Tag Archives: input tax

Constable VAT Focus 28 March 2019

28th March 2019

HMRC NEWS

Trading With the EU if the UK Leaves Without a Deal

HMRC has updated its guidance on  leaving the EU  in particular to reflect the fact that there is to be an extension to arrangements already announced regarding the use of Transitional Simplified Procedures (TSP), which will make importing goods easier.

Impact Assessment for VAT and Services if the UK Leaves Without a Deal

HMRC has released an impact assessment on the effect on businesses of amendments to existing VAT legislation and the introduction of transitional provisions for the supply of services between the UK and the EU.

VAT Treatment of Pension Fund Management

The policy of allowing insurers to treat all pension fund management services as exempt from VAT under the insurance exemption is to be discontinued. This policy change applies from 1 April 2019.

 

CASE UPDATE

CJEU

1. Exemption for Letting Immovable Property

This case concerned the interpretation and applicability of the VAT exemption for the letting or leasing of immovable property. The Portuguese tax authorities assessed Mr. Mesquita for VAT on contracts relating to the transfer of the use of vineyards for agricultural purposes for a period of one year. These transactions had been treated as exempt from VAT.

The question before the Court was whether the exemption for letting immovable property related to this contract.

The Court considered that the purpose of the EU law conferring the exemption on certain transactions was owing to the fact that the leasing of immovable property is normally a relatively passive activity which does not generate a large amount of income.

Where services are supplied along with the immovable property in a single transaction, such as supervision or maintenance, then the whole transaction is subject to VAT. However, the Court found that there were no services provided with the vineyards so the exemption could be applicable.

Constable Comment: The contract in the main Portuguese proceedings led to what the tax authorities believed to be a transfer of assets thus creating a taxable supply. The Court held that even if assets are transferred in this type of contract, they are ancillary to the main supply and the exemption still applies to the whole contract value.

 

Supreme Court

2. Education Exemption: Meaning of “eligible body”

This appeal concerned the criteria to be applied when determining if a particular body is eligible for the purposes of the VAT exemption afforded to certain bodies providing education to students.

The appellant, SEL, the English subsidiary of a Dutch company, contended that its supplies of UK education were exempt from VAT as it was a college of Middlesex University (MU). It appealed against assessments to VAT raised by HMRC. The appeal was allowed in the First Tier Tax Tribunal but it was escalated by HMRC and eventually ascended to the Supreme Court.

MU is a UK university and as such benefits from the exemption from VAT. This exemption is, under UK law, extended to “… a university and any college, school or hall of a university”. The Court, therefore, gave some consideration to what constituted a college of a university and observed that the “integration test” employed initially by the First Tier Tribunal was correct. The following five factors must be considered in arriving at a conclusion as to whether a particular undertaking can be considered a college of a university:

  • Whether they have a common understanding that the body is a college of the university
  • Whether the body can enrol students as students of the university
  • Whether those students are generally treated as students of the university
  • Whether the body provides courses of study which are approved by the university
  • Whether the body can present its students for examination for a degree from the university

In examining whether or not these criteria applied to SEL and its arrangements with MU, the Court concluded that the exemption did apply to SEL which had been referring students for degrees from MU since the beginning of their arrangement in the 1980s. It was found that there is no need for there to be a constitutional association with a university in order to be a college of that university.

Constable Comment: The criteria laid down in this instance for determining whether or not a body is eligible are not intended to be definitive and the Court observed that, in each instance, regard must be had to the individual facts of each arrangement between a university and an associated body.

 

Court of Appeal

3. Deductibility of VAT on Criminal Defence Costs

This case concerned whether or not input VAT incurred by a company in defending its director was deductible by that company as input tax. Mr. Ranson left a company, CSP, and set up his own rival firm in the same area, taking three employees with him. It was alleged by CSP that he had breached his fiduciary duties and also that he had misused a contact list from CSP for establishing his own business. CSP sought an account of profits earned by Mr. Ranson as a result of his breach of duty and sought to recover funds from Praesto.

In defending against these claims, Mr. Ranson instructed solicitors who were successful in his defence. The issue arose as a result of the solicitors addressing one invoice to Praesto and a further eight to Mr. Ranson individually. HMRC did not dispute the deductibility of the input VAT in relation to the invoice addressed to the firm but disputed the others as a result of the addressee.

VAT incurred is deductible so far as it has a “direct and immediate” link with the company’s taxable supplies. However where the legal costs form a part of the cost components of the company’s supplies it is also accepted that they have a direct link with the company’s economic activity as a whole.

HMRC placed a lot of emphasis on the fact that the invoices being disputed were addressed to Mr Ranson. Mr Ranson argued that Praesto were party to the proceedings in all but name and there was a direct benefit to the company in defending him. The economic reality of the situation was the solicitors were defending both Mr Ranson and Praesto.

The Court agreed with Mr Ranson that there was a direct benefit to Praesto in defending claims against him as if the claims had succeeded against Mr Ranson, CSP would have sought to recover profits made by Praesto. It was concluded that the VAT incurred by Praesto in mounting a defence against the allegations of CSP was, indeed, deductible.

Constable Comment: This is an interesting topic as, more often than not, the actual receipts and contracts are looked through to the economic reality of the supply. Whilst this appeal was allowed, one judge dissented, believing the fact that the invoices were addressed to Mr Ranson personally to be fatal to the appeal. This type of case will always need to be considered carefully, it is prudent to seek professional advice in relation to input VAT recovery in this scenario.

 

4. Default Surcharge: Reasonable Excuse

This appeal against a default surcharge turned on whether or not the applicant had a reasonable excuse for late payment. The appellant argued that he was unable to log in to the online gateway necessary for making VAT payments.

Mr Farrell received a notice of liability to surcharge which required payment by 7 May 2017. He was unable to log in to the Gateway using the information he previously saved in his computer. When he contacted the webchat he was told that he needed to speak to technical support. Technical support informed Mr Farrell that they could not deal with his enquiry until after 8 May 2017; after the due date for payment of the surcharge.

On the 8 May he spoke to the technical support team and was told that he had been using an incorrect User ID, a new one was sent to him but it turned out to be the first ID he was given before having it changed by HMRC when the Commissioners updated the system. Based on the changing of his logon details, he contended that he was not to blame for missing the payment date.

HMRC denied that his logon details had ever been changed and said there was no record of the webchat which Mr Farrell claimed to have had. Mr Farrell had clear evidence that this was not the case in the form of a saved conversation with Alexander form HMRC’s webchat and his “Browser Password Recovery Report”. This showed that his ID had indeed been changed when HMRC updated their system and that it had changed back to the original.

HMRC sought to argue that Mr Farrell had been using an incorrect ID number and therefore that he was responsible and did not have a reasonable excuse.

The Court held that Mr Farrell made reasonable efforts to pay the VAT due and that it was not clear why HMRC did not have the facilities to deal with Mr Farrell’s enquiry. The appeal was allowed; there was a reasonable excuse.

Constable Comment: This case demonstrated that HMRC do make mistakes when dealing with the taxpayers. It is a useful reminder that it is always prudent to maintain your own records of conversations with HMRC officers in order to evidence advice given or any mistakes made on HMRC’s behalf. We would recommend obtaining an officer name and a “call reference number” when speaking with HMRC.

Constable VAT Focus 01 February 2019

1st February 2019

HMRC NEWS

Goods or Services Supplied to Charities

Find out when suppliers can apply the VAT zero rate VAT for advertisements and goods used for the collection of donations.

Software Suppliers for Sending VAT Returns

Find out which software packages support the Making Tax Digital pilots.

VAT Supply and Consideration

Payments that are not consideration: Grants. This section of guidance will help you determine whether a payment described as a grant is consideration for a supply of goods or services and will be of particular interest to charities and other not-for-profit organisations in receipt of grant funding.

Customs, VAT and Excise Regulations: Leaving the EU with No Deal

This collection brings together regulations, explanatory memoranda and an impact assessment in preparation for day one if the UK leaves the EU with no deal.

 

CASE REVIEW

 

CJEU

1. The Deductibility of Input Tax Incurred by Branches

This case concerned the Paris branch of Morgan Stanley and whether it was entitled to deduct input VAT it incurred on expenditure relating exclusively to the transactions of its principal establishment in another member state of the EU. The branch carries out banking and financial transaction for its local clients as well as supplying services to the UK principal establishment and had deducted in full the VAT incurred relating to both types of supply. The domestic tax authorities believed that this input VAT should not be fully deductible but that it should be apportioned using the principal establishments input VAT recovery fraction.

The main question which arose before the Court was whether the proportion of recoverable VAT incurred by the branch relating exclusively to the transactions of its principal establishment should be calculated in line with the branches or the principal’s input VAT recovery rate. It was also asked what rules should be applied in relation to expenditure relating to both transactions by the branch and by the principal.

Giving extensive consideration to the wealth of case law surrounding this subject, the Court decided that, in relation to the first question, that neither of the suggested calculations was correct. It was held that in relation to such expenditure, the associated input VAT is deductible in line with a fraction calculated as:

“Taxable transaction which would be deductible if carried out in branches states / Turnover (excl. VAT) made up of those transactions alone”

With regard to the second question of general costs of the branch which are used for both domestic transactions and transactions with the principal branch it was decided that account must be taken, in the denominator of the fraction, of the transactions carried out by both the branch and the principal establishment. The numerator of the fraction must represent the taxed transactions carried out by the branch and the taxed transaction carried out by the principal establishment.

Constable Comment: This confirms that VAT incurred by branches on expenses relating to supporting its head office are recoverable by looking thorugh to the supplies made by the head office. The calculations for the recoverable amount of input VAT are complicated, especially where the look through reveals the head office to be making both taxable and exempt supplies. If your business makes supplies to a head office it would be prudent to seek professional clarification of the correct treatment of input VAT incurred in relation to these supplies. 

 

Upper Tribunal

2. Welfare Services Exemption

The question before the Tribunal in two cases (The Learning Centre Romford & LIFE Services) was whether the UK’s implementation of the VAT exemption for welfare services had been unlawful by infringing the EU principle of fiscal neutrality.

The Learning Centre Romford (TLC) is a private company which provides vulnerable adults with education and entertainment. It also supplies meals and associated palliative care such as assistance with eating and administering medication with the aim of teaching the clients to be independent and to live healthy lives. It takes on as clients only those who have a care plan given by the local authority from which TLC receives funding. TLC had treated these supplies as exempt as the provision of welfare services by a state regulated institution. HMRC believed these supplies to be taxable at the standard rate as they were provided by a private company.

TLC argues that they were state regulated as it was a requirement for them to DBS check staff members and, in any case, the fact that private welfare providers akin to itself are in fact exempt from VAT in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It was contended that this infringed the principle of fiscal neutrality.

LIFE Services provided the same style of care as TLC but as it did not provide care at the client’s home it did not fall within the statutory regulation regime and was therefore not exempt from VAT.

HMRC argued that it was not the UK’s implementation of the exemption which had caused a disparity between Scottish and English welfare providers but that this situation had arisen as a result of the devolved legislature’s actions. The Tribunal agreed with HMRC, finding that in a devolved system it is inevitable that certain matters will diverge and, therefore, the principle of fiscal neutrality was not infringed. In allowing HMRC’s appeal on this ground, both cases were dismissed and the services of both LIFE and TLC were held to be taxable. This overturned the First Tier Tribunal’s previous decision.

Constable Comment: This was an interesting joint case which focussed on an area of disparity between the implementation of EU law in England and other devolved powers such as Scotland and Wales. Whilst there is a difference in the ways in which the law operates in different areas of the UK, the Tribunal found that this is as a result of the devolved powers implementations and not a failure of the UK to adhere to an EU Directive. This decision will also be interesting to charities which may wish to step outside of the VAT welfare exemption. For example, if VAT exempt welfare services supplied by a charity were carried out by a wholly owned trading subsidiary instead, would generating taxable supplies be advantageous?

 

First Tier Tribunal

3. Direct and Immediate Link with Taxable Supplies

This case concerned whether or not there was a direct and immediate link between input VAT incurred by Adullam Homes Housing Association (AHHA) and its taxable supplies of support services. AHHA is a partially exempt business making taxable supplies of support services and exempt supplies of accommodation.

The dispute arose with regard to whether input tax incurred on acquiring, maintaining, repairing and cleaning accommodation can be linked to the taxable supply of support services or if, as HMRC contend, there is no such link and this input VAT is wholly irrecoverable. AHHA sought to argue that the acquisition and maintenance of accommodation was necessary as part of the overall supply made of accommodation based support services.

The Tribunal gave extensive consideration to case law around the issue of attribution of input VAT incurred by a partially exempt business. The conclusion was reached that the costs, whilst related to the provision of accommodation, were incurred in order that the Appellant had clean, safe and secure premises to enable it to bid for accommodation based support contracts. This constituted a direct and immediate link with the provision of support services.

It follows from this conclusion that the inputs incurred by AHHA in relation to maintain the accommodation were residual and fell to be recovered in line with their partial exemption percentage.

Constable Comment: Certain difficulties present themselves when performing partial exemption calculations, one of the most common is in deciding whether particular inputs should be directly attributed to taxable or exempt supplies or if they fall to be apportioned. Where looking through to the recipients onward supplies it can become difficult to ascertain the correct treatment of input VAT in line with the principles highlighted in this case. If your business is partially exempt and the calculations are complicated it is advisable to regularly review the attribution of VAT incurred and to seek professional clarification to ensure compliance if any obligation exists.

 

 

CVC VAT Focus 26 July 2018

26th July 2018

HMRC NEWS

HMRC publishes more information on Making Tax Digital

HMRC has published further information on Making Tax Digital to support businesses and agents in the run up to the start of the mandatory Making Tax Digital VAT service from April 2019.

Revenue and Customs Brief 7 (2018): VAT – motor dealer deposit contributions

This brief explains HMRC’s policy on the VAT accounting treatment of promotions where payments are made to finance companies by motor dealers for the customer.

Draft legislation: Amendment of the VAT (Input Tax) (Specified Supplies) Order 1999

This is the consultation on draft amendments to the Specified Supplies Order to address the issue of VAT off-shore looping in the financial services sector.

Registration scheme for racehorse owners (VAT Notice 700/67)

Find out if you can register for VAT under the VAT registration scheme for racehorse owners

Help and support for VAT

Get help with VAT by using videos, webinars, online courses and email updates from HMRC.

 

CASE REVIEW

CJEU

1.Acquisition and holding of shares: An economic activity?

This French referral concerned the letting of a building by a holding company to a subsidiary and whether this would constitute involvement in the management of that subsidiary, giving rise to a right to deduct input VAT incurred on the acquisitions of holdings in the subsidiary. If found to constitute management, the acquisition and holding of shares in the subsidiary would be an economic activity.

Marle Participations (Marle) is the holding company of the Marle Group. It let a building to some of the subsidiaries whose shareholdings it also managed. It conducted a restructuring operation which led to purchases and sales of securities, it sought to recover input VAT incurred in the course of the restructure. During a VAT audit, the tax authorities issued assessments to recover VAT claimed. This was on the basis that the expenditure by Marle was capital in nature and so a right to deduct VAT incurred did not arise. Marle appealed this decision.

The referral from the French court asks whether the VAT Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the letting of a building by a holding company to its subsidiary constitutes involvement in the management of that subsidiary, which must be considered an economic activity.

The CJEU considered case law and the VAT Directive. It was held that the involvement of a holding company in the management of subsidiaries constituted an economic activity where the holding company carries out a taxable transaction. The Court decided that the letting of a building to the subsidiary did constitute an economic activity so there was a right to deduct VAT incurred on expenses relating to the restructuring giving rise to the acquisition of shares in the subsidiary.

However, it was also held that where the holding company is only involved in the management of some subsidiaries but not all, then a fair apportionment method must be used to calculate the amount of input VAT to be recovered.

CVC Comment: This decision is relevant to the recovery of VAT incurred by holding companies. If holding companies make taxable supplies (in this case taxable lettings of buildings to subsidiaries) then, subject to the usual rules, input VAT recovery rights are likely to arise. Restructuring a company and transferring securities can lead to very complex supplies and processes which can be hard to classify. What can, on the face of it, take place as an accounting entry can give rise to a real-life tax liability. Before taking on any restructuring projects professional advice should be sought to provide certainty of compliance.

 

2. Right to deduct: Transactions did not take place

The Court heard two requests for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the EU law concerning the right to deduct input tax.

The two companies, SGI and Veleriane, are established and operate in France purchasing equipment intended to be leased to operators in France. Following a VAT audit, the tax authorities challenged the right to deduct VAT on various purchases as the invoices did not relate to any particular delivery and issued assessments of VAT to this effect. Both companies claim to have acted in good faith with regard to these transactions but the referring court highlights that the companies could not have been unaware of the fictitious nature of some of the transactions and the associated overcharging.

SGI claims that, in the absence of any serious indication of fraud, it is not obliged to prove to the authorities that the transactions took place and Valeriane claim the referring court did not consider whether the tax authorities had adduced the necessary proof that it knew or ought to have known that the transactions were connected with VAT fraud.

The domestic Court referred the question of whether the EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to deny a taxable person in receipt of an invoice the right to deduct VAT appearing on that invoice, it is sufficient that the authorities establish that the transactions covered by that invoice have not actually been carried out or whether those authorities must also establish that taxable person’s lack of good faith.

Giving consideration to the principles of legal certainty and fiscal neutrality, the Court held that under the EU law it is sufficient for the tax authorities to establish that the transactions have not taken place and there is no requirement to show a lack of good faith when denying the right to recover input VAT on transactions which have not taken place.

CVC Comment: The right to recover input VAT arises when VAT becomes properly chargeable. If no supply can be evidenced to have been made in relation to the invoice giving rise to a claim to deduct VAT then the VAT incurred is not deductible. It is important to be aware of supply chains and to ensure that each transaction actually takes place before submitting a VAT reclaim to avoid unexpected tax assessments.

 

Supreme Court

3. Relying on claims made by a former member of a group VAT registration

This appeal by HMRC concerns the validity and timing of claims for the repayment of incorrectly paid VAT by Carlton Clubs Limited and whether those claims could be relied on by the representative member of a group VAT registration.

HMRC had refused a number of claims for repayment of incorrectly paid VAT made on behalf of Taylor Clark Limited (TCL) by a subsidiary. TCL was the representative member of a VAT group registration which contained Carlton Clubs Ltd (CCL) by whom the claims were made as it carried on the activity of Bingo to which the claims related. TCL contended that these claims should be recoverable by itself as the representative member of the VAT group, highlighting that CCL was no longer in the group.

The FTT held that the subsidiary would have been entitled to the repayment of VAT and TCL could not rely on the claims as they were not made by TCL. The UT found that whilst TCL may have been able to reclaim VAT it did not make a claim for repayment within the time limits allowed, therefore there could be no repayment. The Court of Session, however, ruled in favour of TCL, stating that a claim may be made on behalf of the representative member of a VAT group by a former member and subsidiary.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Court of Session erred in finding this to be the case. It was held that HMRC’s liability for overpaid output tax is owed to the person who accounted for the VAT (CCL). Unless CCL was acting as an agent to TCL at the time the claims were submitted, the claims cannot be relied upon by TCL now. After extensive consideration of the relationship between TCL and CCL, the conclusion was that CCL was not acting in the capacity of an agent by submitting the claims. The Supreme Court held in favour of HMRC and allowed their appeal.

CVC Comment: This case serves as a reminder of the importance of considering who is entitled to benefit from claims for overpaid VAT in the context of a group VAT registration. A consequence of VAT grouping is that any business activity carried out by a group member is treated as if it is done by the representative member.

 

UTT

4. Direct and immediate link with main economic activity

This appeal concerns whether a company established outside the EU is entitled to recover input VAT on the cost of tools leased to an EU company for no consideration. JDI is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and is part of a group of companies (The Baker Hughes Group). The FTT had previously agreed with HMRC that there was not a sufficient link between the acquisition of the tools by JDI and an economic activity to allow repayment of the VAT incurred.

JDI acquired the tools as part of a company restructure along with the intellectual property rights for the tools, VAT was charged on this supply which JDI sought to recover. The intellectual property gave JDI the right to manufacture further tools and spare parts. Rather than producing the tools itself, it gave out contracts to manufacturing companies to fabricate them. JDI paid the manufacturing companies for this but made no charge to the Baker Hughes Group in the Netherlands when leasing the tools to them. It contended that its main economic activity is the supply of spare parts to companies using the tools and therefore that there is a direct and immediate link between the acquisition of the tools and its main economic activity.

The Upper Tribunal agreed with the FTT and HMRC that the required direct and immediate link had not been established. There was no charge for the leasing of the tools. They were not connected with a taxable supply, VAT incurred was irrecoverable. It was also confirmed that JDI was not, in this capacity, acting as a taxable person.

CVC Comment: This case serves as a reminder of the importance of considering all aspects of arrangements entered into with connected parties. VAT incurred is recoverable to the extent that it relates to taxable business supplies. In this case as there is no charge for the lease of the tools there was no connection with the original purchase of those tools to a taxable supply so input VAT was wholly irrecoverable.

5. Place of supply rules

This appeal concerns the place of supply for the supply made by IC Wholesale Limited (ICW), a UK company, to customers in the Republic of Ireland of cars acquired in Cyprus and Malta. ICW  contended that as it had invoiced the customers in Ireland before the cars left Malta and Cyprus, despite the fact that the cars entered the UK, the supplies took place outside of the UK and therefore should not bear UK VAT.

The FTT found against ICW, concluding that the supplies had taken place in the UK as the cars physically arrived in the UK before being sold. It was also noted that ICW held insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the cars had been removed from the UK.

The UT agreed with the FTT, asserting that ICW used its UK VAT registration number when ordering the cars and the cars physically entered the UK. The suppliers were not informed that the vehicles would be re-sold and, in the absence of sufficient evidence of export, ICW must be treated as acquiring the goods in the UK and therefore the appeal must be dismissed.

CVC Comment: When exporting goods it is essential to retain evidence in order to support zero-rating of the supply. The place of supply rules are also important and should be borne in mind for each transaction involving the movement of goods into and out of the UK. For advice with any place of supply issues please contact CVC as there could be significant financial implications if VAT accounting errors are made.

6. Business/non-business apportionment

The Tribunal considered a claim for repayment of VAT relating to services supplied by NHS Lothian Health Board (LHB) to non-NHS, private customers such as local authorities. It was an agreed fact that VAT had been incurred and paid but not recovered by LHB in the period from 1974-1997.

The FTT originally rejected the claim for repayment on the basis that a business/non-business apportionment had not been calculated to an adequate extent. The FTT gave some consideration to partial exemption and direct attribution. This appeal focussed on whether this was incorrect. The appellants asserted that it was an error to consider direct attribution and partial exemption when all that was required was a business/non-business apportionment.

The UT found that it would have been an error of law for the FTT to rely on partial exemption principles when apportioning business/non-business activities for the purpose of input tax recovery. However, whilst the FTT did discuss partial exemption, the UT was content that the FTT had not relied on it and that they instead relied on the reasonableness of the proposed apportionment.

It was held that the FTT was entitled to find the proposed business/non-business apportionment unreasonable and its decision to reject the claim for input VAT recovery from 1974-1997 stands.

CVC Comment: In this case LHB sought to retrospectively extrapolate a partial exemption recovery percentage from a specific period from 2006 to 1997. Before making a retrospective claim for input VAT recovery it is important to be clear on the appropriate methodology. In cases where the business is not fully taxable an apportionment is required to reflect non-business or VAT exempt business activities. If you think your business or charity may be entitled to a retrospective repayment of VAT incurred on costs that cannot be directly attributed to taxable supplies please do not hesitate to contact CVC to discuss the best strategy for your individual case. Please remember that, if VAT registered, retrospective claims are capped at four years.

 

CVC VAT Focus 12 July 2018

12th July 2018

HMRC NEWS

VAT grouping eligibility criteria changes

This latest measure will allow certain non-corporate bodies to join VAT groups. For example a charitable trust which is VAT registered as a partnership may now be able to form a group VAT registration with its wholly owned trading subsidiary.

VAT treatment of vouchers

Draft legislation about the implementation of an EU Directive of the VAT treatment of vouchers.

VAT Notes 2018 Issue 2

This note explains how to receive payments by Bankers Automated Clearing System (BACS) and applications to the Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme.

Revenue and Customs Brief 4 (2018)

This brief sets out HMRC’s policy on the changes to the time limits for VAT refund schemes if you are a local authority, police or similar body.

HMRC and online marketplaces agreement to promote VAT compliance

Find out more about the agreement and how it will help build collaborative relationships. The list of signatories has been updated.

OTHER NEWS

CVC advises many charities. Our clients include a number who offer support to vulnerable people and those with disabilities.  The recent decision in Sandpiper Car Hire Limited saw the Tribunal criticise HMRC’s approach to dealing with disabled people.

This article by one of our partners, Stewart Henry, gives an engaging analysis of the Court’s criticisms of HMRC and how it struggles to handle some of the challenges presented when dealing with more vulnerable members of the public.

CASE REVIEW

CJEU

1. Transfer of immovable property from a Municipality to the Treasury

 

This referral from the Polish Court asked whether the transfer of ownership of immovable property owned by the Municipality for compensation constitutes a taxable transaction for VAT purposes where the property continues to be owned by the Municipality as a representative of The Treasury.

 

In this case the State acquired, by compulsory purchase, immoveable property in order to develop a new national road from the Municipality. Concluding that the Municipality is a taxable person, the Court went on to outline three criteria necessary for a taxable supply to have arisen; a transfer of a right of ownership, made in the name of or by order by a public authority and there must have been payment.

 

On analysis of the circumstances in the case, it was concluded that there was a transfer of legal title of the property. With regard to the compensation received, as this was a State purchase of a Municipality piece of land, the purchase was handled as an internal accounting entry which it was argued prevented it being seen as payment for a taxable supply. The Court held that it was irrelevant as there had been consideration for a taxable supply of immoveable property; internal accounting or not.

 

In summary, the CJEU held that in circumstances where there is compensation given in exchange for immoveable property between taxable persons there is a taxable supply for VAT purposes even where the compensation is by way of an internal accounting entry.

 

CVC Comment: A supply of immovable property in exchange for consideration will constitute a taxable supply, even where the consideration is made purely by way of an internal accounting entry. A transfer is a transfer and the Court will be reluctant to read into supplies that they are not taxable transactions in the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary. Before making any transfer of a significant value, or where operating in a grey-area, then it is always prudent to seek professional advice.

 

2. Buying back shares by transferring immovable property: A taxable supply?

 

The CJEU has responded to a Polish referral asking if the transfer by Polfarmex, a limited company, to one of its shareholders of immovable property as consideration for shares in that limited company by way of a share buy-back constitutes a taxable supply. Polfarmex  argued that the plan was to restructure the share capital of the company by buying shares back and it was therefore not subject to VAT as the transaction did not form part of its business activities.

 

The Court stated as common ground that the transaction proposed by Polfarmex and the shareholder would lead to the transfer of the right of ownership of immovable property and that Polfarmex is a taxable person in Poland. In the absence of any place of supply issues, the main question looked at by the Court is when a supply of goods is made for “consideration”.  It was held that a supply is made for consideration only where there is a legal relationship between both parties which requires reciprocal performance.

 

It was concluded that if the transfer of the immovable property to buy-back shares in Polfarmex would be subject to VAT if the actions by Polfarmex are ruled by the referring Court to constitute a part of its economic activity. The Court did not give direction on this topic.

 

CVC Comment: When restructuring companies and acquiring shares, complex VAT issues arise, as is demonstrated by this case. Before taking on the challenge of restructuring a company it is vital that professional advice is sought in order to ensure the highest degree of compliance is maintained.

 

3. Exemption on imported goods subsequently despatched to a taxable person different to that named on the invoice for the supply.

 

This decision relates to Enteco Baltic (EB), a Lithuanian wholesaler of fuel who imported fuel from Belarus free of VAT as it was to be sold onto third parties in other European Union member states.

 

Complying with relevant EU and domestic rules, EB provided the tax authorities with their own, the supplier’s and the purchaser’s VAT registration numbers and certificates of origin within the relevant time limits prior to import. However, EB’s intended supplies did not go ahead and the fuel was subsequently sold to businesses in other EU Member States. In order to remain compliant and to continue to benefit from the exemption for import VAT when an onward supply to a taxable person in another member state, EB declared this to the tax authorities with the VAT registration numbers of the new intended recipients. Whilst initially the tax authorities accepted this, an inspection in 2014/15 led to a discovery that the recipients’ VAT registration numbers declared on the initial import document did not correspond with those of the actual recipients.

 

In reaching a conclusion, the CJEU held that the exemption from VAT applying in the present circumstances is available where three core criteria are met;

 

  • The supplier has the right to dispose of the goods,
  • The supplier establishes that those goods are shipped to another Member State
  • As a result of the despatch the goods physically move out of the territory.

 

The inclusion of the purchasers VAT registration number on the invoice for the supply is not, therefore, essential, especially in situations such as those in these proceedings where the tax authorities were informed of the situation. It was held that application of the relevant exemption cannot be prohibited unless the supplier intentionally is participating in tax evasion.

CVC Comment: This complicated set of circumstances came down to a three-point test by the Court in order to reach a conclusion. The judgment reached shows that the Court will have regard to the economic reality of the transactions taking place where rigorous application of the law results in an unfair result.

 

Court of Appeal

4. VAT is not recoverable on supplies incorrectly treated as exempt by UK law

 

Here The Court of Appeal considered a question of whether the appellant, Zipvit, was entitled to deduct input tax on services received from Royal Mail which were treated as exempt by UK law at the time of supply but which should have been treated as standard rated according to EU law.

 

Royal Mail believed its supplies to be VAT exempt and it did not issue VAT invoices to Zipvit, nor pay over VAT to HMRC. The contract between the two parties made no comment with regard to VAT. Zipvit contended that it had a right to deduct VAT that should have been charged and should be deemed to be included in the invoices it had already received.

 

Two main issues fell before The Court; was VAT due or paid on the supplies by Royal Mail and whether the lack of VAT invoices barred any input VAT recovery by Zipvit anyway. Ultimately, the decisions of the FTT and UT were upheld by the Court; no VAT was paid over by Royal Mail and no right to deduct had arisen for Zipvit. The judgment focussed particularly on the importance of the lack of VAT invoices issued to Zipvit which ultimately ensured that no right to deduct had arisen.

 

CVC Comment: Zipvit has been a lead case and it will be interesting to see if it is appealed further as there have been many cases “stood behind” this judgment. Whilst this is a disappointing result for the appellants and others, it serves as an important reminder to always give consideration to VAT when drafting contracts in order to avoid complex and potentially costly situations such as the one at hand arising. The decision also emphasises the importance of obtaining correct evidence to support a right to deduct VAT incurred.

 

First Tier Tribunal

5. Failed zero-rating of a disposal of a renovated property

 

This case concerned an appeal against a decision reducing the input tax claim of a property development company.

 

Fireguard Developments Limited (Fireguard) renovated and subsequently sold a property (the property), believing the house had been vacant for ten years making the onward supply zero-rated. To reflect this Fireguard sought to reclaim the VAT incurred on the renovation in respect of the VAT accounting period ending 31 December 2016 on its VAT return. HMRC contended that the property had not been vacant for ten years prior to disposal and therefore that the supply was exempt meaning recovery of input VAT should be restricted.

 

The FTT found in favour of HMRC who submitted PAYE records and electoral role entries to support its position that the property had not been vacant for ten years prior to the refurbishment and disposal. As the property was found not to have been empty for ten years immediately prior to its sale the disposal was exempt and directly attributable input VAT was therefore irrecoverable.

 

CVC Comment: In cases where a business is seeking to benefit from a reduced or zero-rate of VAT it is essential to ensure that all material facts are known. The rules around when the reduced and zero-rates of VAT apply are complex and before taking on any significant or high value land or property related projects it is safest to seek professional advice.

 

 

CVC VAT Focus 12 April 2018

12th April 2018


PARTIAL EXEMPTION

It is around this time of year that those businesses that are partially exempt are required to calculate their annual adjustment.  This adjustment must be made in the VAT return period ending June/July or August but can be made in the prior period (March/April/May) if a business wishes.  CVC is able to calculate or review these annual adjustments for clients if required.

HMRC NEWS

VAT: road fuel scale charge tables

VAT Updated Valuation Table: Road Fuel Scale Charges effective from 1 May 2018 added to the page.

VAT Notice 700/11: cancelling your registration

This notice tells you when and how to cancel your VAT registration.

VAT Notice 700/1: should I be registered for VAT?

This notice cancels and replaces Notice 700/1 September 2016.

Apply for the Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme (Notice FH1)

Page updated with link to new application service and further information what information needed to apply to register.

 CVC BLOG

Sale of donated goods by a charity – an opportunity to reclaim VAT incurred

 

Where certain conditions are satisfied, the sale of donated goods by a charity is zero-rated for VAT purposes. This can be beneficial because no output VAT is due on the income generated by these sales but a right to input VAT recovery on associated costs arises.

CASE REVIEW

First Tier Tribunal

 

1. Reasonable Excuses?

 

In this instance the Tribunal heard an appeal from an individual, Mr. Phillip Ashley Legg against HMRC’s decision to impose various surcharges ranging from VAT accounting periods 12/05 to 12/14.
During this period, Mr Legg only made two payments from 14 September 2006 and 29 June 2012. Mr Legg sought to contend that he had a reasonable excuse for his behaviour in that he had contacted HMRC to establish a payment plan for the surcharges and by 2014 he had cleared all actual VAT arrears. Mr Legg relied heavily on the fact that his profits took a large drop in the period in question, owing to a rapid decline in his area of business.
Whilst the Tribunal accepted a sharp decline in the business had taken place, it still held that this was not a reasonable excuse as the down-turn took place over a number of years and Mr. Legg should have, as a prudent businessman, made adaptations to evolve and fortify himself against changing market conditions. The Tribunal were more sympathetic towards Mr Legg’s catastrophic hard drive errors which led to a severe loss of data. They also took into account that during the period in question, Mr Legg’s father was ill and Mr Legg played a large role in his care.
The important test in relation to a ‘reasonable excuse’ relates to whether or not the taxpayer has behaved reasonably in his or her circumstances. Whilst the Tribunal confirmed that a down-turn in business could not constitute a reasonable excuse, the death of a close relative and fatal computer crashes losing to loss of accounts can. For these reasons, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in half, cancelling a selection of those surcharges not relating to the decline in business activity.

2. Supply or unsolicited delivery

 

This appeal related to whether the applicant, Quality Engines Direct Ltd (QEDL), supplied silver ingots to Microring, a potential purchaser of the company. Whilst in the process of dealing with a transfer of his business, the proprietor (Mr. Rafiq) engaged with a purchaser (Mr. Healey) who immediately began treating the business as his own; making deposits and withdrawals and using the business address. HMRC questioned two invoices relating to the sale of silver from Mr. Rafiq to Mr. Healey which took place before the transfer of QEDL. The veracity of these invoices was denied by Mr. Rafiq, who denied any supply of silver was made to Microring or to Mr. Healey, or that QEDL makes supplies of silver at all, and that he owes no VAT on this alleged supply. He contended that the invoices raised by Microring are not genuine and there had been no silver trade activity with Microring at all.

Mr. Rafiq claimed that delivery of the silver to his business address was not sanctioned, the packages remained unopened as they were unsolicited and he informed Mr. Healey to remove the packages, which he did.

The Tribunal agreed on appeal with Mr. Rafiq that the delivery of silver was unsolicited, the invoices had been recreated by Mr. Healey on behalf of Microring. The Tribunal found that as the packages of silver were unsolicited, unopened and removed as a matter of urgency, that QEDL had not made a supply to Microring and Mr. Healey had in fact made the order.

3. Omitted sales and disallowed input tax

 

In this case, Mr. Paul Shore, trading as “DP Contractors”  disputed a decision by HMRC in relation to his 04/11 VAT return. Mr Shore submitted that in this period of trading he was owed a £3,025.60 VAT repayment. HMRC submitted that due to under-declared output VAT of £16,599.40 and over-declared input VAT, Mr. Shore in fact owed £14,605.52 to HMRC.

Mr. Shore traded as DP Contractors which he claimed HMRC had confused with D&P Contractors, a separate firm to which he was a partner alongside Mr. David MacMillan. D&P Contractors had tendered for a contract with Southern Electrical Contracting Limited (SEC) using Mr Macmillan’s VAT registration number as Mr. Shore was not, himself, registered for VAT. Whilst Mr Macmillan was taken ill, Mr. Shore continued to trade using the VAT number of D&P Contractors whilst establishing himself as a sole proprietor “DP Contractors”.

Mr MacMillan played no role in the business being done for SEC by Mr. Shore and ceased to trade with D&P Contractors owing to injury and received no payment from Mr. Shore for on-going work. D&P Contractors issued over 190 invoices to SEC without declaring these on VAT returns and could offer no reasonable explanation for this. Mr. Shore attempted to highlight some discrepancy between the names of the firms but, as the Tribunal found, the same VAT registration number and bank account were used in continuing the trade by Mr. Shore and that the suppressed sales were correctly assessed on Mr. Shore, despite his pleas that Mr. Macmillan was jointly responsible.

Irrecoverable input tax which had also been deducted by Mr. Shore for items such as power showers were also disallowed and a forgery was uncovered for the purchase of a lorry. The Tribunal dismissed all appeals by Mr. Shore and upholds the assessments in full in relation to the suppressed sales.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CVC VAT Focus 22 December 2015

22nd December 2015

The latest CVC VAT Focus is now available on our website.

This newsletter contains the latest VAT news from HMRC and a summary of recent VAT cases including:

  • VAT exemption for membership subscriptions.
  • DIY housebuilder VAT refund scheme.
  • Single or composite supply of construction.
  • Cross-border refund claim.
  • Default surcharge.
  • Zero-rated conversion.
  • Relevant charitable purpose – zero-rate certificates.
  • Intending trader – input VAT recovery.

 

Reclaiming VAT on “acquisition costs” – BAA decision

7th March 2013

This is an important decision not just in terms of the amount of input tax that was claimed (£6.7 million) but in highlighting the importance of getting structures in place at the right time.

In looking to acquire airport operator BAA plc, the acquiring investment consortium created a special purpose vehicle (SPV) for the acquisition called Airport Development and Investments Ltd (“ADIL”).

ADIL was charged significant fees by investment banks, lawyers and others in connection with the takeover and paid VAT on those fees. After the successful takeover of BAA, ADIL joined the BAA VAT group and the representative member of the group made a claim for the recovery of the VAT paid by ADIL in connection with the takeover costs.

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) refused to repay ADIL’s input tax claim. HMRC said that they were investment costs incurred by ADIL in raising finance to acquire the BAA group. BAA countered that ADIL’s purpose was not just the acquisition of the shares of BAA but its intention and purpose was to participate in strategy and business planning of the group.

Following appeals to the VAT Tribunal then High Court, the appeal process has reached the Court of Appeal, which has just released its ruling.

The Court of Appeal found that at the time ADIL incurred the VAT it had no economic activity to which it could link the VAT incurred on expenditure. As such it was a passive investment business with no right to deduct input tax incurred. Importantly, the judgment went on to say that joining the BAA VAT group it did not create a direct and immediate link between ADIL’s inputs and the taxable supplies made by the target, BAA.

The case shows the need to ensure that any business incurring VAT costs is itself engaged in an economic activity at the time the cost is incurred. An intention to manage the company acquired may constitute an economic activity (or can be treated as such by joining a VAT group).

There may be obstacles to achieving a right to VAT recovery. For example it may be that an acquisition vehicle cannot be VAT grouped with the acquired business until after the acquisition is completed because of the common control requirement for VAT groups. In this case it may be necessary to build a case for VAT recovery based on separate registrations. This would bring into sharp focus several points that must be addressed such as achieving a VAT registration and reclaiming VAT; and raises issues that must be considered in advance of the acquisition.