Apportionment of consideration for a single supply
In Blackrock Investment Management (UK) Ltd (Case C-231/19) (11 March) the advocate general (AG) considered that a single supply of investment management services could not be apportioned such that only a proportion of the supply was subject to the reverse charge.
The appellant (B UK) was the UK subsidiary of a US company (B US). B (US) supplied B (UK) with an IT platform known as Aladdin which B (UK) used in its capacity as a manager of both special investment funds (SIFs) and other funds. B (UK) accounted for VAT on the supplies of Aladdin by means of the reverse charge.
The management of SIFs is exempt under Directive 2006/112/EC article 135(1)(g) and VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 5 item 9; the management of other funds is standard rated. B (UK) considered that B (US)’s supplies should be apportioned such that the reverse charge did not apply to the extent that Aladdin was used for the management of SIFs. The FTT refused B (UK)’s appeal against HMRC’s refusal to allow apportionment; on appeal...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
Apportionment of consideration for a single supply
In Blackrock Investment Management (UK) Ltd (Case C-231/19) (11 March) the advocate general (AG) considered that a single supply of investment management services could not be apportioned such that only a proportion of the supply was subject to the reverse charge.
The appellant (B UK) was the UK subsidiary of a US company (B US). B (US) supplied B (UK) with an IT platform known as Aladdin which B (UK) used in its capacity as a manager of both special investment funds (SIFs) and other funds. B (UK) accounted for VAT on the supplies of Aladdin by means of the reverse charge.
The management of SIFs is exempt under Directive 2006/112/EC article 135(1)(g) and VATA 1994 Sch 9 Group 5 item 9; the management of other funds is standard rated. B (UK) considered that B (US)’s supplies should be apportioned such that the reverse charge did not apply to the extent that Aladdin was used for the management of SIFs. The FTT refused B (UK)’s appeal against HMRC’s refusal to allow apportionment; on appeal...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
