undefined
Skip to main content
Czech Republic|en-CZ

Add a bookmark to get started

Global Site
Africa
MoroccoEnglish
South AfricaEnglish
Asia Pacific
AustraliaEnglish
Hong Kong SAR ChinaEnglish简体中文
KoreaEnglish
New ZealandEnglish
SingaporeEnglish
ThailandEnglish
Europe
BelgiumEnglish
Czech RepublicEnglish
HungaryEnglish
IrelandEnglish
LuxembourgEnglish
NetherlandsEnglish
PolandEnglish
PortugalEnglish
RomaniaEnglish
Slovak RepublicEnglish
United KingdomEnglish
Middle East
BahrainEnglish
QatarEnglish
North America
Puerto RicoEnglish
United StatesEnglish
OtherForMigration
4 February 20252 minute read

Upper Tribunal holds that Sonder's short term accommodation failed the TOMS tests

United Kingdom

Sonder Europe Limited (Sonder) leased self-contained apartments from landlords for 2 to 10 years, furnishing and decorating them if needed (without altering the fabric or structure of the apartment), and then sub-let them to travellers for short-stays.

HMRC challenged the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision that Sonder was correct to apply the Tour Operators' Margin Scheme (TOMS) to account for VAT on their supplies to travellers. HMRC appealed and argued successfully before the Upper Tribunal (UT) that looking at the terms of Sonder's headlease and the onward supplies Sonder made to travellers , Sonder's supplies were not "without material alteration or further processing" and that the supplies to Sonder under the headlease were not "for the direct benefit" of its customers, both of which are key criteria which enable an operator to fall within TOMS as per Article 3(1)(b) of the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) Order 1987.

Accordingly , the UT reversed the FTT decision agreeing with HMRC. It ruled that Sonder's supplies fell outside the scope of TOMS because the landlord's supplies to Sonder were not for the direct benefit of customers. Instead, the landlord's services were materially altered by and converted to short term holiday accommodation which constituted Sonder's own in-house supplies to traveller. Therefore, VAT should be accounted for VAT on the full value of Sonder's supplies made to travellers, and not the margin calculated under TOMS.

The UT based its decision on facts such as the terms of the lease agreed with the landlord compared to the terms agreed with travellers, and Sonder being responsible for damages and upkeep during the head lease.

 

Key takeaway

This is an important development for the sector. Companies within the travel and accommodation industry should reassess the VAT treatment of their supplies if they are applying TOMS.

 

Reference

The Commissioners for HMRC v Sonder Europe Limited - Find Case Law - The National Archives

The Commissioners for HMRC v Sonder Europe Limited [2025] UKUT 14 (TCC)