News UK‘s combat towards HMRC over years of VAT paid on the digital editions of the Times, Sunday Times and Sun reached the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The writer believes that between September 2010 and December 2016 its e-newspaper editions ought to have been zero-rated in the identical means as print newspapers as a result of their companies had been “fundamentally the same”.
News publishers needed to pay 20% VAT on digital editions of their merchandise till May 2020, when laws was fast-tracked to convey digital into line with print – which means on-line subscriptions turned zero-rated, as newspapers had been since VAT was first launched with the Finance Act 1972.
News UK believes its digital editions ought to have been zero-rated for a few years previous to 2020 and launched its case earlier than it knew this modification could be happening.
It initially misplaced the case on the First-tier Tribunal in 2018, then received on attraction to the Upper Tribunal, then misplaced once more after HMRC appealed to the Court of Appeal. The case has now gone all the best way to the Supreme Court.
HMRC argued that “newspapers, journals and periodicals” as zero-rated by the VAT Act are “tangible” items whereas digital merchandise usually are not. But Jonathan Peacock KC, representing News UK in Tuesday’s listening to, informed the Supreme Court that each had been of the “same genus” regardless.
Peacock argued that the digital merchandise serve the identical “social policy purpose”, together with the promotion of literacy, the dissemination of data and democratic accountability, because the print newspapers.
He stated: “We would say those purposes are just as much furthered by the digital edition of The Times as was print edition in the 1970s. In fact, arguably, it is more important today as our lives move more and more online.”
“What matters is the content… not the medium,” Peacock stated. “We do not say that that alone is enough to get us home but it is a necessary element.”
He added: “The digital editions are fundamentally the same as the print edition and they further the same social policy goals. One is entitled to ask therefore what reason there is for a difference in tax treatment.”
He additionally questioned why digital subscribers “who perhaps don’t want to depend on print delivery” ought to should pay greater than these in print.
Peacock additionally argued that there was nothing within the related definition of “newspapers” that “read in the modern context… precludes digital”, including there may be “no inherent requirement in the term itself that one has to be able to use it as kindling or to wrap it in fish and chips”.
Peacock later pointed to the “always speaking” precept which means laws is mostly understood to cowl new developments that Parliament couldn’t have foreseen when the wording was initially written. The related laws on VAT was first written in 1972, then up to date in 1983 and 1994.
However Eleni Mitrophanous KC, representing HMRC, stated the “always speaking” doctrine didn’t apply.
She argued that Parliament is usually very particular about what it places into the zero-rating coverage and what it places into the usual price to boost income, and due to this fact assumptions and generalisations can’t be made. For instance, she pointed to the distinction between oranges and orange juice, or chocolate cake and chocolate biscuits.
She stated it’s “not clear” that Parliament would need electronically-supplied newspapers to be included, and that “medium matters” in its zero-rating selections.
Pointing to Parliament’s choice to zero-rate maps however not electronically-supplied maps for instance, she added: “One can’t assume that it doesn’t discriminate on the basis of medium.”
She later added that “one simply can’t assume” Parliament would need to zero-rate digital news in the identical means as printed news as a result of when different issues that do the identical job got here onto the market, equivalent to books on CD-ROMs and USB sticks, Parliament equally selected to not act.
Mitrophanous stated: “There is nothing odd, illogical, irrational about Parliament, given its wish to raise taxation, saying we’ll zero-rate printed newspapers… but for anything else you can pay the VAT. Or perhaps its position is we’ll give you free access to printed books and newspapers and so on but we won’t give you that access when a device is needed.”
The listening to continues and a judgment can be handed down at a later date.
Press Gazette has calculated that if News UK wins the case, the UK news business may very well be in for a windfall value a whole bunch of hundreds of thousands of kilos.
Our analysis additionally confirmed that the UK news and journal business could have been made higher off by £50m per yr consequently of the zero-rating in 2020.
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to level out errors, present story suggestions or ship in a letter for publication on our “Letters Page” weblog