Author Archives: Sophie Cox

CVC VAT Focus 2 March 2017

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

This issue includes HMRC News and Case Review.

In our Case Review we consider decisions of the Courts and Tribunals regarding:

  1. Scope of the VAT exemption for cultural services
  2. Promotion schemes and vouchers
  3. Inaccuracies in a VAT return – careless or deliberate?
  4. A default surcharge appeal allowed
  5. DIY Scheme – whether the separate disposal of the dwelling was prohibited
  6. Agents used by university to recruit non-EU students
  7. Construction of a pirate island
  8. Liable No Longer Liable VAT registration
  9. Import VAT paid by agent on behalf of the importer
  10. VAT exempt supplies
  11. Marriott Rewards loyalty scheme

CVC VAT Newsletter for Charities – February 2017

The latest CVC VAT Newsletter for Charities is now available on our website.

This newsletter comments on:

  1. Cultural exemption
  2. The business question (again)
  3. Failure to take reasonable steps to inform HMRC of an incorrect assessment
  4. Late VAT registration penalty
  5. Promotion scheme – application of Sveda
  6. Scope of VAT grouping – HMRC Consultation
  7. Consultation on the withdrawal of extra-statutory concessions
  8. VAT claim for refunds by certain bodies

 

CVC VAT Focus 16 February 2017

Our latest VAT newsletter is now available.

This CVC VAT Focus comments on recent VAT cases before the First Tier Tribunal including:

  1. Supply of goods through Amazon
  2. Zero-rating: whether plants produced edible flowers and are therefore ‘food’
  3. VAT refund for DIY housebuilder: ‘separate use’ of dwelling and the subsequent removal of the condition in the planning permission
  4. Repayment supplement: whether the instruction to issue the repayment was issued within the ‘relevant period’
  5. Input tax claim: whether expenditure for the purposes of business
  6. Compulsory retrospective deregistration
  7. Late registration penalty
  8. Landlord repaid rent under a deal with liquidator: whether landlord entitled to VAT repayment

CVC Blog: VAT compliance – have you thought about…

Figures recently obtained and published by RSM Tenon under a freedom of information request indicate a rise in penalties issued by HMRC. Our own experience suggests that HMRC is now applying penalty rules in relation to VAT errors more strictly than it did when these rules were introduced. Under the current penalty regime HMRC will not issue a penalty for an error in a VAT return or document if the business has taken reasonable care. Seeking professional advice is one way to demonstrate to HMRC that the business has taken reasonable care. CVC’s VAT and Penalties Booklet provides further information.

There are steps that any organisation can take to reduce the risk of penalties. We recommend that our clients regularly review their activities and procedures. In particular:

  • VAT liability
    • Has the business’ activities changed since VAT advice was last sought?
    • Has the business considered where its customers ‘belong’ for VAT purposes?
    • Has the business considered the place of supply of its services?
  • Does the business hold the necessary evidence to support:
    • input tax claims,
    • zero-rated dispatches and exports, and
    • option to tax notifications?
  • Partial exemption calculations
    • Has an annual adjustment been done?
    • Is the VAT recovery ‘fair and reasonable’?
    • Has the Standard Method Override been considered?
  • Capital Goods Scheme
    • Has the business purchased any land or buildings?
    • Has the business re-developed or extended any existing property?
    • Has the use of any of any capital items changed?
  • Error correction
    • Have any errors been identified in previous VAT returns?
    • Have these errors been corrected on a subsequent VAT return?
    • Have HMRC been notified of the error?

Businesses should also consider risk management as a broader issue; for example, do staff need VAT training and does the business have VAT procedure manuals in place.

CVC offer a VAT Review service. A VAT review considers all areas of a business or organisation to determine the VAT liability of supplies and the need for any restriction of recovery in respect of VAT incurred. At the end of the process a detailed report is produced highlighting areas of concern and potential opportunities for VAT savings.

Our larger clients often prefer a regular arrangement whereby VAT returns are reviewed quarterly. This allows us to identify any issues promptly and mitigates the risk of errors and penalties.

If you would like to discuss any of the services CVC offer further please contact us on 01206321029 or info@ukvatadvice.com and one of our consultants will be happy to speak to you.

CVC VAT Focus 2 February 2017

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

This newsletter considers recent First Tier and Upper Tribunal cases, including:

  1. Whether VAT assessments made by HMRC were correct.
  2. The VAT liability of the sale of a lodge with removable contents.
  3. Taxpayer did not take reasonable steps to inform HMRC that an assessment of VAT was an under-assessment.
  4. DIY housebuilder’s VAT claim denied – planning permission for live/work unit.
  5. Whether recording studio intended for business activity or hobby.
  6. Whether motor homes are caravans for VAT purposes.

 

CVC VAT Focus on Land and Property – January 2017

The latest CVC VAT Focus on Land and Property is now available on our website. This newsletter is intended for readers with an interest in the Land and Property sector.  It summarises cases relevant to the sector and is issued by email quarterly.

In this issue, we consider cases from the First Tier Tribunal concerning:

  • Whether a bungalow built by the owner of a fishery business was for own occupation was ‘designed as a dwelling’
  • Whether a refurbishment falls with the Capital Goods Scheme
  • Unjust enrichment and the DIY Scheme

CVC VAT Focus 19 January 2017

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

This issue includes HMRC News and Case Review.

In our Case Review we consider decisions of the Tribunals and Courts regarding:

  1. Whether insurance intermediary services are supplied to the insurer or the insured.
  2. DIY housebuilders’ scheme.
  3. Whether HMRC had exercised its discretionary powers correctly – self billed invoices.
  4. Lap dancing club voucher scheme – whether commission is exempt from VAT.
  5. Input tax recovery percentage and incidental transactions.

CVC VAT Newsletter for Charities – 10 January 2017

The latest CVC VAT & Charities Newsletter is now available on our website.

This newsletter comments on:

  1. VAT exemption for supplies closely related to education.
  2. Whether spa pools were correctly zero-rated as ‘appliances designed solely for use by a disabled person’.
  3. Input tax recovery – application of CJEU judgment in Sveda.
  4. Claim for overpaid VAT after a company leaves a VAT group and potential benefits of VAT grouping.
  5. VAT exemption for sports services – whether two subsidiaries of the Appellant were eligible bodies.
  6. Revenue & Customs Brief 16/2016: treatment of VAT incurred on assets that are used by the business prior to VAT registration.
  7. Revised Public Notices and HMRC VAT toolkits.

Christmas Greetings

We would like to wish all our clients and regular readers a Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year.

CVC will be closing on the afternoon of 23 December and will reopen on 3 January 2017 at 9am.  If you have any urgent queries during this time please contact your usual CVC partner by email and they will respond to you as soon as possible.

CVC will not be sending Christmas cards this year; instead we have made donations to our local Food Bank.

Constable VAT Focus 15 December 2016

HMRC NEWS

Liability of colouring and dot-to-dot books

There is now a wide range of colouring and dot-to-dot books on the market. Many of these are specifically labelled as suitable for children and/or adults. Revenue and Customs Brief 17/16 announces HMRC policy in respect of the VAT treatment of these publications which is effective from 1 April 2017. This will be of interest to any business selling these products. HMRC has also updated its notice 701/10 to reflect these changes.

HMRC accept that colouring or dot-to-dot books are VAT zero-rated unless one of the following applies. The books are:

  • marked as suitable for adults or grown-ups
  • held out for sale in retail shops together with other adult books that are unsuitable for children or are not appropriately marked as suitable for children when for sale on a website
  • contain images reflecting profanity, pornography, violence and illegal acts

If the book meets any of the three conditions above, it will be a standard rate supply.

HMRC has stated that it will consider claims for overpayment of VAT in the following circumstances:

  • the business has declared VAT on colouring books suitable for children under the age of 18 years old
  • HMRC has raised an assessment of tax for colouring books suitable for children under the age of 18 years old.

CASE REVIEW

First Tier Tribunal

Whether a Jersey company had a fixed establishment in the UK

This appeal by Multimedia Computing Limited (MCL) and Deed Poll Services Limited (DPSL) concerned the issue of whether DPSL had a fixed establishment in the UK. DPSL (a Jersey company) made supplies of deed poll services to customers in the UK. DPSL outsourced much of the work to MCL (a UK company). DPSL treated its supplies to UK customers as outside the scope of UK VAT (B2C supplies taxable where the supplier belongs). MCL treated its supplies to DPSL as outside the scope of UK VAT (B2B supplies taxable where the customer belongs). HMRC disagreed with this analysis of the arrangements. HMRC was of the view that DPSL had a fixed establishment in the UK with the consequence it should have been VAT registered in the UK. DPSL should charge UK VAT to its customers. MCL should charge VAT on its supplies to DPSL.

The Tribunal found that DPSL could not have made any supplies without the support of MCL. All of the resources necessary to make supplies of deed poll services were in the UK. The Tribunal judged, using the criteria identified by the Court in the DFDS case, that at all material times DPSL had a fixed establishment in the UK. The human and technical resources necessary for the making and receiving of supplies were in the UK. The appeals were dismissed.

Constable VAT comment: the place of supply is important as it determines where the supply is subject to VAT. The place of supply rules can be complex. The basic rules are:

  • B2B (business to business) taxable where the customer belongs.
  • B2C (business to consumer) taxable where the supplier belongs.

 However, these rules are subject to several exceptions. We would recommend taking professional advice  in cases where the position is not clear, particularly if large sums are involved.

This case serves as a reminder that third parties can create a fixed establishment. Particularly if a business is reliant on the third party’s human and/or technical resources to either make or receive a supply.

Whether spa pools were correctly zero-rated as ‘appliances designed solely for use by a disabled person’

Wearside Civil Engineering Limited (WCEL) appealed against a VAT assessment raised by HMRC on the basis that certain sales (hydrotherapy pools) made by WCEL which it had zero-rated should have been standard rated. HMRC argued that WCEL was supplying a pool (a container for water) that could be enjoyed by anyone, whether disabled or not.

The Tribunal found that WCEL worked with architects to design a hydrotherapy suite for each disabled customer. The Tribunal was of the view that the supplies were of more than just a mere container of water. The supplies are pools together with other features. It is a feature of all of the hydrotherapy pools that the ambient temperature must be maintained at 32C and have non-slip floor tiles. A hoist was also provided in several cases. The Tribunal said that an examination of the features that are supplied with the pool is required to determine if it amounts to a supply of appliances designed solely for use by a disabled person.

The Tribunal concluded that there is a single supply of a complete hydrotherapy suite. The separate features of the pools cannot be properly regarded as individual separate supplies. The features are an intrinsic part of what has been designed as a whole for each individual disabled customer to meet that particular customer’s needs. The hydrotherapy suites are ‘equipment designed solely for use by a disabled person’ and therefore zero-rated. The appeal was allowed.

Constable comment: HMRC’s VAT Notice 701/7 provides a list of features which may indicate whether a hydrotherapy pool is designed solely for us by a disabled person. This case clarifies that an examination is required to find if the features together with the pool amount to a supply designed solely for a disabled person. It is not necessary for ‘all or most’ of the features listed by HMRC to be present in order to qualify for zero-rating. Whether the feature is required or not dependent on the nature of the disability is an important consideration. The supplier must keep evidence to support zero-rating, such as a declaration by the customer that they are entitled to the VAT relief.

Constable VAT Blog: What do the changes to the Flat Rate Scheme mean for me?

The Flat Rate Scheme (FRS) for VAT was introduced to address concerns about the complexity and compliance costs of VAT for small businesses. It aimed to reduce the cost of complying with VAT obligations by simplifying the way that VAT due to HMRC was calculated. However, HMRC now believes that the scheme is being used by some businesses to avoid paying the correct amount of VAT and has take steps to prevent this.

Essentially under the FRS a business:

  • charges VAT in the normal way, typically 20%
  • does not reclaim VAT on expenditure
  • having charged and collected 20% VAT, actually pays HMRC a lower rate of VAT

The difference between the rate charged to customers and the rate paid to HMRC is intended to compensate the business for the VAT on expenditure that it has not claimed. For this reason different rates of “payment VAT” apply for differing types of business. This is because there is a correlation between business types and the likely sums of VAT on expenditure that they are forgoing a recovery of.

The Chancellor announced in his  recent Autumn Statement  that the government  will be introducing a new 16.5% rate with effect from 1 April 2017 for ‘limited cost traders’, such as many labour-only businesses.

Currently the lowest rate applicable for users of the FRS is 14.5%. This applies to businesses in sectors where there is little VAT incurred on costs, such as consultancy, legal and accounting services and labour only building services. The proposed change could impact on many of these businesses.

HMRC have stated in a technical note, issued at the time of the announcement, that a ‘limited cost trader’ is a business whose VAT inclusive expenditure on goods is either:

(a) less than 2% of their VAT inclusive turnover in a prescribed accounting period

(b) greater than 2% of their VAT inclusive turnover but less than £1,000 per annum if the prescribed accounting period is one year (if it is not one year, the figure is the relevant proportion of £1,000)

‘Goods’ excludes items of capital expenditure, food and drink that is consumed by the business, vehicles, vehicle parts and fuel for businesses not involved in the transport service sector.

It is important that all businesses with low (or no) input costs beyond labour that are currently on the FRS review their position. They will need to establish if the new rate will apply to them and to determine whether it would be beneficial to leave the FRS on 31 March 2017.

Anti-forestalling provisions have been introduced which are designed to prevent any business that is a limited cost trader from using another rate beyond 1 April 2017. This means that it will not be possible to, for example, invoice in advance of the date of the introduction of the new rate to bring a supply within a lower rate of VAT.

The anti-forestalling measures will affect businesses that provide a service on or after 1 April 2017 but issued an invoice or received payment for that supply before 1 April 2017. The supply will be treated as taking place on 1 April 2017 and the 16.5% flat rate will apply.

A revised edition of Notice 733 has been published on the HMRC website. Draft legislation has also been published and affected parties will be able to comment until 1 February 2017.

If you would like to discuss this further please contact Helen Carey or one of our consultants on 01206 321029.

This blog is intended as a general guide to current VAT issues and is not intended to be a comprehensive statement of the law. No liability is accepted for the opinions it contains or for any errors or omissions. CVC cannot accept responsibility for loss incurred by any person, company or entity as a result of acting, or failing to act, on any material in this blog. Specialist VAT advice should always be sought in relation to your particular circumstance.

Constable VAT Focus 2 December 2016

HMRC NEWS

Autumn Statement

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond, delivered the Autumn Statement 2016 on 23 November 2016. The following VAT announcements were made:

  • HMRC’s intention to conduct a consultation on VAT grouping.
  • Digitalisation of the Retail Export Scheme.
  • Intention to tackle the exploitation of the VAT relief on adapted cars for wheelchair users.
  • Flat Rate Scheme (FRS): new flat rate introduced of 16.5% for businesses with limited costs. This will take effect from 1 April 2017. Businesses already using FRS or joining FRS will need to consider whether they are a limited cost trader. A limited cost trader is defined as one whose expenditure on goods is either less than 2% of their VAT inclusive turnover or expenditure on goods is greater than 2% of VAT inclusive turnover but less than £1,000 in one year.
  • Updating Avoidance Disclosure Regime, as announced in the Budget earlier this year.
  • Introduction of a fixed penalty of 30% for participating in VAT fraud if the participant knew or should have known.
  • As announced in the Budget, the implementation of the Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme.

CASE REVIEW

First Tier Tribunal

Input tax recovery – application of CJEU judgment in Sveda

Durham Cathedral (the appellant) carries on business activities (gift shop and café) and non-business activities (it does not charge for general admission to the cathedral). The issue before the Tribunal was whether VAT incurred on repairs to and maintenance of a bridge could be recovered. The bridge provides access to the cathedral and is an attraction itself. HMRC’s argument was that the distance between the cathedral and the bridge was too great for there to be a sufficient and direct link between the repair costs and the appellant’s business activities.

The Tribunal found that not everyone using the bridge will visit the cathedral, gift shop or café (for example, dog walkers and runners). There are other means of access to the cathedral.

The appellant relied on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Sveda. In that case the CJEU found that there can be a direct and immediate link between expenditure incurred in relation to the construction of a grant funded recreational path (which will be free to access) and the business activities of Sveda (café, for example) because the path, although free to access, attracted visitors to use the café and other facilities.

The FTT rejected HMRC’s submission that the bridge was ‘too far’ from the appellant’s activities. Influenced by Sveda, the FTT was of the view that the costs of maintenance and repair to the bridge are capable of being linked to all of the appellant’s activities, business and non-business. The appeal was allowed.

Constable VAT comment: the Sveda case indicated that charities and not for profit bodies that allowed free entry to buildings and attractions may still achieve full input tax recovery. This has yet to be tested before the UK Tax Tribunals as this case did not concern full input tax recovery. However, the FTT heavily quoted the Sveda case in this decision indicating it is good case law.

Anti-avoidance, option to tax and the capital goods scheme – whether the expenditure on acquisition and conversion of a property was a capital item

Water Property Limited (WPL) acquired a property with planning permission to convert the ground floor into a nursery and the upper floor into residential flats for £210k plus VAT. WPL opted to tax the property. It granted a lease to an associated business for the ground floor at a market rent.

WPL entered into two building contracts with the same firm. The first contract was for alterations to form the nursery and the second to form three residential flats. The value of the nursery building contract was £209k plus VAT and the value of the residential building contract was £161k plus VAT. Both contracts had the same start date and anticipated completion date. WPL claimed VAT incurred in relation to the nursery part of the acquisition of the property and the nursery building works. HMRC denied this VAT claim stating that anti-avoidance provisions, relating to capital items, applied. The issue before the FTT was whether the acquisition and conversion of the property was a capital item (expenditure exceeding £250k plus VAT) therefore preventing WPL’s option to tax from taking effect. HMRC’s argument was that works undertaken at a single property were part of a single indivisible project.

The FTT expressed surprise that this case was before the Tribunal. WPL had taken professional advice and followed the guidance in HMRC’s VAT Notice relating to the phasing of developments. The FTT took account of the separation in time of the acquisition and the commencement of the building works, the uncertainties as to the availability of finance and therefore whether the works would be carried out. It follows that there is not a capital item (the acquisition and building contracts are separate and all fall below £250k) therefore the option to tax is valid and WPL are able to recover the VAT incurred in relation to the ground floor. The appeal was allowed.

Constable VAT comment: this case emphasises that acquisition and phased refurbishments may be considered separately when determining whether there is a capital item. However, the anti-avoidance provision in relation to the option to tax and connected parties is complex and we would recommend professional advice is taken where there is any uncertainty, given the large sums involved.

CVC VAT Focus 18 November 2016

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

This issue has items on:

• HMRC News
• Case Review

In our case review we consider decisions of the Upper Tribunal regarding:

1. Exemption for sports services – whether two subsidiaries of the Appellant were eligible bodies
2. Claim for overpaid VAT after a company leaves a VAT group

CVC VAT & Charities Newsletter – November 2016

  1. Purchasing zero-rated adapted vehicles
  2. VAT appeal updates
  3. Zero-rated construction services – ‘relevant charitable purpose’ and the meaning of ‘economic activity’
  4. VAT exemption for the supply of cultural services
  5. Cost Sharing VAT exemption
  1. Purchasing zero-rated adapted vehicles

HMRC has updated the following forms:

  • VAT1615: purchasing zero-rated adapted vehicles (guidance for customers)
  • VAT 1616: purchasing zero-rated adapted vehicles (guidance for suppliers)
  1. VAT Appeal Updates

This update lists cases that HMRC has lost and may have implications for other businesses and charities.

  1. Zero-rated construction services – ‘relevant charitable purpose’ and the meaning of ‘economic activity’

The Court of Appeal has allowed HMRC’s appeal in the case Longridge on the Thames (Longridge). This decision overturns the previous decisions by the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and Upper Tribunal (UT). The case concerned the VAT liability of construction services supplied in the course of constructing a training centre. The FTT and UT previously found that construction services were zero-rated as the building was used solely for a ‘relevant charitable purpose’. HMRC asserted that Longridge carried on business activities and zero-rating could not apply.

Longridge is a charity. It provides educational and recreational outdoor and water based activities and instruction. The charity charges for its services according to a persons’ ability to pay. The payment made by the end user does not represent the full cost of the service. The charity’s activities are heavily subsidised by donations and delivery reliant on volunteers.

Both the FTT and the UT considered the wider context in order to determine whether Longridge carried on a business activity. HMRC’s case was that this approach is not consistent with EU law. The CJEU has clarified the test to determine whether an economic activity is carried on. The test is whether there is a direct link between the payment made and the supply received. The Court of Appeal agreed with HMRC that this is the correct test to apply. The FTT and UT misdirected themselves. Unless there is no direct link between the service and the payment received there will be an economic activity for VAT purposes. The Court of Appeal allowed HMRC’s appeal, Longridge’s activities amount to an economic activity for VAT purposes. The payment made by the end user directly relates to the services supplied by the charity. The fact that the charity does not seek to make a profit, is reliant on volunteers and prices its service according to the users’ ability to pay is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether a charity is in business for VAT purposes.

The full Court of Appeal decision can be read here.

CVC comment: the decision comments that charities do not receive a blanket relief from VAT. There is no exception for activities provided for the public benefit. The fact that the provider does not seek to make a profit is also irrelevant. The Judge examined the domestic cases Morrisons’ Academy, Fisher, Yarburgh and St Paul’s and commented that effect must be given to CJEU law despite domestic practice to the contrary.

The correct test to apply in determining whether an activity is an economic activity for VAT purposes has been clarified. This is a narrow test and charities may need to consider offering services free of charge to obtain ‘relevant charitable’ status. However, third party consideration can also create a taxable business supply for VAT purposes.

  1. VAT exemption for the supply of cultural services

The Advocate General (AG) has given their opinion in the British Film Institute (BFI) case (C-592/15). The Court of Appeal of the United Kingdom referred questions to ascertain whether Member States have the discretion to choose which cultural services may be eligible for VAT exemption.

The European VAT legislation provides that ‘certain cultural services’ supplied by bodies governed by public law or by other cultural bodies recognised by the Member State concerned shall be VAT exempt. The AG considers that it is for the Member State to decide which cultural services are exempt from VAT. It follows, therefore, that the European provision may not be relied on directly by BFI before the national court.

The AG explained that the choice of the term ‘certain’ rather than ‘all’ shows that the European legislation did not intend to make a general VAT exemption for cultural services. The AG also expressed the view that Member States are best placed to identify the supplies of cultural services that are most appropriate to serve the public interest as cultural traditions and regional heritage are varied within the EU. The AG recommended that it is for the national court to decide whether BFI’s supplies fall within the VAT exemption in compliance with the principle of fiscal neutrality.

CVC comment: while the AG’s opinion usually provides an indication of the judgement of the CJEU it would not be unheard of for the CJEU to depart from the AG’s opinion. The UK currently restricts its cultural services VAT exemption to museums, galleries, art exhibitions, zoo; or theatrical, musical or choreographic performances of a cultural nature.

  1. Cost sharing exemption – European Commission against Luxembourg

European legislation provides that all Member States shall exempt supplies of services by independent groups of persons, who are carrying on an activity which is exempt from VAT, for the purposes of that exempt activity, where the supplier merely claims exact reimbursement of their share of the joint expenses. This allows exempt businesses (such as charities, universities, insurance companies etc.) to share costs.

The issue before the CJEU was whether Luxembourg has gone too far when implementing this exemption. Luxembourg VAT law allows the cost sharing exemption to be used by persons whose activities are exempt from or not subject to VAT (e.g. non-business supplies) and also carry out taxable activities provided the revenue generated from taxable activities does not exceed 30% of total turnover.

The CJEU ruled that Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU VAT law by allowing the cost sharing exemption in cases where services are not directly necessary for exempt or non-business activities.

CVC comment: HMRC considers a body to be eligible for membership of a cost sharing group (CSG) if in the previous 12 months at least 5% of its activities were exempt and/or non-business. Exemption only applies to services provided by the CSG to its members which are ‘directly necessary’ for the member’s exempt or non-business activities. A simplified basis for determining whether services are ‘directly necessary’ is allowed by HMRC. If 85% or more of the member’s activities are exempt and/or non-business all supplies received from the CSG will be regarded as ‘directly necessary’ and therefore exempt. Decisions of the CJEU are binding on all Member States. HMRC may have to reconsider its approach to ‘directly necessary’ supplies and the simplified basis currently allowed.

 


Constable VAT Consultancy LLP (CVC) is a specialist independent VAT practice with offices in London and East Anglia. We work together with many charities and not-for-profit bodies ranging from national charities, those working overseas, and regionally based local organisations. CVC has a nationwide client base.

 

We understand that charities wish to achieve their objectives whilst satisfying the legal requirements placed upon them. Charities may be liable to account for VAT on supplies made and VAT will be payable on certain expenditure. As irrecoverable VAT represents an absolute cost to most charities, regardless of their VAT registration status, there is a need to review the position regularly and carefully. We offer advice with planning initiatives, technical compliance issues, complex transactions, help with innovative ideas on VAT saving opportunities, and liaising with HMRC.

 

If you would like to discuss how VAT impacts on your organisation please contact Stewart Henry,  Laura Beckett or Sophie Cox on 020 7830 9669, 01206 321029 or via email on stewart.henry@ukvatadvice.com, laura.beckett@ukvatadvice.com and  sophie.cox@ukvatadvice.com.  Alternatively, please visit our website at www.ukvatadvice.com where you can view some of the services we offer in more detail and subscribe to our free general and regular VAT alerts and updates. Visit our website for current news updates. You can also follow CVC on Twitter.

 

This newsletter is intended as a general guide to current VAT issues and is not intended to be a comprehensive statement of the law. No liability is accepted for the opinions it contains or for any errors or omissions. CVC cannot accept responsibility for loss incurred by any person, company or entity as a result of acting, or failing to act, on any material in this newsletter. Specialist VAT advice should always be sought in relation to your particular circumstance.

CVC Newsletter for Charities – November 2016

The latest CVC VAT & Charities Newsletter is now available on our website.

This newsletter comments on:

  1. Purchasing zero-rated adapted vehicles
  2. VAT appeal updates
  3. Zero-rated construction services – ‘relevant charitable purpose’ and the meaning of ‘economic activity’
  4. VAT exemption for the supply of cultural services
  5. Cost Sharing VAT exemption