A rare taxpayer success in judicial review
Successful claims for judicial review in the tax context are few and far between. However, the recent decision of the Upper Tribunal in R (on the application of Vacation Rentals (UK) Limited) v HMRC  UKUT 383 shows that it can be done…
Vacation Rentals was a booking agent for holiday property owners. Its role involved collecting payment from holidaymakers on behalf of the property owners. When payment was made by credit or debit card, Vacation Rentals charged a separate fee for “card handling services”.
In Bookit v HMRC  STC 1367, the Court of Appeal clarified the VAT treatment of such fees, holding that they were exempt for VAT purposes. A similar decision was also reached by the Court of Session in SEC v HMRC  STC 967. Following these decisions, HMRC issued Business Brief (BB) 18/06. In summary, BB 18/06 identified four components to the card handling supply in Bookit, and stated that if a taxpayer charged for a separately identifiable service which included a particular one of those four components, “then the additional charge will be exempt [under the relevant VAT exemption]”.
Vacation Rentals relied on BB 18/06 and treated its supplies as exempt. However, HMRC disagreed and sought to assess VAT. Vacation Rentals sought a judicial review of HMRC’s decision to raise the assessments, on the grounds that it had a legitimate expectation to be taxed in line with HMRC’s guidance as expressed in BB 18/06.
There were two questions in the appeal:
- HMRC accepted that BB 18/06 was capable of giving rise to a legitimate expectation – the question was whether Vacation Rentals’ particular circumstances fell within its terms on their proper interpretation; and
- If so, whether it would be unfair and an abuse of power for HMRC to resile from the guidance in Vacation Rentals’ case.
The Upper Tribunal resoundingly found in Vacation Rentals’ favour on both counts. It therefore allowed the claim for judicial review and quashed HMRC’s assessments.
The Upper Tribunal began by rehearsing the law on judicial review on the grounds of legitimate expectation, in particular in the context of HMRC guidance. In summary, for guidance to give rise to a legitimate expectation, it must be “clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification”. The guidance must be interpreted as it would appear to the hypothetical “ordinarily sophisticated taxpayer”, and not with the same rigour as a statute or a contract. Further, it must be unjust or an abuse of power for HMRC to resile from the guidance - a relevant factor here is whether the taxpayer has relied on the guidance to its detriment.
The Upper Tribunal then answered the two questions in the appeal as set out above. As to the first question, it found that the guidance in BB 18/06 was clear, unambiguous and unqualified. It focussed on the presence of a particular component as being the key to treating a supply as exempt. The supply made by Vacation Rentals contained that component and so it fell within the terms of the guidance.
HMRC argued that BB 18/06 should be interpreted in light of the facts in Bookit; and as there was a key distinction between the supplies made by Vacation Rentals and those in Bookit, Vacation Rentals did not fall within the terms of BB 18/06. The Upper Tribunal gave this argument short shrift. The particular factual distinction relied on by HMRC was not relevant to the finding in Bookit (and was not even present in SEC); and in any event the terms of BB/06 were clear on their face to the ordinarily sophisticated taxpayer. HMRC were taking “an inappropriately technical and rigorous approach” to construing the guidance.
As to the second question, the Upper Tribunal expressed surprise that HMRC even argued the point where it was established that the taxpayer had a legitimate expectation.
HMRC sought to rely on the fact that Vacation Rentals was “very sophisticated” with access to high quality advice and BB 18/06 only summarised publicly available court decisions. It could therefore make up its own mind about the correct tax treatment. HMRC’s arguments were again rejected. The Upper Tribunal found that once there is a legitimate expectation, this can only be overridden where there is a sufficient public interest to do so. The burden is on HMRC to justify this, and in this case they had not even come close to doing so. The fact that Vacation Rentals was able to obtain legal advice was irrelevant. It would therefore be unfair and an abuse of power for HMRC to resile from BB 18/06.
The decision is encouraging for taxpayers, although there is still a high bar to succeed in such a claim. A taxpayer’s primary expectation is to be taxed in accordance with the law, not HMRC’s view of it. However, with the right facts and the right guidance, it is possible to hold HMRC to their guidance even if it is not strictly in accordance with the law. It remains to be seen whether HMRC will appeal.
The decision also highlights the importance of examining closely the particular guidance in question. The Upper Tribunal focussed on the layout of BB 18/06, the headings of the relevant sections and where the main guidance was to be found. It is worth noting (though this did not feature expressly in the decision) that BB 18/06 was a standalone piece of guidance, so could be interpreted as such. The position is different with HMRC’s manuals, for example. These are subject to a general introductory “health warning”, including that the guidance will not necessarily apply where HMRC suspects tax avoidance (which was of particular relevance in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Samarkand Film Partnership No 3 and others v HMRC  STC 926).
Further, cases of this nature emphasise the importance in practice (for both taxpayers and advisers) of being aware of when reliance is being placed on HMRC guidance, rather than the strict letter of the law, for a particular tax treatment. There was no issue in this case as to whether the taxpayer had relied on the guidance to its detriment. However, the position is not always so straightforward. The High Court’s decision in R (on the application of Aozora GMAC Investment Ltd) v HMRC  STC 11 is a recent example where a taxpayer was able to establish a legitimate expectation on the basis of HMRC guidance, but its claim failed because (among other things) it could not show it had relied on that guidance to its detriment.
Finally, it is worth reiterating that claims for judicial review must be commenced in the High Court (the Administrative Court division), and not the First-tier tax tribunal. Taxpayers facing an HMRC decision or assessment where they have relied on HMRC guidance should consider carefully whether to make a judicial review claim, either alongside, or instead of, an appeal in the First-tier Tribunal on tax technical grounds.
For more information please contact Hugh Gunson on +44 (0)20 7438 2252 or at Hugh.Gunson@crsblaw.com.
Sponsor Licence Compliance: Key considerations & how to be audit ready
Join us for the third in our series of mini webinars on post Brexit immigration about sponsor licence compliance.
The Future of Property Careers
Join to our panel discussion and Q&A with industry leaders on the range of opportunities within the property and construction sector.
UK SPACs: could changes to the UK Listing Rules spark an increase?
SPAC listing popularity has increased. Could the UK be the next hotspot following proposed changes to the Listing Rules?
Sustainable Investing: From ESG Integration to Impact Investing
We have a wide perspective on the range of issues that fall within the spectrum from ESG to impact investing.
Liability for costs of repair (City of London v. Leaseholders of Great Arthur House)
Oliver Park writes an article for Lexis®PSL on a property dispute case.
New tax on property developers - consultation paper published
The government published a consultation paper on the design of the new residential property developers tax.
Procuring modular housing: Is MMC becoming mainstream?
Is Modern Methods of Construction becoming mainstream? Read what it means for Development and Procurement here.
Dual class share structures: how do they work and what are the pros and cons?
Dual class share structures allow a shareholder, for example the founder, to retain voting control over a company.
Q&A: Talking the telecoms talk
Georgina Muskett and Jonathan Wills answer queries on Electronic Communications Code agreement.
Property Patter: Navigating the complexities of Pharmacy Property
Pharmacy property is a specialist area which contains many traps for the unwary.
COVID-19 Vaccination – can an employer make it compulsory for employees?
We review what legal issues to take into account when considering to make vaccination compulsory as an employer.
Linking ESG and Executive Pay
How does a business go about embedding a focus on strong ESG performance into the structures and culture of its organisation?
National Security and Investment Act granted Royal Assent
The Act establishes a new regime for the review of mergers, acquisitions and other transactions that could threaten national security.
Recent Trends In Firewall Legislation: BVI, Bermuda And Gibraltar
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Waverton on acquisition of Cornerstone Asset Management
Established in July 2010 and with offices in Edinburgh and Glasgow, Cornerstone offers wealth management and financial planning advice.
What do the new Debt Respite Scheme Regulations mean for Landlords and Tenants?
This will provide legal protection from creditors in the form of either a breathing space or a mental health crisis moratorium.
Charles Russell Speechlys promotes five to Partner
The promotions are effective 1 May 2021 and are accompanied by one Legal Director and 15 Senior Associate promotions.
Risk allocation in commercial leases: the High Court considers rent suspension, insurance and frustration arguments
Read our summary of the full judgement on the latest Covid arrears case.
Charles Russell Speechlys boosts private wealth offering with the hire of an international tax team
Robert Reymond will be joined at the firm by Leigh Nicoll, Emma Tyrrell and Oliver Cooper.
Proposed Takeover Code Amendments – Key Changes
The Consultation Paper has now been followed by a corresponding response paper which made certain modifications to the initial proposals.