Berkshire Golf Club and the economics of unjust enrichment

Amanda Brown and Karen Killington take a look at the issues in the recent tribunal decision in Berkshire Golf Club and others v HMRC.

With the release of the judgment in Berkshire Golf Club, the First-tier Tribunal has given its first judgment on unjust enrichment since the 2003 judgment from the CJEU in Weber’s Wine World, in which it was made clear that establishing unjust enrichment is an economic exercise. This case amply demonstrates that unjust enrichment is a complex and challenging (and expensive) defence for HMRC to cite. However where HMRC have been prepared to incur the substantial economic analysis investment that citing and proving unjust enrichment requires, the taxpayer may face a similar outlay in rebutting HMRC’s assertions. So what does this mean for the future of this defence?

As background, on 19 December 2013 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) considered the liability of visitor green fees charged by non-profit making members’ golf clubs in Bridport and West Dorset Golf club (C-495/12). The CJEU determined that an exemption should apply to these green fees, as they were a supply of sporting services by an eligible body for the benefit of an individual playing sport. The fact that the individual in question was not a member of the club had no bearing on the liability for the fee.

Following this decision, the UK changed the scope of the sporting services exemption to remove the membership condition, with effect from 1 January 2015. Many clubs had submitted claims for VAT overpaid from 1990 (the date from which the UK implemented the exemption provisions) on visitor green fees. Consistent with the judgment against them, HMRC paid Bridport’s claim in full but then wanted to consider whether to invoke the unjust enrichment defence in respect of these other claims.

Unlike the more normal position for a VAT tribunal case, the burden of proof lies with HMRC to establish the amount of a repayment claim that would unjustly enrich the taxpayer. The three appellant clubs in Berkshire Golf Club and others, together with Bridport, were selected as being broadly representative of the different types of UK golf courses. HMRC instructed an expert economist and an economic consultancy to gather evidence from the four clubs, seeking to establish the economic circumstances for unjust enrichment.

In a recent article for Tax Journal1, Amanda Brown and Karen Killington examine the FTT decision in this case, which in the writers’ opinion amply illustrates that the Advocate General in Commission v Italy was right. The economics of unjust enrichment are fraught with difficulty.

1 First published in Tax Journal on 22 January 2016. Reproduced with permission.

Contacts

Amanda Brown

T: +44 (0)20 7311 4726  E: amanda.brown2@kpmg.co.uk

Karen Killington

T: +44 (0) 20 76944685  E: karen.killington@kpmg.co.uk

View last week’s Weekly Tax Matters and access our archive

Weekly Tax Matters – Other news in brief 29 Jan

A round up of other news this week.

This week: The Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal in BT Pension Scheme v HMRC; draft LBTT Bill published; Employment Allowance regulations issued; HMRC publish draft legislation on use and enjoyment provisions for insurance repair services; Government survey on the Apprenticeship Levy; regulations to amend legislation on foreign securities income; details of Children’s Television Tax relief added to HMRC creative reliefs page; and KPMG Enterprise-CB Insights report on venture capital backed companies.

VAT: Wakefield College – Upper Tribunal Decision

The Upper Tribunal has allowed HMRC’s appeal in this case concerning part paid fees and calculating business use.

This case concerns the meaning of non-business use of a new building constructed by a charity further education (FE) college. Although the legislation says zero rating can only apply if the building is used solely for a relevant charitable purpose, HMRC will interpret solely in such a way as to allow a de minimis amount of up to 5 percent business use to be disregarded. HMRC’s appeal was allowed. 

Weekly Tax Matters – International round up 29 Jan

Every week, KPMG member firms around the world publish updates on developments in their country. In Weekly Tax Matters we’ll highlight a selection that may be of interest to our readers.

This week: Draft legislation on Canadian ‘graduated rate estate’ rules; ‘Startup India’ initiative launched; Oman ninth five-year budget plan and 2016 Budget released; Chinese local tax bureau releases guidance on tax treatment of employee shares and options; Thailand launches program to disclose customs and duty mistakes; EU releases on taxation of seaports in the Netherlands, France and Belgium; KPMG Ireland report on the ‘knowledge development box’; draft guidelines on tax audit files in Poland; recent Indian transfer pricing case on cross-border share reorganisations; Singapore transfer pricing guidance updated; and FATCA update. 

VAT: Les Jardins de Jouvence (C-335/14) CJEU Judgment

The CJEU has given its judgment in this case concerning an assisted living facility for the over 60s.

The taxpayer provides tenants, who are aged 60 and over, accommodation comprising an equipped kitchen, a living room, a bedroom and a bathroom. The other services provided to the tenants, which are also accessible to the public, are separately chargeable. The tenants receive no financial assistance and the taxpayer seeks to make a profit on all of its supplies. The other services available are a bar/restaurant, a hair and beauty salon, a physiotherapy room, ergotherapeutic activities (i.e. exercise and physical activities), a laundry, a pharmacy and a doctor’s surgery. Following the construction of an annex, the taxpayer reclaimed all the input VAT incurred on construction costs on the basis that its supplies were taxable. The tax authorities refused the claim on the basis that the taxpayer’s supplies were, in its analysis, exempt under Article 13A(1)(g) of the Sixth Directive (now Article 132(1)(g) of the VAT Directive).

VAT: Findmypast Ltd – Upper Tribunal Decision

The Upper Tribunal has allowed the taxpayer’s appeal in this case concerning pay as you go credits for an ancestry website.

In this case, the taxpayer provides users with access to ancestry type websites. Customers can subscribe for a certain period. However, this appeal concerns pay as you go (PAYG) access under which sums are paid in return for credits. The taxpayer argued these were vouchers for the purposes of VATA 1994, Schedule 10A and submitted a £400k plus claim for unredeemed credits. The earlier First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found against the taxpayer on the basis that the receipt issued on purchase did not constitute a face value voucher, highlighting the lack of value on the face of the voucher and the difficulty in pricing the balance of unexpired units as the rationale for its decision. The Upper Tribunal (UT) disagreed with the FTT and allowed the taxpayer’s appeal. The taxpayer’s claim ran up to May 2012, when the new Single Purpose Vouchers rules were introduced.

FII GLO High Court decision – application for summary judgment

This decision relates to claims by taxpayers in the FII GLO in relation to ACT paid on FIDs.

A recent High Court judgment considered applications for summary judgment and/or interim payment made by seven claimants enrolled in the long running FII Group Litigation whose claims included sums of advance corporation tax (ACT) paid on foreign income dividends (FIDs). Their claims include the period from 1 July 1994, when the FID regime was introduced in the UK, to 5 April 1999, when the ACT regime was abolished. This judgment is likely to be of interest to taxpayers seeking repayment of overpaid UK corporation tax arising on the receipt or onwards distribution of overseas dividends from EU group subsidiaries.

Inquiries into UK tax policy, the tax base, and corporate tax deals

Details on inquiries into UK tax policy and the tax base, and corporate tax deals, have been released.

The Treasury Committee has published the terms of reference for an inquiry into UK tax policy and the tax base. The inquiry is designed to address “how tax policy is made, how tax collection is administered and how to address the vulnerability of the tax base”. The inquiry specifically requests comments on a number of recent tax policy initiatives, including the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project, the plans to make tax digital, and accelerated payments. In addition, the Public Accounts Committee has announced a separate inquiry on corporate tax deals.

31 countries sign Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement

The OECD held a signing ceremony on 27 January for the 31 countries that have agreed to the automatic exchange of Country-by-Country reports

The OECD has announced that on 27 January 2016, 31 countries signed the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (MCAA) for the automatic exchange of Country-by-Country (CbC) reports.  The aim of the MCCA is to enable consistent and swift implementation of the CbC reporting recommendations which arose from Action 13 of the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) action plan. The OECD list the 31 countries as: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.

European Commission presents a new Anti-Tax Avoidance Package

Proposals for an anti-BEPS Directive and implementation of Country-by-Country reporting are included in a new package of measures from the EC.

On 28 January 2016, the European Commission unveiled a new Anti-Tax Avoidance Package. This includes two legislative proposals, addressing certain anti-base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) issues and non-public Country-by-Country reporting (CbCR), as well as a common approach to tax good governance towards third countries and recommendations to tackle treaty abuse. The new package aims to address tax abuse, ensure sustainable revenues and foster a better business environment in the internal market.