Lucky Technology Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 22 September 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 366 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
Lucky Technology bought physical Steam POSA vouchers from a DSG concession within Harrods. The tribunal held the vouchers were retailer vouchers (not single-purpose vouchers), Harrods acted as principal (not agent) when selling them, VAT was therefore chargeable and was paid by the appellant, and HMRC had erred in exercising its regulation 29(2) discretion by failing properly to consider alternative evidence. The appeal was allowed and not remitted, but the tribunal cautioned its findings rested on inadequate evidence.
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: medium
Where evidence shows vouchers can be redeemed for supplies attracting different VAT treatments, they are not single-purpose vouchers; and where a concession arrangement treats the concessionaire as effectively selling on the principal’s behalf but property transfers and contractual terms support the principal supplying customers, the principal will be treated as making the taxable supply. Also, HMRC must properly exercise regulation 29(2) and may not refuse to consider relevant alternative evidence (for example supplier invoices) when deciding input tax claims.
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 declined to make a definitive alternative finding under section 47(3)/(4), noting unresolved questions (including whether the deemed supply under Schedule 10A constituted an electronically supplied service), and recorded that some evidential and contractual matters remained unclear.
Warning
The tribunal expressly cautioned the decision is based on inadequate evidence and may not reflect the full reality. The tribunal expressly warned the decision was reached on materially limited/inadequate evidence.