伊人直播

This is particularly relevant for periods up to the UK leaving the EU and also explains how the UK continues to view these transactions.

Organisations or their representatives occasionally argued for exemption in reliance upon 鈥淎rticle 132(1)(l) of Directive 2006/112鈥� (formerly 鈥淎rticle 13.A.1(l)鈥� of the 鈥淪ixth VAT Directive鈥�, see VTUPB1100). They claimed the UK鈥檚 definition of a 鈥渢rade union鈥� was too narrow and that the article was intended to provide exemption for organisations that were similar to trade unions proper but which failed to meet the UK鈥檚 narrow definition of a trade union, for example because the members were employers rather than employees. The French text version of the article was cited in support of their contention because it used the term 鈥渟yndicale鈥�, which covers a much wider variety of organisations than trade unions as recognised in the UK.

You should reject this contention using the following reasoning:

• Although the UK is no longer part of the EU, we acknowledge that 鈥渟yndicale鈥� has a broader interpretation than the term 鈥渢rade union鈥�.
• 鈥淭rade unions鈥欌�� functions are essentially to look after their members鈥� interests insofar as these are connected with their employments. They are therefore concerned with negotiating pay and other conditions of employment, representing their members鈥� interests in discussions with employers or the government, assisting members involved in legal disputes arising from their employment and similar matters.
• We therefore accepted that organisations that perform comparable functions but which are not 鈥渢rade unions鈥� proper were also entitled to exemption under the article and continue to be eligible to exemption under UK legislation.
• Prior to the UK leaving the EU we had implemented the article fully in respect of bodies of a 鈥渢rade union nature鈥� in 鈥淕roup 9鈥� because, although only 鈥渢rade unions鈥� proper are covered in 鈥淚tem 1(a)鈥�, 鈥淚tems 1(b)鈥� to 鈥�1(d)鈥� provide for exemption for other organisations which we considered perform functions broadly comparable to those of 鈥渢rade unions鈥� and were therefore meant to receive exemption under the article.

British Tenpin Bowling Association

A tribunal considered the scope of 鈥渢rade union nature鈥� / 鈥渟yndicale鈥� and the intention of 鈥淎rticle 13.A.1(l)鈥� in the case of 鈥淏ritish Tenpin Bowling Association (LON/87/404)鈥�.

The British Tenpin Bowling Association (BTBA) appealed against compulsory registration. BTBA was a non-profit-making organisation that had been established to promote and improve the sport of tenpin bowling. It received much of its income in the form of subscriptions from its members and Sports Council grants. Its first ground of appeal, that it was not caught by the 鈥渄eemed business鈥� provision in 鈥渟ection 47(2)(a)鈥� of the 鈥淰AT Act 1983鈥� (now section 鈥�94(2)(a)鈥� of the 鈥淰AT Act 1994鈥�) because it made no supplies to members, was rejected by the tribunal. However, BTBA argued in the alternative that its supplies were exempt because 鈥淎rticle 13.A.1(l)鈥� required exemption that the UK had failed to provide for in either 鈥淕roup 9鈥� or 鈥渟ection 47(3)鈥� of the 1983 Act (now 鈥渟ection 94(3)鈥� of the 鈥淰AT Act 1994鈥�).

鈥� Mr Kelsey drew our attention to the English translation of the text of that article and submitted that the concept of 鈥楾rade Union鈥� was too narrow a translation of the French 鈥榮yndicale鈥� which was wide enough to embrace the wider concept of Trade Associations such as Employers Associations and other Associations run on a non-profit-making basis.

The tribunal鈥檚 initial view was that it could not resolve the question without submitting the matter to the European Court for a preliminary opinion. However, the parties were given the opportunity to make further submissions before it made any such referral.

At the reconvened hearing, HMRC (previously Customs and Excise) gave evidence on the meaning of the text of the article in the French, German, Dutch, Danish, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Greek versions. We submitted that all the versions had to be considered and interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the 鈥淪ixth Directive鈥�. The tribunal concluded that this was the correct approach and that, when this approach was applied, the aim of the Directive was clearly not to exempt every organisation that acted in the collective interest of its members.

This Tribunal considers that the correct approach is to examine all the versions of Article 13.A.1(l) and to interpret them by reference to the purpose and the general scheme of the Sixth Directive. Adopting this approach we conclude that to limit the relevant part of the exemption to 鈥榯rade union鈥� ad (sic) defined by Section 28(1) of the Trade Union Labour Relations Act 1974 is too narrow in that it would appear to exclude other non profit making bodies acting in the collective interest of their members. We note however, that the provisions of item 1 of Group 9 of Schedule 6 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983 do in fact include other professional associations, although they are couched in terms too narrow to include the B.T.B.A.

This decision was used in support of our view that we had fully implemented 鈥淎rticle 13.A.1(l)鈥�, insofar as it related to bodies of a 鈥渢rade union nature鈥�, in 鈥淕roup 9鈥� of 鈥淪chedule 9鈥� to the 鈥淰AT Act 1994鈥�. Two additional passages of the tribunal鈥檚 decision that you may find of assistance are included in the summary of the BTBA case on the computerised tribunal index.

Institute of the Motor Industry

In 鈥淭he Institute of the Motor Industry (LON/96/224)鈥�, the Tribunal referred the question of the meaning of 鈥渢rade union nature鈥� to the European Court of Justice. The ECJ, in its judgement of 12 November 1998, ruled that an organisation of a trade union nature is 鈥溾�� an organisation whose main object is to defend the collective interests of its members - whether they are workers, employers, independent professionals or traders carrying on a particular economic activity - and to represent them vis-a-vis the appropriate third parties, including the public authorities.鈥�