Hastings Insurance Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 3 March 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 275 (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
Hastings, a UK intermediary, sought recovery of input VAT on services supplied to its Gibraltar-based insurer Advantage; HMRC denied the claim relying on the Offshore Looping Regulations (Article 3A SSO). The Tribunal held that the "customer" in Article 169(c) PVD is the immediate recipient (Advantage) and that Article 169(c) is unconditional and sufficiently precise, so Hastings could rely on it; the provision had either been recognised as directly effective before IP completion day or was of a kind so recognised, allowing reliance for the later period. The appeal was allowed in principle and Hastings was entitled to the relief claimed subject to appeal rights.
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’s ratio is that where Article 169(c) PVD is unconditional and sufficiently precise, the ordinary meaning of "customer" applies so the immediate recipient of intermediary services (here Advantage) is the taxable person entitled to input VAT deduction, and such a provision may be relied on in national proceedings if it has direct effect or is of a kind previously recognised as directly effective before IP completion day.
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 observed that Member States may adopt measures to prevent avoidance but such measures cannot be used to reinterpret an unconditional and precise EU provision to the detriment of taxpayers absent avoidance; and that the close relationship between Articles 168 and 169 supports treating Article 169 as capable of direct effect or as of a kind with directly effective input-tax provisions.