Welfare - Exemption Flashcards
What is the significance of the View Point Housing Association Ltd and Trustees for the Macmillan Cancer Trust cases?
Viewpoint - the supply of catering for elderly people in sheltered housing accommodation was held to be ancillary to the provision of care treatment and instruction.
Macmillan – the supply of hotel accommodation and catering to cancer patients and their families was held to be ancillary to the provision of care.
What is the significance of Watford & District Old People’s Housing Association Ltd case?
The tribunal held that domestic help services such as cleaning, cooking and shopping could constitute care when supplied to people for whom there is either current or imminent substantial risk to the health and welfare of a person, and who are unable to provide even basic self care or have major difficulty carrying out daily tasks.
Following this case, HMRC reviewed their interpretation of care, they regard care or treatment as including “the protection, control or guidance of an individual, when this is provided to meet medical, physical, personal or domestic needs”
What was the decision in Cheshire Centre for Independent Living [2022]?
Payroll services provided to disabled persons to enable them to employ a personal assistant to help them in their own homes are not directly connected with the provision of care and are standard rated.
Describe the case of K and L Childcare Services Ltd
Provided childcare services to kindergartens and nurseries by supplying qualified nursery nurses, nursery assistants and carers.
HMRC ruled that VAT had to be charged but the company claimed the exemption under the revised wording of Sch 9 Group 7 item 9 – state regulated welfare services.
The tribunal held that where a business made supplies to a state-regulated institution, it was effectively brought within the scope of that regulation, it would be exempt. However, if it made supplies to unregulated customers, it would be exempt.
Describe the case of Planet Sports (Holding) Ltd v HMRC
The taxpayer was a company supplying trained and qualified sports coaches to run after-school clubs in state schools.
The welfare benefit for the children was obvious. The issue was whether this was sufficient to bring those services within the exemption, as welfare services supplied by a ‘state regulated private welfare institution’.
The tribunal noted that these services were paid for by the parents of pupils. Although they were not reviewed by OFSTED, they were part of the overall inspection in the school. Planet Sport was therefore not regulated by OFSTED and even if the staff were subject to the regulations, their supply was not state regulated.
The contribution of welfare to the student was a by product of the essential services of sports coaching. The tribunal concluded that it did not fall within the exemption.
If an unincorporated business had been set up, the educational exemption could have been considered
What is the significance of RSR Sports Ltd [2019]
The FTT allowed an appeal where the appellant was providing school holiday camps.
The FTT held that the services were a single composite supply of which the predominant element was childcare as opposed to the provision of activities.
They qualified for the exemption.
