An insurance company (NIG) offered troubleshooting insurance to used car buyers. NIG re-insured 100% of its risk to a group company called Crystal in Gibraltar, which in turn reassurated 85 per cent of this risk to another gibraltan company called Viscount. Viscount has entered into a claims processing agreement with WHA, a group company in the United Kingdom, under which WHA has agreed to process all claims and entered into agreements with repairers to provide for payment of repairs in accordance with the insurance. If, according to the terms of the contract, the developer has all the rights required for the development and transfer (through sale, lease, license, etc. to end customers) of the property for a fixed consideration. In addition, these rights are exclusively granted. The Tribunal ultimately rejected Adecco`s allegations, but when it reached this conclusion, the Tribunal conducted a detailed audit of the governing authorities on VAT agreements and tripartite agreements. « Q.16) Does GST have to pay the owner`s share in the dwellings/houses/parts of the building built by the owner and handed over to the landowner in accordance with the development agreement? … Although the MPTP system may be considered tripartite (including the taxi-cab operator, the MPTP member and the DOT), the question of whether there is a taxable delivery from the cab taxi operator to the DOT, for which the DOT considers that there is a different analysis than that of the taxable supply of the cab taxi operator to the MPTP member, for which the member takes into account. The answer to one question is not necessarily determinative of the answer to the other. After reviewing this decision, the Tribunal asked the following question: where does the Supreme Court`s decision in LMUK leave the appeal? The Tribunal found that the economic reality of LMUK was consistent with the contracts in which LMUK had entered. The VAT analysis followed the contracts.
However, the Supreme Court`s decision meant that the application of economic reality in some tripartite cases would mean that delivery management would not always follow contracts and the legal obligation to pay. This paper examines a number of British and Australian authorities dealing with tripartite agreements and attempts to infer from them a number of general proposals that can be applied when considering tripartite agreements under the GST Act. Although caution should be exercised in referring to foreign tax authorities, the Bundesgerichtshof appears to have been inspired by a number of decisions taken by the UK`s higher courts and has adopted a number of proposals in line with these decisions. My analysis of the situation is therefore that the Tolsma/Redrow/Aimia « follow the payment obligation » rule is the late rule where the delivery of VAT follows contracts and that this rule applies in tripartite situations, unless the economic reality is at odds with the contractual situation. Suppose, for example, that the developers of GKC Limited enter into an agreement with the landowner, Mr. Nagarjuna, whereas instead of this agreement, a total of 1000 housing units are built by GKC Ltd on the land made available by Mr. Nagarjuna, while 40% of the units, or 400 units, Mr. Nagarjuna and 600 units of GKC Ltd.
Both can sell units on the open market on the market. The landowner gets 400 housing units instead of the given land and the developer gets 600 housing units instead of construction work. In other words, it can be said that a development rights transfer agreement constitutes the transfer of property to real estate, which is therefore excluded from the definition of « service. »