Tax Appeals Commission determination 03TACD2018 regarding VAT, 2018

• Administrative Decision Number: 03TACD2018
• Year: 2018
• Date: 16 January 2014
• Subject Matter: VAT
• Respondent: REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

1

03TACD2018

BETWEEN/

NAME REDACTED

Appellant

V

REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

Respondent

DETERMINATION

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against the refusal of a repayment claim made by the Appellant on

16 January 2014 in relation to VAT paid on clamping release fees in respect of the

periods November-December 2009 to September-October 2013. The claim was

refused by the Respondent on the basis that the clamping release fees were subject

to VAT in accordance with section 3 of the Valued Added Tax (Consolidation) Act,

2010 (‘VATCA2010’) and Article 2 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC and that, as a

result, a repayment of VAT did not arise.

2. Part of the claim related to VAT for the period of assessment November-December

2009, which was refused by the Respondent on the basis that it fell outside the four-

year statutory limitation period contained in section 99 VATCA2010. The

Respondent’s refusal in relation to this aspect of the repayment claim was not

contested by the Appellant. The contested claim in relation to clamping release fees

related to the claim made within the statutory four-year period and this claim totalled

€1,778,458.

Background

3. The Appellant operates pay and display and barrier -controlled car parks under

licence from various landowners including churches, schools, universities, hospitals

2

and management companies. The Appellant accounts for VAT on the receipts from

the operation of these car parks.

4. Signage in the car parking area displays the Appellant’s contact numbers and serves

to warn motorists that if they park in the wrong area or in excess of the permitted

time, they will be liable to be clamped and that there will be a clamp release fee

payable for the removal of the clamp. In general, the Appellant may patrol the car park

or make a number of visits for the purpose of clamping and de-clamping.

5. The Appellant submitted that most of the signage expressly refers to clamping

because clamping is generally a more effective and cost-deterrent remedy than tow

away. The Appellant submitted that if a vehicle was parked in an area which

obstructed an entrance, which obstructed other vehicles or which caused a hazard, it

would be towed. The Appellant submitted that the sticker which is placed on a

clamped vehicle provides ‘The Company also reserves the right to remove the vehicle

at the owner’s expense’.

6. The Appellant provided examples of some of the signage as follows

At a train station;

‘Warning! Private Property. A valid parking ticket must be displayed on the

dashboard. No parking on yellow lines, footpaths, verges or outside of a parking

space. Unauthorised or illegally parked vehicles will be clamped! Clamp release fee

€120 per 24 hours or part thereof. For a de-clamp please contact :08XXXXXXXX’

At a hospital;

‘Welcome to [NAME REDACTED] Hospital [picture of a clamp and tow away] Parking

controls and enforcement in operation. Please park legally.’

‘’Warning! Set down max stay 20 minutes. No return within 2-3 hours. Unauthorised

or illegally parked vehicles will be CLAMPED! Clamp release fee €100 per 24 hours

or part thereof. Tow away fee €120. Vehicles will be immobilised or removed 24/7.

For a de-clamp please contact; 08XXXXXXXX.’

At an apartment block;