header-logo header-logo

The "Economic activities" VAT test

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll