Performance Leads Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 5 June 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 660 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

Performance Leads Ltd operated websites that collected consumer enquiries and sold monetisable leads to independent financial advisers (IFAs). HMRC denied repayment of VAT on the basis that the supplies were taxable advertising rather than exempt intermediary services under Schedule 9 Group 5 Item 5 (Item 6 services). The Tribunal found PL performed a meaningful sift/assessment and thereby acted as an intermediary "bringing together" seekers and providers so the supplies fell within Item 6, allowed PL's appeal and set aside HMRC's refusal.

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

A lead‑generation service that filters and assesses enquiries to identify monetisable prospects for financial advisers can constitute an intermediary service within Schedule 9 Group 5 Item 5 (Item 6) rather than merely advertising; for Item 6, the intermediary need only "bring together" parties and a meaningful assessment/sift (short of full negotiation or agency powers) can be sufficient to cross from advertising into exempt intermediation.

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 Tribunal indicated that parties' agreed scope at ADR should generally bound later litigation and that late expansion of arguments by HMRC is undesirable for efficient case management. It also suggested that a "partial" assessment by an intermediary (not amounting to a full financial inquiry) can still suffice to make the activity intermediary rather than mere advertising.