20783
VAT – ZERO RATING – SINGLE/MULTIPLE SUPPLIES – supplies of a wedding book by professional photographers – the wedding book was a wedding album for all intents and purposes - not a book within the meaning of the zero-rating provisions – alternative issue – single supply of goods/services or multiple supply of goods and services – single supply of standard rated photographic services – Appeals dismissed
MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE
RISBEY'S PHOTOGRAPHY LIMITED Appellants
DIGITAL ALBUMS LIMITED
- and -
HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE and CUSTOMS Respondents
Tribunal: MICHAEL TILDESLEY OBE (Chairman)
WARREN SNOWDON JP (Member)
Sitting in public in North Shields on 3 June 2008
Andrew James Risbey director for the Appellants
David Mohyuddin counsel instructed by the Solicitor's office for HM Revenue & Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2008
DECISION
The Appeal
The Dispute
(1) Whether the supply of wedding books was zero-rated within item 1 group 3 schedule 8 VAT Act 1994 ?
(2) Whether the supply of wedding books was part of a single supply of standard rated wedding photography services?
The Law
(2) A supply of goods or services is zero-rated by virtue of this subsection if the goods or services are of a description for the time being specified in Schedule 8 or the supply is of a description for the time being specified.
The Evidence
The Facts
Reasons for the Decision
Zero-rating Dispute
"In my judgment, the English word 'book', although it always refers to an object whose necessary minimum characteristics are that it has a significant number of leaves, now usually of paper, held together front and back by covers usually more substantial than the leaves, is a word with a variety of possible more particular meanings. For any particular use of the word, its particular meaning will be derived from the circumstances in which it is used. For instance, if a barrister in the clerks' room of his chambers points to a blank counsel's notebook and says to his clerk 'please hand me that book', he would not expect the answer 'that is not a book'. (Mr Tallon surprisingly submitted that a counsel's notebook might not be a book because it was perforated--a point which he also made in relation to a cheque book.) On the other hand if the same counsel, having a substantial collection of law reports and legal textbooks in his room, asked the same clerk to count all the books in his room, he would not expect the clerk to include blank counsel's notebooks in the count. If a testator uses the word 'books', the word obviously has to be understood in the context of the objects which the testator in fact has to bequeath.
In the first instance, the only circumstance here is that the words 'books' and 'booklets' are used in the Schedule to a statute. They are accordingly relevantly devoid of context. Devoid of context, in my judgment the ordinary meaning of the word 'book' is limited to objects having the minimum characteristics of a book which are to be read or looked at. (The same applies to 'booklet', which I think is a thin book perhaps with a rather flimsy cover. I am not sure about the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary definition of booklet as 'a tiny book', since I would not myself call a tiny book with many pages a booklet.) If you ask of a particular object 'is this a book?' you immediately provide a context, which the words in the statute lack. You will get an answer which is affected by the context. If you ask instead what I regard as the right question here, ie 'what is the ordinary meaning of the word "book"?', you should get an answer which accords with the ordinary meaning to which I have referred. As Mr Richards submitted (although he accepted that these diaries and address books might be books or booklets within one possible meaning of those words), people generally think of books as things to be read rather than as blank pages bound together. A filled-in diary of historical or literary interest may be a book because it is retained to be read or looked at. But a blank diary is not a book in the ordinary sense of the word. Likewise a blank address book is not in the ordinary sense a book and it does not become one simply because its name includes the word 'book'. A cheque book is plainly not a book nor, in my view, is it a booklet in the ordinary sense of that word. The fact that in some contexts you would say of a blank diary that it is a book within one possible meaning of that word does not mean that it is a book within the ordinary meaning of the word.
There is in my view no reason for reading the words 'books' and 'booklets' in item 1 of Group 3 of Schedule 5 to the 1983 Act in a more extended meaning than their ordinary meanings. I agree with Mr Richards that, if they were to be seen in the context of the words with which they are associated, that association would confirm the ordinary meaning. It would not extend it".
Single Supply
"In determining what the appropriate criteria were for deciding, for VAT purposes, whether a transaction which comprised several elements was to be regarded as a single supply or as two or more distinct supplies assessable separately, it was necessary to ascertain the essential features of the transaction. There was a single supply where one or more elements constituted the principal service and others were merely ancillary, in that they did not constitute for customers aims in themselves, but simply a means of better enjoying the principal service. Where a single price was charged for a service consisting of several elements, if circumstances such as those in the instant case indicated that the customers intended to purchase two distinct services, namely an insurance supply and a card registration service, it would be necessary to identify the part of the single price which related to the insurance supply, which would remain exempt in any event. The simplest possible method of calculation or assessment should be used for that purpose. It was therefore for the national court to determine, in the light of those criteria, whether transactions such as those performed by CPP in the instant case were to be regarded for the purposes of VAT as comprising two independent supplies, namely an exempt insurance supply and a taxable card registration service, or whether one of those two supplies was the principal supply to which the other was ancillary, so that it received the same tax treatment as the principal supply".
(1) The customer engaged Risbey's Photography Limited to provide photography of a wedding .
(2) Risbey's Photography Limited marketed its wedding supplies as a unique wedding service with special flexibilities and freedom of choice,
(3) The wedding supplies were sold as a package for which the customer paid a single price.
(4) The wedding package sold by Risbey's Photography Limited consisted of making arrangements for the photography, the taking and viewing of the photographs, and a wedding book displaying selected photographs of the wedding.
(5) The supply of the wedding book was entirely dependent upon the photographs being taken in the first place. It was not possible to purchase the wedding book separately from the taking of the photographs.
(6) Risbey's Photography Limited retained the copyright in the photographic images included those reproduced in the wedding book. The negatives and digital files remained the property of Risbey's Photography Limited.
(7) Risbey's Photography Limited designed the wedding book using digital technology.
(1) The customer (outside photographer) commissioned an individual piece of work from Digital Albums for which he paid a single price.
(2) The wedding album was made up of photographs supplied by the outside photographer.
(3) Digital Albums applied digital photographic processes to the materials supplied to produce the wedding book.
(4) The outside photographer retained the copyright in the photographs.
(5) The layout of the wedding book and the photographs included were approved by the customer (outside photographer).
The Decision
(1) The wedding book was not a book within the meaning of Item 1 group 3 schedule 8 of the VAT Act 1994. Thus the Appellants' supplies of a wedding book were standard rated for VAT purposes.
(2) In the alternative, the Appellants' supplies were single supplies of photographic services which were standard rated for VAT purposes.
(3) The assessments dated 22 March 2006 in the sum of £41,078 plus interest (Risbey's Photography Limited) and dated 19 March 2006 in the sum of £9,952 ( Digital Albums) are upheld.
MICHAEL TILDESLEY OBE
CHAIRMAN
RELEASE DATE: 22 August 2008
MAN/07/1114 & 1115