header-logo header-logo

09 September 2016
Issue: 7713 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The "Economic activities" VAT test

A training centre was engaged in economic activities despite its charitable purpose and therefore liable to pay VAT, the Court of Appeal has held.

In Longridge on the Thames v HMRC [2016] EWCA Civ 930, the Court considered whether VAT was payable on the construction of a training centre for outdoor activities which worked with young people and charged users according to ability to pay. The training centre, Longridge, sought to recover £135,000 worth of VAT that it had paid on the construction, on the grounds the building would be used for charitable purposes.

HMRC contended that Longridge was engaged in business activities. It argued that, according to European Court of Justice caselaw, the test for determining whether there is economic activity and therefore VAT payable is whether there is a “direct link between the service the recipient receives and the payment which he makes, not on the wider context in which the payment is made”.

The Court of Appeal agreed with HMRC, even though payments to Longridge did not reflect the full cost of the service.

Delivering the lead judgment, Lady Justice Arden said: “Economic activity is assessed objectively and so the concern of Longridge, which is its reason for providing the services which it does provide, is not enough to convert what would otherwise be economic activity into an activity of a different kind for VAT purposes.”

Issue: 7713 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll