Automated Summary
Key Facts
The key factual findings include: (1) Most of the factual basis for the case was derived from written and oral evidence provided by Richard Chambers (RC), the founder and CEO of Get a Drip Limited (GAD). (2) RC lacks medical or scientific qualifications and his evidence on medical/scientific matters was not accepted by the Tribunal due to his non-expert status and lack of impartiality. (3) The Tribunal accepted 11 representative patient samples as evidence of GAD's standard operational procedures, with no challenge from HMRC regarding their representativeness.
Tax Type
Value Added Tax (VAT) exemption for medical care supplies under Schedule 9, Group 7, Item 1 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA).
Issues
- Issue 3: Whether HMRC's decision to standard rate the Supplies satisfied the 'best judgment' requirement under the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009.
- Issue 2: Whether the Supplies were zero rated under Item 1, Group 12, Schedule 8 VATA – which zero rates supplies of goods designed or adapted for use in connection with medical or surgical treatment, dispensed on prescription.
- Issue 1: Whether the supplies of intravenous vitamin drips and vitamin injections made by Get a Drip Limited (GAD) fall within the exemption for 'medical care' under Item 1, Group 7, Schedule 9 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA 1994).
- Issue 4: Whether, from 24 July 2020 (GAD's Care Quality Commission registration date), its supplies became exempt under Schedule 9, Group 7, Item 4 of VATA.
Tax Years
2017
Holdings
- The tribunal determined that the supplies described in 11 representative samples are valid medical interventions provided by qualified practitioners, meeting the criteria for exemption under the VATA medical care provision.
- The appeal is allowed; the tribunal concluded that the supplies of intravenous vitamin drips and vitamin injections provided by Get a Drip Limited (GAD) constitute 'medical care' under Item 1, Group 7, Schedule 9 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA) and are therefore exempt from VAT.
Remedies
The appeal is allowed. The court held that the supplies of intravenous vitamin drips and vitamin injections provided by Get a Drip Limited (GAD) fall within the exemption for 'medical care' under Item 1, Group 7, Schedule 9 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA 1994). As a result, the supplies are exempt from VAT, and the appeal against the standard rating decision is successful.
Tax Issue Category
Input Vs. Output Vat
Legal Principles
- The burden of proof in this VAT exemption appeal lies with the appellant (Get a Drip Ltd), requiring them to demonstrate that their intravenous vitamin treatments qualify as 'medical care' under Item 1, Group 7, Schedule 9 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 by a balance of probabilities.
- The standard of proof applied is the civil standard of balance of probabilities, which the tribunal used to assess whether the supplies constituted medical care as defined by the CJEU case law and UK statutory interpretation principles.
Precedent Name
- Kügler (Case C-141/00)
- Airtours Holiday Transport Ltd v HMRC [2016] UKSC 21
- Mainpay Ltd v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 1620
- D'Ambrumenil v Customs and Excise Comrs (Case C-307/01)
- PFC Clinic v HMRC (Case C-384/98)
- Mainpay UT [2021] UKUT 270
- WHA Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2013] UKSC 24
- Wood v Holden [2006] EWCA Civ 26
Cited Statute
- Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023
- Finance Act 2024
- Directive 2006/112/EC (Principal VAT Directive)
- Value Added Tax Act 1994
- European Union Withdrawal Act 2018
Judge Name
- Vimal Tilakapala
- Duncan McBride
Passage Text
- For the reasons given above, the Appeal is allowed.
- We consider therefore that on the balance of probabilities the Supplies do constitute the provision of medical care.
- Held that the supplies contained in 11 representative samples were supplies of 'medical care' and within the exemption. Appeal Allowed.