We work with all sorts of clients, from large corporations to small start-ups and families, providing a truly personal service to each and every one.


From academies and agriculture to travel and tourism, our clients come from all corners of business. Our team of experts provides experience and advice to businesses in a variety of sectors.

About us

Forrester Boyd is one of the largest independent chartered accountancy practices in Lincolnshire and the Humber region. Our focus on people, both clients and employees, is at the heart of our success.

Meet the team


Now based in six offices across Lincolnshire and the Humber region, our teams are perfectly placed to work closely with you. Please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Taxpayer victory leads to room hire VAT exemption

  • 16th March 2022

A recent First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision in the taxpayer’s favour has helped clarify that room rental is VAT exempt, but standard rating can apply if additional services are also supplied, such as a hairdresser renting chair spaces.

The FTT case involved hair and beauty business, Errol Willy Salons, hiring out two spare rooms to self-employed beauticians. Exempt VAT treatment suited the beauticians who were not VAT-registered.

HMRC argument

HMRC contended that a standard rated package of services was being provided rather than just the two rooms. Along with the use of rooms, the self-employed beauticians had access to the staff toilets and rest area, occasional use of the services of a receptionist, and were provided with light and heat. They also benefited from advertising.

HMRC argued the facts were similar to the Byrom case – which had gone in their favour – where rooms hired to self-employed masseuses came with a bundle of other services including access to a kitchen, showers, a washing machine, linen and towels, security and a reception.

A victory for HMRC could have impacted on any business letting out a spare room. However, although HMRC’s ambition to narrow the VAT room rental exemption has been checked, they may now resort to legislative change.

The decision

The FTT disagreed that the Byrom case was comparable because the beauticians in the Errol Willy Salons case were only provided with what were essentially bare rooms. The masseuses in the Byrom case, in contrast, had the use of a package of services, one of which was the provision of a room.

  • Although the additional services provided to the beauticians made it easier for them to provide their services, crucially none of the services were considered to be essential.
  • The additional services were therefore incidental to the supply of the room.
  • The predominant supply made by the taxpayer was room rental, and this was correctly treated as VAT exempt.

More detail on the Byrom case, along with a number of examples showing HMRC’s view on the VAT treatment of supplies containing a number of elements (including the right to occupy property), can be found here.

If you would like any help or advice on any of the information within this article please do get in touch.

Read more on: VAT compliance

Any news or resources within this section should not be relied upon with regards to figures or data referred to as legislative and policy changes may have occurred.