Tag Archives: non-business

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 23 August 2018

23rd August 2018

HMRC NEWS

Local authorities and similar bodies

Decide which activities are business or non-business for VAT purposes if you’re a local authority or other public body.

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

Find out if you need to be registered to store goods in the UK for sellers established outside the EU.

Administrative agreements with trade bodies (VAT Notice 700/57)

Details of administrative agreements relating to VAT on certain specific transactions between members of trade bodies and HMRC.

Software suppliers supporting Making Tax Digital

Find out which software suppliers HMRC is working with to produce suitable Making Tax Digital for VAT software for businesses and their agents.

CASE REVIEW

CJEU

1. Estonian Sales Tax Illegal?

The issue before the court in this instance was whether Article 401 of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as barring the maintenance or introduction of a local sales tax. The City of Tallinn introduced a 1% local sales tax which affected Viking Motors and other appellants, Viking Motors challenged the legality of this tax on the basis that the EU law on VAT only allows one turnover tax: VAT.

Giving consideration to the nature of VAT and how it is applied, it was concluded that there were sufficient differences between EU VAT and local sales tax for the two to run in tandem. It was held that Article 401 does prevent the introduction of another turnover tax but in this instance, as the cost could be absorbed by the business rather than being passed on to the consumer, the two taxes are sufficiently different to not breach EU law.

CVC Comment: There is a very high degree of scrutiny offered by the Courts when it comes to challenging the legality of domestic laws and taxes under EU law. In this case it was held that the nature of how the tax is applied, despite being materially the same, made the two taxes sufficiently different.

2. VAT on Joint Venture Costs

TGE Gas Engineering GmbH (TGE) is a company established in Germany which entered into a joint venture with a company called Somague Engenharia SA in Portugal in order to expand a gas terminal in Portugal on behalf of a utility company. TGE obtained a Portuguese tax ID number as a non-established person in that country in order to create an economic interest group to carry out the joint venture.

After this TGE set up a branch in Portugal and obtained another tax ID from the Portuguese authorities. This branch provided services to the joint venture which were charged on to the utility company and it was also invoiced for the costs to TGE in Germany.

The Portuguese tax authorities had previously denied recovery of the input VAT incurred on these costs based on special domestic rules applying to joint ventures. The Court held that Articles 167 and 168 of the VAT Directive and the EU principle of neutrality must be interpreted as preventing domestic tax authorities from regarding a company which has its headquarters in another Member State and the branch which it has in the first of those States as constituting two separate taxable persons. For that reason, they are also prevented from refusing that branch the right to deduct the VAT on the expenses incurred on behalf of the joint venture/parent company.

CVC Comment: The UK tax authorities may view joint ventures as a taxable person in its own right for VAT purposes. In that scenario, it is the joint venture that has the right to recover any VAT incurred, rather than the parties to the joint venture. This serves as a useful reminder that purchase invoices should be addressed to the correct taxable person. The business activities of a joint venture should be considered in its own right, and an obligation for a joint venture to VAT register may arise if the parties arrangements are considered to form a partnership. A joint venture may choose to VAT register voluntarily in order to recover VAT incurred (subject to the usual VAT recovery rules).

3. Municipalities: Entitled to deduct?

The Polish municipality of Ryjewo constructed a building in Poland and the made a “cultural centre” responsible for the management of the property, allowing them to use the building free of charge. This was allocated as a non-taxable activity for the taxation authorities, despite The Municipalities’ VAT registration, as there was no charge made.

Four years later a part of the building was rented out commercially, The Municipality sought to adjust the deduction of input VAT paid for the building, now attributing this part of the building to a taxable supply. The relevant Polish Minister had reached a decision that VAT was not deductible for The Municipality as the building was not used for an economic activity. This is appealed against.

The Court find in favour of The Municipality, concluding that at the time the building was constructed it was acting in its capacity as a taxable entity and not as a non-taxable Government body. VAT is deductible despite the building having initially been put to 100% non-taxable use by a public body.

CVC Comment: Even though no intention to later use the building to make taxable supplies was declared and there was an argument for no economic activity having previously taken place, the deduction was allowed by the CJEU. This is because the right to deduct input VAT is a fundamental aspect of the VAT system. Ultimately, the first use of the building did not matter as this only determines the initial reclaim, adjustments are to be made in line with changes in taxable/non-taxable use. This case may be of interest to organisations that have made an initial non-business use of capital expenditure on property.

First Tier Tribunal

4. Gaming Machines and Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

The issue before the Tribunal in this instance concerned revisiting the EU principle of fiscal neutrality. The Rank Group (Rank) made supplies of gambling through gaming machines including fixed odds betting terminals (FOBTS) and “casino jackpot machines”. The casino jackpot machines were specifically excluded from the exemption to VAT but FOBTS were exempt from VAT before 6 December 2005 when the definition of “gaming machine” was extended.

Rank made a claim for repayment of VAT which it had charged and accounted for in relation to the jackpot machines on the grounds that the two machines were similar and treating their supplies differently for VAT purposes was contrary to the principle of fiscal neutrality.

After a detailed consideration of relevant case-law and analysing the different types of machines to draw similarities and differences between the two, the Tribunal concluded that, despite certain differences, these differences did not have a significant influence on the average consumer’s decision to use one or the other. The Tribunal found in favour of Rank and allowed the appeal against a decision to deny VAT recovery.

CVC Comment: This case shows that the Tribunal will have regard to how the consumer interprets what he/she is purchasing and the material aspect of the supply. It was observed in the judgment itself that to try to draw distinctions within individual gaming machines and games could lead to absurdities of different rates of tax being applicable to one machine. HMRC will often apply similar tests to that of the Tribunal although when analysing transactions.

CVC VAT Focus 11 January 2018

11th January 2018

We would like to wish our regular readers and subscribers a happy and prosperous 2018.

HMRC NEWS

HMRC were busy during the last couple of weeks of 2017. The following documents were published or updated on the gov.uk website:

CVC BLOG

In CVC’s latest blog Helen Carey considers HMRC’s policy on VAT zero-rating and new buildings further to the recent Information Sheet 07/17 issued by HMRC.

CASE REVIEW

Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU)

1. Special derogating measures – Avon Cosmetics

Avon Cosmetics Limited sells products through independent representatives. Most of these representatives are not VAT registered. Avon sells products to the representatives at a price below the retail price Avon envisage will be achieved. Sales to representatives are subject to VAT. The sales made by the representatives are not subject to VAT. The effect of this business model is that VAT is not accounted for on the difference between Avon’s selling price and the representative’s selling price. To remedy this situation the UK obtained a derogation from the EU to deviate from the standard rule that VAT is charged on the actual sales price. As a result Avon calculates output VAT due based on the representative’s expected selling price. Two adjustments are made to this calculation to take account of the fact that some products are purchased by the representatives for their personal use and some products are sold by the representatives at a discount.

Avon claimed a refund of overpaid VAT in the sum of £14million on the basis that the special derogation does not take account of the VAT incurred by the representatives on demonstration products. According to Avon, these purchases amount to business expenditure and the VAT relating to those purchases would be recoverable if they were VAT registered.

The matter was referred to the EU on the question of whether the derogation and its implementation infringed the EU principles of fiscal neutrality. The CJEU found that the measures implemented as part of the derogation do not infringe the EU principles and the UK is not required to take account of VAT incurred on purchases used for the purposes of the representatives’ economic activity.

CVC comment: this is an interesting case before the CJEU which considered whether a UK derogation infringed the EU principles of fiscal neutrality.

Upper Tribunal

2. VAT exemption for welfare services

HMRC appealed against the First Tier Tribunal’s (FTT) decision that the UK law was incompatible with the Principal VAT Directive by recognising supplies made by charities as exempt from VAT but not those made by LIFE Services Limited. LIFE is a profit making private organisation which provides day care services for adults with a range of disabilities. Gloucestershire County Council monitors and inspects LIFE’s services which are provided under a formal care plan agreed with the social services department of the Council.

The Upper Tribunal considered that the FTT erred in its decision. The UK has adopted two criteria for determining which non-public law bodies should be entitled to the VAT exemption for welfare services. The first is that the body is regulated. The second is that the body is a charity. To be able to successfully argue UK law breaches the principles of fiscal neutrality LIFE must be able to demonstrate that it falls within the same class as one of the criteria.

The UT found that LIFE cannot equate itself with regulated bodies because, for LIFE, regulation is optional. Similarly, LIFE cannot say it fall within the same class as a charity because it is not subject to the same constraints and regulation as a charity, and it does not operate for the public benefit. HMRC’s appeal was therefore allowed.

CVC comment: this decision by the Upper Tribunal appears to confirm that UK legislation is compatible with the Principal VAT Directive. This decision will be disappointing for private welfare providers that do not fall within the criteria set by the UK for determining which bodies should be entitled to the VAT exemption for welfare services. LIFE is stood behind another case, The Learning Centre (Romford) Limited (TLC), in respect of another issue. TLC have argued that the UK welfare exemption breaches the principles of fiscal neutrality in that bodies making supplies in Scotland and Northern Ireland making identical supplies are granted exemption.

First Tier Tribunal

3. Whether the construction of a cricket pavilion was zero-rated

Eynsham Cricket Club is a community amateur sports club (CASC). The Club appealed against the decision of HMRC that services supplied to the club in the course of constructing a new pavilion were standard rated for VAT purposes. The club argued that the services were zero-rated because the pavilion was used for a “relevant charitable purpose” (RCP). For the purposes of the VAT zero-rate, RCP use means use by a charity either otherwise than in the course of a business; or, as a village hall or similar.

The Tribunal found that the Club was not established for charitable purposes at the relevant time; therefore, the Club’s appeal failed.

This decision is considered in more detail in our VAT & Charities Newsletter.

CVC comment: this was a revised decision by the Tribunal following review. This case provides an interesting commentary regarding all of the conditions which must be met in order to obtain zero-rating for RCP use.

4. Whether free admission to events run by a charity are non-business activities and the VAT recovery implications

The Yorkshire Agricultural Society, a charity, carries out a range of activities which include holding events and hiring out facilities. In total there are approximately 700 events each year. No admission fee is charged in respect of two of the charity’s events. HMRC considers that these two events are non-business activities and, as such, disallowed input tax incurred that directly related to these events. The charity appealed this decision.

HMRC’s policy is that the free supply of services by a charity is a non-business activity. VAT incurred which directly relates to non-business activities cannot be recovered.

The charity argued that the events generated taxable income from catering. A third party provides catering services on the site. The charity receives a share of the income generated by the third party. The Tribunal found that there was no direct link between the free events and the charity’s share of catering income. The charity also argued that there are links between the free events and the Great Yorkshire Show (an admission fee is charged). However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there were sufficient direct and immediate links between the free events and the Show. The costs relating to the free events could not be said to be cost components of the Show or the charity’s other economic activities. The charity’s appeal was dismissed.

CVC comment: the Tribunal did not consider whether input tax incurred on general overheads that could not be directly attributed to any particular activity of the charity could only be partially recovered.

5. Membership – single or multiple supply

Owners of Harley-Davidson motorcycles may join the Harley Owners Group (HOG). HOG is a business unit of Harley-Davidson Europe Limited (HDE). HDE appealed against HMRC’s decision that supplies made by it to members of HOG in consideration for membership subscriptions constitute a single, standard rated, supply for VAT purposes. HDE contends that it makes a number of distinct supplies to each member and the VAT treatment of each benefit must be determined separately.

Under HMRC’s approach VAT is chargeable on all membership subscriptions regardless of where the members belong. Under HDE’s approach no VAT is chargeable on supplies to members outside the EU (being zero-rated supplies of goods and/or services); and, a substantial proportion of the membership fee paid by EU members relates to zero-rated printed matter.

Benefits received by HOG members include a magazine, patches and pins, maps, e-magazine, museum entry, events and online access.

HMRC’s primary argument was that there was a single principal supply of membership and all other benefits were not ends in themselves but a means of better enjoying the principal element; however, the Tribunal found that members do not join HOG simply for the status of being a member. The typical member wants the individual benefits. In addition, while the Tribunal Judge did consider it relevant that a single price was charged and members did not have the ability to choose what benefits are supplied (suggesting a single supply), it is clear from case law that this is not determinative. The Tribunal concluded that the individual benefits provided are too significant to allow the supply to be characterised as a single supply of membership rather than a number of independent supplies. HDE’s appeal was allowed.

CVC comment: this decision provides interesting commentary regarding the distinction between single and multiple supplies for VAT purposes. This topic has been considered a number of times before the Tribunals and Courts.

We also issue specialist Land & Property and VAT & Charities newsletters. If you wish to subscribe to the Land & Property newsletter please email laura.beckett@ukvatadvice.com. If you wish to subscribe to the VAT & Charities newsletter please email sophie.cox@ukvatadvice.com.