Alan and Diane McFarland (A Partnership) v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 20 February 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 315 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

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: high

The McFarland Partnership appealed HMRC's decision that supplies made to Forge Farms Livestock Ltd between 11/14–08/17 were standard-rated VAT, disputing that elements were zero‑rated feed or an exempt licence to occupy land. The First-tier Tribunal found the activities formed an indivisible composite supply of looking after cattle (feeding, housing, maintenance, animal‑health and records) and upheld HMRC's decision, dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal also rejected claims of legitimate expectation and estoppel by convention.

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

Where a customer receives an integrated package of services whose elements are inseparable and indispensable to the overall activity (here: feeding, housing, premises maintenance, animal‑health tasks and record‑keeping), those elements can constitute a single indivisible economic supply taxed according to its composite character rather than by isolating constituent parts. Also, prior inspections, repayments or approvals do not found a legitimate expectation as to VAT treatment of a different later arrangement absent clear, unambiguous representations and full disclosure.

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 material inconsistencies or delay by a taxpayer in disclosing contractual documents undermine assertions of full disclosure necessary for legitimate expectation, and that the commercial unattractiveness of supplying one element alone (e.g. silage) may be relevant when assessing whether elements are independent supplies.