Latest from the courts
The Gray & Farrar International LLP (G&F) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case.
The romantic side of VAT (well…if romance comes at a cost of £15,000 a time).
The issue here was the place of supply (POS) of the services provided by G&F to clients all over the world.
Background
The Appellant ran an exclusive matchmaking business. It provides its services to clients in many jurisdictions. It argued that its supplies to non-taxable (individuals) persons who reside outside the EU where outside the scope of UK VAT because the POS was where the supply was received. HMRC formed the view that these services did not fall within the required definition of “consultancy” such that the POS was where the business belonged. As G&F belonged in the UK, the relevant services were subject to VAT. So, the issue was: whether matchmaking could be regarded as a consultancy service.
Legislation
The EU legislation is found at The Principal VAT Directive, Article 59(c) (“para(c)”) and in the UK law at The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 4A para 16(2)(d).
In the words of para (c):
“the services of consultants, engineers, consultancy firms, lawyers, accountants and other similar services, as well as data processing and the provision of information”
So, did G&F’s services fall within para (c)?
Decision
The judge stated that “… the services provided by the appellant must be compared with services “principally and habitually” provided by a consultant…and that such similarity is achieved when both types of service serve the same purpose.” And that consultancy is “advice based on a high degree of expertise” or “specialist and expert advice by someone with extensive experience/qualifications on the subject”. Was matchmaking that?
Well, the FTT decided that services would fall within para(c) if they are services of the sort which are primarily and habitually supplied by one or more of the specifically listed suppliers and that “consultants” are not limited to persons who are members of the liberal professions but to persons who are in ordinary usage “consultants” and typically act in an independent manner – that is to say are not dependent on, or integrated with, their client.
HMRC argued that what G&F were providing was the possibility of entering into a long-term happy relationship: and that was what the Appellant was selling. The FTT accepted that that dream was what the typical client would want, but saw a difference between what is provided and the reason the service is wanted. It gave the example of a school providing education, not the hope of a good job.
Further, HMRC contended that G&F’s activities went far beyond the provision of advice and information because they involved all the other elements that go into the service of matchmaking. Those activities included ascertaining and executing the needs of the client, reading the non-verbal clues, reading body language, and the inexplicable magic of applying knowledge based on intuition and experience to identify people who may be compatible. The FTT said that that was all very well but drew a distinction between the skills required by the seller and what was sold.
Split decision
A first Tribunal member concluded that the material elements of the supply consisted only of the provision of information and expert advice, and the supply fell within para (c).
Another Tribunal member considered that the actions of the liaison team in G&F promoted and helped the making of a successful relationship, but he was not persuaded that the support provided by the liaison team assisted the provision of information about a potential partner or served the supply of G&F’s MD’s advice that a particular person might be suitable. It was support in the developing of a relationship – support in addition to the use of the information and expert advice received – and was not shown to be sufficiently inconsequential to say that it was just part of those elements. The liaison team provided a form of ready-made confidante for the client with whom he or she could discuss a relationship and his or her hopes and concerns for it or for other relationships. It enabled him or her to obtain the kind of support one might obtain from a friend – a listening ear or sounding board – and informal advice.
As two members of the Tribunal disagreed on the outcome, it fell to the judge to give a casting vote; which he did in favour of dismissing the appeal.
So, in this case at least, matchmaking is not consultancy. (Although I like the definition of the service being “inexplicable magic”).
Commentary
If it easy to make assumptions about the precise nature of a type of service. In order for certain services to be UK VAT free they need to meet the relevant criteria fully. “Consultancy” is a bit of a catch all, but this case illustrates the dangers of a lack of analysis. This was a close case and I could see the decision going the other way on another day quite easily.