Tag Archives: principal

VAT: More on agent or principal – The All Answers Limited case

By   9 December 2018
0

Latest from the courts

In the All Answers Limited (AAL) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether AAL acted as an agent as it contended, or was a principal as HMRC argued. It also considered the position of contracts in certain situations. There have been a huge number of cases on this point, many of which I have commented on. Some of them here here and here

Background

AAL runs an online business which provides essays, coursework and dissertations to students. The FTT found many euphemisms used for this service, but the service which the student paid for effectively passed off other peoples’ work as the students own in order to obtain a certain grade which was decided by the student. Or in other words; cheating. AAL arranged for one of its circa 400 writers, which were usually other students, teachers or lecturers etc (who should have known better) to provide the required work.

Technical

AAL contended that it was acting as the students’ agent in respect of making arrangements to provide the written work. Consequently, it would only account for output tax on the “commission” retained, rather than on the full value of the amount paid by the student – a significant difference. The contracts produced as evidence fully supported the agency analysis. The Terms and Conditions between AAL and the writer provided that the appellant acts as the writer’s agent to sell his/her services and to enter into “relationships” with clients on the writer’s behalf and to collect payment on the writer’s behalf.

HMRC’s view was that there were no agency services supplied and that the economic reality should be examined rather than relying solely on the relevant contracts. The respondent argued that the notion of agency, so carefully woven into the AAL’s Terms and Conditions, lacked both factual and economic reality because the only service provider was the appellant who choose to use a sub-contractor to provide it with the work which AAL ultimately supplied to the client as principal.

The Decision

Unsurprisingly, the judge concluded that the appellant was acting as principal, not agent and so AAL’s appeal was dismissed. In the ruling, certain comments were made which illustrate how the decision was arrived at and are useful to consider when looking at agency/principal positions.

In respect of the T&Cs, the judge observed “…an agreement which is not a sham may nonetheless be artificial and intended to deflect attention from the true positions taken by both the client and the writer, to whom the appellant profitably lends a willing hand, with no concern for ethics or morality”. 

And in respect of the business model: “It could not be stressed more strongly during the appeal before us, and in the documents emanating from the appellant, that its business model is based upon the identity of the client and the identity of the person who is to write the requested piece of academic work, not being made known to one another…” In such circumstances it is difficult to conclude that any agency services are being carried out.

 Commentary

As in nearly all agent/principal cases, the VAT position is determined according to the facts of each individual case. Slight variations may produce different VAT outcomes, so it is crucial to look at the detail of each business activity. Contracts are a useful starting point, but as this case shows, if a contract is deliberately drafted to produce a VAT outcome that is not supported by the actual facts of a transaction then it must be disregarded in favour of an analysis of the economic reality. It seems that in this case, AAL desired agency treatment in order to significantly reduce its output tax (which was sticking tax as the recipient was unable to recover it as input tax). Its advisers drafted the relevant contract with this in mind. The FTT saw through that and, came to this sensible decision.

VAT: Adecco Court of Appeal case. Agent or principal?

By   6 August 2018
0

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.

Agent or principal? Latest from The Supreme Court

By   13 March 2014
0

There is a very important distinction in VAT terms between agent and principal as it dictates whether output tax is due on the entire amount received by a “middle-man” or just the amount which the middle-man retains (usually a commission). It is common for the relationship between parties to be open to interpretation and thus create VAT uncertainty in many transactions. It appears to me that this uncertainty has increased as a result of the increasing amount of on-line sales and different parties being involved in a single sale.

A very helpful recent case; Secret Hotels 2 Ltd (formerly Med Hotels) heard at the Supreme Court, has clarified some grey areas in agent/principal relationships.

Very broadly, in this case which the taxpayer won, the judgement tips the balance back into the favour of common law as opposed to civil law principles for UK taxpayers and that the nature of a supply is to be determined by the construction of the contract – unless it is a ‘sham’.

This Supreme Court Judgment helpfully indicates that we must place far greater emphasis on the form of the arrangement (contract) as opposed to the economic substance (as often argued by HMRC).

The full decision is available here: http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0036_PressSummary.pdf

Although there will always be disputes over agent/principal relationships, this decision goes some way to clarifying the analysis and demonstrating the importance of the contract over what HMRC describe as “economic reality”.

Please contact us if you are, or have been, in dispute with HMRC on this point as it provides additional ammunition for the taxpayer.

Please click here for information on disbursements for agents