[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	First-tier Tribunal (Tax)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Tax) >> Hilltop Assistance Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 200 (TC) (04 August 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2009/TC00153.html Cite as: [2009] UKFTT 200 (TC)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

[2009] UKFTT 200 (TC)

TC00153

VALUE ADDED TAX- supply of staff – group of companies – administrative company in group acting as agent for supply of staff – appeal allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

TAX CHAMBER

TRIBUNAL CENTRE MANCHESTER

HILLTOP ASSISTANCE LIMITED Appellant - and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: David S Porter (Judge)

Alban W Holden (Member)

Sitting in public in Manchester on 2 July 2009

Penny Hamilton of counsel for the Appellant

Richard Chapman, of counsel, instructed by the Acting Solicitor for HM Revenue and Customs for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2009
DECISION
1. Hilltop Assistance Limited (the Appellant) appeals against part of an assessment dated 8 March 2005 for the periods 06/02 to09/03 inclusive and 03/04 in the sum of £75,085.27 plus interest in respect of supplies of staff allegedly made by Wingate Management Limited (Wingate) to associated companies which were not members of the VAT group. The Respondents say that the contracts of employment were with Wingate and VAT should therefore be charged on the supply. The Appellant says that Wingate acted as agents and VAT was not therefore due.
2. Richard Chapman, of counsel, appeared for the Respondents and brought Mr Gary H Kennedy an officer of HMRC as a witness and produced a bundle of documents for the tribunal. Mrs Penny Hamilton appeared for the Appellant's and produced an agreed bundle of documents.
3. The Appellant had original defended the assessment on the basis that there was a joint agreement between Wingate and David J Miller Insurance Brokers Limited (Brokers). The Appellant abandoned that defence at the hearing and alleged that Wingate entered into each written contract with the employees of the Appellant as agents for Brokers. In 2000 a long established insurance and financial services business, which had been carried on by a partnership known as D.J.Miller Insurance Brokers (the Partnership) was restructured and part of the business was transferred into a number of companies. David Miller Holdings Limited is the non-trading group parent company, with three subsidiaries, Brokers, the Appellant and Wingate. Brokers carried on the insurance business, the Appellant provided assistance and claims management services to the insurance industry, and Wingate acted as paymaster for the staff working for, and under the direction of Brokers and the Appellant. The Partnership continued to carry on the financial services business. At all material times the companies and the Partnership operated from the same shop premises in Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire.
4. Mr Chapman asked that the case be adjourned as the Respondents had had insufficient time to consider the amend defence Mrs Hamilton objected. The Judge refused the application on the basis that there had been sufficient time since the beginning of the week for the Respondents to consider the matter. Further the tribunal had been fixed for two days and not only the parties but two representatives from solicitors acting for the solicitors and accountants, who had advised the Appellant and the group on the occasion of the restructuring, were in attendance. It was unlikely that the matter could be re-listed for a hearing in the immediate future and the assessment had been raised in 2005.
5. The tribunal adjourned for lunch and on its return the Judge was advised that the parties had agreed that Wingate was acting as an agent and Mr Chapman confirmed that the appeal should be allowed.
6. We therefore find that the Appellant was acting as an agent for Brokers in the supply of the staff and that the assessment of £75,087.25 plus interest is not due and the appeal is allowed.
7. As we were not asked to award costs to the Appellant none are awarded.

JUDGE
Release Date: 4 August 2009

MAN/08/0389