Sham Transaction, Tax Avoidance, Sport and Physical Education
Tax Law VAT Law VAT Exemption Supply of Services Lease Vs. Sham Transaction Tax Avoidance Sport and Physical Education

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rotherham Golf Academy Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (VAT)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's supplies were exempt supplies of rights to occupy the driving range or taxable supplies of services to the public
  2. 2 Whether the agreements constituted genuine leases or were shams

Ratio Decidendi

The agreements, though labelled as leases, were in substance not leases but arrangements for the appellant to delegate day-to-day running of its own business. The appellant retained control, set prices and hours, and the so-called lessees had no real business risk or autonomy. The arrangements were shams designed to create the appearance of exempt supplies, but in reality, the supplies were taxable supplies made by the appellant to the public.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The supplies made were not exempt supplies; they were taxable supplies made by the appellant to the public.
  • Leave granted to either party to apply to the Tribunal for a further hearing on quantum within three months if unresolved.