The case concerned the supply of temporary staff by Reed Employment Ltd and argued that the temporary staff they supplied was not a supply of staff. This would mean that VAT was only due on the introductory commission and not on the total consideration.
In normal circumstances in determining whether an employment bureau is acting as an agent or a principle the first point of call is the contracts. The judgment stated that looking at the contracts ‘… they might not be determinative’.
In reviewing the contracts, the overall objective of the transaction needs to be considered and it was determined that the objective and the economic reality was that Reed supplied introductory services and ancillary services. The fact that payment was made by Reed to the temporary worker was not determinative, which contradicts HMRC’s guidance as detailed below. The payment was made by Reed on behalf of its client for consideration of the supply made by the temporary worker.
HMRC does not like the judgement and has stated its usual stance:
‘As a judgment of the FTT Reed is only binding on the parties to the appeal. It was decided on its specific facts which involved an historic claim and concerned tax periods up to 1996.’
This judgement went in the opposite direction of the Hays Personnel Services Ltd (LON/95/2610), which determined that Hays Personnel Services Ltd were acting as principle and therefore the VAT was due on the whole of the consideration.