A tenant in Scotland had validly exercised a break option even though it failed to pay VAT on the break premium.
A tenant in Scotland had validly exercised a break option even though it failed to pay VAT on the break premium.
The tenant (KN) held a 10 year lease of premises in Scotland at a rent of £450,000 per annum constituted by an exchange of missives dated 12, 13 and 22 December 2016. KN had a right to terminate the lease on the day prior to the fifth anniversary of the term’s commencement (3 January 2022) provided that, by 3 April 2021, KN had served written notice to terminate on the landlord (V) and had paid a break premium of £112,500 “together with any VAT properly due thereon”. V had opted to tax the property back in 2013 (so VAT was properly charged and paid by KN on the rent due under the lease).
KN served a notice to terminate on 23 February 2021 and sent to V the sum of £112,500. On 4 June 2021, V’s agents wrote to KN’s agents stating that KN had not validly exercised the break option as it had failed to pay VAT of £22,500 on the break premium. KN in turn argued that, at the break date, there was no VAT that was “properly due” on the break premium.
Had KN validly exercised its break option even though it had not paid any VAT on the break premium?
KN had validly exercised its break option.
The judge referred to a 1996 tribunal decision (Lloyds Bank plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise) in which it was accepted that policy at that time was not to treat the exercise of an option to terminate in a lease as a taxable transaction. In the judge’s opinion, nothing had happened since then to change that view.
It was true that HMRC had indicated a change of policy in Revenue and Customs Brief 12 (2020). That revised policy was to treat compensation or early termination fees in a contract as generally liable for VAT. However, in January 2021, HMRC updated this Brief to make it clear that any change in policy was not to be given effect until a later date. This meant that, at the time of the payment of the break premium on 23 February 2021, the policy set out in the Lloyds case still applied.
The court decided that the purpose of the words “together with any VAT properly due thereon” was to ensure that if V had to account to HMRC for any VAT due on the break premium, the amount of that VAT would be paid by KN in addition to the break premium. The words were not there to enable V to obtain a windfall payment (which would happen if V charged VAT on the transaction, but was not required to account for that VAT to HMRC), nor were they there to provide a mechanism to frustrate the exercise of the break option.
Professional Development Lawyer
david.harris@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 934 2019