ICAS ICAS logo

Quicklinks

  1. About Us

    Find out about who we are and what we do here at ICAS.

  2. Find a CA

    Search our directory of individual CAs and Member organisations by name, location and professional criteria.

  3. CA Magazine

    View the latest issues of the dedicated magazine for ICAS Chartered Accountants.

  4. Contact Us

    Get in touch with ICAS by phone, email or post, with dedicated contacts for Members, Students and firms.

Login
  • Annual renewal
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Find a CA
  1. About us
    1. Governance
  2. Members
    1. Become a member
    2. Newly qualified
    3. Manage my membership
    4. Benefits of membership
    5. Careers support
    6. Mentoring
    7. CA Wellbeing
    8. More for Members
    9. Area networks
    10. International communities
    11. Get involved
    12. Top Young CAs
    13. Career breaks
    14. ICAS podcast
    15. Newly admitted members 2022
    16. Newly admitted members 2023
  3. CA Students
    1. Student information
    2. Student resources
    3. Learning requirements
    4. Learning updates
    5. Learning blog
    6. Totum Pro | Student discount card
    7. CA Student wellbeing
  4. Become a CA
    1. How to become a CA
    2. Routes to becoming a CA
    3. CA Stories
    4. Find a training agreement
    5. Why become a CA
    6. Qualification information
    7. University exemptions
  5. Employers
    1. Become an Authorised Training Office
    2. Resources for Authorised Training Offices
    3. Professional entry
    4. Apprenticeships
  6. Find a CA
  7. ICAS events
    1. CA Summit
  8. CA magazine
  9. Insight series 2022
    1. Finance + Trust
    2. Finance + Technology
    3. Finance + EDI
    4. Finance + Mental Fitness
    5. Finance + Leadership
    6. Finance + Sustainability
  10. Professional resources
    1. Anti-money laundering
    2. Audit and assurance
    3. Brexit
    4. Charities
    5. Coronavirus
    6. Corporate and financial reporting
    7. Business and governance
    8. Ethics
    9. Insolvency
    10. ICAS Research
    11. Pensions
    12. Practice
    13. Public sector
    14. Sustainability
    15. Tax
  11. CPD - professional development
    1. CPD courses and qualifications
    2. CPD news and updates
    3. CPD support and advice
  12. Regulation
    1. Complaints and sanctions
    2. Regulatory authorisations
    3. Guidance and help sheets
    4. Regulatory monitoring
  13. CA jobs
    1. CA jobs partner: Rutherford Cross
    2. Resources for your job search
    3. Advertise with CA jobs
    4. Hays | A Trusted ICAS CA Jobs Partner
    5. Azets | What's your ambition?
  14. Work at ICAS
    1. Business centres
    2. Meet our team
    3. Benefits
    4. Vacancies
    5. Imagine your career at ICAS
  15. Contact us
    1. Technical and regulation queries
    2. ICAS logo request

Jan Garioch CA discusses the Upper Tribunal case Mainpay Ltd v HMRC

  • LinkedIn (opens new window)
  • Twitter (opens new window)
By Jan Garioch CA

17 November 2021

Main points

  • Mainpay provided consultants and specialist GPs and argued that its supplies were exempt.
  • Having lost its case at FTT, Mainpay appealed to the UT with an argument that the exercise of clinical decision making by the consultants forms part of Mainpay’s economic activity.
  • The UT defined the key question as whether Mainpay provided medical care and examined the evidence in that light.

Jan Garioch CA discusses the case of Mainpay Ltd v HMRC, where the appellant sought to overturn the FTT’s decision that a company supplying consultants and specialist GPs does not qualify for the VAT exemption that arises from supplying medical care.

Mainpay Ltd (Mainpay) supplied medical consultants and specialist GPs to an intermediary company called Accident and Emergency Agency Ltd (A&E). It in turn supplied the consultants and specialist GPs (subsequently referred to as doctors) to various hospital clients, typically NHS Trusts. The supplies which were the subject of appeal took place between 2010 and 2014.

It was accepted by both sides that all of the doctors were on the register of medical practitioners and that the care they provided was given in hospitals. Mainpay assumed responsibility for pensions and sick pay in respect of the doctors and it outsourced the processing of payroll, timesheets and invoicing to a company called Aducco Ltd. Mainpay funded its obligations from its charges to A&E, and, after paying the doctors, together with settling tax and deductions, Mainpay was left with a 4% gross margin. For part of the period subject to the appeal, the contract between Mainpay and the doctors was described as a “contract for services”, but from 2013 Mainpay used a contract which stated it was a “contract of service giving rise to a contract of employment”.

The issue at stake here was whether the supplies were of staff and liable to VAT or of medical care and therefore exempt.

First Tier Tribunal (FTT) proceedings

The FTT found that Mainpay supplied staff rather than medical care. Its reasoning was that control over the framework in which the doctors operated was the key test and it was unpersuaded that Mainpay passed that test. Even when the tighter contract was introduced in 2013, it did not accept that Mainpay could oblige the doctor to do an assignment. The contract provided only that the doctor was obliged to consider any suitable assignments obtained by Mainpay. The FTT did not find any evidence of contact between Mainpay and the doctors except in relation to payroll matters. It found no evidence that Mainpay had ever had any contact with the NHS trusts, which were the ultimate customers, and it found no evidence that Mainpay arranged professional indemnity cover for its practitioners. The rate of pay received by the doctors was negotiated between A&E and the NHS Trusts without involvement from Mainpay.

The appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UT)

Mainpay appealed to the UT, arguing that the FTT had applied the wrong test. Mainpay’s alternative contention was that the economic activity of the doctors forms part of Mainpay’s economic activity. Since clinical decision making is part of the doctor’s economic activity, then Mainpay argued that its own economic activity also involves exercising control over clinical decision making. Mainpay further argued that even if the FTT was correct to define the test as control of the framework in which consultants operate, then the FTT did not apply the test correctly. Its conclusion was beyond the reasonable range and was inconsistent with the purpose of the exemption to reduce the cost of medical care.

The UT’s findings

The UT stated the key question for them to answer was whether Mainpay provided medical care and gave close consideration to the legislation - VATA Sch 9Grp7 I(a) - and case law thereon. It rejected Mainpay’s argument that control over clinical decision making was the key test, finding that such a test would be impractical to apply in the context of highly skilled and specialist workers. Taken to the limits of its logic, Mainpay’s argument means there could never be a supply of staff in respect of highly skilled workers. That, according to the UT, would be a strange conclusion which in of itself undermines Mainpay’s submission. Instead, the UT found that in economic and commercial reality Mainpay, an organisation with no medical qualification or expertise, cannot be deemed to exercise any degree of control over the clinical decision making of the doctors.

The UT also disagreed with Mainpay over the level of care taken by the FTT in reaching its decision. It found that the FTT examined all relevant evidence and did not err in its analysis. The UT was not persuaded to extend the scope of exemption simply on the basis that by doing so the cost of medical care would be reduced, complaining that is an entirely circular argument that would promote too wide an interpretation of exemptions. It held it was not a breach of fiscal neutrality that Mainpay’s services did not receive the same VAT treatment as a self-employed consultant supplying his services directly to an NHS Trust. The UT did not see the self-employed consultant as a relevant comparator with Mainpay’s supply to A&E, which was onward supplied to the NHS Trust. A&E could not be said to receive medical care. In light of all the evidence, the UT rejected Mainpay’s appeal.

ICAS responds to the Scottish Government consultation – A Framework for Tax

By Charlotte Barbour and Justine Riccomini

4 November 2021

Director’s salary ambiguity leads to £250K bill

By Philip McNeill, Head of Taxation (Tax Practice and Owner Managed Business Taxes)

1 November 2021

2023-01-markel 2023-01-markel
ICAS logo

Footer links

  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions
  • Modern slavery statement
  • Privacy notice
  • CA magazine

Connect with ICAS

  • Facebook (opens new window) Facebook Icon
  • Twitter (opens new window) Twitter Icon
  • LinkedIn (opens new window) LinkedIn Icon
  • Instagram (opens new window) Instagram Icon

ICAS is a member of the following bodies

  • Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (opens new window) Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies logo
  • Chartered Accountants Worldwide (opens new window) Chartered Accountants Worldwide logo
  • Global Accounting Alliance (opens new window) Global Accounting Alliance
  • International Federation of Accountants (opens new window) IFAC
  • Access Accountancy (opens new window) Access Acountancy

Charities

  • ICAS Foundation (opens new window) ICAS Foundation
  • SCABA (opens new window) scaba

Accreditations

  • ISO 9001 - RGB (opens new window)
© ICAS 2022

The mark and designation “CA” is a registered trade mark of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS), and is available for use in the UK and EU only to members of ICAS. If you are not a member of ICAS, you should not use the “CA” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to accountancy, tax or insolvency services. The mark and designation “Chartered Accountant” is a registered trade mark of ICAS, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales and Chartered Accountants Ireland. If you are not a member of one of these organisations, you should not use the “Chartered Accountant” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to these services. Further restrictions on the use of these marks also apply where you are a member.

ICAS logo

Our cookie policy

ICAS.com uses cookies which are essential for our website to work. We would also like to use analytical cookies to help us improve our website and your user experience. Any data collected is anonymised. Please have a look at the further information in our cookie policy and confirm if you are happy for us to use analytical cookies: