Blog
Settle Smart series part two: Tax liabilities in relation to settlement monies
Krishna Mahajan
On 11 September 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, a case that delves into the interaction between VAT group rules and the timing of taxable supplies. The decision has significant implications for businesses operating within VAT groups, particularly in relation to deferred consideration and success fees.
Background
Silverfleet Capital Limited (“Silverfleet”) supplied investment fund management services to the appellant (“Prudential”) when both companies were members of the same VAT group, and thus intra-group supplies were disregarded for VAT purposes under section 43 of the VAT Act 1994 (“VATA 94”).
The dispute focused on whether VAT was payable on success fees invoiced by Silverfleet Capital Limited to Prudential Assurance Company Ltd after Silverfleet had left Prudential’s VAT group. The success fees were only triggered and invoiced some years after Silverfleet had exited the VAT group.
HMRC determined that VAT was chargeable on the success fees. Although the First-tier Tribunal found in Prudential’s favour (that no VAT was payable), this was overturned by the Upper Tribunal who considered that VAT was payable, which was in turn upheld by the Court of Appeal.
In the Supreme Court, Prudential argued that the success fees should be disregarded for VAT purposes because they related to services provided during the period of VAT group membership. HMRC contended that the “time of supply” rules, which determine when a supply is deemed to occur for VAT purposes, meant that the success fees were taxable because they were invoiced and paid after Silverfleet had left the group.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Prudential’s appeal; VAT was payable as the time of the supply was when the success fee invoices were issued (which was after the supplier left the VAT group).
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Court held that:
- The time of supply rules under both domestic and European legislation were determinative of when VAT became chargeable. The general rule under section 6 VATA 94 is that supply is treated as taking place when services are performed. However, there is an exception under regulation 90 of the 1995 VAT Regulations where services are provided over a period and the payments are made from time to time. When this happens, the “supply” is treated as occurring either when the VAT invoice is issued, or when payment is received.
- Since the success fees were only invoiced and paid after Silverfleet had left the VAT group, the supply was deemed to occur at that later time. Therefore, the intra-group disregard under section 43 VATA 94 did not apply, and VAT was properly chargeable on the success fees.
- The Court acknowledged the complexity of the legislative framework and the competing interpretations but ultimately sided with HMRC’s view that the timing of the invoice and payment was decisive.
Implications
This judgment provides clarity on the scope of VAT group relief and reinforces the importance of the time of supply rules in determining VAT liability.
Businesses operating within VAT groups should be mindful that:
- Deferred consideration or performance-based fees may attract VAT if invoiced after group membership ends; and
- The timing of invoicing and payment can override the historical context of service provision for VAT purposes.
The decision also underscores the need for careful drafting of service agreements and VAT planning in group structures, particularly where long-term or contingent fees are involved.
About the authors
Waqar is a Partner in the Dispute Resolution department, focusing on the resolution of complex tax matters. He acts for high net worth individuals and corporate clients across all sectors in respect of HMRC disputes and investigations across the full range of taxes. This typically includes VAT disputes, employment tax matters (including 'IR35'/off-payroll working), customs/excise duty issues, tax fraud investigations, and more recently, National Minimum Wage enquiries.
Anna has extensive litigation experience, acting for both domestic and international clients on complex, multi-jurisdictional, trust and estate disputes.
Latest blogs & news
The International Data Insights Report: Trends in international arbitration
Two recent publications, the Law Society’s International Data Insights Report 2025 and Queen Mary University’s (“QMU”) International Arbitration Survey, analyse statistics concerning international arbitration and reaffirm London’s leading role in global dispute resolution.
Practical tips for trustees dealing with breach of trust allegations
Being a trustee carries significant responsibilities and often involves managing high value assets and making complex decisions in the best interests of all the beneficiaries. While trustees generally strive to act with care and integrity, allegations of breach of trust can arise. Whilst such allegations can be stressful and complex, how trustees manage the trust and how they respond to allegations is crucial to maintaining trust, protecting the trust’s assets, and avoiding potential contentious proceedings.
The tips below should generally be adopted through the life of the trust and may avoid disputes arising in the first place.
Civil Fraud Case Update: Q3 2025
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of July - September 2025.
UAE agrees to share crypto information with international tax authorities
The United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) has joined in global efforts to improve transparency and compliance in the crypto sector by signing the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (MCAA) under the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF). The framework is expected to be rolled out in UAE in 2027, with the first automatic exchanges of information with other tax authorities such as HMRC taking place in 2028.
HMRC Covid scheme amnesty: action by 31 December 2025
The COVID pandemic was a difficult time for businesses, and many legitimately relied on financial support provided through government schemes to help them to survive and retain employees. However, it is estimated by HMRC that circa £10billion was also lost as a result of incorrect applications and outright fraud.
‘No win, no fee’ - are clients being hoodwinked?
At a time when a national broadcaster feels obliged to unpick (for the lawyer in us: alleged) misleading information from the leader of the free world, I almost choked on my breakfast when reading that we should also be concerned that some of us lawyers may be misleading the public too: 'No win, no fee' under fire: SRA vows to stop law firms hoodwinking consumers | Law Gazette Why now is a mystery; the term has been a feature of daytime TV advertising for decades!
Crypto reporting is changing: what this means for you - and HMRC
As the global regulatory landscape continues to evolve, two major frameworks are set to reshape how crypto-assets are reported: the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (“CARF”) and the European Union’s Directive on Administration Cooperation in taxation (“DAC8”).
Supreme Court clarifies VAT group rules in Prudential v HMRC
On 11 September 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, a case that delves into the interaction between VAT group rules and the timing of taxable supplies. The decision has significant implications for businesses operating within VAT groups, particularly in relation to deferred consideration and success fees.
Rayner my parade! The importance of specialist advice.
The headlines this week around former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner are a reminder of the importance of taking the right advice from appropriate professionals and the potential consequences when such advice is called into question.
Civil Fraud case update Q2 2025
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of April - June 2025.
Oral evidence series Part 6: Is an honest recollection of events truly evidence?
Judicial commentary shows that judges are exceedingly aware of the unreliability of witnesses’ memory when considering evidence at trial. While judges may take differing views as to the reliance that ought to be placed on oral evidence as compared to contemporaneous documents, procedural safeguards are now in place to help strengthen the reliability of witness evidence, in CPR Practice Direction 57AC - Trial Witness Statements in the Business and Property Courts (“PD 57AC”).
Privilege update: Privy Council confirms the shareholder principle no longer applies in England & Wales
We have previously written about the potential death of the shareholder principle in our previous blogs. The recent Privy Council decision in Jardine Strategic Limited v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd & Ors No 2 confirms what we suspected; the shareholder principle no longer exists in England & Wales.
Oral Evidence Series Part 5: How Does Oral Evidence Differ in Arbitration Proceedings compared to Court?
We all know that arbitration and litigation are governed by different rules which dictate the way disputes are dealt with and the way that hearings proceed. One perhaps surprising difference, however, is the approach to oral evidence.
Oral evidence part 4: Issues with expert evidence
Issues with expert evidence can have a profound impact on the credibility of a party’s case, and consequently the likelihood or not of a party succeeding at trial. In this article we discuss some recent case law which highlights the need for parties to carefully comply with their procedural obligations regarding expert evidence, namely Part 35 of the CPR (“Part 35”) and the accompanying Practice Direction, to avoid such risks.
Oral evidence part 3: What is the role of a liquidator in giving evidence?
One of the key duties of a liquidator is to investigate the affairs of the insolvent company to determine whether its demise resulted from the acts (or omissions) of its directors or third parties against whom claims may be brought to obtain redress for losses suffered by the Company. This article focuses on claims initiated by the liquidator themselves, whether on their own behalf or on behalf of the company, and considers the weight that will be given to the liquidator’s evidence.
Oral evidence part 2: What if a witness doesn’t turn up to court?
Where a party wishes to rely on a witness statement at trial, Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 32.5 provides that they must call the witness to give oral evidence unless the court orders otherwise, or notice is provided of the intention to rely on the statement as hearsay evidence.
One of the issues that may arise during litigation is a witness failing to turn up at court to give evidence.
Oral evidence part 1: Giving evidence abroad in the First-tier Tax Tribunal
In an ideal world, witnesses providing evidence in First-tier Tax Tribunal proceedings would do so in person at a hearing. It is often easier to build a rapport with the Judge in person, you avoid technical issues, and however informal the Tax Tribunal is in comparison to the civil courts, there is something to be said about looking into the whites of a witness’s eyes during a cross examination.
The future of will disputes part 4: Challenging validity based on capacity
For a will to be valid, the testator must have had testamentary capacity at the time it was made. Testamentary capacity refers to the mental ability of the testator to make a valid will.
Counting the cost of the UK tax system
Waqar Shah, a Partner at Kingsley Napley, takes a closer look at the recent report by the Committee of Public Accounts on the cost of the tax system.
The future of will disputes part three: challenging validity based on forgery and fraud
When a loved one dies, the terms of their will can sometimes surprise surviving family members, with unexpected beneficiaries or unequal distribution of the estate. In England and Wales, individuals have the freedom to leave their estate to anyone, with no legal obligation to provide for specific family members. Even if the will seems unfair, the law generally upholds the testator's wishes, if the will has been validly made. However, certain family members and dependants may be able to bring a claim against the estate (under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975), if adequate provision has not been made for them under a will.
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print