Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Barclays Service Corporation & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC

29 August 2024
[2024] UKFTT 785 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A US company tried to join a UK tax group to save money. The UK tax authority said no because the company's UK branch wasn't established enough. The court agreed, saying the branch didn't have enough people or equipment to be considered a real part of the UK business.

Key Facts

  • Barclays Services Corporation (BSC), a US company, applied to join the Barclays Execution Services Limited (BESL) VAT group in the UK.
  • HMRC rejected the application on two grounds: BSC lacked a UK fixed establishment (s 43A(1) Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA)), or alternatively, the application should be refused for revenue protection (s 43B(5)(c) VATA).
  • BSC established a UK branch in July 2017, registered with Companies House.
  • The branch employed four individuals, but their employment commenced after the application date of December 1, 2017.
  • The primary stated purpose of the branch was to improve service delivery efficiency, with significant anticipated VAT savings.
  • HMRC's decision was based on the branch lacking sufficient 'substance' as a fixed establishment on December 1, 2017, and on the potential for revenue loss.

Legal Principles

For a UK branch of an overseas company to be a 'fixed establishment' under s 43A VATA, it must have a real trading presence, supply goods/services materially to its business, possess sufficient permanent resources, and have sufficient resources to receive necessary supplies.

HSBC Electronic Data Processing (Guangdong) Ltd v HMRC [2022] STC 367

In interpreting 'established' and 'fixed establishment' in s 43A VATA, the place of supply rules principles are relevant but not simply imported. The CJEU case law on these terms must be considered, along with case law outside place of supply rules.

HSBC Electronic Data Processing (Guangdong) Ltd v HMRC [2022] STC 367

A fixed establishment does not necessarily require its own human and technical resources; the taxable person must have comparable control over such resources.

Welmory sp z oo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gda ń sku (Case C-605/12)

HMRC can refuse a VAT grouping application under s 43B(5)(c) VATA if refusal is 'necessary for the protection of the revenue'. The Tribunal will not overturn this unless HMRC could not reasonably have been satisfied there were grounds for refusal.

Value Added Tax Act 1994, sections 43B(5)(c) and 84(4A)

The 'protection of the revenue' test focuses on the reasonableness of the decision, not the process. All relevant circumstances can be considered, including legitimate expectations.

HSBC Electronic Data Processing (Guangdong) Ltd v HMRC [2022] STC 367

Counter-avoidance measures can be applied even without intent to obtain a tax advantage if the Member State deems the decrease in taxable amount unjustified.

Direct Cosmetics Ltd and Laughtons Photographs Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1988] STC 540

The purpose of VAT grouping is to simplify administration and combat abuse; this simplification extends to business organization, not just VAT accounting.

Lloyds Banking Group plc and others v HMRC [2019] STC 1134

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

The UK branch did not constitute a fixed establishment on December 1, 2017, due to insufficient human and technical resources under its control. Even if it had, HMRC could reasonably have refused the application for revenue protection.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.