Tag Archives: VAT advice

Constable VAT Focus 28 March 2019

28th March 2019

HMRC NEWS

Trading With the EU if the UK Leaves Without a Deal

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

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

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

VAT Treatment of Pension Fund Management

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

CASE UPDATE

CJEU

1. Exemption for Letting Immovable Property

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court

2. Education Exemption: Meaning of “eligible body”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court of Appeal

3. Deductibility of VAT on Criminal Defence Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Default Surcharge: Reasonable Excuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constable VAT Focus 10 January 2019

10th January 2019

HMRC NEWS

VAT MOSS Exchange Rates

December 2018’s VAT MOSS Exchange Rates have been published

VAT Payment Deadline Calculator

Work out the VAT payment deadline for your accounting period. You cannot use this calculator if you make payments on account or use the annual accounting scheme.

Flat Rate Scheme for Small Businesses

Find out how to use the Flat Rate Scheme, who can us it and how to apply to join the scheme.

Importing Goods for Disabled People Free of Duty and VAT

This notice explains how to import goods specially designed for disabled people free of duty and VAT.

CASE REVIEW

CJEU

1. Special Scheme for Travel Agents

This case concerned the supply of holiday residences rented by Alpenchalets Resorts GmbH (Alpenchalets) and subsequently let in its own name to private customers as holiday rentals. Alongside the supply of holiday rental property, Alpenchalets also provided cleaning services and, in some cases, a laundry and “bread roll” service.

Alpenchalets calculated its VAT liability on the basis of profit margin as permitted by the special scheme for travel agents. In 2013 Alpenchaltes wrote to the German tax authorities requesting that it be allowed to apply the reduced rate of VAT (7%). This permission was refused so Alpenchalets brought proceedings before the German Courts which referred the issue to the CJEU for a ruling on whether the supply of a service which is essentially holiday accommodation is subject to the special margin scheme for travel agents and, if so, if that supply could also be liable to the reduced rate of German VAT.

The first question asked whether the activity of supplying holiday accommodation, alongside ancillary services such as cleaning, could still benefit from the special margin scheme where the agent (Alpenchalets) provided its own services as well as the accommodation bought in from third parties. The Court considered that as the mere supply of accommodation by an agent is covered by the scheme, the ancillary services do not have a bearing on the scheme’s applicability to the supply.

With regard to the second question, The Court found that single services provided by travel agents are not described within the legislation allowing certain supplies the reduced rate of VAT. The supplies made by Alpenchalets were subject to the standard rate of VAT.

Constable Comment: This case confirms that under EU law, the supply of holiday accommodation on its own is capable of being caught by the Tour Operators Margin Scheme; it is not necessary for other supplies alongside the accommodation. The Tour Operators Margin Scheme is simple in theory but can often cause problems when it comes to practical application. If you are, or think you may be entitled to be, operating a margin scheme then it is prudent to seek professional advice to ensure compliance.

2. The VAT Liability of Royalties

This case concerned the VAT liability of royalties payable to an author of an original work of art on the basis of the resale right.

The European Commission contended that royalty payments should not be liable to VAT as they are not payment in exchange for goods or services. The State of Austria sought to argue that such payments should be liable to VAT on the basis that just because the author of a work of art does not take part in the agreement between the buyer and seller of the art, does not preclude taxation of that payment.

In essence, Austria argued that the payment was in exchange for goods or services; the author has created a work of art and has profited from its supply thus establishing a direct link between service supplied and the value given in return.

The Court considered that a supply of goods or services is made for consideration only if there is a legal relationship between the supplier and the customer, in the context of which there is reciprocal performance; the remuneration received by the supplier constituting the value actually given in return for the goods or services supplied. Whilst The State of Austria contended that the royalty payable constituted consideration for an exchange of services giving rise to a legal relationship.

In concluding, the Court ruled that a legal relationship arises only between the buyer and seller of a piece of art, if the sale is a resale then the only legal relationship created is between the supplier and the customer; the artist is not a party to this relationship. Therefore there should be no VAT payable on royalty sums received.

Constable Comment: Giving consideration to some of the fundamentals of the VAT system and contract law was helpful in this case. This case is useful as a demonstration of how the European Commission can seek to enforce a uniform interpretation of the VAT law.

Upper Tribunal

3. Exemption for Management of Special Investment Funds

This appeal by Blackrock concerned the VAT exemption for the supply of management services which relate to special investment funds (SIFs) and whether a single supply of management services to Blackrock could be apportioned between SIF and non-SIF to reflect that exemption.

The Tribunal gave consideration to whether the supply to the SIFs could be seen as one of management services, asserting that it would only be possible to consider apportionment if there was anything to be apportioned: the European exemption applies specifically to management of SIFs, not merely a supply of services to a SIF. Relying on a rich tapestry of case law, the Tribunal concluded that the services supplied to Blackrock were management services and were therefore capable of exemption.

Having decided that the supplies were capable of benefiting from the exemption, the Tribunal turned to the question of whether the single supply to Blackrock was capable of being apportioned in line with its use by Blackrock as relating to SIFs and non-SIFs; non-SIF management being a taxable supply. Blackrock sought to argue that, in order to give effect to the exemption from which the supplies benefited it was necessary to allow apportionment of the supply. This argument had been rejected by the FTT on the ground that if apportionment were to be allowed then a precedent could be set allowing apportionment in relation to other composite supplies where the ancillary element is exempt.

After a length consideration of case law and relevant EU legislation, The Tribunal concluded that it is equally arguable that apportionment of the services should be allowed and that it should not, no conclusion was reached on this topic. The Tribunal stayed the appeal in order to seek guidance from the CJEU.

Constable Comment: This case gave a long and considered analysis of what can and cannot be regarded as management services for the purpose of the exemption in question. Whilst a conclusion was not reached around the apportionment issue, the clarification offered by the considerations given in regard to the first question is no doubt of use to any business supplying management services and seeking to benefit from the exemption. We await a CJEU decision on whether or not apportionment of these supplies is acceptable.

Constable VAT Focus 13 December 2018

13th December 2018

HMRC NEWS

Refunds of VAT in the UK for non-EU businesses

This brief explains changes for verifying claims for VAT refunds submitted by non-EU businesses under the Overseas VAT Refund Scheme.

Software suppliers for VAT returns and the EC Sales List

Find recognised suppliers and software for filing your VAT returns online.

VAT when you buy a vehicle to sell on

VAT registered motor dealers can reclaim the VAT charged and shown on the invoice when they buy vehicles to sell on.

CASE REVIEW

CJEU

1. Restrictions on Bad Debt Relief

This case concerned a Portuguese company, Tratave, which was refused the right to adjust the amount of VAT previously paid in relation to supplies to eight companies which are now insolvent. Following an inspection by the tax authorities, the adjustment was disallowed on the ground that Tratave had failed to notify the insolvent companies of its intention to seek bad debt relief against supplies made to them.

The requirement to notify the insolvent companies is a Portuguese restriction which gave rise to the question before the Court; does the principle of fiscal neutrality and relevant EU law preclude national legislation which denies the adjustment of VAT in the event of non-payment where the supplier has not notified its insolvent customer?

The Court posited that the relevant EU law around bad debt relief gives member states discretion as to the requirements they may impose on businesses seeking bad debt relief for VAT. This discretion is to allow member states to effectively combat tax evasion but any extra requirements must not have a significant impact on the VAT system or make it unnecessarily difficult for businesses to recover VAT.

In coming to a conclusion, the Court considered that the obligations imposed were not excessive and did not distort the system of VAT. Tratave had failed to comply with a reasonable domestic requirement for bad debt relief for VAT and, therefore, the Court held that the principle of neutrality and relevant EU law do not preclude national laws akin to those in the present case.

Constable Comment: This case shows that Member States of the EU are given some discretion, albeit not unfettered, in how they apply VAT law. As each country deals with different issues and cultures it is necessary to afford some leeway so the VAT system can be effectively enforced in each domestic region.

Upper Tribunal

2. Best Judgment Assessments

DCM Optical Holdings Ltd (DCM) appealed against an FTT decision dismissing DCM’s claims that, inter alia, HMRC had acted outside of its authority by retrospectively amending VAT returns which were out of time for assessment. The appeal also concerns assessments made on ‘best judgment’ of underpaid output tax for four VAT periods prior to February 2004.

DCM submitted VAT repayment returns for multiple periods including 07/05 and 12/08 which are the returns in question. HMRC contended that mistakes had been in calculating these returns and amended the returns to reflect the correct calculation of VAT due. It was HMRC’s belief that the method of apportionment used by DCM between taxable/exempt supplies was not appropriate.

DCM asserted at the Tribunal that these returns were out of time for assessment and that HMRC could therefore not refuse the repayments retrospectively. DCM also highlighted that all of the periods prior to February 2004 were out of time for assessment and these should not have been issued.

The Upper Tribunal allowed DCM’s appeal in part, holding that the assessments relating to periods before February 2004 were out of time. However, it upheld the FTT’s decision that there was no time bar preventing HMRC from retrospectively amending a reclaim VAT return. It was stressed that the time limits only apply to the power to assess, not the power to investigate and decide if a repayment claim was correct when submitted. HMRC is allowed, by virtue of section 73(6) VATA 1994, in this case, to raise a VAT assessment one year after evidence of facts

Constable Comment: Opticians supply a mixture of exempt supplies of medical services and taxable supplies of glasses frames. This has given rise to multiple input and output VAT issues for DCM but also for others operating in the same sector. In areas of uncertainty it is essential to seek professional advice when classifying supplies and establishing a method of calculating a businesses’ partial exemption percentage to minimise the risk of any mistakes which could give rise to assessments and penalties.

Constable VAT Budget Focus: Autumn 2018

30th October 2018

Philip Hammond has delivered the last Budget before the UK leaves the EU in March 2019. He has based the Budget on an assumption of an average free trade deal being struck between the UK and the EU. However, if no agreement can be reached between the two parties, the Chancellor has stated that a different strategy would be necessary and the UK has been working on contingency plans for different possible Brexit negotiation outcomes. Here we look at the key VAT issues which have been covered in the announced Budget issued but will provide continued coverage of any progression in line with Brexit negotiation results.

VAT registration and deregistration thresholds

The VAT registration threshold of £85,000 has stayed at the same level again in this Budget, as has the de-registration threshold of £83,000. It has been confirmed that these will stay in place for the next two years. The effect of this measure, when inflation is factored in, is that there will be an increased number of smaller businesses that are required to register for VAT.

VAT grouping eligibility to be extended

The Government has announced that it will extend the eligibility to join a VAT group to certain non-corporate entities in the Finance Bill 2018-19. This extension will allow partnerships and sole traders to benefit from VAT grouping provided the entry criteria are met.

The treatment of vouchers from 1 January 2019

The Government intends to introduce legislation to give effect to an EU Directive in the UK providing for the VAT treatment of vouchers issued on or after 1 January 2019. It will impact vouchers for which payment has been made and which will be used to make a purchase.

The aim of the measure will be to harmonise the rules for the taxation of vouchers within the EU and, ideally, to prevent any non-taxation or double taxation of goods or services. This is not a true Budget measure as the new rules were agreed sometime after extensive discussions within the EU.

Specified Supplies Order

For a brief summary and an analysis of the Specified Supplies Order, we recently provided coverage of the issues presented by Brexit and the Specified Supplies Order on our website. There has been some clarification around some of the issues associated with the Order offered as part of the Budget 2018. In essence, the Order allows companies who export certain financial services from the EU to third countries to reclaim input VAT on what would normally be an exempt supply giving no right to recovery.

HMRC believe the Order is currently being abused by companies who form agreements with associates located outside the EU and re-supply those services back to UK consumers meaning that the company can reclaim the input VAT on the specified supply and gain a VAT advantage. This measure seeks to prevent “looping” by restricting the applicability of the Order to cases where the final consumer is not in the UK. We are not convinced that either existing UK measures or the proposed measures are compliant with the EU VAT directive and, were the UK to remain in the EU, we would be surprised to find that the proposed measure is not challenged in the Courts. Brexit may nullify this consideration.

VAT reverse charge anti-avoidance amendment

A measure has been introduced which allows for the disapplication of the existing anti-avoidance provision in relation to any specified reverse charge. Originally the provisions were introduced to prevent criminals avoiding reverse charge measures by supplying non-VAT registered businesses instead and charging VAT. This measure will allow regulations to be made to prevent unintended consequences for small businesses who trade below the VAT threshold which will remain at £85,000.

VAT and higher education

It has been announced that the Government will amend VAT law to enable bodies registered with the Office for Students, in the approved (fee cap) category, to exempt supplies of education. This is a measure aimed at ensuring continuity of VAT treatment for English higher education providers following the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Constable VAT will follow the development of this policy, if your business is likely to be affected then please do not hesitate to contact Constable VAT.

Unfulfilled supplies and prepayments

HMRC’s policy around the VAT treatment of prepayments where customers have been charged for a supply but have failed to collect or use what they have paid for and have not received a refund. These prepayments will be brought into the scope of UK VAT from 1 March 2019 and VAT will be due on the prepayment.

Increase or decrease in consideration after supply (Regulation 38)

Regulation 38 requires businesses to adjust their VAT account where there has been a change in the value of the supply on which VAT is due, and a corresponding change in the amount of VAT charged.

It has been announced that legislation will be introduced to ensure that a credit note is issued to customers who receive a discount to ensure a higher degree of transparency with businesses, ensuring that they do not benefit by reclaiming VAT that should be refunded to either the customer or paid to HMRC.

Alternative method of VAT collection for online sales

Following a recent consultation, the Government is considering introducing a split payment model for collecting VAT on sales made online by overseas sellers. An industry Working Group is to be set up by HMRC to work with relevant stakeholders to consider this further.

The effects

If you require further information or assistance on any of the points raised above, please speak with your usual Constable VAT contact.

CVC VAT Focus 18 October 2018

18th October 2018

HMRC NEWS

HMRC are having difficulty dealing with DIY Housebuilder VAT refund claims and that some claims are being approved and paid up to four months later than the usual 30 days. If you are a housebuilder or are considering submitting a VAT refund claim, in order to mitigate any cash flow issues which may arise as a result of this, please call Constable VAT to see if there is anything we can do to help your particular case.

VAT MOSS exchange rates for 2018

Find currency exchange rates for VAT Mini One Stop Shop (VAT MOSS) businesses registered in the UK to complete declarations.

Charity funded equipment for medical and veterinary uses (VAT Notice 701/6)

HMRC has updated its guidance regarding zero-rated supplies of medical and research goods and services that have been funded by charities.

Making Tax Digital Update

Making Tax Digital for VAT will now not be mandatory until 1 October 2019 for businesses falling into one of the following categories considered by HMRC to be ‘more complex’ businesses. Additionally HMRC has issued more guidance on making Tax Digital for VAT. The businesses regarded as complex and a list of the new guidance can be found on our website.

CONSTABLE NEWS

Brexit Blog

We have a new article about the potential impact of Brexit on VAT recovery for businesses in the financial services and insurance sectors. In this piece we ask the question “If you had to make a guess on whether your business will be allowed to reclaim more VAT or less VAT if the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement what would you say?” Consideration is given to The VAT Specified Supplies Order 1999. If you are impacted by this legislation then this will be of particular interest to you.

Opinion of Advocate General

The Advocate General (AG) has handed down his opinion in the Morgan Stanley CJEU case, which considers VAT recovery rules for costs incurred by overseas branches. Our coverage of this opinion can be found on our website.

This opinion adds another dimension to Brexit planning, which can involve creating new EU businesses with multiple establishments as well as longstanding multi-establishment arrangements. Whilst the CJEU decision need not follow the opinion of the AG, in most cases it does.

If you operate using overseas branches then you should consider your input VAT recovery position now. Constable VAT will be happy to assist in this exercise.

CASE REVIEW

CJEU

1. Refusal of right to deduct input VAT by the tax authorities

This referral concerned whether EU law on VAT precludes tax authorities from refusing the right to deduct input VAT on the grounds that the company in question failed to submit VAT returns for the period in which the right to deduct VAT arose.

The company, Gamesa, was declared an “inactive taxpayer” by the Romanian tax authorities as it did not submit VAT returns for a six month period in 2011. In 2015 Gamesa was subject to a VAT inspection and was issued with an assessment for the output VAT which should have been declared on the missing VAT returns. The assessment did not allow the deduction of the relevant input tax. Gamesa alleged that this practice infringed the principle of proportionality and the principle of neutrality of VAT.

Giving regard to these principles and the relevant EU legislation on the matter, the Court reduced the issue to one question: is it permissible for the tax authorities to refuse, on account of a failure to submit tax returns, a taxable person the right to deduct input VAT? This was answered succinctly, “As the Court has repeatedly pointed out the right of deduction […] is an integral part of the VAT scheme and in principle may not be limited.”

The Court held in favour of Gamesa and stated that the relevant EU law precludes tax authorities from using this practice.

Constable Comment: This case illustrates the fundamental nature of the right to deduct input VAT in the EU VAT system. It confirms that even if a business has made VAT accounting errors or failed to disclose certain sales, a VAT assessment can be mitigated by demonstrating, accurately, the amount of input tax incurred in the period being assessed which relates to taxable supplies. If you have received a VAT assessment and are concerned about the amounts involved or the entitlement to deduct input VAT has not been taken into account, do not hesitate to contact Constable VAT.

First Tier Tribunal

2. HMRC Best Judgment

This case was an appeal by Derbyshire Motors Ltd (DM) against a best judgment VAT assessment issued by HMRC and a civil penalty for dishonesty. The appellant had declared taxable motor repair services as MOTs which are outside the scope of VAT. DM admitted that this had taken place after initially denying the wrongdoing, albeit not convincingly.

DM was struggling to stay afloat when the “credit crunch” began to take serious hold of the UK economy in 2008/09. Owing to a lack of capital reserves no more money could be pumped into DM to keep it going. Mr Derbyshire, the director and owner, made the decision to treat some repair works as MOT tests to improve the cash position of the business. When HMRC discovered this in 2014 DM no longer had VAT records for the relevant period. HMRC therefore relied on figures from later years to calculate the assessment for underpaid VAT. DM submitted that HMRC had not used best judgment as the assessment was based on material relating to other years.

Analysing previous case law and relevant tests for the application of best judgment were considered and the assessment was upheld. The penalty was also upheld in full.

Constable Comment: This demonstrates well that simply not having records and not being compliant for years does not mean that tax evasion is untraceable. If taxpayers discover any irregularities or suppressed sales it is always best to be honest and notify HMRC. If you co-operate fully and make an un-prompted disclosure then penalties can be mitigated. Attempting to hide from and mislead HMRC is likely to result in the highest possible penalty being applied. Please contact Constable VAT if you are worried about notifying a disclosure to HMRC, we will be happy to be of assistance.

3. Calculating VAT when prompt payment discount is offered

Virgin Media Limited (VML) made supplies of telecommunications to its domestic customers. 95% of these customers paid a monthly subscription fee, the remaining 5% paid one lump sum for a 12 month subscription which amounted to less than 12 monthly instalments. Output VAT was calculated for all customers using the lower price based on the suggestion that if a “prompt payment discount” is offered then output VAT should be calculated using the discounted amount even if the customer did not take advantage of this discount.

HMRC disagreed with this assertion and stated that output VAT may only be accounted for on the discounted amount where this sum is paid within a specified time period and is taken to satisfy the full amount.

The FTT considered that VML’s supplies could, in theory, benefit from this prompt payment discount pricing. However it was considered that VML, in reality, makes two different supplies at different amounts albeit of the same services. It was not disputed that where the prompt payment discount is taken by customers that this is the value which should be used for calculation of output VAT. However, since the change in the rules around prompt payment discounts in 2015 it is no longer permissible to account for VAT based on the reduced price unless taken within the time period specified.

Constable Comment: It used to be the case that offering a prompt payment discount allowed businesses to account for output VAT on the reduced price even if this were not taken by the customer. This has since changed and now the discount must be taken in order to account for VAT on the lower amount. If your business offers prompt payment discounts you should consider how to reflect these when accounting for VAT.

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.