Category: Value Added Tax (VAT)

A sticky dispute that went all the way back to tribunal

In late March 2026 the First‑tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) handed down a decision on the VAT classification for marshmallows, which, while making headlines, carries significant implications for businesses selling food products. After years of appeals and remittances, Innovative Bites Ltd.’s oversized “Mega Marshmallows” do not typically require finger consumption, according to the tribunal’s conclusion. As a result, these giant marshmallows are not “confectionery” for VAT purposes and remain zero‑rated under Schedule 8 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994.

This decision follows a complicated procedural journey. In 2022, the tribunal initially ruled in favour of the taxpayer, holding that the product was not confectionery. HMRC appealed, and the Upper Tribunal upheld the decision. The Court of Appeal intervened in March 2025, finding that the earlier hearings had not addressed a narrow statutory question: whether the product is a “sweetened prepared food that is normally eaten with the fingers”. The appeal judges remitted the case back to a differently constituted First‑tier Tribunal to resolve this factual question.

By spring 2026, the remitted tribunal heard evidence on how consumers typically consume the product. It evaluated four methods of eating the marshmallows:

• Way A: Roasted and eaten from a skewer.
• Way B: Roasted, then removed from the skewer and eaten with fingers.
• Way C: Roasted and sandwiched between biscuits and chocolate to form a s’more.
• Way D: Eaten straight from the bag.

Using a simple inequality, the tribunal concluded:

• Non-finger methods (A and C) were more common than finger-eating methods (B and D).
• As a result, the product is not normally eaten with fingers.

Why the legal definition of VAT classification for marshmallows matters

Under Group 1 of Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, food “of a kind used for human consumption” is generally zero-rated for VAT unless it falls under the confectionery VAT classification UK. However, certain items are excluded, such as confectionery, which is typically zero-rated VAT for food products. Item 2 specifies that confectionery includes chocolates, sweets, biscuits, and any sweetened prepared food normally eaten with the fingers. The dispute over marshmallows centres on this definition, particularly whether giant marshmallows marketed by Innovative Bites, which are larger and designed for roasting, should be considered confectionery.

Normal-sized marshmallows are widely regarded as confectionery, but the VAT classification for marshmallows becomes more complicated with larger, roasting-sized products. However, Innovative Bites’ giant marshmallows are marketed for roasting and sold in the barbecue section, not with confectionery. HMRC argued that the product, despite its size, should be taxed as sweetened prepared food eaten by hand, thereby falling under confectionery VAT classification UK The business, however, argued that due to its size and use in roasting, it should be classified more like a cooking ingredient. This case highlights the importance of precise VAT classification, as the 20% VAT can significantly impact retailers’ margins, forcing price increases or eroding profits.

Get Free Consultation

Call Anytime 0203 883 4777

Get Free Consultation

From campfires to case law: the tribunal’s reasoning

During the remitted hearing, the tribunal considered several forms of evidence, including witness testimony, packaging, marketing materials, and the physical characteristics of the product. The tribunal specifically focused on how consumers typically consume the product, evaluating four distinct methods of eating:

• Way A: Roasting on skewers (does not involve fingers).
• Way B: Removing the roasted marshmallow from the skewer to eat it (involves fingers).
• Way C: Roasting and making s’mores (dispute whether this involves fingers).
• Way D: Eating straight from the bag (involves fingers).

The key dispute revolved around Way C, which involves roasting the marshmallow and using it in a s’more. The tribunal held that making a s’more does not qualify as eating the marshmallow with fingers for two reasons:

1. Holding the biscuits, not the marshmallow: The consumer holds the biscuits when preparing the s’more, not the marshmallow itself.
2. Marshmallow becomes an ingredient: Once the marshmallow is incorporated into a s’more, it is considered part of the whole dish, not just the marshmallow alone.

Having addressed the finger-eating methods, the tribunal then evaluated whether the non-finger methods (Ways A and C) were more common than the finger-eating methods (Ways B and D). Evidence showed the following:

• Regular-sized marshmallows are more commonly purchased for snacking, while the larger product is marketed near barbecue items, emphasising roasting.
• The packaging itself reflected this, with roasting and s’mores instructions featured prominently, while the “just snacking” instruction appeared last.

Although the evidence was not perfect, the tribunal followed established case law, which requires them to make decisions based on the available facts rather than defaulting to burden-of-proof arguments. The judges concluded that roasting and s’mores were the predominant methods of consumption, rather than eating with fingers.

Consequently, the tribunal ruled that the product is not normally eaten with the fingers. Coupled with the earlier conclusion that the product is not confectionery in the usual sense, the tribunal allowed the appeal and upheld the zero-rate VAT status for the marshmallows.

Implications for the food and drink industry

This ruling underscores the complexity of the UK’s food VAT regime and shows that classification depends on how consumers interact with a product, not just its ingredients. Businesses developing innovative food products must examine the following:

• Packaging and marketing – Where products are positioned in stores and how they are described can influence judicial findings.
• Size and design – The tribunal inferred that the large size makes roasting more likely and snacking less convenient.
• Consumer behavior— Businesses may need to gather evidence about how customers actually consume their products. Lack of evidence could shift the burden back to the taxpayer.

The decision also highlights the risk of inconsistent outcomes for businesses with zero-rated VAT for food products, which can change based on product use and consumer habits. In March 2025, the Court of Appeal interpreted Note 5 as a conclusive definition: if a product fits the description, it is confectionery, unless applying the definition would be absurd. The Court remitted the case precisely because the original tribunal did not decide whether the product was normally eaten with fingers. Had the remitted tribunal found that finger methods were more common, the product would now be standard‑rated.

Other cases illustrate similar tensions. The Guardian’s report on the earlier proceedings notes that HMRC compared giant marshmallows to cooking chocolate and tiny marshmallows, which are ingredients and zero‑rated, while Innovative Bites argued that roasting changes the product’s texture. 

Practical steps for businesses

Given the stakes, food manufacturers and retailers should:

• Audit product portfolios: 

Ensure that VAT treatment aligns with legislation and case law. Items that could be classed as confectionery should be reviewed, particularly if they are marketed as snacks or include sweet ingredients.

• Document marketing and usage

Maintain evidence of how products are packaged, labelled, and promoted. If products are intended for cooking or roasting, ensure that instructions and images reflect these uses.

• Gather consumer insights

Where HMRC raises an assessment, businesses may need to provide evidence of how consumers actually eat their products. Surveys, sales data and usage studies can support claims that a product is an ingredient rather than a snack.

• Seek professional advice before launching new products

VAT classification can hinge on subtle factors, and early engagement with advisors can prevent costly disputes.

Get Free Consultation

Call Anytime 0203 883 4777

Get Free Consultation

How Apex Accountants & Tax Advisors can help

Determining whether an unusual food product is “confectionery” requires navigating legislation, case law and HMRC practices. Apex Accountants & Tax Advisors offers specialist VAT services for the food and drink sector. Our team keeps abreast of tribunal decisions and can:

• Review product lines to identify VAT risks and opportunities.
• Advise on packaging and marketing so that the presentation of products supports the intended VAT treatment.
• Prepare documentation and evidence to defend VAT positions during HMRC enquiries or appeals.
• Provide training for finance and marketing teams on the implications of VAT legislation and recent cases.

If your business is developing or importing food products with novel characteristics, a proactive VAT review can prevent expensive surprises. Contact Apex Accountants today for a free consultation on how we can support your VAT compliance and planning.

Frequently asked questions

Are giant marshmallows standard-rated or zero-rated for VAT?

The remitted First-tier Tribunal concluded that Mega Marshmallows are not normally eaten with the fingers, so they do not meet the definition of “confectionery” in Note 5 and remain zero-rated. However, HMRC may still appeal, so businesses should monitor developments.

What does Note 5 to Schedule 8 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 say?

Note 5 states that “confectionery” includes chocolates, sweets and biscuits, certain preserved fruits, and any item of sweetened prepared food normally eaten with the fingers. This inclusive definition means that if a product fits the description, it will generally be standard‑rated.

How did the tribunal decide that roasting and s’mores consumption were more common?

Evidence showed that the product is marketed for roasting and located in supermarket barbecue and world‑food aisles. The tribunal also noted that typical consumers buy normal marshmallows for snacking. On this basis, eating from skewers and in s’mores was deemed more frequent than eating straight from the bag.

Does size affect VAT classification of marshmallows?

Yes. The product’s large size made it impractical for snacking and more suitable for roasting. The tribunal inferred that consumers would not usually eat oversized marshmallows straight from the pack, differentiating them from smaller marshmallows, which are treated as confectionery.

Can HMRC appeal the 2026 tribunal decision?

HMRC has the right to seek permission to appeal within 56 days of the decision. The Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce’s commentary notes that HMRC might argue that the taxpayer did not provide enough evidence about consumer behaviour. Businesses should therefore continue to monitor for further appeals.

What steps should businesses take when uncertain about VAT classification?

Consider seeking advice from VAT specialists, reviewing how products are marketed and consumed, and preparing evidence to support your position. Early engagement with professional advisors like Apex Accountants can reduce the risk of assessments and penalties.

A recent ruling by the First-tier Tribunal has clarified the rules around pre-registration VAT recovery in the UK, allowing businesses to reclaim VAT incurred before they officially registered for VAT. The case, Aspire in the Community Services Ltd v HMRC, confirms that once pre-registration VAT is allowed as input tax, the amount recoverable should be based on how those items are used after registration. The decision provides greater clarity for start-ups and organisations moving from exempt to taxable activities and strengthens the recovery of pre-registration input VAT in the UK for businesses whose significant costs are often incurred before entering the VAT system.

Key points

• Pre‑registration input tax on goods remains recoverable if the goods are on hand at registration and were bought within four years; services are recoverable if supplied within six months.
  
• HMRC’s VAT manual states that businesses do not have to restrict recovery to reflect pre‑registration use, unless the goods or services were used for exempt or non‑business activities.
  
• The FTT held that regulation 111 is a discretionary gateway; once HMRC allows a claim, the ordinary partial‑exemption rules determine the recoverable amount based on current or intended use.
  
• HMRC’s updated guidance (June 2025) allows businesses to recover a portion of VAT on pre‑registration services used both before and after registration, using a fair apportionment.
  
• Businesses that underclaimed pre‑registration VAT in their first return may correct the error on a later return under standard error‑correction procedures.
  

What has happened

Aspire in the Community Services Ltd (ACSL) formed a VAT group with Aspire in the Community (ACL) and registered for VAT with effect from 1 May 2021. In its first return the group claimed input tax of £31,727, including VAT on goods and services purchased before registration. 

HMRC lowered the claim to £7,138 by using a two-step calculation that reduced the value of goods based on their use before registration and applied a recovery rate based on expected taxable sales. 

ACSL appealed, saying that once HMRC decides to consider pre-registration VAT as input tax, the amount that can be recovered should be calculated based on how the goods and services are used after registration. The FTT agreed, ruling that pre‑registration usage should not be taken into account when apportioning input tax.

Meanwhile, a separate development affecting many private schools and charities arose from HMRC’s updated guidance in June 2025. Initially, HMRC stated that pre-registration services used for exempt purposes could not recover any VAT. Following representations from professional bodies, HMRC amended its guidance to allow recovery of a portion of the VAT relating to the taxable use after registration. 

An example given for schools shows a subscription running from 1 September 2024 to 31 August 2025; the school can reclaim 67% of the VAT because eight months of the subscription relate to taxable supplies. If a business underclaims pre‑registration VAT on its first return, it can adjust the claim later under the standard error‑correction rules.

Get Free Consultation

Call Anytime 0203 883 4777

Get Free Consultation

Background and context

Under regulation 111 of the VAT Regulations 1995, VAT recovery rules for UK businesses before registration allow certain VAT incurred prior to VAT registration to be treated as input tax. HMRC’s manual explains that to claim input tax on goods, the goods must still be on hand at registration and must have been purchased within four years. Services must have been supplied no more than six months before registration, reflecting the expectation that services have a shorter economic life. 

Crucially, the manual states that businesses are not required to reduce the VAT claimed to reflect pre‑registration use unless the goods were used for exempt or non‑business purposes. Where goods are capital items covered by the Capital Goods Scheme, separate rules may apply.

Historically, HMRC’s application of these rules caused confusion. In the wake of the January 2025 removal of the VAT exemption for private school fees, many schools faced their first VAT registrations. HMRC initially suggested that no VAT could be recovered on pre‑registration services if they had been used for exempt education. 

Professional bodies challenged this view, noting that the VAT manual allowed apportionment. HMRC’s June 2025 update resolved the discrepancy by confirming that a fair apportionment can be applied.

Key details and changes

• Time limits – goods purchased up to four years before VAT registration and still on hand can be included in the claim, while services must be supplied within six months.
  
• No pre‑use reduction – businesses need not reduce claims for goods used before registration unless the goods were used for exempt supplies or non‑business activities.
  
• Apportionment for services – HMRC’s updated guidance allows a fair apportionment where services straddle the registration date. Businesses can recover the portion of VAT relating to post‑registration taxable use, even if the services were used for exempt purposes before registration.
  
• Tribunal ruling – the FTT held that once HMRC exercises discretion under regulation 111, the quantification of recoverable VAT is governed by the ordinary partial-exemption rules and should be based on the current or intended use, not past use.

Who is affected

• Businesses registering for VAT for the first time, including start-ups and entities brought into scope by changes such as the VAT on private school fees.
  
• Partially exempt organisations like care homes, charities and educational institutions that make both taxable and exempt supplies and rely on the use‑based method for partial exemption.
  
• Businesses acquiring substantial assets or services before registration (e.g., capital equipment, leases or professional services) that continue to be used once taxable activities commence.
  

Apex Accountants Insights

The FTT decision narrows HMRC’s latitude to impose additional restrictions on pre-registration VAT claims and clarifies the VAT recovery rules for UK businesses before registration. It confirms that regulation 111 is merely the “gateway” to bring pre‑registration VAT into the input tax regime. Once that gateway is opened, the normal partial‑exemption rules apply, focusing on how goods or services will be used in the taxable period. This reinforces a long‑standing principle in HMRC’s manual that businesses need not adjust for historic use. 

The ruling is particularly welcome for care providers and similar organisations; HMRC had adjusted Aspire’s claim on the basis of a five-year depreciation model, which the Tribunal rejected, strengthening the recovery of pre-registration input VAT in the UK for businesses in similar situations. By emphasising post‑registration use and economic life, the decision offers greater certainty and reduces administrative complexity.

However, businesses should not assume that all pre‑registration VAT is recoverable. The statutory limits still apply: services consumed more than six months before registration are out of scope; goods must be on hand at registration and not consumed; and no VAT can be recovered on goods or services used for non‑business purposes or that have been wholly consumed. 

HMRC may appeal the Aspire decision, and further litigation could refine the principles. In the meantime, businesses should document their pre‑registration purchases and maintain clear evidence of how goods and services will be used post‑registration.

Why pre-registration VAT recovery UK matters for businesses

The ability to recover VAT incurred before registration can provide significant cash-flow benefits, particularly under pre-registration VAT recovery for UK businesses, especially for capital-intensive start-ups and organisations transitioning from exempt to taxable activities. 

The FTT ruling reduces uncertainty around HMRC’s discretion, enabling businesses to plan with greater confidence. For private schools, care providers, and charities, HMRC’s revised guidance means they can apportion VAT on services, such as subscriptions and consultancy, based on future taxable use. This could reduce the cost of compliance and encourage timely registration by removing fears of lost VAT. Nonetheless, the complexity of partial exemption and error‑correction rules means that professional advice remains essential.

What businesses should do

• Review pre‑registration purchases – Identify goods bought within the four-year window and services received within six months of the effective date of registration.
  
• Ensure goods are on hand – Confirm that goods claimed are still on hand at registration and will be used in the business.
  
• Assess partial‑exemption position – If making both taxable and exempt supplies, apply the use‑based method based on post‑registration use; ignore pre‑registration use unless goods were used for exempt purposes.
  
• Apply fair apportionment for services – For services spanning the registration date, calculate the portion of VAT relating to future taxable activities as HMRC’s guidance allows.
  
• Correct underclaims – If pre‑registration VAT was underclaimed in the first VAT return, submit an error‑correction notification to recover the outstanding amount.
  
• Seek professional advice – Engage tax advisers to navigate partial-exemption calculations, document evidence and monitor potential appeals that might affect the rules.
  

Get Free Consultation

Call Anytime 0203 883 4777

Get Free Consultation

How Apex Accountants & Tax Advisors can help with pre-registration VAT recovery

Recovering pre-registration input VAT can be complex, particularly where partial exemption, mixed supplies, or apportionment rules apply. At Apex Accountants, we support businesses in identifying and recovering eligible VAT incurred before registration while remaining fully compliant with HMRC requirements.

Our team assists with:

• Reviewing pre-registration expenses to identify goods and services that qualify for VAT recovery
  
• Applying the correct VAT rules under Regulation 111 and the partial-exemption framework
  
• Calculating recoverable input VAT where goods or services are used for both taxable and exempt activities
  
• Preparing VAT adjustments or error corrections if pre-registration VAT was underclaimed in earlier returns
  
• Supporting HMRC enquiries or reviews by ensuring claims are properly documented and justified
  

The recent First-tier Tribunal decision in Aspire in the Community Services Ltd v HMRC reinforces that businesses may recover pre-registration VAT based on how goods or services are used after registration. However, statutory conditions, time limits, and partial-exemption rules still apply, making careful analysis essential.

For many businesses, reviewing historic costs can reveal VAT that was never claimed or was previously restricted unnecessarily. Taking action early can improve cash flow and reduce the risk of HMRC disputes.

Contact Apex Accountants & Tax Advisors today or book a free consultation to review your VAT position and identify any pre-registration VAT your business may be able to recover.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I reclaim VAT on goods bought before my business registered for VAT?
Yes. You can recover VAT on goods bought up to four years before registration, provided the goods are still on hand and will be used in your business.

What about services received before registration?
VAT on services can be reclaimed if the services were supplied within six months before the registration date and are used in the business after registration.

Do I have to reduce the claim for pre‑registration use?
HMRC’s manual states that you do not need to reduce VAT on goods to reflect pre‑registration use unless the goods were used for exempt or non‑business purposes. The FTT decision confirms that pre‑registration use should not be factored into the use‑based apportionment.

How do I apportion VAT on services that straddle my registration date?
HMRC’s updated guidance allows businesses to claim a portion of VAT based on the taxable use after registration. For example, if a subscription spans 12 months and eight months relate to taxable supplies after registration, you can recover 67% of the VAT.

What if I underclaimed pre‑registration VAT on my first return?
You can correct the error on a later return using the standard error‑correction process.

Does the Tribunal decision apply to all businesses?
The FTT ruling is fact‑specific but clarifies principles applicable to all businesses: regulation 111 provides the gateway to claim pre‑registration VAT, and the recoverable amount should be calculated using ordinary partial‑exemption rules based on post‑registration use. HMRC may appeal, so monitoring future developments is advisable.

Are goods used for non‑business purposes or wholly consumed before registration recoverable?
No. VAT cannot be reclaimed on goods or services used for non‑business activities or that have been fully consumed before the registration date.

A UK tax tribunal has ruled that operators of community electric-vehicle (EV) charge points may apply the 5% reduced VAT rate when drivers charge their vehicles on the public network, rather than the standard 20% rate currently applied. The decision could significantly affect the public EV charging VAT rate UK operators apply to electricity supplied through public charging infrastructure.

The judgement, delivered in late February 2026 by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), followed an appeal by community charging operator Charge My Street against HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). The case examined whether VAT rules designed for domestic electricity supplies could extend to public EV charging facilities.

The tribunal concluded that public charging can qualify for the reduced rate where electricity supplied to a customer at a particular charge point does not exceed 1,000 kWh per month. In doing so, it rejected HMRC’s argument that the 5% VAT rate should apply only to electricity supplied to households.

Why The Tribunal Decision on the Public EV Charging VAT Rate in UK Matters 

The decision could reduce charging costs for EV drivers who rely on public networks and create a more level playing field for households without off‑street parking. It also has implications for charge‑point operators, fleet managers and retailers offering public charging. While HMRC may still appeal, the ruling signals that the de‑minimis provision in UK VAT law—which allows a reduced rate of VAT on small quantities of electricity supplied to a person at any premises—may apply to public EV charging. Businesses operating public charge points will need to review their VAT treatment, monitor customer consumption and potentially adjust pricing to reflect the lower rate.

Key Points

• Tribunal decision: The First‑tier Tribunal ruled that public EV charging can qualify for the 5% reduced VAT rate, provided the electricity supplied to a customer at a particular charge point does not exceed 1,000 kWh a month.
  
• Existing law: UK VAT legislation (Group 1, Schedule 7A of the Value Added Tax Act 1994) treats electricity supplied at a rate of 1,000 kWh per month or less to a person at any premises as a domestic supply eligible for the 5% rate.
  
• HMRC guidance: HMRC’s own manual notes that Note 5(g) to Schedule 7A applies the 5% rate where electricity is supplied at 1,000 kWh per month or less, but earlier briefings indicated that this did not apply to public charging.
  
• Challenge by Charge My Street: The community charge‑point operator, represented by Deloitte and legal counsel, argued that its community charging model falls within the de‑minimis rule.
  
• Potential appeal: HMRC said it is considering the decision; however, some commentators doubt whether an appeal would succeed given the tribunal’s strong rejection of HMRC’s interpretation.
  
• Limited scope: The judgement applies to supplies that meet the 1,000 kWh threshold and does not automatically extend to all public charging sites; operators must assess individual charge points and customer consumption.

What Has Happened

The case arose after Charge My Street, a social enterprise that installs community charge points funded through community shares, contested HMRC’s insistence that public EV charging should be taxed at the standard VAT rate. Charge My Street argued that public charging should qualify for the 5% ‘domestic’ VAT rate because existing VAT law already treats small quantities of electricity delivered to a person at any premises as domestic.

HMRC relied on its 2021 briefing, which stated that the de‑minimis provision did not apply to supplies of electricity from public charging points because such supplies were not ongoing, were made at various locations like car parks and petrol stations, and could not be attributed to a single “premises”. HMRC maintained that the reduced rate applied only to electricity supplied to homes and that public charging facilities should continue to charge 20% VAT.

In its judgement, the First‑tier Tribunal rejected HMRC’s interpretation. It found that Note 5(g) to Group 1 of Schedule 7A of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 applies to public EV charging where the amount of electricity supplied to a customer at a particular charge point is less than 1,000 kWh per month. The tribunal concluded that, as a matter of statutory construction, nothing in the legislation limits the reduced rate to domestic premises, and the de‑minimis provision applies when supply volumes are below the threshold.

Get Free Consultation

Call Anytime 0203 883 4777

Get Free Consultation

Background and Context

VAT Treatment of Electricity Supplies

Under UK VAT law, most supplies of goods and services are subject to the standard rate of 20%, but certain supplies are eligible for a reduced rate or zero‑rate. Schedule 7A to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 lists supplies that qualify for the reduced rate of VAT.

Group 1 of Schedule 7A covers domestic fuel or power and includes a note stating that electricity supplied to a person at any premises at a rate not exceeding 1,000 kilowatt hours a month is treated as a domestic supply. HMRC’s internal manual confirms that Note 5(g) applies the reduced rate for domestic fuel and power of 5% where electricity supplied to a person at the premises is 1,000 kWh per month or less.

Historically, the de‑minimis provision has been interpreted to apply to continuous supplies of fuel and power to a domestic premises. In 2021 HMRC issued a briefing note stating that public EV charging does not qualify because it is supplied at various locations and not on an ongoing basis. The tribunal’s decision turns on whether the statute itself restricts the reduced rate to domestic locations or whether any supply meeting the volume threshold should qualify.

The Charge My Street Appeal

Charge My Street operates community‑owned charge points that provide neighbourhood EV charging. Its business model involves multiple local charge points, each supplying relatively small quantities of electricity to individual users. Deloitte, advising Charge My Street, observed that it would be “nigh‑on impossible” for an individual EV driver to consume more than 1,000 kWh per month at a single public charge point. On that basis, the company argued that the 5% reduced rate already applies under existing law.

In evidence, VAT specialists from Deloitte and legal counsel presented the case that the legislation does not distinguish between electricity supplied at a home and electricity supplied at other premises; it only refers to the quantity supplied. The tribunal agreed, finding that HMRC’s 2021 briefing could not override the statutory wording. The ruling indicates that where a public charge point delivers less than 1,000 kWh of electricity to a customer in a month, that supply should be taxed at 5%.

Key Rules or Changes

• De‑minimis threshold: The reduced VAT rate applies when the supply of electricity to a person at any premises does not exceed 1,000 kWh per month. Operators must monitor consumption per customer per charge point to determine whether supplies qualify.
  
• Application beyond domestic premises: The tribunal held that the law does not restrict the reduced rate to residential properties; the relevant factor is the volume supplied.
  
• HMRC guidance under review: HMRC’s 2021 briefing concluded that public charging did not qualify for the reduced rate because supplies were not made to a single premises. The tribunal’s decision contradicts this view, and HMRC is considering whether to appeal.
  
• Potential effect of appeal: If HMRC appeals and succeeds, the reduced rate may remain restricted to domestic premises. If no appeal or an appeal fails, HMRC will need to update its guidance and potentially adjust VAT liabilities for public charging operators.
  

Who Will Be Affected By This Decision

The ruling has implications for several groups:

• Community and commercial charge‑point operators: Companies providing public EV charging will need to assess whether supplies at each location fall within the 1,000 kWh per month threshold. Operators may need to update billing systems, monitor customer usage, and adjust pricing to reflect the lower VAT rate while reviewing the VAT rules for EV charging operators UK.
  
• Drivers without off‑street parking: Drivers who rely on public charge points, including those living in flats or terraced houses, could see charging costs fall if operators pass on the VAT savings. The decision aims to reduce the disparity between domestic and public charging costs.
  
• Fleet operators and employers: Businesses with electric company cars or van fleets that use public charging networks may benefit from lower VAT costs, improving total cost of ownership calculations.
  
• Local authorities and retailers: Councils and businesses operating on‑street or car‑park charge points must consider the ruling when setting tariffs and accounting for VAT.
  
• HMRC and policymakers: The case raises policy questions about fairness and clarity in tax rules for EV infrastructure. HMRC may need to revise guidance and ensure consistent interpretation across different types of charging facilities.
  

Get Free Consultation

Call Anytime 0203 883 4777

Get Free Consultation

Apex Accountants Insight: Expert Analysis

From a professional tax perspective, the case illustrates how statutory wording can trump administrative guidance when interpreting VAT rules. Schedule 7A of the VAT Act defines when supplies of fuel and power qualify for the 5% rate; the tribunal found that nothing in the statute restricts those supplies to domestic premises.

However, businesses should exercise caution. The judgement applies specifically to supplies under 1,000 kWh per customer per month; larger supplies continue to be standard‑rated. Charge‑point operators will need systems to track consumption at the level of individual customers and locations – information many operators do not currently collect. Failure to apply the correct rate could result in assessments, penalties and interest.

It is also unclear how HMRC will respond. The department could seek to appeal the decision to the Upper Tribunal, and there may be legislative changes if policymakers decide the reduced rate should remain confined to domestic premises. Until the position is clarified, operators should consider seeking professional advice before changing the VAT rate charged to customers.

Why This Matters for UK Businesses

The tribunal’s decision could deliver real financial benefits for businesses and households that rely on public EV charging:

• Lower charging costs: Reducing VAT from 20% to 5% could make public charging more affordable, supporting EV adoption. This is particularly important for drivers without home chargers and small fleets.
  
• Investment in infrastructure: Operators may find public charge points more commercially viable if VAT burdens are lower. This could encourage expansion of community charging networks.
  
• Compliance requirements: Operators must ensure that supplies qualify by tracking consumption per customer at each charge point. The administrative burden may increase, particularly for larger networks.
  
• Potential retrospective claims: Businesses that have applied the 20% rate may wish to assess whether they can reclaim overpaid VAT on past supplies. Any claims should be carefully considered and supported by evidence of usage.
  
• Policy uncertainty: As HMRC considers an appeal, businesses should monitor developments. A successful appeal could reinstate the 20% rate for public charging, leaving operators exposed if they switch too quickly to the reduced rate.
  

What Businesses Should Do

Businesses affected by the ruling should take practical steps:

• Assess consumption data: Determine whether the amount of electricity supplied to each customer at each charge point is below 1,000 kWh per month.
  
• Review VAT treatment: Consider whether the reduced rate can be applied under the tribunal decision and seek professional advice before changing rates.
  
• Update billing systems: Ensure invoicing systems can differentiate between supplies that qualify for the 5% rate and those that do not.
  
• Monitor HMRC guidance: Stay informed on HMRC’s response and any appeal. The guidance may change, and businesses must be ready to adjust.
  
• Document positions: Keep records of consumption, decision rationale and professional advice to support any future queries from HMRC.
  

How Apex Accountants Can Help with VAT on Public EV Charging

The tribunal ruling means EV charging operators must carefully assess whether the 5% reduced VAT rate applies to their charging services. This requires reviewing electricity consumption, billing structures and contractual arrangements.

Apex Accountants & Tax Advisors helps businesses apply the correct VAT treatment for EV charging infrastructure and understand the VAT rules for EV charging operators UK. If you want to explore why complex VAT rules often require specialist support, our guide explains why businesses are turning to VAT experts in 2026.

Our support includes:

• Reviewing EV charging services to determine whether the 5% VAT rate applies
  
• Analysing charging data to assess the 1,000 kWh monthly threshold
  
• Advising on billing and VAT systems where different VAT rates may apply
  
• Supporting HMRC enquiries or retrospective VAT claims where appropriate

Contact Apex Accountants for tax advice for EV charging businesses UK and to review your VAT position and ensure compliance with the latest rules.

Get Free Consultation

Call Anytime 0203 883 4777

Get Free Consultation

FAQs

What VAT rate currently applies to public EV charging?
Following the tribunal decision, supplies of electricity to a person at a public charge point may be subject to the 5% reduced VAT rate rather than the standard 20% rate if the amount supplied does not exceed 1,000 kWh per month.

Does the 5% rate apply to all public charge points?
No. The reduced rate applies only when the supply to a customer at a particular premises is less than 1,000 kWh per month. Operators must monitor consumption and apply the standard 20% rate where supplies exceed the threshold.

Can HMRC appeal the decision?
Yes. HMRC has said it is considering its next steps. An appeal to the Upper Tribunal could overturn the ruling, so businesses should monitor developments before making permanent changes.

What should charge‑point operators do now?
Operators should review consumption data, assess whether supplies qualify for the reduced rate, and seek professional tax advice for EV charging businesses UK before changing VAT rates. They should also ensure billing systems can differentiate between reduced‑rate and standard‑rate supplies.

Does this ruling affect supplies of electricity at home?
Domestic electricity supplies have long benefited from the 5% reduced VAT rate. The ruling extends the interpretation of the de‑minimis provision to certain public charge points, potentially aligning public charging costs with domestic charging for small‑scale usage.

Could businesses reclaim VAT charged at 20% on past public charging?
Potentially. Businesses that have accounted for VAT at 20% on supplies that meet the 1,000 kWh per month criterion should consider whether they can submit claims for overpaid VAT. However, claims must be supported by evidence and should be discussed with a tax adviser.

How does the de‑minimis rule interact with Climate Change Levy (CCL)?
HMRC guidance notes that supplies falling below the de‑minimis limit are not subject to the Climate Change Levy. Therefore, supplies qualifying for the reduced VAT rate may also be exempt from CCL, but businesses should check the CCL rules separately.