The appellants operated a system of placing their vending machines in clubs for the sale of cigarettes. They took as consideration a share of the profits of the cigarettes sold, and, in return, maintained the machines. They claimed that the machines were not placed pursuant to a licence to occupy land, a licence of immovable property, and were so not exempt from VAT, and input tax was reclaimable.
Held: Letting in VAT law is wider than in the general law. The court could go behind the words of the contract to its substance and reality. The transaction had to be seen as one transaction. Exemptions are to be applied restrictively. The Mirror case suggested that the occupation of land must be the predominant element. The case raised questions of interpretation of European law and was to be referred to the European Court of Justice.
Judges:
Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote
Citations:
[2001] UKHL 30, [2001] STC 989, [2001] All ER(D) 29
Links:
Statutes:
Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) 13(B)(b), Value Added Tax Act 1994
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – British Airports Authority v Customs and Excise Commissioners 1977
The court adopted the test when interpreting the contract at issue of whether the substance and reality of the agreement was the grant of a license to occupy land. . .
Cited – Lubbock Fine v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 15-Dec-1993
Europa The term ‘letting of immovable property’ used in Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive (77/388) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to define a transaction . .
Cited – Mirror Group plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Cantor Fitzgerald International v Same ECJ 9-Oct-2001
A potential lessee who did not have an interest in immovable property agreed to take a lease in return for money paid by the landlord. The transaction was not exempt from value-added tax under article 13(B)(b) as ‘the leasing or letting of immovable . .
Reference to – Sinclair Collis Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jun-2003
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 13B(b) – Exempt transactions – Letting of immovable property – Meaning – Cigarette vending machines installed in commercial premises.
The claimants installed cigarette . .
Appeal from – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Sinclair Collis Limited CA 23-Jun-1999
The commissioners appealed against a decision that the agreements under which the respondents hired out vending displays to shops were for the occupation of land, and so were exempt from VAT.
Held: (a) the terms of the Directive are to be . .
Cited by:
Reference from – Sinclair Collis Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jun-2003
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 13B(b) – Exempt transactions – Letting of immovable property – Meaning – Cigarette vending machines installed in commercial premises.
The claimants installed cigarette . .
Cited – Clear Channel United Kingdom Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 14-Oct-2004
The claimant sought a declaration that it had a tenancy for its occupation by an advertising station, and that it had protection under the 1954 Act. The defendant council said that only a licence had been granted.
Held: The grants included the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
VAT, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162833