Boehringer Ingelheim Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 948 (TC)
Each supply must be regarded as separate and distinct, subject to exceptions for ancillary services, single indivisible economic supplies, or closely related activities sharing exemption.
Article 1(2) and Article 2 of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD); Frenetikexito, CPP, Levob
A single supply has a single tax treatment, even if different VAT rates apply to its components. The predominant element dictates the classification of the whole supply.
Stadion Amsterdam CV, HMRC v Gray and Farrar International, Město Žamberk
Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of the PVD exempt certain healthcare transactions. Exemption (c) is narrower than (b) and does not include 'closely related activities'.
Article 132 PVD
In determining single/multiple supplies, the perspective of the typical consumer is relevant. This is usually the recipient of the supply.
CPP, Everything Everywhere, Frenetikexito
EC v UK and Klinikum decisions clarified the scope of exemption (c), particularly regarding the supply of goods alongside services. Minor goods strictly necessary and not physically and economically dissociable from the service are exempt.
EC v UK, Klinikum Dortmund
Appeal dismissed.
The UT upheld the FTT's finding that Spectrum made a single exempt composite supply of healthcare. The UT rejected Spectrum's arguments based on EC v UK and Klinikum, finding that these cases did not preclude a single supply analysis encompassing drugs and contraceptives. The UT also held that NHSE, as the contractual recipient, was the relevant typical consumer for assessing single vs. multiple supplies.
[2024] UKFTT 948 (TC)
[2023] UKFTT 627 (TC)
[2024] UKFTT 460 (TC)
[2023] UKFTT 547 (TC)
[2024] UKUT 334 (TCC)