The Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 1 June 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 354 (TC)
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 green fees charged by Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club to non-members were VAT-exempt under Article 132(1)(m) of the Principal VAT Directive as implemented by Item 3 Group 10 Sch 9 VATA 1994. The Tribunal found the core supply — the right to play golf — is the same for members and non‑members and is therefore exempt under Article 132(1)(m); Article 134(b) did not exclude the green‑fee income because those fees were an integral, recurring part of the club’s activities and budget. The domestic statutory distinction limiting the exemption to members only was held not to correctly implement the Directive and was ineffective. The appeal was allowed on that basis, with parties able to apply to continue on subsidiary quantification issues.
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
Where the essential characteristics of the supply to participants are the same irrespective of membership status, Article 132(1)(m) covers supplies to non‑members as well as members; and Article 134(b) excludes only supplies that are merely additional, non‑customary income intended to compete with commercial enterprises — recurring, budgeted green fees integral to an eligible body’s activities do not fall within Article 134(b). The UK implementation that conditions the exemption on membership therefore failed to correctly implement the Directive.
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 judgment observed (obiter) that relying on domestic membership distinctions to achieve competition neutrality can produce anomalies (for example where an eligible body has few or no members) and that there is a tension between allowing Member States scope under Article 133(c) and preventing competition distortion under Article 133(d).