VAT law stripped bare
VAT cases do not usually make national headlines, but there is nothing like a bit of titillation to catch the interest. There was much coverage last weekend about a case relating to lapdancing, and specifically whether, for the purposes of VAT, the supply of entertainment at well-known 'gentlemen's club' Spearmint Rhino was by the club or by the individual dancers (the decision was the latter). Mr Justice Mann had to describe in some detail how the club and the dancers operated, and opened his judgment by observing that this appeal from a decision of the VAT & Duties Tribunal 'has the by-product of enabling the judiciary to fill in some of the gaps in its knowledge demonstrated, but teasingly left, by Sutton v Hutchison [2005] EWCA 1773 at paragraph 1'. This, of course, sent us scurrying to that ruling, in which Lord Justice Ward, with what we imagine was a fairly po-face, began: 'The appellant is a lap dancer. I would not, of course, begin to know exactly what that involves. One can guess at it, but could not faithfully describe it.' Sutton also related to Spearmint Rhino, but in that case a relationship had developed away from the club between the dancer and a businessman, to the point where sexual services were supplied. Lord Justice Ward said somewhat wryly: 'Whether or not rule 2 of the Spearmint Rhino club had been breached, requiring that you could get no satisfaction, we do not know and fortunately do not have to decide.'