Correspondence regarding GST reverse charge services (FOI)

Request 680063443

​Dear Sir/Madam,

Under the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law, I would like to request the following information:

i) Copies of internal guidance notes, manuals, or policy documents (including drafts) used by Revenue Jersey staff to explain the inclusion of reverse charge services when calculating the £300,000 GST registration threshold.

ii) Any internal documents (including emails) that address or acknowledge ambiguity between Article 30(2) and Schedule 1 of the Goods and Services Tax (Jersey) Law 2007 regarding reverse charge services.

If the request is too broad, I am happy to discuss refining the scope to ensure compliance with FOI cost provisions.

Thank you for your assistance.

Clarification received: 

Please can you search the email accounts of the GST team leader and the Assistant Technical Comptroller, using the keywords "reverse charge" AND "registration" and searches between 1st Feb 2020 to 1st Feb 2025.

Response

i)

Article 30(2) of the GST Law states that reverse supply services are taken into account when determining whether a taxpayer is liable to be registered. As a result, there are few internal guidance notes, manuals or policy documents used by Revenue Jersey staff to explain the inclusion of reverse charge services when calculating the £300,000 GSGT registration threshold, as the details are plainly set out in the law. 

One document has been identified which contains some information which is considered to be within the scope of this request.  However, this document has been withheld in accordance with Article 42(d) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. 

Please see a previous Freedom of Information response which gives details of information published on Gov.je on the topic of reverse charging.  

Impact of the reverse charge mechanism on the GST registration (FOI)​

ii)

Searches were made on the email accounts of the GST team leader and the Assistant Technical Comptroller using the keywords ‘reverse charge’ and registration from 1st February 2020 to 1st February 2025. 

The resulting correspondence was reviewed and it was concluded by the Scheduled Public Authority that correspondence should be withheld in accordance with Articles 25 (Personal Information) 33 – (Commercially Sensitive) , 37 (Audit Functions) and 42 (d) (Law Enforcement) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. 

Articles applied 

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a)     it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b)     it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.

Article 25 - Personal information

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005.

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005; and

(b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.

Article 33 - Commercial interests

Information is qualified exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).

Public Interest Test 

Article 33 (b) is a prejudice-based exemption. That means that in order to engage this exemption there must be a likelihood that disclosure would cause prejudice to the interest that the exemption protects. In addition, this is a qualified exemption, and consideration must be given to the public interest in maintaining the exemption. 

The Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) considers that providing information could prejudice the commercial interests of the Government of Jersey and / or third parties. There may be public interest in the commercial information, however it was considered that this is outweighed by the potential for commercial and or financial damage.

Article 37 - Audit functions

(1) Information is qualified exempt information –

(a) if it is held by a scheduled public authority mentioned in paragraph (2); and

(b) if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise of any of the authority’s functions in relation to a matter mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) or (b).

(2) A scheduled public authority referred to in paragraph (1) is a scheduled public authority that has functions in relation to –

(a) the audit of the accounts of another public authority; or

(b) the examination of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which another public authority uses its resources in discharging its functions.

(3) Information is also qualified exempt information –

(a) if it is held by the Comptroller and Auditor General; and

(b) if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise of any of his or her functions.

Public Interest Test 

In this instance, Article 37 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been relied upon as the SPA is satisfied that responding to this question would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise of its functions in relation to a matter mentioned in paragraph 2(b) of Article 37 of the said Law.

Article 42 -Law enforcement

Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice –

(a) the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, whether in Jersey or elsewhere;

(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, whether in respect of offences committed in Jersey or elsewhere;

(c) the administration of justice, whether in Jersey or elsewhere;

(d) the assessment or collection of a tax or duty or of an imposition of a similar nature;

(e) the operation of immigration controls, whether in Jersey or elsewhere;

(f) the maintenance of security and good order in prisons or in other institutions where persons are lawfully detained;

(g) the proper supervision or regulation of financial services; or

(h) the exercise, by the Jersey Financial Services Commission, of any function imposed on it by any enactment.

Public Interest Test 

Article 42 is a qualified exemption and as such a prejudice test has been conducted as required by law. 

It has been assessed whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in supplying the information is outweighed by the prejudice that would likely result by doing so. It is recognised that there is a public interest in transparency and accountability to the general public by providing confirmation that necessary actions are taking place. 

However, this must be balanced against potential prejudice to the effective implementation of sanctions and law enforcement in Jersey. It has been concluded that the public interest supports the information being withheld rather than disclosed, on the basis that the information sets out the terms upon which the assessment or collection of tax or duty in Jersey are implemented. Disclosing this information may assist those who seek to circumvent and evade tax provisions set out in the law.  ​