Summary
For VAT purposes, a public-law body acts as a public authority when the activity is carried on under a special legal regime, rather than under the same legal conditions as private operators. The regime must have a real, operative legal effect; a mere statutory power or general public-law framework is insufficient. Guidance may qualify when combined with an enforceable duty to follow it unless there is good reason to depart. The distortion-of-competition exception requires an evidence-based assessment of the counterfactual of non-taxation. It concerns the activity as such, actual or potential competition that is real, and distortions more than negligible. Participation in a market, or competition alone, does not establish the exception. Hospital car parking was supplied as a public authority and VAT was not chargeable.
Factual background
The Trust operated car parks at hospitals and other healthcare facilities and sought repayment of VAT accounted for on parking charges. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed its appeal: [2021] UKFTT 71 (TC). The Upper Tribunal dismissed a further appeal: [2022] UKUT 00267 (TCC).
The Court of Appeal considered whether the Trust supplied parking as a public authority under Article 13(1) of the Principal VAT Directive, implemented by section 41A of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, and whether non-taxation would lead to significant distortions of competition.
Held
The appeal was allowed on all three grounds. Lady Justice Falk gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Green and Lady Justice Asplin agreeing. The Tribunal decisions were set aside and the Trust’s claim for repayment of VAT was allowed.
- Special legal regime. The sole test under Article 13(1) was whether the activity was carried on under a special legal regime applicable to the public body, rather than under the same legal conditions as private operators. The references in the CJEU authorities to activities closely linked to public powers described the usual context of the derogation. They did not establish an alternative test to that stated in Carpaneto 1 ([1991] STC 205). Public powers could satisfy the test, but were not the only means of doing so.
- The relevant legal conditions had to have a real, operative impact on the lawful conduct of the activity. A mere statutory framework, a different source of enabling powers, or a possibility that legal conditions might affect the activity was insufficient.
- The 2015 Parking Principles, combined with the Trust’s public-law duty to follow them unless there was good reason to depart, imposed material constraints on access, charges, concessions and additional charges. Their use of the word should did not prevent them having legal effect or undermine legal certainty. The statutory framework, including sections 1, 2 and 43(3) of the National Health Service Act 2006, reinforced that conclusion.
- Competition distortion. HMRC bore the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that non-taxation would cause significant distortions of competition. The assessment had to concern the activity as such, not a particular local market, and required an economic assessment of the counterfactual. Actual and potential competition were relevant only where private entry was real rather than hypothetical. A distortion had to be more than negligible.
- The FTT had applied an impermissible presumption. Its findings concerning participation in the market, local airport parking and the possibility of lower prices did not establish that non-taxation itself would disadvantage private operators. Retention of additional receipts for healthcare, without evidence of market impact, was not enough. The necessary economic findings were absent.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
Available to signed-in members.
Appellate history
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal allowed; the Tribunal decisions were set aside and the Trust’s VAT repayment claim was allowed: [2024] EWCA Civ 177 .
- Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber): appeal dismissed: [2022] UKUT 00267 (TCC).
- First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber): appeal dismissed: [2021] UKFTT 71 (TC).
Appeal route
- Appealed from[2022] UKUT 267 (TCC)This appealappeal allowed
- This judgment [2024] EWCA Civ 177 Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Appealed to[2025] UKSC 37Outcomeappeal allowed unanimously
Key cases cited
28 authorities cited.
- R (on the application of Hemmati and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKSC 56
- R (Lee-Hirons) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] UKSC 46
- Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 59
- Walumba Lumba (previously referred to as WL) (Congo) 1 and 2 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12
- Regina v. Ashworth Hospital Authority (now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) (Appellants) ex parte Munjaz (FC) (Respondent) [2005] UKHL 58
- Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Achilles Information Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 323
- Isle of Wight Council & Ors v HM Revenue and Customs [2015] EWCA Civ 1303
- HM Revenue and Customs v Insurancewide.Com Services Ltd & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 422
- Expert Witness Institute v Customs & Excise Commissioners [2002] STC 42
- Rogers, R (on the application of) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust & Anor [2006] EWHC 171 (Admin)
- HMRC v Chelmsford City Council [2022] UKUT 149 (TCC)
- Gmina Wrocław v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej ECLI:EU:C:2021:132
- Minister Finansów v Gmina Wrocław ECLI:EU:C:2018:431
- National Roads Authority v Revenue Commissioners ECLI:EU:C:2017:28
- Saudaçor—Sociedade Gestora de Recursos e Equipamentos da Saúde dos Açores SA v Fazenda Pública (Saudaçor – Sociedade Gestora de Recursos e Equipamentos da Saúde dos Açores SA v Fazenda Pública) Case C-174/14
- Isle of Wight Council v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 648 (TC)
- HMRC v Rank Case C-259/10
- Commission v Netherlands EU:C:2010:171
- Commission of the European Communities v Ireland [2009] ECR I-128
- Isle of Wight Council v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2009] STC 1098
- HMRC v Isle of Wight Council [2008] STC 2964
- Taksatorringen v Skatterministeriat Case C-8/01
- Fazenda Pública v Câmara Municipal do Porto [2000] ECR I-11435
- EC Commission v United Kingdom [2000] STC 777
- Commission v France ECLI:EU:C:2000:424
- Card Protection Plan Ltd v Customs and Excise Comrs Case C-349/96
- Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino v Ufficio Provinciale Imposta sul Valore Aggiunto di Piacenza [1990] ECR 1-1869
- Carpaneto [1989] ECR 3233
Sign in to see how the court treated each authority. A free account is enough.
Cases citing this case
Available to signed-in members.