- Intelligent Money Ltd (IML) supplied services for self-invested pension plans (SIPPs)
- IML argued that their services fell under the exemption from VAT for insurance transactions
- HMRC determined that IML’s services did not qualify for the exemption
- IML appealed to the FTT, which dismissed their appeal
- IML then appealed to the UT
- The UT dismissed IML’s appeal, stating that insurance transactions involve an insurer providing protection from specified risks
- None of the SIPP members’ payments were seen as risk premiums, and the fees collected were primarily for administrative services
- The UT noted that the Fuji case was not made in the context of a VAT exemption
- This case confirms that for VAT purposes, an ‘insurance transaction’ must involve the assumption of risk by someone other than the insured.
Source: rpc.co.uk
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
