Gerard Kinney v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Decision date: 19 October 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 273 (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 case concerns a VAT assessment on Gerard Kinney (trading as Kinney Skip Hire) who received waste timber from an Irish demolition contractor and treated his supplies as zero-rated demolition services. The First-tier Tribunal found Kinney was a subcontractor who received and processed waste at his Newry depot, did not share in the demolition contract's risk or reward, and thus should have charged VAT; the appeal was dismissed and the assessment of £5,787.66 was upheld.
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
The Tribunal’s decision indicates that where a supplier merely receives waste from a foreign demolition contractor and performs sorting/disposal at UK premises without sharing in the principal demolition contract’s risk or reward, the supplier is not to be treated as providing the demolition service for place-of-supply purposes and therefore must charge UK VAT on those services.
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 (in applying Arts 9, 14 and 15 of the Place of Supply Order and PN741 to the facts) suggests a practical distinction between principal demolition contractors and downstream waste handlers, emphasizing the location of activities and contractual allocation of risk/reward as determinative considerations in similar VAT disputes.
Warning
Chunk contains duplicated and poorly formatted text; care taken to judgment substantive facts. Notes include duplicated and poorly formatted text; they appear to be a partial judgment but contain the key facts and outcome.