Value Added Tax Act 1994. Value Added Tax Regulations 1995. Face-value vouchers, redeemable on the online games platform ‘Steam’, owned by Valve Corporation. Vouchers sold to appellant by a concession run by DSG Retail Limited within Harrods Limited. Whether single purpose vouchers within the meaning of paragraph 7A of Schedule 10 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994.
Held: no. Whether retailer vouchers within the meaning of paragraph 4(1) of that schedule.
Held: yes. Whether supply to appellant was by an agent of the issuer of the vouchers (Steam). Abbotsley Limited and others v HMRC [2018] UKUT 191 (TCC) , and Mesto Zamberk v Financni reditelstvi v Hradci Kralove, now Odvolaci financni reditelstvi, Case C-18/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:95, [2014] STC 1703 considered.
Held: no. The supply to appellant was not therefore the first supply of the vouchers (‘the issue’ of the vouchers) but a ‘supply . . subsequent to the issue’ of the vouchers. VAT was therefore chargeable on the vouchers by virtue of paragraph 4(4) of Schedule 10. Whether appellant paid that VAT.
Held: yes. Zipvit v HMRC [2018] EWCA Civ 1515 considered. Whether HMRC erred in law in relation to regulation 29(2) discretion to accept evidence other than VAT invoices of VAT paid by the appellant. GB Housley Limited v HMRC [2016] EWCA Civ 1299 cited.
Held: yes. Appeal allowed. Section 47(3) and (4) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 considered.
Citations:
[2022] UKFTT 366 (TC)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
VAT
Updated: 11 November 2022; Ref: scu.682680
