{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreibkmwcnan3bjiik7cpqbknrh4k5shj4wr3gyochx4qmfp3hvvapzi",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:oznbnvgr7dmvddiyvr7dih52/app.bsky.feed.post/3mo47nptflc52"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreifehd7fkiazfl3ezqv7avtefjz2vtglt33g4rq7lkzalmnj7awz2q"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 295111
  },
  "path": "/money/hmrc-wins-tax-battle-bolt",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-12T16:02:40.000Z",
  "site": "https://www.gbnews.com",
  "tags": [
    "Iconic DIY retailer falls into administration with 2,300 jobs lost and £803m in debt",
    "State pension crisis: Labour's cost of living tsar tells Keir Starmer to axe 'unfair' triple lock",
    "‘I was in debt before I even understood credit’ – The young Britons failed by the education system",
    "The GB News Editorial Charter"
  ],
  "textContent": "\n\n\nHM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has secured a major legal victory against ride-hailing company Bolt after the Court of Appeal ruled the firm cannot use a tax scheme that would significantly reduce its VAT bill.\n\nThe judgment, handed down on Friday, overturns two earlier tribunal decisions that had found in favour of the Estonian transport platform in a dispute worth an estimated £190million.\n\n###\n\n\n\n\nAt the centre of the case was whether Bolt could benefit from the Tour Operators' Margin Scheme, a VAT arrangement originally designed for travel agents and holiday companies.\n\nThe scheme allows qualifying businesses to pay VAT only on their profit margin rather than on the full price paid by customers.\n\n###\n\n\n\n\nTRENDING\n\nStories\n\nVideos\n\nYour Say\n\n###\n\n\n\n\nBolt had argued that the arrangement should apply to its private hire operations, meaning it would only be liable for VAT on the earnings it retains from fares rather than on the total cost of journeys booked through its platform.\n\nUnder standard VAT rules, companies are generally required to account for VAT on the full amount charged to passengers.\n\nThe Court of Appeal rejected Bolt's interpretation of the legislation, ruling that its app-based taxi services do not fall within the scope of the scheme.\n\nLady Justice Falk delivered the judgment alongside Sir Colin Birss and Lord Justice Arnold.\n\nThe ruling marks a significant reversal for Bolt after the company had previously succeeded before both the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal.\n\n###\n\n\n\n\n###\n\n\n\n\n###\n\n\n\n\nBolt had maintained that the Tour Operators' Margin Scheme was intended to apply broadly to travel services and should not be restricted solely to traditional holiday businesses or travel agents.\n\nThe company argued that the legislation was designed around the concept of travel generally rather than specific types of tourism-related activities.\n\nJudges examined whether Bolt's services could be regarded as comparable to those provided by travel agents and tour operators for the purposes of the VAT scheme.\n\nIn the judgment, Lady Justice Falk rejected that argument and concluded that the services offered by Bolt were fundamentally different.\n\nShe said: \"That is, with respect, obvious.\"\n\n### LATEST DEVELOPMENTS\n\n\n\n\n  * Iconic DIY retailer falls into administration with 2,300 jobs lost and £803m in debt\n  * State pension crisis: Labour's cost of living tsar tells Keir Starmer to axe 'unfair' triple lock\n  * ‘I was in debt before I even understood credit’ – The young Britons failed by the education system\n\n\n\n###\n\n\n\n\n###\n\n\n\n\nLady Justice Falk added that although the concepts of travel agents and tour operators had evolved over time, there was no basis for treating app-based taxi services as equivalent.\n\nShe said: \"No one can seriously suggest that travel agents and tour operators offer on demand mini-cab rides, or anything comparable to them, whether through apps or otherwise.\"\n\nThe court also dismissed Bolt's contention that journeys to airports and transport hubs brought its services closer to those traditionally offered by travel businesses.\n\nLady Justice Falk concluded that a passenger choosing an airport or railway station as a destination did not make the journey comparable to airport transfers arranged as part of wider travel packages.\n\nThe ruling is expected to have implications beyond Bolt's own tax affairs.\n\n###\n\n\n\n\n###\n\n\n\n\nUber is involved in a similar dispute with HMRC, although those proceedings were paused while the courts considered the Bolt case.\n\nA tribunal previously noted that Uber had deposited disputed tax sums amounting to £1.446billion while the matter remained unresolved.\n\nThe outcome therefore provides a significant indication of how similar arguments may be treated in future litigation involving ride-hailing operators.\n\nResponding to the decision, a Bolt spokesman said: \"Two courts have already found in Bolt's favour on this question.\"\n\nThe company warned that the judgment could have wider implications for the sector.\n\nThe spokesman said: \"A ruling of this scale has consequences for fares, for driver earnings and for consumer choice across the sector.\"\n\n###\n\n\n\n\n###\n\n\n\n\nBolt added that more than 100,000 drivers use its platform and that millions of passengers rely on its services for affordable transport.\n\nThe company confirmed it is reviewing the judgment and considering its next steps.\n\nHMRC welcomed the ruling and said it supported the tax authority's longstanding position.\n\nA spokesman for HMRC said: \"It confirms our position on the VAT treatment of private hire vehicle operator services of passenger transport.\"\n\nThe judgment represents one of the most significant VAT rulings affecting the ride-hailing industry in recent years and could have major financial implications for operators facing similar tax disputes.\n\n###\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n**Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter**",
  "title": "HMRC wins £190million tax battle against Bolt in major Court of Appeal ruling"
}