Latest from the courts

In the recent Court of Appeal (CA) case of Adecco here the issue was whether the services provided by Adecco – an employment bureau which supplied its clients with temporary staff (temps) were by way of it acting as principal or agent.

Background

Details of the issues as considered in the FTT and UT were covered here 

Overview

As is often the case in these types of arrangements, there are some matters that point towards the appellant acting as agent, and others indicating that the proper VAT treatment is that of principal. The important difference, of course, being whether output tax is due on the “commission” received by Adecco or on the full payment made to it (which includes the salaries of the relevant workers).

Decision

The CA decided that the supply of temporary staff by Adecco was as principal and consequently, VAT was due on the full amount received, not just the commission retained.

Reasoning

The CA focussed on the contractual position. Among the reasons provided for this decision were as follows (I have somewhat summarised). I think it worthwhile looking in some detail at these:

• There was no question of the temps having provided their services under contracts with the clients: no such contracts existed. The contractual position must be that the temps’ services were provided to clients in pursuance of the contracts between Adecco and its clients and Adecco and the temps.
• Although the contract between Adecco and a temp referred to the temp undertaking an assignment “for a client” and providing services “to the client”, it also spoke of the client requiring the temp’s services “through Adecco” and of the temp being supplied “through Adecco”.
• While temps were to be subject to the control of clients, that was something that the temps agreed with Adecco, not the clients. The fact that the contract between Adecco and a temp barred any third party from having rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 confirms that the relevant provisions were to be enforceable only by Adecco, which, on the strength of them, was able to agree with its clients that the temps should be under their control. Adecco can fairly be described as conferring such control on its clients. (Broadly; the employment regulations required Adecco to treat itself as a principal with the result that that it could not therefore treat itself as an agent).
• Adecco paid temps on its own behalf, not as agent for the clients.
• Adecco by did not drop out of the picture once it had introduced a temp to a client. It was responsible for paying the temp (and for handling national insurance contributions and the like) and had to do so regardless of whether it received payment from the client Adecco also enjoyed rights of termination and suspension. It is noteworthy (as the UT said) that the contract between Adecco and a temp proceeded on the basis that a temp’s unauthorised absence could “result in a breach of obligations which we owe to the client”.
• Adecco did not perform just administrative functions in relation to the temps. The temps, after all, were entitled to be paid by Adecco, not the clients.
• Adecco charged a client a single sum for each hour a temp worked. It did not split its fees into remuneration for the temp and commission for itself.
• The fact that Adecco had no control over a temp in advance of his taking up his assignment with the client did not matter.
• Adecco undoubtedly supplied the services of employed temps to its clients.
• In all the circumstances, both contractually and as a matter of economic and commercial reality, the temps’ services were supplied to clients via Adecco. In other words, Adecco did not merely supply its clients with introductory and ancillary services, and VAT was payable on the totality of what it was paid by clients.

Action

Clearly this was not the outcome the appellant desired, and it may impact similar arrangements in place for other businesses.  Although found on the precise nature of the relevant contracts, the outcome of this case is not limited to employment bureaux and similar but must be considered in most cases where commission is received by an “agent”. These may include, inter alia; taxi services, driving schools, transport, travel agents, training/education, online services, repairs, warrantee work and many other types of business. It is crucial that contracts are regularly reviewed the ensure that the appropriate VAT treatment is applied and that they are clear on the agent/principal relationship. If there is any doubt, please contact us as it is often one of the most ambiguous areas of VAT.