MRS JANINE INGRAM v MRS JANINE INGRAM v CHURCH COMMISSIONERS FOR ENGLAND
Decision date: 15 September 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 495 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether VAT charged on HR/porter fees and staff salaries, paid by the landlord to a managing agent and passed through to the tenant as service charges, fell within an extra‑statutory concession in VAT Notice 48 para 3.18 so as not to be recoverable. The tribunal held the concession applies only to mandatory service charges payable by occupiers to persons supplying accommodation and does not exempt VAT paid by a landlord to third‑party suppliers even if the cost is passed on. The appeal and the applicant’s s.20C challenge were dismissed; the respondents may recover the VAT in the service charges.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The ratio is that the extra‑statutory concession in VAT Notice 48 para 3.18 does not operate to exempt VAT where the payment is made by a landlord to a third‑party supplier (including a managing agent) and then passed on to occupiers; the concession is limited to mandatory charges payable by occupiers to the supplier of accommodation and cannot be extended to cover landlord‑paid third‑party invoices.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal observed that extending the concession to cover numerous third‑party suppliers whose costs are passed on would exceed the limited remedial purpose of extra‑statutory concessions and be impractical. It also noted that certain HMRC guidance and emails may have caused confusion but did not change the legal effect of the concession.