We believe we are more than just your average accountancy firm. Our goal at Barnes Roffe is to engage our clients through a proactive relationship, which provides you with the resources and tools you need to enable you to take charge of your finances with confidence.
Tax news, audit news and any new accounting news … with the help of our topical tips, blogs and key guides you can enjoy the benefit of being regularly informed of business and accounting updates which are likely to be relevant to you and your business.
PLEASE NOTE: By the very nature of this type of information the details of tax law might have changed since they were published, so contact your Barnes Roffe partner before acting on any matter contained in these documents.
Taxpayer victory leads to room hire VAT exemption
A recent First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision in the taxpayer’s favour has helped clarify that room rental is VAT exempt, but standard rating can apply if additional services are also supplied, such as a hairdresser renting chair spaces.
The FTT case involved hair and beauty business, Errol Willy Salons, hiring out two spare rooms to self-employed beauticians. Exempt VAT treatment suited the beauticians who were not VAT-registered.
HMRC contended that a standard rated package of services was being provided rather than just the two rooms. Along with the use of rooms, the self-employed beauticians had access to the staff toilets and rest area, occasional use of the services of a receptionist, and were provided with light and heat. They also benefited from advertising.
HMRC argued the facts were similar to the Byrom case – which had gone in their favour – where rooms hired to self-employed masseuses came with a bundle of other services including access to a kitchen, showers, a washing machine, linen and towels, security and a reception.
A victory for HMRC could have impacted on any business letting out a spare room. However, although HMRC’s ambition to narrow the VAT room rental exemption has been checked, they may now resort to legislative change.
The FTT disagreed that the Byrom case was comparable because the beauticians in the Errol Willy Salons case were only provided with what were essentially bare rooms. The masseuses in the Byrom case, in contrast, had the use of a package of services, one of which was the provision of a room.
- Although the additional services provided to the beauticians made it easier for them to provide their services, crucially none of the services were considered to be essential.
- The additional services were therefore incidental to the supply of the room.
- The predominant supply made by the taxpayer was room rental, and this was correctly treated as VAT exempt.
More detail on the Byrom case, along with a number of examples showing HMRC’s view on the VAT treatment of supplies containing a number of elements (including the right to occupy property), can be found here.