Tag Archives: food

CVC VAT Focus 13 September 2018

13th September 2018

HMRC NEWS

HMRC and online marketplaces agreement to promote VAT compliance

The list of signatories has been updated with a new addition.

Claim a VAT refund as an organisation not registered for VAT

Use this online service (VAT126) to claim back VAT if you are exempt from it as a local authority, academy, public body or eligible charity.

Software suppliers supporting Making Tax Digital

The list of software suppliers supporting Making Tax Digital has been updated.

Cash accounting scheme (VAT Notice 731)

Information on how to account for VAT if you leave the scheme voluntarily or because your turnover exceeds the threshold has been updated.

CVC MAKING TAX DIGITAL UPDATE

 

Paragraph 2.1 of HMRC Notice 700/22 (Making Tax Digital for VAT) states, “With effect from 1 April 2019, if your taxable turnover is above the VAT registration threshold you must follow the rules set out in this notice. If your taxable turnover subsequently falls below the threshold you will need to continue to follow the Making Tax Digital rules, unless you deregister from VAT or meet other exemption criteria (see paragraph 2.2 of this notice).

Only businesses with taxable turnover that has never exceeded the VAT registration threshold (currently £85,000) will be exempt from Making Tax Digital.”

This paragraph appears to suggest that if a business has ever exceeded the VAT registration threshold (including prior to 1 April 2019) the business will be impacted by the new MTD rules. However, the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) has reported this month that HMRC has confirmed that MTD will only apply where the business’ turnover has exceeded the VAT registration threshold at any time after 1 April 2019. The CIOT are anticipating that HMRC will update the Notice to make this clearer.

Similarly, businesses registered for VAT under the ‘intending trader’ rules will only be subject to the MTD rules when their taxable supplies breach the VAT registration threshold, irrespective of the value of input tax claimed in the interim period.

 

CASE REVIEW

First Tier Tribunal

1. Colchester Institute (Lead Case) – Whether funded education is a business or non-business activity

This appeal by Colchester Institute Corporation (CIC) is against a decision of HMRC to reject an application for repayment of overpaid VAT. CIC receives government funding to provide education and vocational training.

Before the rules on this issue were changed in 2010, CIC wrote to HMRC requesting to use the Lennartz mechanism for input VAT recovery in relation to some construction work. Under this arrangement input VAT was reclaimed in respect of both the taxable business and outside the scope non-business activities. Private or non-business use of the building then gave rise to deemed supplies, chargeable to VAT as such use occurred. HMRC agreed to CIC’s proposal and until 2014 CIC paid over output VAT on non-business use of the building as it arose.

In 2014 CIC submitted a claim for repayment of output VAT on the grounds that the provision of education and vocational training should be regarded as a business activity, regardless of how it is funded, and no output VAT should have been due. Whilst this view would also point to CIC’s original refund claim of VAT on the construction costs being incorrect, the time limits that apply meant that HMRC’s ability to seek a refund of the input VAT was constrained. [HMRC did have an alternative arrangement to deal with this point but this was not considered by the Tribunal.] Effectively, CIC sought a windfall benefit because the output VAT refund it sought was sufficiently recent to allow a recovery from HMRC, whereas the input VAT over claim occurred too long ago for HMRC to seek a rebate.

Giving lengthy consideration to the relevant EU law and UK legislation and, in particular, the potential dissonance between the terms “economic activity” and “business activity, the Tribunal found in favour of HMRC, asserting that the provision of education and vocational training, to the extent that it is funded by the funding agencies, is not an “economic activity.” Therefore, the Lennartz mechanism as it then stood gave CIC a right to deduct VAT and an ongoing liability for the output VAT which CIC sought to reclaim. As a result the appeal was dismissed.

CVC Comment: This case was designated as a lead case and a number of other institutions had their cases stood behind it. It addressed a historical issue but on the underlying points concerning “business” and “economic activities” it highlighted once again how nebulous the legal position can be. It is increasingly difficult to see a clear logic and, as one case follows the other, it seems to us that often there is a great deal of subjectivity and often the position is being construed to deliver a “sensible” outcome rather than the application of clear law to facts. For example, HMRC guidance states quite clearly that an activity cannot simultaneously be both a business and non-business activity which, in some respects, is what HMRC argues with its proportional non-business approach. It is also interesting that more was not made in the case of the acceptability of the UK law leading to ongoing output VAT declarations, bearing in mind that this was a sticking plaster applied when the previous UK law was recognised to be defective following a decision of the CJEU.

 

2. Golden Cube – Whether output tax was understated

In this instance, the appellant trades as a franchisee of Subway. In 2016 it received a VAT assessment when HMRC took the view that certain supplies of food had been incorrectly treated as zero-rated cold take-away food. The Appellant appealed the assessment, stating that the zero-rated supplies were correctly classified.

Three HMRC invigilations took place at the franchise. These revealed a higher percentage of standard rated-sales than Golden Cube declared. The appellant sought to appeal against these invigilations as they took place during weekdays, so did not account for evening and weekend trade. It was also argued that the inspections were carried out at a cold time of year so more people would have been purchasing hot food and eating their food in the premises, leading to a higher degree of standard rated sales. It was also asserted that the till system used at the Franchise was automatic and linked to Subway itself, leaving no room for human error in terms of VAT calculation.

Hearing witness statements from employees and examining the till system used by the Appellant, the Tribunal concluded that there were no systematic issues with staff training and that the till had not been tampered with to display more zero-rated sales than it should. On this basis, it was held that the assessment issued to the Appellant was excessive. Deciding that the Appellant had accounted correctly for all sales and associated VAT, the appeal against the assessment was allowed.

CVC Comment: This case goes to show that the Tribunal will take more into consideration than just the content of an HMRC invigilation. It also highlights the benefits of an electronic till system which automatically records the VAT liability for each transaction individually as it can be used as effective evidence when defending or appealing against HMRC. HMRC is often inclined to collect detailed information for a limited period and extrapolate large under declarations. In our experience, HMRC is more likely to use this as a tool to seek more VAT than is actually due from businesses that have some level of suppression. However, hard evidence of sales is the best defence, bearing in mind that at the stage that HMRC carries out physical observations on sales, it is likely to already have reached the conclusion that the tax is being underpaid and will see everything through this prism. If you have any issues similar to the ones at hand, do not hesitate to make contact with Constable VAT.

 

3. Rowhildon Limited – Belated notification of an option to tax

This appeal is against a decision by HMRC to refuse a belated notification of an option to tax land and property.

The Chief Finance Officer for the appellant provided a witness statement in which she stated that the property was purchased after agreement by the board of the company and she had been asked to deal with the paperwork.

Having completed the form (VAT 1614A) on 1 July 2016 the notification was given to the company’s management accountant who missed the post that day and so posted it the next working day, 4 July. HMRC claim to have never received this notification and requested proof of postage for the form. The appellant conceded that the notification had not been sent recorded delivery. However, it submitted to HMRC the minutes of the board meeting in which there was a decision to opt to tax as well as computer records to evidence that the decision to opt to tax had been made and to show that the form had been completed on 1 July 2016 and their own retained copy of the form. HMRC were unsatisfied with this and refused to accept the notification.

At Tribunal, the appellant demonstrated that the form could not have been back-dated as HMRC’s website does not allow a past date to be inserted when completing the form. The fact that the retained copy showed 1 July 2016 as the date proved that the decision to opt had been made on that date.

The Tribunal found in favour of the appellant, holding that HMRC’s refusal to accept all of the evidence presented to it without proof of postage was remiss. It is concluded that HMRC had no good reason to not accept the notification and that its decision was not made reasonably.

CVC Comment: HMRC should seek to achieve a fair, just and reasonable result in all dealings with businesses and should act in good faith. There may be circumstances in which the law does not give any latitude to HMRC but this was not such a case. This case seems to us to have been unnecessary. As far as we can judge, there is absolutely no suggestion that refusing the taxpayer application was necessary to guard against an unfair tax loss. HMRC seemed to have no reason to question the veracity of the taxpayer’s explanations. Even more importantly, the taxpayer proved that HMRC’s own systems not only supported its assertion but proved them unambiguously. It is difficult to understand why, in supposedly straitened times, HMRC would waste taxpayers’ money and force the appellant to incur costs itself on a case of this kind. We would like to say this is unusual but unfortunately it is not.

 

CVC VAT Focus 22 March 2018

22nd March 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 check these annual adjustments for businesses if required.

HMRC NEWS

Revenue & Customs Brief 3 (2018): Changes to the VAT exemption for cost sharing groups.
This brief and the related VAT information sheet explain the immediate changes that are taking place in HMRC’s policy following recent judgments

VAT Notes 2018 Issue 1
HMRC has published its 2018 VAT Notes Issue 1.

VAT: businesses that sell goods in the UK using online marketplaces
Updated with changes announced in the Autumn 2017 Budget for sellers that use online marketplaces.

VAT returns and EC Sales Lists Online: VAT
How to use the test service: 4.1 guidance has been updated with version 4.2.

Draft legislation: The Value Added Tax (Amendment) Regulations 2018
Response to consultation has been published.

CVC BLOG

Spring Statement 2018 and VAT

In the Spring Statement, the Chancellor announced details of two consultations with implications for the future operation of VAT. Please see our news item for further information.

CASE REVIEW

Upper Tribunal

1.Planning Permission Post-Sale

Cavendish Green Limited (Cavendish) appealed against a previous decision that the sale of a building did not qualify for zero-rating as the structure present at the point of transfer did not have automatic statutory planning permission and had not received planning permission from elsewhere. In the absence of the necessary planning permission, the sale should have been treated as VAT exempt and Cavendish should not be able to claim back input VAT relating to the project.

The First Tier Tribunal made it clear that planning permission must be sufficient at the time of supply in order for the sale of a building to benefit from zero-rating. In the Upper Tribunal, Cavendish sought to introduce new evidence to show that the structure in question did in fact have statutory planning permission at the time of sale and was thus able to benefit from the zero-rate. The Tribunal refused to admit this evidence as it found the behaviour of Cavendish to be “most unsatisfactory” as it failed to make a formal written application with evidence to support its claims and the addition of new evidence would not be fair and just.

The appeal was dismissed as the taxpayer had no proof to demonstrate that the structure met the conditions for automatic statutory planning permission, this case may have had a different outcome had Cavendish approached the Tribunal differently. 

First Tier Tribunal

2. Sales of properties; TOGCs?

In this case the Tribunal considered whether the sale of four properties by Clark Hill Limited satisfied the necessary criteria to be treated as transfers of going concerns and, therefore, be outside the scope of VAT as neither a supply of goods nor services. The main issue between the parties is the interpretation of “relevant date” in the VAT law.

The Tribunal issued four decisions, relating to one property each. In three from the four transactions before the court, the transfer was held not to be a TOGC as HMRC had not been informed of the exercising of the option to tax by the “relevant date” which is held to be the date on which the deposit is received by the seller’s solicitors. The fourth property transaction presented its own unique circumstances which led to a different conclusion. The deposit was paid to the auctioneers of the property on the 3rd of December, the seller’s solicitors received the funds on the 16th. The point on which this question turns is the capacity in which the auctioneers held the deposit; agent or stakeholder.

HMRC contend that the funds were held by the auctioneers as an agent for the seller and therefore that Clark Hill should be treated as having received the deposit when the auctioneers did, on the 3rd December. Clark Hill refuted this, claiming that there is no evidence to support the claim that the auctioneers were agents. The Tribunal agreed and this transaction was treated as a TOGC.

3. Appealing an assessment out of time

In Homechoice Flooring Limited (HFL), the appellant’s director, Mr. Singh, sought permission to make a late appeal in respect of a VAT assessment. Mr. Singh was over two years late in making this appeal, his explanation being that he believed he had in fact, through his former accountants, lodged an appeal already. He sought to contend that as he believed HFL’s accountants were dealing with the appeal, he had no cause to believe any further action was required on his or HFL’s behalf.

In response, HMRC looked to whether or not there was a reasonable excuse for the delay, arguing that HFL’s contention that an appeal had been made is not supported by any documents and there is no record of an appeal at HMRC in relation to this matter. It was also put forward that as Mr. Singh had changed accountants twice since the assessment, he could reasonably have been expected to make enquiries into the status of the appeal he believed to be ongoing.

As Mr. Singh made no effort to check on the status of HFL’s appeal, the Tribunal found that his excuse could not be seen as reasonable and therefore dismissed his appeal. They also stated that poor trading results do not amount to a reasonable excuse.

4. Bridge between buildings: does it make an annexe?

St Brendan’s Sixth Form College (St. Brendan’s) appealed against a decision made by HMRC that certain construction works carried out for St Brendan’s were liable for VAT at the standard rate, not zero-rated as St Brendan’s believed. A new block was built in order to provide extra space for teaching, a café and a staff room. The question is whether the new building qualified for zero-rating under Item 2, Group 5, Schedule 8 Value Added Tax Act 1994.

HMRC argued that the new building was not a separate building because of a link bridge between the new building and a pre-existing building. It was also contended that as the activities that will take place in the building are similar to those already taking place on the site in other buildings, the new building is actually an extension of the existing buildings. To refute this, St Brendan’s contended that the building is a separate building with its own access and facilities and is a different type of building and constructed of different materials, and serving different purposes.

After considering all points and taking into account the relevant case law, the appeal was allowed on the grounds that the new building was a new building and was not merely an extension of, or annexe to, the pre-existing buildings on site.

5. Zero rating hot food

Pegasus (Manchester) Limited (Pegasus) appealed against a VAT assessment relating to food sales which HMRC deemed to be hot and therefore standard rated. The appellant sold takeaway food in spill-proof containers which were not intended to retain heat. Pegasus contend that the food served is not intended to be hot at all but is served warm as a result of storage at 56C in a bain-marie, in order to comply with  the food safety and hygiene regulations 2013. Before being placed in the bain-marie the food is cooled to 19-20C which is below the ambient temperature of the restaurant which is claimed to be 28-30C.

HMRC submitted that as the cooked food is kept in a bain marie with a temperature of 56C, the food is hot as it is above the ambient temperature; “hot” does not need to mean piping hot. It is also submitted that the main purpose of the bain marie is to sell hot food and moreover that compliance the food safety and hygiene regulations 2013 is only required where food is to be sold as hot. The provision by the appellant of napkins and cutlery to customers imply that the food is to be consumed as it is sold and it is sold as hot food.

The Tribunal found in favour of HMRC in this instance as the food is kept hot before being served and is hot as defined in the relevant legislation when it is supplied. The supply should therefore be standard rated.

6. Default surcharge direct debit not taken

Crown Blinds Limited appeal against a VAT default surcharge relating to late payment of VAT. The appellant does not dispute that the VAT for the relevant time period was paid late but submits that he had a reasonable excuse as he had a direct debit instruction in place for the payment of VAT but HMRC had failed to process this.

The appellant had cancelled the direct debit and reinstated it several times between September 2016 and March 2017 and HMRC had contacted the appellant on each of these occasions to state that if payment of VAT is to be taken by direct debit then a new instruction must be set up online or by sending paper instruction.  Despite an email from the appellant’s bank manager stating that the direct debit had been reinstated on 5th June 2017, the payment was not processed as the instruction was not reinstated on HMRC’s systems. HMRC had already advised that a new mandate would be required in correspondence in March 2017 and submit that a prudent trader would have acknowledged the correspondence and used an alternative method to make payment for the relevant periods.

The Tribunal found in favour of HMRC, stating that the appellant should have paid closer attention to the correspondence from HMRC which made clear that the direct debit was not being processed. The appellant cannot be said to have a reasonable excuse so the penalties were confirmed in full.