Tag Archives: right to deduct

Constable VAT Focus 16 May 2019

16th May 2019

This VAT Focus provides the usual updates of HMRC news as well as coverage of some of the more recent developments in the Courts including judgments in relation to the deductibility of input VAT in different situations, where a tax point arises in relation to certain types of services and what constitutes “school or university education”.

HMRC NEWS

Update to Public Notice 701/41: How VAT applies if you give or get sponsorship.

This notice explains how VAT applies if you give or receive sponsorship. A new section on crowdfunding has been added.

Update to Compliance Checks for VAT

This factsheet contains information about the penalties HMRC may charge you for a VAT or excise wrongdoing.

Update to Public Notice 700/22: making Tax Digital for VAT

This notice explains the rules for Making Tax Digital for VAT and about the digital information you must keep if they apply to you.

VAT Single Entity and Disaggregation

HMRC has updated its list of useful legal decisions in its internal guidance for single entities and the rules around disaggregation.

CASE REVIEW

 

CJEU

1. When a Tax Point Arises for a Supply of Services

This case concerned Budimex S.A., a Polish company engaged in the provision of construction services. The question which arose was when a tax point arises for a supply of services under which payment only becomes due when the customer is satisfied with the works; when the services are “performed” or when the customer certifies their satisfaction. Polish law dictates that where an invoice has not been issued within 30 days after the completion of work then the tax point arises on this date. Budimex had not issued an invoice for the supplies it made to a customer as they had not yet certified their satisfaction so had not paid any money over, the Polish authorities sought to recover the output VAT as a de facto tax point had arisen after the passing of 30 days from the completion of the services.

In considering this question, the Court highlighted that, according to EU law, VAT is to become chargeable when the goods or services are supplied. However, it was also considered that, taking into account the economic and commercial realities of the industry, that the contractual term may incorporate part of the service offered.

That is to say that Budimex was supplying construction services which, contractually, would only be “performed” when the customer was satisfied with the work, a contractual term specifically allowed for by the Federation of Consulting Engineers. Therefore it was held that the requirement for the customer to be entirely satisfied is a part of the service being offered.

The Court held in favour of Budimex.

Constable Comment: The type of rule in question stating that a de facto tax point must arise at some stage seeks to combat avoidance by companies who deliberately do not create a tax point in order to defer VAT liabilities. However this case shows that it is possible for these rules to be circumvented where “customer satisfaction” is a specific provision of the supply made.

2. Fictitious Transactions: A Right to Deduct?

This Italian referral considered whether supplies which were fictional but created no loss to the Revenue bear a right to deduct input VAT.

EN.SA is an Italian company which produces and distributes electricity, the Italian tax authorities denied recovery of input VAT in relation to certain supplies as there was no actual transmission of energy. The question arose before the Court whether this refusal breached the principle of fiscal neutrality.

Whilst accepting that it was not the case in the current circumstances, the Court considered a situation in which the customer had acted in good faith in which case, it was hypothesized, that the right to deduct would have to arise owing to the underlying principles of the EU law. Therefore it was found that the Italian law which gave the Italian authorities the right to refuse the repayment of input VAT was not contrary to EU law.

However, in considering the question, the Court also pondered whether a fine may be levied equal to an amount of the deduction made. It was found that a fine of this amount would go against the EU principle of proportionality and, therefore, that domestic tax authorities are precluded from issuing this type of fine.

Constable Comment: this was an interesting case as, on the surface, a fictional transaction should clearly not give rise to a right to deduct VAT. However, the Court was forced to consider a situation in which a customer had acted in good faith in which it stated that the right to deduct must arise. Therefore this judgment applies to very specific facts and national legislation which prevents the right to recover more broadly may be incompatible with EU law.

3. The Exemption for Private Tuition

This case concerned whether the provision of driving tuition by a private company benefits from the exemption found in EU law for the provision of education in the public interest, typically provided by schools and universities, when provided by certain private bodies.

A&G Fahrschul-Akademie GmbH (A&G) is a German company which provides private driving tuition to students with an aim of ultimately earning a driving license. It applied to have its VAT debt cleared as it believed it was exempt from VAT but the German tax authorities refused on the grounds that the tuition provided is not normally taught by schools and universities. A&G appealed this point and the question was referred to the CJEU; does the concept of school or university education cover driving schools?

In considering this point at length the Court suggested a broad definition of what does constitute “school or university education” for the purposes of the exemptions:

“…an integrated system for the transfer of knowledge and skills covering a wide and diversified set of subjects, and to the furthering and development of that knowledge and those skills by the pupils and students in the course of their progress and their specialisation in the various constituent stages of that system.”

The Court then posited, in the light of this consideration, that driving tuition provided by a private body would be specialised tuition rather than a transfer of knowledge and skills covering a wide set of subjects.

Constable Comment: This judgment will be important in the future as it provides a reasonably solid framework for what constitutes a school or university education, a part of the legislation which comes without a definition. However, whilst a good starting point, this is a broad definition with plenty of constructive ambiguity meaning the issue is likely to surface in the Courts again.

4. Incorrectly Charged VAT: Recoverable?

This case concerned whether PORR, a Hungarian company involved in construction, was entitled to deduct input VAT on certain transactions in relation to which VAT had been incorrectly charged under the normal VAT system where the reverse charge mechanism should have been applied by the supplier.

PORR sought to argue that the supplies were not subject to the reverse charge mechanism and, in any case, the tax authority had denied it the fundamental right in the VAT system to deduct input VAT. The tax authorities contended that such a right had not been denied, indeed that it had been expressly provided for under the reverse charge procedure. PORR also put forward that the tax authorities had failed to ascertain if the suppliers could correct this mistake at no expense to PORR.

The Court considered the relevant EU law and concluded both that the tax authority had no obligation to seek corrections from the supplier and that PORR has failed, in a substantive way, to fulfil its obligations under the reverse charge mechanism. The VAT charged was, therefore, not deductible by PORR.

Constable Comment: Different to the EN.SA case which dealt with fictional transactions, the transactions in this instance took place but had been classified incorrectly as normal supplies rather than reverse charge supplies. This outcome may appear harsh to a customer who has acted in good faith but it is vital to ensure that input tax cannot be deducted twice; once by the supplier and once by the customer.

5. Restrictions on Recovery of Input VAT

This case concerned Grupa Lotos S.A., a parent company to a group of companies in Poland, operating in the fuel and lubricants sector. Polish law excludes the recovery of input VAT incurred on overnight accommodation and catering services with limited exceptions where the cost relates to a supply of tourism services or, in the case of food, the provision of microwave meals to passengers. This provision in domestic law predates Poland’s accession to the EU however it was extended in 2008 to further exclude all overnight accommodation.

The dispute in the domestic court concerned whether Grupa Lotos could deduct VAT incurred on accommodation and catering services purchased, in part, for its own use and part for its subsidiaries. Grupa believed it should be entitled to recover a portion as it was not the consumer of the services and VAT is a tax on the consumption of goods or services. The Polish tax authorities disagreed and claimed that the Polish law made no distinction between the consumption and purchase for resupply of these services.

The matter was referred to the CJEU, the question being whether EU law must be deemed to preclude legislation such as the Polish law in question after its accession to the EU and whether domestic law can extend pre-existing exclusions after accession to the EU.

Giving consideration to the nature of the VAT system and relevant case law such as Iberdrola, the Court turned to look to Article 176 which provides that Member States may maintain restrictions on recovery which were in force before their accession to the EU. It was held that the Polish law, as it was in place prior to Poland’s joining the EU, was valid but that EU law would preclude the introduction of legislation akin to this were it to be introduced whilst any given Member State was within the EU. Therefore the extension to the exclusion in 2008 was invalid.

The question of VAT recovery in this particular case has been referred back to the domestic courts to determine if the supplies involved are ‘tourism services’.

Constable Comment: This case serves as a reminder of how EU law works. Whilst “direct effect” means EU law takes precedence where domestic law is incompatible with new EU laws, where a country joins the EU and becomes a member state, direct effect does not apply retrospectively. This is interesting given the current climate with five nations seeking to join the EU; they may be allowed to keep certain restrictions but will not be allowed to extend them if they successfully enter the EU.

 

Constable VAT Focus 29 November 2018

29th November 2018

HMRC NEWS

Declaration on Future EU/UK Relationship

The UK Government has published a draft of the declaration on the future relationship between the EU and the UK.

HMRC has released its monthly exchange rates for 2018

Here you can find foreign exchange rates issued by HMRC in CSV and XML format.

Help and support for VAT

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

 

MAKING TAX DIGITAL UPDATE

Economic Affairs Finance Bill sub-committee calls for further delays of Making Tax Digital

The House of Lords Economic Affairs Finance Bill sub-committee has asked the Government to delay the introduction of Making Tax Digital for VAT by at least a further year to give businesses a chance to prepare.

 

 

CASE REVIEW

CJEU

 

1. The Right to Deduct Input Tax

This case concerned an individual, Mr Vadan, who undertook multiple property developments and around 70 property transactions between 2006 and 2009. During this time Mr Vadan’s turnover significantly exceeded the Romanian VAT registration threshold but he had failed to register for VAT. Owing to this the tax authorities sought to recover roughly EUR 4,000,000 in unpaid output tax, penalties and interest.

Mr Vadan appealed against the assessed amount on the basis that he had been refused the right to deduct input tax, despite not having any legible or valid invoices relating to the period. It was, in essence, his assertion that if he had been a taxable person at the time of the transactions and owed output tax to the authorities in regard of those supplies then the tax authorities necessarily owed him the right to reclaim input tax, despite his inability to provide proof by way of VAT invoices. He claimed that the assessment from the tax authorities which contained, inter alia, a Court commissioned Expert report, should create a right to deduct input tax relating to the relevant output tax.

The question referred to the CJEU was whether a taxable person who satisfies the substantive requirements for the right to deduction may be refused the right to deduct on the grounds that they can provide no substantive evidence.

Previously, the Court has held that the fundamental principle of the neutrality of VAT requires that deduction be allowed if the substantive requirements are satisfied, even if the taxable person has failed to comply with some formal conditions. In this instance the Court conceded that the strict application of the substantive requirement to produce invoices would conflict with the principle of neutrality. However, it is considered to be the taxpayer’s burden to prove his right to deduct VAT.

In concluding, the Court considered that the expert report on which Mr Vadan sought to rely to prove his right to deduct could not prove that he had actually paid any VAT so could not be used as proof of a right to deduct that input tax. It was held that a person cannot benefit from the right to deduct input VAT solely on the basis of an expert report.

Constable Comment: This conclusion demonstrates that whilst the right to deduct is absolute, as has been reaffirmed many times by the Court, an assessment to output VAT based on an expert report cannot, in circumstances such as these, give rise to a right to deduct an unquantifiable and unprovable amount of input VAT. Whilst the right to deduct exists, the requirements of proof to exercise that right are not expunged because a business has failed to keep records.

 

2. Calculating Taxable Turnover by Extrapolation

This appeal concerned a retrospective assessment to VAT served on the appellant, Ms. Fontana, which was based on a “sector study” ordered by the Italian tax authorities who, for several reasons, felt it necessary to do so as there were discrepancies in her own tax returns.

Ms. Fontana challenged the amount of VAT to which she was being assessed, arguing that the tax authorities had incorrectly interpreted her business as “accountancy and tax consultancy” rather than “HR and Management” and had so been incorrectly assessed. She also claimed that the sector study did not give a consistent or fair image of income generated by her company.

This was dismissed but a further question was raised which was referred to the CJEU; whether EU law precludes domestic legislation allowing Member States to assess VAT based on retrospective extrapolation.

The CJEU considered that if a taxable person fails to declare all of the turnover achieved in the course of their business, the tax authorities should not be hindered in collecting VAT as a result. It was concluded that as Member States have a margin of discretion with regard to their means of achieving the objectives and collection of VAT and preventing evasion.

Constable Comment: This result does not come as a surprise and follows the Opinion of the AG. In cases of under declaration of VAT or pure VAT evasion, it is necessary for tax authorities to be able to extrapolate and reasonably calculate estimates of amounts owing. The real question in this case was whether the Italian “sectoral method” was acceptable which the Court has confirmed it to be.

 

Upper Tribunal

 

3. Unjust Enrichment of HMRC

This case is an appeal against an HMRC tax assessment on J&B Hopkins Ltd (JHBL). JBHL had made supplies to Rok Building Ltd (Rok) who were in turn providing onward zero-rated supplies to a charity which had provided Rok with a zero-rating certificate for some building works stating that the intended use of the building would be a relevant residential purpose (RRP).

JHBL had incorrectly zero-rated its supplies to Rok believing that the certificate issued by the charity extended to sub-contractors. When this mistake was discovered, JHBL did not correct this by issuing VAT only invoices to Rok as Rok had become insolvent and gone into liquidation.

HMRC assessed JHBL for the VAT which it should have paid on supplies made to Rok. JHBL appealed the assessments on two grounds; primarily that HMRC would be unjustly enriched if JHBL had to pay over VAT which should have been paid by Rok, secondarily that HMRC had failed to exercise best judgment in raising the assessment.

The Tribunal considered on appeal that the correct analysis of the position as regarded the unjust enrichment of HMRC is that any enrichment gained by HMRC would be at the expense of the liquidated Rok, not JHBL who had failed to invoice correctly. Despite its contention that it was the only company “out of pocket”, this was only because Rok had not paid the full price to JHBL as JHBL had failed to invoice correctly. Giving some consideration to historic case law, the Tribunal held that JBHL had made an error in its invoicing and that the VAT owed was actually the expense of Rok, the VAT system does not have an obligation to insulate the taxpayer from making mistakes and therefore dismissed the appeal on these grounds.

Constable Comment: Errors in property transactions can cause significant VAT problems further down the line, as has been demonstrated by this case. It is essential when taking on development projects, especially where a zero-rating certificate is involved, to seek professional advice to ensure compliance from the start of the development. In this case Rok would have been able to recover VAT charged to it by JHBL as this VAT would be a cost component of its own taxable (zero-rated) supplies.

 

4. Legitimate Expectation – Judicial Review

Vacation Rentals (UK) Ltd (VRL) has been successful in its seeking of Judicial Review preventing a retrospective assessment to VAT. VRL is a booking agent for property owners who wish to lease their homes as holiday lets.

Holidaymakers could reserve properties and make payment online using credit and debit cards for which they were charged a small card handling fee. VRL, following HMRC guidance (BB 18/06), treated these fees as exempt from VAT. A subsequent development in the CJEU ruled that such fees were to be taxable and not exempt as had been HMRC’s published and accepted policy. On the grounds of this change in law, HMRC sought to retrospectively assess VRL to output VAT on all of the supplies of card handling which it had made.

VRL claimed that, whilst not enshrined in law, HMRC’s policy of treating the services of card handling services had created a legitimate expectation that they would not be taxed on these transactions.

In situations where HMRC create a legitimate expectation with the Commissioner’s guidance, HMRC are bound by that guidance even where that expectation has been incorrectly created according to the law. There is a particularly high burden on the taxpayer to prove that the expectation was created by HMRC guidance and that it would amount to an abuse of power by HMRC to not adhere to their own guidance.

This Judicial Review concluded that HMRC had created such an expectation, on which VRL had relied, and therefore that HMRC were bound by their own guidance meaning that VRL need not pay the VAT which it owed following a strict interpretation of the law.

Constable Comment: Whilst this is possibly an unusual result in that the taxpayer has not been ordered to pay VAT in line with the law, it is refreshing to see HMRC has been held to account for misleading businesses and the public with its own guidance. It seems unequitable for HMRC to issue one policy and then retroactively pursue a different one. The Court has here recognised this fact.

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 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.