Adult entertainment club supplied more than land to its dancers
In Dazmonda t/a Sugar & Spice v HMRC (TC 03473 – 9 April 2014) Sugar & Spice an adult entertainment club had six booths in which dancers gave patrons private entertainment. Dancers were not paid by Sugar & Spice but they received tips and fees for dancing in the booths. They had to pay Sugar & Spice for use of the facilities. The FTT found that Sugar & Spice was not making an exempt supply of land to the dancers.
The FTT accepted that if Sugar & Spice had only supplied booths the supply would have been a supply of land. The analysis was not affected by the fact that the length of the supply was uncertain (the length of a dance) or the fact that the club could enter the booth at any time...
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:
Adult entertainment club supplied more than land to its dancers
In Dazmonda t/a Sugar & Spice v HMRC (TC 03473 – 9 April 2014) Sugar & Spice an adult entertainment club had six booths in which dancers gave patrons private entertainment. Dancers were not paid by Sugar & Spice but they received tips and fees for dancing in the booths. They had to pay Sugar & Spice for use of the facilities. The FTT found that Sugar & Spice was not making an exempt supply of land to the dancers.
The FTT accepted that if Sugar & Spice had only supplied booths the supply would have been a supply of land. The analysis was not affected by the fact that the length of the supply was uncertain (the length of a dance) or the fact that the club could enter the booth at any time...
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:
