Nothing particularly new here for anyone who's read the judgement or the TaxiPoint article, but this is the first article in the mainstream press, as far as I can see.
And this article seems to confuse (or conflate) the Supreme Court employment status judgement with the ruling on the London VAT position. But of course the two issues are related, but decided in two different actions.
Probably more such pieces in the Sundays...
Minicab fares set to rise sharply after court VAT rulinghttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 ... at-ruling/Uber goes to High Court to obtain verdict on whether tax should be added to fares in MerseysidePassengers are set to see fares rise sharply after Uber won a legal move that could lead to minicab firms having to charge VAT.
Uber went to the High Court to obtain a ruling on whether VAT should be added to fares in the Merseyside area for the first time.
The case could have wider ramifications, with Uber likely to seek to have the VAT requirement extended to the entire private minicab industry throughout England and Wales.
Operators say this will have a huge impact on vulnerable passengers, who rely on their services to get around.
Argued minicabs should be exempt Liverpool-based Delta Taxis had argued that minicab journeys should be exempt from VAT, in line with trains and buses.
But Hon Mrs Justice Foster ruled on Friday that HMRC should be able to collect VAT from minicab fares if it wants to.
Delta is now considering appealing against the ruling.
Layla Barke-Jones, a partner in the dispute resolution team at the law firm Aaron & Partners, which acted on behalf of the group of Liverpool-based minicab firms, including Delta Taxis, said: “Without a doubt, the case has the potential to cause significantly increased costs that will hit passengers everywhere at the time of a cost-of-living crisis.
“Delta had hoped to protect passengers from such an impact, and will now call on Government to make private-hire taxi journeys zero-rated for tax purposes, in line with other forms of transport like buses and trains, to prevent this impact on some of the most vulnerable in society for whom private hire taxis can be the only form of transport available to them.”
She added: “We are disappointed at the outcome and are taking time to consider and reflect upon the judgment. We respect the judge’s findings but are considering the impact with our client including whether to appeal.”
‘Heavily influenced’ by previous caseMs Barke-Jones said the outcome had been “heavily influenced” by a previous case relating to private-hire vehicles operating in London, which Uber was also involved in.
The Supreme Court ruled that Uber’s drivers were not self-employed, as the firm argued, but were workers and that the firm was therefore liable to pay VAT on the fares they collected.Uber now wants that principle extended to other minicab operators, with Justice Foster’s ruling predicted to boost its chances.
Ms Barke-Jones said: “It is important to remember that this case was not about Delta’s tax liability but the potential for HMRC to require Delta to collect VAT for HMRC.
“VAT is charged to the passengers and passed to the Government. Delta’s stance in this case has been to try to protect the passengers. Given the potential for such large fare increases this now requires urgent government action to prevent VAT from being charged on private-hire fares.”
Uber has not commented on the ruling.
Login
Register
FAQ
