Sally Moher t/a Premier Dental Agency v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 3 May 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 286 (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 a dental staffing business’s supplies were VAT-exempt medical/dental services under Group 7, Schedule 9 VATA (Article 13A Sixth Directive) or were standard-rated supplies of staff to dentists. The Tribunal found the appellant supplied staff to dentists, not medical care to patients, and dismissed the s.80 VATA repayment claim. HMRC was not required to repay the claimed output tax and no unjust enrichment was found.
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
The exemption under Article 13A/Group 7 applies only to supplies of medical/dental care/services directed to patients (with therapeutic/diagnostic aims); supplying personnel to a care provider is a distinct, taxable supply. The VAT treatment is determined by the substance of what was supplied in reality rather than by the supplier’s label or contractual form.
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 noted that HMRC leaflets or notices inconsistent with the Directive do not override the legal scope of exemption and may amount only to informal concessions; a subsequent HMRC change of view after legal review does not determine the legal outcome. The decision also observed that lack of contemporaneous documentary evidence weakens a claimant’s case.