Latest from the courts
In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Sonder Europe Limited (Sonder) the issue was whether apartments leased to Sonder and used to provide short-term accommodation to corporate and leisure travellers were supplies of a designated travel service via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) and whether the bought-in supply was used for the direct benefit of travellers (as required by TOMS).
Background
Sonder leased apartments from landlords on a medium to long-term basis and used them to provide accommodation to travellers on a short-term basis (one night to a month; the average stay being five nights). Sonder furnished some apartments as well as undertaking occasional decorating and maintenance.
The sole issue was whether these supplies are covered by TOMS. TOMS is not optional.
Initially in the FTT it was decided that output tax was due via TOMS. This was an appeal by HMRC against that First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision.
The issue
Whether VAT was accountable using TOMS – on the margin, or on the full amount received from travellers by Sonder.
Legislation
TOMS is authorised by the VAT Act 1994, section 53 and via SI 1987/1806.
Arguments
Sonder contended that the supply was “for the direct benefit of the traveller” as required by the VAT (Tour Operators) Order 1987 and that the accommodation was provided “…without material alteration or further processing”. Consequently, TOMS applied. The FTT decided that Sonder did not materially alter or process the apartments.
HMRC maintained that the FTT decision was based on the physical alternations made rather than the actual characteristics of the supplies. Consequently, these were not supplies covered by the 1987 Order and output tax was due on the total income received for these services.
Decision
The UT upheld HMRC’s appeal and decided that TOMS did not apply n these circumstances The UT found that the FTT’s decision was in error in that it did not have regard to whether the services bought in were supplied to it for the direct benefit of travellers. Furthermore, the short-term leases to occupy property as holiday accommodation were materially altered from interests in land for a period of years supplied by the landlords.
The services received by Sonder from the landlords were not for the direct benefit of the travellers and Sonder’s supplies were not for the benefit of the users without material alteration and further processing. Consequently, there was not a supply of bought-in services, but rather an ‘in-house’ supply which was not covered by TOMS.
To the UT, the position was even clearer in relation to unfurnished apartments. Sonder acquired an interest in land for a term of years in an unfurnished apartment. It furnished the apartment and then supplied a short-term licence to a traveller to occupy as holiday accommodation. What was supplied to the traveller was materially different to what was supplied to Sonder.
Commentary
Another illustration of the complexities of TOMS and the significant impact on a business of getting the rules wrong. The fact that the UT remade the decision demonstrates that different interpretations are possible on similar facts. Moreover, even slight differences in business models can result in different VAT outcomes.