In January and February 2014 the following decisions dealing with VAT in the UK were handed down. My research has not uncovered any decisions in New Zealand or Canada.

Of particular interest is that on Friday the UK Supreme Court handed down its decision in Revenue & Customs v Secret Hotesl2 Ltd [2014] UKSC 16 where it allowed the appeal by the taxpayer. The appeal concerned the liability for VAT of a company which markets and arranges holiday accommodation though an on-line website and the essential question was whether the appellant was acting as a principal, or as an agent, when making the supplies of hotel accommodation. The Supreme Court found that the contractual documents and the website made it clear that the hotel room was provided through the agency of the appellant, and that the manner in which the appellant carried on its business did not support a contrary conclusion. It is a case that appears to have some similarity to ATS Pacific Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCA 341 (which is currently on appeal to the Full Federal Court).

My analysis of the decision of the UK Supreme Court can be accessed here. 

Upper Tax Tribunal

• HMRC v Brockenhurst College [2014] UKUT 46 – VAT – whether supplies of catering and entertainment services to members of the public are exempt as supplies closely related to the provision of education – Sixth VAT Directive, Article 13A(1)(m); Principal VAT Directive, Article 132(1)(i) – VATA 1994, Sch 9, Group 6, Item 4 – appeal dismissed

First Tier Tax Tribunal

• Associated Newspapers Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 116 – VAT – retailer vouchers – delivery to customers as part of newspaper sales promotional scheme – whether articles 3 and 5 of the Value Added Tax (Supply of Services) Order 1993 apply to impose an output tax liability by reference to the cost of the vouchers – whether the vouchers were used for a purpose other than a purpose of the business of the Appellant – held no – preliminary issue decided in favour of the Appellant
• British Printing Industries Federation v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 150 – VAT- exempt services – Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 9, item 1(d), note (5) and Article 132(1)(l) of the Principal VAT Directive (2006/112/EC) – employers federation providing services to members in return for annual subscriptions – whether membership subscriptions exempt from VAT – whether ‘trade union’ association – whether primary purpose of federation included making representations to third party decision makers – whether objectives of association were for the collective interests of members
• Concept Multi Car Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 110 – VAT – Zero rating- whether camper vans converted from VW T5 motor vans supplied to disabled customers by appellant were adapted “permanently and substantially” to enable a disabled person who usually used a wheel chair  “to enter and drive or otherwise be carried in” the vehicle for the purposes of Note 5L to Item 2A Schedule 8 Group 12 VATA 1994 – combination of adaptations consisting of ambulance ramp fitting strip and swivel seats fulfilled criteria – appeal allowed
• The English Bridge Union Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 181 – VAT – sport – whether contract bridge a sport within Art 132(1)(m) of Principal VAT Directive
• Envoygate (Installations) Ltd & Richvale Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 221 – VALUE ADDED TAX – supply of replacement box sash windows and supply of draught stripping for windows – installation of energy-saving materials – supplies at reduced rate of VAT – whether single supply or separate supplies so that supply of draught stripping for windows is a supply at reduced rate – if single supply, whether nevertheless the reduced rate of VAT should be applied to draught stripping work as a concrete and specific aspect of the single supply – on the facts the supply of draught stripping for windows is a separate supply taxable at the reduced rate of VAT – appeal allowed – s 29A and Group 2, Sch. 7A VATA 1994
• European Tour Operators Association v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 213 – VAT – Exempt services – Item 1(d) of Group 9 of Schedule 9 VATA 1994 – Whether membership subscriptions of a trade association constitute exempt supplies – Matter remitted by Upper Tribunal for reconsideration – Appeal allowed
• Finmeccanica Group Services Spa v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 224 – VAT – Place of Supply – organisation of enclosure at Farnborough air show – whether advertising services or exhibition.
• GSTS Pathology Services LLP v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 211 – Value Added Tax – exemption – medical care – analysis of medical samples – service supplied to medical institution or practitioner, not to patient – whether exempt
• Kumon Educational UK Co Ltd & Kumon Book Services (UK) Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 109 – VAT – OUTPUT TAX –provider of standard rated tuition programme set up subsidiary to provide worksheets as zero rated supplies – whether subsidiary made zero rated supplies of worksheets – yes – whether supplies of worksheets part of single standard rated supply of services – no – whether contractual arrangements sham – no – whether contractual arrangements abusive practice – no – appeals allowed
• SAE Education Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 218 – VAT – Exemption – Company providing educational courses to students – succession of agreements between company and university – whether supply of educational courses by company exempt – whether courses supplied by eligible body – whether company a college of a university – VATA 1994 Sch 9, Group 6, Item 1, Note (1)(b) – EC Council Directive 2006/112, Art 132(1)(i) – appeal allowed
• SIMON JAMESON NAGLE & JULIE KEMSLEY t/a SIMON TEMPLAR BUSINESS CENTER v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 131– VAT – Input tax – Whether valid claim for recovery of input tax in respect of retail vouchers (as defined by paragraph 4(1) schedule 10A Value Added Tax Act 1994) – Whether the supply of retail vouchers is a standard or zero-rated supply – jurisdiction of Tribunal in case of  legitimate expectation
• Way Ahead Group Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 178 – Value added TAX – Treatment of supplies by primary ticket agent – Whether “Booking Fee” exempt? – On facts – Yes – Appeal allowed
• Working Museum and Arts and Crafts Centre v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 176 – VAT –was appellant charity making a taxable supply to local authority under services agreement – yes – appeal allowed.
• Wilton Park Ltd & Others v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 115 – VAT – whether face-value vouchers issued by appellant companies and paid for by patrons using debit and credit cards for use in payment for dancers’ services in appellant companies’ lap dancing clubs and subsequently redeemed by dancers dealings in credit guarantees or any other security and on redemption exempt from VAT– item 1 Group 5 Schedule 9 to VATA 1994 – yes – whether dealings in vouchers separate dealings in security for money – no – redemption of vouchers held to be ancillary part of overall composite taxable supply of performance facilitation services by appellants –  appeals dismissed

In November and December 2013 the following VAT/GST decisions were handed down in the UK, New Zealand and Canada.

Of particular interest was the decision of the First Tier Tribunal in AV Concepts Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 646. The taxpayer sold electronic “white boards” to schools for cash, plus the supply by the school to the taxpayer of various obsolete projectors and similar equipment. The issue was whether the sale was a part-exchange or barter transaction in which the consideration consisted of the receipt of cash plus the value of the part-exchange item – or whether the obsolete item should be treated as a discount, with the consideration being confined to just the cash. My analysis of the decision can be accessed here.

United Kingdom

Upper Tax Tribunal

• Finance & Business Training Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKUT 594 – Value Added Tax – whether services provided by Appellant exempt under Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, Item 1 – whether Appellant was “an eligible body” within Note (1)(b)- whether Appellant was a college or institution of the University of Wales – whether possible to be an eligible body in relation to some of the Appellant’s activities and not an eligible body in relation to the remainder of its activities
• Leeds City Council v HMRC [2013] UKUT 596 – VALUE ADDED TAX – claim for repayment of VAT – failure of UK to implement Article 4.5 of Sixth VAT Directive – erroneous guidance issued by HMRC – curtailment of limitation period for claims – section 80 VAT Act 1994 – whether compatible with EU legal principles – appeal dismissed

First Tier Tribunal

• AV Concepts Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 646 – Value Added Tax  –  Whether goods were sold for a combination of cash and the value of part-exchange items, or whether the part-exchange items were in substance the equivalent of a discount so that the goods should be treated as sold for the cash consideration alone  –  Appeal dismissed
• Cabvision Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 721 – VAT – Consideration – Other –arrangements similar to those used in Tower MCashback – appellant sold software to LLP investment vehicle – purchase funded  by member subscriptions and debt incurred to bank 1 – debt guaranteed by bank 2 – guarantee secured by deposit made by appellant – appellant paid VAT on £22,602,979 received from LLP – whether correct VAT was lesser amount because some of that amount was security for bank loan to LLP and received subject to restrictions – yes – loan transaction which funded purchase and restrictions on the amount received elements of the same transaction – VAT due on amount actually received by appellant which was lesser amount taking account of the banking arrangements –  alternatively as argued by the appellant VAT was lesser amount because later settlement of dispute reduced price  through a collateral oral agreement between the appellant and the LLP – appeal allowed
• DPAS Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 676 – VAT – Whether dental payment plan administrator provided services to patient for consideration –  Whether these services were exempt or standard rated supplies – If exempt whether change in contractual arrangements from 1 January 2012 amounted to a “Halifax” abusive practice – Appeal allowed
• Intelligent Managed Services Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 741 – VAT – Whether transfer of a business can be a transfer as a going concern and/or total transfer of business assets if transferee is a member of a VAT group which makes supplies only to another member of the same VAT group – Appeal dismissed
• John Martin Holdings Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 714 – VALUE ADDED TAX – Zero rating of the supply of a qualifying motor vehicle for handicapped person who usually uses a wheelchair – Items 2(A) and 2(f) and Note 5L Group 12 Schedule 8 VATA 1994 considered.  Whether supply made to handicapped person/disabled wheelchair user for domestic or personal use – whether sufficient evidence available to supplier to allow zero rating of supply – Appeal dismissed.
• Leyton Sixth Form College v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 660 – VALUE ADDED TAX – construction of buildings – whether zero-rated or standard-rated supplies – whether construction of a building by a college was an enlargement of, or an extension to, an existing building, or the construction of an annexe to an existing building – whether, if an annexe, it was capable of functioning independently from the existing building, and whether there is one main access to annexe and existing building – construction was an extension to an existing building and therefore supplies standard-rated – appeal dismissed – VATA 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5, Item 2 and Notes 16 and 17
• Magic Memories Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 730 – VALUE ADDED TAX– supply of photo-books at the visitor attractions – whether supply of goods or services – if supply of goods, whether a supply of photographs or of photo-books – whether photo-books were “books or booklets” within Item 1 of Group 3 of Schedule 8 Value Added Tax Act 1994- appeal allowed

New Zealand

• Disputant A v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2013] NZTRA 11 – whether the disputant and Company O were “associated companies” because they were both controlled by same individual

Canada

Tax Court

• Children’s Clean Air Network Society v The Queen 2013 TCC 352 – whether applicant (a NPO and registered charity) entitled to input tax credits and liable to pay GST – whether the applicant was carrying on a commercial activity

In Mattress Innovations Pty Ltd v Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2013] QCA 377 the Court of Appeal found that upon the proper construction of the insurance contract the insurer was not entitled to reduce the  amount payable to the insured by 1/11th on account of input tax credits to which the insured may be entitled.

The case is a further example of a contractual dispute between parties relating to GST. We have seen a number of disputes relating to real property contracts (e.g., whether the price is GST exclusive or inclusive) – some examples are referred to in my paper published earlier this year entitled “GST and Real Estate Contracts – when things go wrong” , but this case shows that disputes can arise in all types of transactions, including insurance.

The clauses at issue included the following:

16.2 Calculating Claims

If You make a claim under this Policy, any payment or supply We make to You in respect of the acquisition of goods, services or other supply (or monetary compensation in lieu thereof) or otherwise in relation to Your claim will be calculated on the GST inclusive cost of Your claim.

In calculating such payment, We are entitled to reduce it by any ITC which You are, or would be, entitled to:

(a) for the acquisition of such goods, services or other supply; or

(b) had the compensation been used to acquire such goods, services or other supply

However, the total of all payments We make to You will not exceed Your sum insured, limit or sublimit of liability, or other monetary limitation.

The sums insured, limits and/or sublimits of liability, or any other monetary limitations are inclusive of any taxes, levies, duties or charges that the payment would be affected by or subject to.

The insured’s building (which was leased ) was destroyed by fire and the loss was greater than the total sum insured. The insurer could elect to pay the insured value of the damaged property or restore the property. The insurer elected to pay the total sum insured, less 1/11th of the sum. The insured used those monies to rebuild the property, and claimed an input tax credit for the building costs. In this regard, one can readily understand the intent of the clause.

At first instance, the insured contended that the effect of the general condition was that the total amount of the loss should be reduced by 1/11th, so that if the remaining amount was more than the total sum insured the insured was entitled to the total sum. The insurer contended that the starting point (for the purpose of the 1/11th reduction) was the sum insured. The primary judge agreed with the insurer, noting that was anomalous that “an insured whose claim is more than the sum insured (ie. an under-insured insured) should be in a better financial position, relatively speaking, than an insured whose claim is within policy limits”.

The Court of Appeal observed that the constructions proposed by both parties resulted in anomalies. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal accepted the construction proposed by the insured over that of the insurer (which had been accepted by the primary judge). The factor which the Court appears to have found decisive was described as follows (at [23]):

On the other hand, the construction adopted by the trial judge produces the result that the limit of the insurer’s liability to satisfy its obligations under the policy by payment to the insured is not the Sum Insured stated in the certificate of insurance in simple and unqualified terms, but is instead 10/11ths of that amount. That is such a surprising result as to suggest that the construction which produces it could not reflect the intention of reasonable contracting parties. Furthermore, for the reasons given earlier, the appellant’s construction of General Condition 16.2, that the insurer’s maximum potential liability after taking into account input tax credits extends to the Sum Insured, more closely reflects the text and structure of that clause in the context of the policy as a whole than does the construction which the trial judge preferred. In my respectful opinion the appellant’s construction is correct.

The decision is a further example of the difficulties involved in drafting GST clauses. The Court (both on appeal and at first instance) commented on the poor drafting of the clause. The primary judge observed that the conditions were “infelicitously drafted” and marked by “poor word choice, and a lack of conceptual clarity as a matter of ordinary English”.

Just hours after I posted that the Commissioner was seeking leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Full Federal Court in MBI Properties Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 112, the Commissioner has published an Interim Decision Impact Statement for the decision.

The Commissioner acknowledges that subject to his application for special leave, the decision of the Full Court means that purchasers of leased premises as a going concern may not be liable for an increasing adjustment under Division 135 of the GST Act. The Commissioner is also carefully considering the other potential implications of the decision, noting that concerns have been expressed that the decision might mean that:

• following the sale of a reversion, the incoming landlord of commercial premises is not liable for GST on the rent payable by the tenant granted by the vendor of the reversion;
• the tenant of commercial premises would not be entitled to input tax credits in relation to rental payments after the sale of a reversion
• an entity that grants a lease in, but later sells commercial residential premises, may remain liable for GST on rental payments received by the purchaser following the sale of the premises
• a purchaser of leased residential premises can claim input tax credits for costs associated with the rental of the premises, so far as the lease originally granted by the vendor remains on foot and no new or further lease is granted by the purchaser
• property owners are not able to sell leased premiss as a GST-free going concern.

The Commissioner outlines his proposed administrative treatment pending the outcome of the special leave application – essentially it appears to be status quo in that the ATO does not intend to revise its current published views about the sale of leased residential premises and leased commercial residential premises.

The Commissioner also notes that taxpayers who self-assess under the Commissioner’s current views may wish to protect their entitlement to refunds of overpaid GST (if the Commissioner is unsuccessful) by lodging a notification under s 105-55 of Schedule 1 to the TAA.

In the context of refunds, it should be noted that the Commissioner states that refunds will be subject to the restrictions under s 105-65 of Schedule 1 to the TAA and also that if refunds are paid to taxpayers prior to finalisation of the High Court proceedings, those refunds may need to be repaid – for example if the Commissioner is successful, or even if not successful, if the refund was paid on a basis that is not consistent with the Commissioner’s final views on the broad implications of the Full Court’s decision.

One matter not mentioned in the Interim Decision Impact Statement is the recent confirmation by the Government that it would re-introduce legislation to introduce Division 142 of the GST Act, which is to replace s 105-65 of the GST Act. The original legislation was to apply to tax periods from 14 August 2012. It is unclear whether the new legislation will have the same start date, but taxpayers should keep this new legislation in mind if they are looking to claim refunds.

The Federal Court website discloses that the Commissioner has lodged an application to the High Court for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Full Federal Court in in MBI Properties v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 112 where the Full Court allowed the taxpayer’s appeal against the decision of the Federal Court in MBI Properties Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCA 56.

The Full Court agreed with the taxpayer that it did not have an increasing adjustment pursuant to Division 135 of the GST Act where it acquired, as a going concern, residential premises which were leased. This was because the supply was made on the grant of the lease and that while the lease (being the subject of the supply) may have continued, the supply made on the grant did not. The Full Court also agreed that on its proper statutory construction, s 135-5(1)(b) only applied to supplies made by the acquirer of the enterprise.

My analysis of the decision of the Full Court can be accessed here.

In September and October 2013 the following decisions were handed down in NZ, the UK and the ECJ, and Canada dealing with VAT issues.

There were a number of cases of interest, two of which are discussed below.

In Casa Blanca Homes Ltd v The Queen [2013] TCC 338 the Tax Court of Canada considered whether GST was payable on the entire fee received by a purchaser of land in respect of the assignment of the contractual rights to a third party, or whether GST was only payable on the amount received over and above the deposit initially paid by the purchaser. An issue was also whether the assignment of the deposit was a separate exempt supply of a financial security. The Court agreed with the taxpayer that there were two separate supplies, being the supply of the interest in the land (for which the assignment fee was received) and the supply of the deposit (for which the purchaser was reimbursed the deposit paid). The Court found that the deposit was a “debt security” and an exempt financial supply.

In A N Checker & Service Engineers v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 506  the issue was whether the supply of energy saving materials (taxed at a reduced rate) together with the installation of boiler and other central heating products (standard rated) was a single supply subject to differing rates of VAT. While the Tribunal had considerable sympathy for the position of the applicant, it agreed with the Revenue’s contention that the entire supply was standard rated. The First Tier Tribunal noted that the legislation provided for a reduced rate for a “supply” and to read the provisions as applying the reduced rate to elements within a supply would be to depart from the unambiguous meaning of the words used. This can be compared with s 9-80 of the GST Act which expressly provides for the circumstance where a single supply has taxable components and also GST-free or input taxed components.

New Zealand

Trustees of the B Trust v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2013] NZTRA 5

• whether taxpayer carrying on a taxable activity in respect of the purchase, development and sale of homes which were used as principal place of residence for short periods of time

United Kingdom

Upper Tax Tribunal

Loughborough Students Union v HMRC [2013] UKUT 517

• VAT – exemptions – cultural services – bodies managed and administered on an essentially voluntary basis – student union governed by council – salaried sabbatical officers of executive committee as voting then non-voting members of council – whether FTT entitled to find student union not managed and administered on an essentially voluntary basis – yes

First Tier Tribunal

A N Checker & Service Engineers v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 506

• Value Added Tax – reduced rate – energy saving materials supplied as part of a supply of the whole or part of a domestic central heating system – whether a single supply subject to a single rate of VAT, a single supply subject to two or more different rates of VAT or two or more separate supplies subject to different rates of VAT

Chubb Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 579

• VALUE ADDED TAX – “Fleming Claim” by company who became the representative member after the original group member had received the input supply – recipient not a member of the group at time of input supply – whether representative member could sustain the claim – On facts – No – Appeal dismissed

Khoshaba (t/a Cinnamon Cafe) v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 481

• VAT – pre-registration input tax – whether invoice for a single supply – yes – whether the supply was of goods or services – services – whether other input tax reclaims allowable – appeal dismissed save in respect of petrol

Lane v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 521

• VAT – Compulsory registration – Supplies of cleaning services to owners of holiday cottages – Contract between owners of cottages and appellant – Whether appellant supplying cleaning services itself or engaging cleaners as agent of owners – Appeal dismissed

McCann v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 632

• Value Added Tax – zero-rate –  construction of a dwelling – swimming pool – external but connected to dwelling – whether zero-rate applicable to construction of swimming pool – Value Added Tax Act 1994 s. 30, Schedule 8

MJ Fenwick Consultancy v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 598

• VAT – Exemption – Provision of services by private addiction therapist not registered or enrolled on register or roll of health professionals included in paragraphs (a) to (d) of Item 1 Group 7 of Schedule 9 Value Added Tax Act 1994 – Whether services supplied are directly supervised by such a health professional – No – Appeal dismissed

North Weald Golf Club Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 491

• Value added tax – Exemptions – Sport and physical education – whether Appellant an eligible body for the purposes of VAT exemption – whether assessments out of time – application for late amendment grounds of appeal

Planet Sport (Holdings) Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 639

• After-school sports clubs – whether fees exempt or standard-rated – whether taxpayer a ‘state-regulated institution’ – whether sports clubs ‘welfare services’ – VATA 1994 Sch 9, Grp 7 Notes 6 & 8 – appeal dismissed

Rosen v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 466

• VALUE ADDED TAX – whether appellant should be allowed to amend her grounds of appeal to raise the issue of whether she was the correct taxable person to assess rather than her husband – decided that the amendment should be allowed – appellant registered for VAT in respect of the business – whether the appellant or her husband ought to have been the person registered – whether the appellant or her husband owned and carried on the business – evidence considered – found that the appellant owned and carried on the business – whether the assessments on the appellant which had been made to the best judgment of the assessing officer were nonetheless in too high an amount – found on the evidence that they were – amount assessed reduced – appeal allowed in part accordingly

TLLC Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 467

• VAT – recovery of input tax on professional fees relating to the sale of shares in subsidiary companies – Skatteverket v AB SKF – whether sale of shares constituted an economic activity – yes – if so, whether an exempt supply – yes – if an exempt supply, whether input tax recoverable – no  – whether sale of shares a transfer of a going concern – no – if so, whether input tax recoverable – no – whether discharge of indebtedness by subsidiary companies on completion of sale comprised part of consideration for the supply of the shares – no – appeal dismissed

Victorangle Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 607

• VAT – analysis of the facts and on those facts finding there was no taxable supply and no consideration – appeal allowed

Wendy Lane v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 521

• VAT – Compulsory registration – Supplies of cleaning services to owners of holiday cottages – Contract between owners of cottages and appellant – Whether appellant supplying cleaning services itself or engaging cleaners as agent of owners – Appeal dismissed

Why Pay More For Cars Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 497

• VAT – motor vehicles – demonstrator bonus paid by manufacturer to dealer – whether VAT received on bonus and accounted for – silent periods – Elida Table and line of supply – appeal dismissed

Wosem Communities Development Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 609

• VAT – appeal against refusal of input tax claim and de-registration for VAT –has appellant established that it is engaged in business activities – no – is the appellant entitled to recover input tax – no – appeal dismissed.

European Court of Justice

Le Credit Lyonnais v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes public et de la Reforme de l’Etat [2013] EUECJ C-388/11

• Value added tax – Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC – Articles 17 and 19 – Deduction of input tax paid – Use of goods and services for both taxable and exempt transactions – Proportional deduction – Calculation of the proportion – Branches established in other Member States and in third States – Not taking their turnover into account

Canada

Casa Blanca Homes Ltd v The Queen [2013] TCC 338

• whether GST payable on fees received by purchaser of real estate for assignment of contracts to third parties – whether fee payable for assignment of deposit an exempt supply of a financial service