Errol Willy Salons Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 5 January 2022

Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 17 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

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: medium

This appeal concerned whether letting two rooms to beauticians by Errol Willy Salons Ltd was a VAT-exempt letting of land or a standard-rated supply of services. The tribunal found the arrangements conferred the four characteristics of a lease (defined area, right to exclude, agreed periodic term, and payment by turnover rent) and that additional services (reception, toilet access, limited advertising, utilities) were ancillary. The supply was therefore a relatively passive, VAT-exempt letting of land and the appeal was allowed.

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 treated turnover-based rent as satisfying the "for payment" element of a lease where the contractual arrangement provides for payment, even if amounts vary or may be nil in some periods, and held that incidental or optional services (reception, toilet access, passive advertising, utilities, cleaning by occupiers) that are ancillary to occupation do not convert a letting into a predominant, standard-rated supply of 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 notes include observations that provision of basic plumbing (a sink) is a generic landlord responsibility and does not by itself show active exploitation, and that convenience services (such as a receptionist handling payments largely for the landlord's administrative convenience) may not indicate a predominant service supplied to the occupier.