Uber case has wider implications
The High Court has ruled that under the agent and principal rules Uber must charge VAT to its customers. Previously, the practice was to treat the driver as the principal. What could this mean for businesses?

Three parties
VAT can be complicated when there are three separate parties involved in a deal. In the case of Uber, the relevant parties are Uber as the taxi control company, with bookings made by passengers through its app, along with the self-employed driver and the final customer. With VAT, the key question is always: who is supplying what and to whom? In other words, there is a need to identify the agent and principal to establish the supplier. A high court ruling decided that Uber supplies taxi rides to its customers, and the self-employed drivers are providing their services to Uber.
Note. Under UK law, any form of transport that is designed to carry fewer than ten passengers is subject to 20% VAT. Ten or more passengers means zero-rated VAT, e.g. trains and buses.
Wider implication
Every trading situation involving three parties has different contracts and trading arrangements. But the two key issues to consider are as follows:
- what do the contract and trading terms say is happening: who is selling services to whom?
- what is the commercial reality of an arrangement: who does the customer think is the supplier when they part with their money?
Time for action
For any business that has three-party deals, the Uber decision shows that it is important to review whether they are getting the VAT treatment right. If both suppliers are VAT registered and account for output tax on their share of the cake, then HMRC interest will be minimal. There is no leakage of VAT. But if the principal supplying the service to the customer is not VAT registered - because annual sales are less than £85,000 - there is a potential tax loss to the Exchequer.
In particular, businesses like salons that use self-employed stylists, taxi firms (especially those with a high volume of account business), internet-based services, etc. should take note.
Related Topics
-
Time off for fertility treatment?
A survey by Fertility Matters at Work has revealed that more than one-third of employees undergoing fertility treatment have resigned or are considering resigning because of the physical and emotional toll. Is there a right to time off for fertility treatment?
-
Was a company buyback of EIS shares tax avoidance?
Two taxpayers used the “purchase of own shares” procedure to extract gains they’d made from enterprise investment scheme (EIS) shares. HMRC said this was unfair tax avoidance, the taxpayers disagreed. What did the Upper Tribunal decide?
-
HMRC’s new compliance check service
HMRC has published a collection of videos and notes to help if you’re picked for a compliance check. Is HMRC’s new service worth a look or is it just official propaganda?