David Finnamore t/a Hanbridge Storage Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 29 March 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 216 (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 Mr Finnamore’s provision of numbered metal storage containers on his fenced site was a VAT-exempt licence to occupy land or a taxable supply of storage services. The Tribunal found the contract gave customers exclusive use of defined parcels of land and that occupation was the predominant element of the single supply. Consequently the supplies were VAT-exempt under Item 1, Group 1, Schedule 9 VATA. 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: high
The Tribunal applied a predominant-nature test for a single supply composed of multiple elements: where occupation of a defined parcel of land by contractual licence is the predominant element, the supply is properly characterised as a licence to occupy land and falls within the domestic exemption (Item 1, Group 1, Schedule 9 VATA), even though storage occurs in movable containers.
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 observed that the domestic wording (“any licence to occupy land”) may be broader than the Directive and that differential pricing between on-site and off-site hire can be indicative of the monetary split between occupation and provision of containers, while noting pricing alone can be manipulated. These remarks were ancillary and did not determine the outcome.