Tag Archives: VAT updates

Constable VAT Focus 13 June 2019

13th June 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 liability of certain salary sacrifice schemes, payroll services supplied to vulnerable people and the recoverability of VAT on development costs where there could be one supply of a development project or two supplies of individual buildings.

 

HMRC NEWS

Changes to the VAT MOSS rate for other countries

HMRC has released information about changes to the rates for VAT Mini One Stop Shop (VAT MOSS) for other countries.

Domestic reverse charge for building and construction services

HMRC has released further information about the VAT domestic reverse charge for building and construction services that starts on 1 October 2019.

Constable VAT has covered this topic in a recent blog which can be viewed here. This will be of interest to anyone operating in the construction industry.

 

CONSTABLE VAT NEWS

 

We recently circulated a new VAT & Charities Newsletter which is available to read on our website.

In this publication we cover some of the most important and interesting areas of VAT for charities. Whilst some of the issues and cases have been discussed in our VAT Focuses, the charity edition of the newsletter aims to give a more directly relevant summary for those operating in the third sector.

If you would like to receive email notifications when there is a new VAT & Charities Newsletter then please reply to this email.

 

CASE UPDATE

 

Upper Tribunal

 

1. Leasing of Cars Under a Salary Sacrifice Scheme

This case concerned the Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (NHT). HMRC refused a claim for repayment of input VAT made by NHT. NHT had incurred this input VAT in respect of leased and maintained cars which it acquired for the purpose of providing them to NHS employees under a salary sacrifice scheme. Under UK law, where cars are leased to employees under such a scheme, not for the purposes of the employer’s business, there is no supply of goods or services by virtue of the “De-Supply Order”. Whilst there is deemed to be no supply, UK legislation (s43 VATA) entitles the employer to recover input VAT in relation to such car schemes supplied by Government bodies such as the NHS.

NHT contended that this order applied whilst HMRC argued that the car scheme was a business activity carried on by NHT and, therefore, that input VAT was restricted to 50% as the business was leasing vehicles. In support of its claim, NHT argued that the car scheme was operated so as to facilitate a more efficient delivery of the statutory obligations (non-business activities) of the Trust: to provide healthcare. HMRC observed that there is no actual restriction placed on the use of the cars by the employees and, therefore, that the De-Supply Order was not applicable.

The Tribunal observed that the key question, given the circumstances, was whether the car scheme operated by NHT is an “economic activity” within the meaning of EU law. If it is an economic activity then the De-Supply Order would not apply and, therefore, input VAT recovery on the cars would be restricted by virtue of the Blocking Order.

The Tribunal considered that the De-Supply Order meant that there was no supply of services in this instance and therefore that there was no economic activity being pursued by NHT with regard to the car scheme so there was no taxable supply. Therefore, NHT was entitled to recover all of the VAT incurred on the supplies of leased and maintained cars.

Constable Comment: This case was complex and reflects a problematic area of the law. The result has essentially led to a situation in which the NHS receives and subsequently makes a supply which is not a supply but it can recover 100% of the input VAT incurred in making that supply. This area of VAT is particularly difficult to deal with and anyone operating similar structures should seek VAT advice for clarity.

 

2.The Glasgow School of Art: Input Tax Recovery on Property Development

This appeal concerned the Glasgow School of Art (GSA) which contested a decision by HMRC to deny 100% input VAT recovery in relation to a refurbishment project on some campus buildings. The FTT had previously found in favour of HMRC’s original decision.

The GSA refurbished three buildings; the Assembly Building, the Foulis building and Newbery Building. The buildings were all adjacent and on one site, the refurbishment project took place at the same time in relation to all of the buildings. The Foulis and Newbery buildings were demolished and replaced with the Reid building which was “wrapped around” the Assembly building. The whole project was contracted as a single development.

The GSA initially treated the input VAT on invoices from the contractor undertaking the project as residual and recovered in line with its partial exemption percentage. However, it later sought to change its argument and claimed that two distinct buildings had been built and that GSA was making a wholly taxable supply by leasing the Assembly Building to the GSA Student’s Association whilst the input VAT relating to the development cost of the new Reid Building  was recoverable in line with the partial exemption percentage. GSA therefore sought to recover the input VAT which it had previously not done so under its partial exemption calculation. It submitted a significant VAT refund claim.

The FTT had previously dismissed this appeal on the grounds that there was, materially, only one supply by the contractor to the GSA and, therefore, that the input VAT had correctly been treated as residual. The Tribunal in this instance agreed with the FTT and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the original invoicing arrangement gave the best reflection of the economic reality of the situation.

The UT also agreed with the FTT that GSA was not carrying on an economic activity. The rent paid by the student’s union was set at a level which it could afford and it would take 500 years for the charity to recoup its outlay. This is not an economic activity.

Constable Comment: In order to support the claim that there were two separate supplies received by GSA, the School went back to the contractor and split the development and invoicing into two sections and two distinct buildings. This case shows that, whilst important, contracts and invoicing arrangements are not the ultimate deciding factor; regard will always be had to the commercial and economic reality of the situation.

 

First-Tier Tribunal

 

3. Welfare Exemption: Supplies Closely Connected

This appeal concerned Cheshire Centre for Independent Living (CCIL) and the liability of its supplies of payroll services to individuals with disabilities, which it believed to be VAT exempt. HMRC had ruled that the payroll services did not qualify for exemption as they were not closely associated with the provision of welfare services so they were liable to VAT at the standard rate.

Certain disabled persons may be eligible for financial assistance in order to facilitate their independent living. Some of the funding is handed to disabled individuals directly in order for the individual to take control of and pay for their own care and support services. Where a disabled individual receives these payments and uses them to pay assistants they become an employer of that person with all the relevant obligations for direct tax purposes.

CCIL offer a payroll service whereby it enters into contracts with local authorities and individuals and deals with issues such as PAYE and NIC on behalf of clients. CCIL contended that this supply should benefit from VAT exemption as it is closely associated with a supply of welfare services. HMRC believed that this supply was secondary to a supply of welfare services and, therefore, should be standard rated. This would, of course, have taken away 20% of the payments made to disabled individuals to support their independent living. Simply put, the individuals would have been left with less money to spend on receiving the support they need.

CCIL submitted that the services supplied were in the context of a supply by a charity to a disabled person whose needs had been formally assessed under the Care Act 2014, meaning that they were exempt.

The Tribunal considered that the payroll service, whilst not being an end in itself, is a means for enabling the support of disabled individuals through the services of assistants as a part of the care plan for that individual. Therefore it allowed the appeal and stated that the services in question were indeed exempt as they were services closely connected with a supply of welfare services.

Constable Comment: Interestingly this case focuses on funding provided directly to the disabled person but it acknowledges at least two other ways in which these funds are distributed; the money is held and distributed by the NHS or, alternatively, by an independent third party. The VAT liability of similar services provided in these circumstances is not commented on in this case. The treatment of such supplies and what constitutes “closely linked with a supply of welfare services” now requires clarification as it could have wide ranging impacts on a variety of service providers dealing with welfare. This case also serves as a reminder that HMRC construes the welfare exemption very narrowly.

 

 

Constable VAT: VAT & Charities Newsletter

7th June 2019

Thank you for subscribing to our VAT Charity Newsletter. In this publication we cover some of the most important and interesting areas of VAT for charities. Some of the issues and cases have been discussed in our VAT Focuses, however the charity edition of the newsletter aims to give a more directly relevant summary for those operating in the third sector.

This issue of the Constable VAT & Charities Newsletter covers;

  1. YMCA Birmingham: Tribunal decision & HMRC’s behaviour
  2. The Wellcome Trust: Taxable Person or “acting as such”
  3. The Learning Centre Romford & LIFE Services: Welfare Services Exemption
  4. Loughborough Students Union: Supplies “closely concerned” with education
  5. HMRC Notice 317: Imports by charities free of duty and VAT
  6. HMRC VAT Notice 701/1

Also of interest to some of our readers will be one of our blogs which covers the recent case of Sandpiper Car Hire Limited and discusses some of the issues, highlighted by the Tribunal, with the way in which HMRC interact with disabled people. This can be viewed here.

 

1. VAT and the Supporting People Programme

The case of Birmingham YMCA and others (Leicester, Black Country and Burton upon Trent) deals with the VAT liability of supplies of services made under a contract entered into with local authorities (LAs). The case also gives a clear indication of how HMRC behaves in certain situations.

The Supporting People Programme (SPP) was introduced in 2003. The appellants in this case were supplying “housing related support services”. These services were aimed at helping vulnerable people live independently in the community. In the cases of Birmingham, Leicester and Black Country there was correspondence between the charities and HMRC. It was agreed that the funding received from LAs was consideration, payment of which was due under contractual obligations.

Burton, not unreasonably, followed what it believed to be the generally agreed practice and charged and accounted for VAT on its supplies.

In 2015 HMRC changed its mind and decided these supplies were VAT exempt. This was communicated in writing to Birmingham and Black Country by letter dated 19 June 2015. Leicester were advised of this volte-face in September 2016 and Burton in March 2017.

The practical implications of the position initially agreed with 3 of the 4 charities appealing the revised HMRC decision meant that they had accounted for output VAT on supplies to the LAs. The LAs recovered VAT incurred so the position would be VAT neutral. The charities would be able to recover VAT incurred on costs directly attributable to making these taxable supplies. In addition, the value of taxable supplies generated would be beneficial to all of the charities in terms of the recovery of VAT incurred on non-attributable costs, general overhead expenses.

Following HMRC’s revised opinion, the impact on input VAT recovery by the charities is likely to be significant. VAT incurred directly relating to exempt supplies will only be recoverable if the partial exemption de minimis limits are satisfied. These limits also take account of non-attributable VAT incurred and the threshold is not particularly generous, less than £7,500 in value per year (£1,875 per quarter, £625 per month) and less than 50% of total input tax incurred.

Constable VAT Comment: The decision in this failed appeal is interesting from a technical perspective but also in terms of HMRC’s approach. There are a number of cases where HMRC wish to refuse charities input VAT recovery where LAs have outsourced services. If the LA itself supplied the services, it would be able to reclaim VAT incurred on the delivery of these services. By denying charities the right to reclaim input VAT, HMRC is collecting more tax: irrecoverable VAT incurred by charities.

In these cases, because HMRC had initially agreed the VAT liability of supplies with 3 of the 4 appellants, its approach was as follows:

Regarding Birmingham, HMRC would apply the Tribunal outcome to the date of the relevant disputed HMRC decision letter on 19 June 2015. This means that, from that date, supplies made under the contract would be VAT exempt. The same date applied to Black Country. It is not clear from the Tribunal decision what practice either charity had adopted; however, if a policy of standard-rating supplies had been maintained, it is likely that retrospective VAT adjustments would be required. The charities would have to refund VAT charged in error to the LA. If VAT exempt supplies had been made, input Vat adjustment would be required.

The position regarding Leicester would be as above; however, the relevant date in this case was 27 September 2016, when the charity was notified by HMRC that its supplies were VAT exempt.

As far as Burton were concerned, HMRC took the view that it had never agreed its supplies were standard rated. This being so, HMRC’s decision letter was dated 27 March 2017 and, as such, VAT accounting adjustments will be made retrospectively to VAT accounting period 03/13. This was because HMRC had never agreed that Burton’s supplies were VAT exempt. HMRC would issue VAT assessments retrospectively in line with four-year capping legislation.

These joined cases demonstrate that HMRC can, and does, change its policy. The cases also clearly show the value of liaising with HMRC’s VAT Charities Team in cases of ambiguity. The position of 3 of the charities in this appeal were protected from retrospective treatment, from the date HMRC formally notified the change in its policy, because the VAT liability of supplies had been agreed. It is obviously disappointing that HMRC should resile on agreements made and upon which charities had relied. Unfortunately, in recent times, Constable VAT has dealt with situations where HMRC has sought to renege on agreements previously reached and apply VAT assessments retrospectively. If this is something which your charity has experienced and you would like to discuss, please do not hesitate to contact Constable VAT.

The important points to take from this decision are that each case must be judged on its own facts. It is dangerous for one charity to determine the VAT liability of its own supplies based on a decision notified to another party. It is not safe to assume that one charity can rely on an HMRC ruling given to a different charity operating in similar circumstances. It is also clear that HMRC refreshes and revises decisions previously given and it is important that charities protect their positions as far as possible.

 

 2. The Wellcome Trust: Taxable person or “acting as such”

This was an appeal against HMRC’s decision to refuse claims for repayment of overpaid VAT to Wellcome Trust Limited (WTL) amounting to £13,113,822. WTL is the sole trustee of a charitable trust which awards grants for medical research in the UK. The majority of these grants are given from investment funds. The case focussed around the correct interpretation of what constitutes a taxable person for EU law and what would be considered to be acting as a taxable person. A taxable person, for VAT purposes, is a person who is or is required to be registered for VAT owing to their pursuit of an economic activity.

The question at hand related to a place of supply issue, HMRC contending that WTL was acting as a taxable person and, as such, was liable to account for output VAT in the UK under the reverse charge provisions on investment management services it had received from non-EU suppliers. WTL arguing that the place of supply was not the UK as it was not a taxable person and, therefore, that no output VAT should have been accounted for in the UK by Wellcome Trust.

There was no dispute of facts in this hearing and the discussion focussed heavily around the meaning of “acting as such” within the EU law which states that “The place of supply of services to a taxable person acting as such shall be the place where that person has established his business”. HMRC’s contention was that WTL were acting in a taxable capacity whilst WTL argued that the investment management services were provided in relation to its non-economic activity of grant distribution meaning that the place of supply, pursuant to the EU law, would be where the supplier belonged.

There has been much case law around the issue of what constitutes a business activity and where a charity is acting in a taxable capacity pursuing an economic activity. In considering whether the Trust was acting in a business capacity, HMRC submitted that any supply to any taxable person must be regarded as taxable. The Court considered that HMRC could not be correct in this assertion as such an interpretation would mean, without any further language excluding such a person, that a taxable person receiving supplies for private purposes would still fall within Article 44 and would be required to account for VAT under the reverse charge. Therefore, it was observed, that to make Wellcome Trust fit into the definition of a taxable person in relation to these investment activities, HMRC would have to argue that the words “acting as such” exclude taxable persons receiving supplies for private purposes from Article 44 but do not take out taxable persons receiving supplies for non-economic business purposes. This was simply not a logical position to adopt.

The FTT gave much consideration to EU legislation as well as case law and concluded that WTL was not liable to account for VAT on the supplies received under the reverse charge procedure as it was not receiving the services in connection with any taxable activity, the place of supply rule determined by where the supplier belongs rather than WTL.

Constable VAT Comment: This judgment will be welcomed by charities who have both business and non-business activities and can directly attribute some input VAT costs to exempt supplies. Whilst the facts of the case are quite specific to Wellcome Trust, the decision serves as a useful reminder to those accounting for VAT under the reverse charge mechanism to clarify the VAT accounting position of their charity. The issue here, of course, was that VAT accounted for by WTL under the reverse charge procedure was irrecoverable.

 

3. VAT Exemption for Welfare Services (for private companies)

The question before the Upper Tribunal in two cases (The Learning Centre Romford & LIFE Services) was whether the UK’s implementation of the VAT exemption for welfare services had been unlawful by infringing the EU principle of fiscal neutrality. Whilst the service providers were private companies they were seeking to rely on the charitable exemption for state regulated bodies.

The Learning Centre Romford (LCR) is a private company which provides vulnerable adults with education and entertainment. It also supplies meals and associated palliative care such as assistance with eating and administering medication with the aim of teaching the clients to be independent and to live healthy lives. It takes on as clients only those who have a care plan given by the local authority from which LCR receives funding. LCR had treated these supplies as VAT exempt as the provision of welfare services by a state regulated institution. HMRC believed these supplies to be taxable at the standard rate as they were provided by a private company.

LCR argued that they were state regulated as it was a requirement for them to DBS check staff members and, in any case, the fact that private welfare providers akin to itself are in fact exempt from VAT in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It was contended that this infringed the principle of fiscal neutrality.

LIFE Services provided the same type of care as LCR but as it did not provide care at the client’s home it did not fall within the statutory regulation regime and was therefore not exempt from VAT.

HMRC argued that it was not the UK’s implementation of the exemption which had caused a disparity between Scottish and English welfare providers but that this situation had arisen as a result of the devolved legislature’s actions. The Tribunal agreed with HMRC, finding that in a devolved system it is inevitable that certain matters will diverge and, therefore, the principle of fiscal neutrality was not infringed. In allowing HMRC’s appeal on this ground, both cases were dismissed and the services of both LIFE and LCR were held to be taxable. This overturned the First Tier Tribunal’s previous decision.

Constable VAT Comment: This decision will be interesting to charities which may wish to step outside of the VAT welfare exemption. For example, if VAT exempt welfare services supplied by a charity were carried out by a wholly owned trading subsidiary instead, generating taxable supplies this could be advantageous in producing a right to input VAT recovery.

 

4. VAT Exemption for Supplies Closely Linked with VAT exempt Supplies of Education

This appeal concerned whether sales of goods by a student’s union can benefit from the VAT exemption for supplies closely associated with education. The FTT had previously ruled in HMRC’s favour, holding that the supplies did not benefit from the exemption.

Loughborough Students Union (LSU) contended that it was an eligible body for the purposes of the exemption from VAT afforded to supplies of education of certain types and that its supplies were sufficiently closely connected with the overall supply of education offered by the University to receive the benefit of this exemption.

The Upper Tribunal considered that LSU could constitute an eligible body for the purposes of the exemption as it is a registered charity and any surplus cash generated is assigned to the continuance of its own, charitable activities.

However, despite being an eligible body, the Court considered that in order for the exemption to take effect the supplies being provided must be closely related to a supply of VAT exempt education. As LSU does not make supplies of education and does not make its supplies to an education provider but rather to individual students, it will not be able to benefit from the exemption.

The UT concluded that the supplies made by LSU were not closely linked to education in any event as the supplies of education provided by the University would be just as good without the supplies of household goods made by LSU. Other supplies which could be associated with education, such as stationery, were not shown adequately by LSU to benefit from the exemption.

Constable VAT Comment: This case demonstrates that a mere association with an eligible body, such as a University, does not mean that educational VAT exemptions extend to all supplies made by affiliates of that body. Where seeking to rely on a VAT exemption it is essential to ensure that it can be correctly applied. Failure to take due care in this regard could lead to large VAT bills for charities who sought to benefit from VAT exemption.

Interestingly, there was some consideration given to supplies of art materials by LSU which could be associated with education and benefit from the exemption. However LSU failed to show this to any substantial degree. The discussion around stationery and art supplies clarifies that, where it can be evidenced, exemptions can extend beyond supplies to universities where the supply relates closely itself to the education being supplied.

 

5. Update to Notice 317

HMRC has updated Notice 317: Imports by charities free of duty and VAT on 4 June 2019. Paragraph 1.3 has been updated with information about time limits if you disagree with a Customs decision.

 

6. Update to Notice 701/1

HMRC has updated VAT Notice 701/1 (How VAT effects Charities) on 1 May 2019. Section 5.9.6 has been added. This comments on the position where there is a mix of sponsorship income and donations received.

 

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

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

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

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

 

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 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 28 February 2019

28th February 2019

HMRC NEWS

Find Software that is Compatible with Making Tax Digital for VAT

Check which software packages are compatible with Making Tax Digital for VAT.

HMRC Impact Assessment for the Movement of Goods if the UK leaves the EU without A Deal

The impact assessment originally published on 4 December 2018 has been updated to include the impacts on the customs, VAT and excise regulations laid before Parliament in January 2019.

HMRC Impact Assessment for the VAT Treatment of Low Value Parcels

Again, the original impact assessment has been updated.

 

BREXIT ALERT

As the 29 March Brexit date approaches there is still uncertainty around whether there will be any deal in place by then. It is essential that any traders or businesses which may be affected by changes in VAT procedures make plans to ensure a smooth transition.

Businesses trading with the EU need to consider the following:

If goods are moved

  • Getting an EORI number
  • Registering for simplified import procedures

If electronic services are supplied

  • Registering for non-Union MOSS in an EU member state as soon as possible after 29 March if there is no deal.

If goods are supplied to consumers in the EU under distance selling rules

  • Maybe VAT registrations are required in other EU countries?

If VAT is paid in other EU member states

  • Claims for 2018 must be submitted before 29 March 2019
  • How will this VAT be claimed after Brexit?

HMRC has updated its online guidance on the above, which can be viewed here.

Contact Constable VAT if any of the above will affect you or your business, we are happy to advise on any VAT related matter.

 

CONSTABLE VAT NEWS

Remember to enrol for Making Tax Digital on time and during the right enrolment window for your VAT accounting periods. Constable VAT have analysed the enrolment windows and our summary can be found here.

 

CASE REVIEW

CJEU

 

1. The Exemption for Goods Imported to be dispatched to Another EU Member State

This case concerned whether the exemption for import VAT on goods arriving in an EU member state to be dispatched immediately to another EU member state and whether domestic tax authorities can disapply the exemption where tax evasion is involved.

Vetsch is an Austrian company which acted as a tax representative for two Bulgarian companies, “K” and “B”. Vetsch submitted declarations stating that goods imported from Switzerland, by K and B, benefited from the exemption for goods imported for subsequent dispatch. However, the subsequent dispatch did not occur and Vetsch became liable under Austrian law, as representative, for the import VAT which should have been paid.

Vetsch appealed against a decision from the domestic tax authorities to that effect but the appeal was refused. Vetsch brought an appeal on a point of law before the domestic Courts which led to the CJEU referral.

The Court came to the conclusion that, as Vetsch was unaware and there was no evidence to support the idea that it knew or ought to have known about the subsequent evasion that the exemption could not be refused.

Constable Comment: This case shows how at an EU level, the strict interpretation of the law is not always adhered to if it creates inequitable results. In finding that Vetsch did not know and would not have known if carrying on business as a reasonable person would, the Court has upheld the idea of equity.

 

2. Retroactive Application of Implementing Decisions

This case concerned the application of the Decision authorising the Hungarian Government to apply the reverse charge procedure enshrined in EU law. The Hungarian tax authorities were notified of their authorisation in December 2015 but sought to rely on the implemented provision to retroactively assess Human Operator Zrt. for the January 2015 VAT return.

The question before the Court in this instance was whether EU law precludes national legislation from retroactively applying measures authorised in an Implementing Decision where that Decision does not make a comment on the retroactive applicability of that Decision or give a date on which it comes into effect.

The Court gave consideration to the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate interests. They concluded that the requirement of legal certainty must be observed very strictly when it comes to rules liable to entail financial consequences, in order that those concerned may know precisely the extent of the obligations which the rules impose on them. It was also held that these principles must mean that EU law can only apply to situations after they have explicitly come into force.

In the absence of a provision in the Decision suggesting a different date for it to bite, the Court considered that it must be taken to be effective from the date on which it was published.

Constable Comment: This case is a good demonstration of how the CJEU seeks to protect the rights of individuals and businesses against the State. The fundamental principles of the EU and the spirit of the law are given a great degree of influence in the European Courts. This decision has prevented a seemingly unconscionable result.

 

First Tier Tribunal

3. Electric Blinds in a DIY Build

This case concerned the right to deduct input VAT incurred in relation to a DIY house build by Mr David Cosham. Mr Cosham designed an “eco-build” property and sought to recover input VAT on building materials used under the DIY housebuilders scheme. HMRC accepted certain elements of the claim but rejected the element which related to electric blinds installed at the property, asserting that electric blinds are not within the definition of “building materials” for VAT purposes associated with the scheme.

Appealing HMRC’s decision, Mr Cosham claimed that the blinds did fall within the definition as they are “ordinarily incorporated by builders in a building of that description”. He contended that “buildings of that description” should, in this case, be taken to mean “eco-builds”.

Giving some consideration to relevant case law, the Tribunal found that “eco-builds” were a well-established market sector and could be recognised as a distinct type of property. The onus was put on Mr Cosham to show that blinds such as those in question were “ordinarily incorporated” into properties of this description. Mr Cosham could produce no such evidence so his appeal was denied, the Tribunal holding HMRC’s decision to be correct.

Constable Comment: This conclusion drew on previous case law such as Taylor Wimpey and came to the conclusion that “eco-builds” are to be treated as a class of property in themselves. This is interesting as it could be argued that, compared to older housebuilding practices, the vast majority of new build homes are definable as “eco”. This case has opened up the question of what exactly is ordinarily incorporated into an “eco-build”. It is unsurprising that HMRC pursued this point. Blinds more generally are objected to by HMRC despite losing a previous case at the First Tier Tribunal on a related point.

 

4. Deception: A Supply of Goods or Services?

This case concerned Mr Owen Saunders who had been found guilty of taking money in exchange for work he promised to perform but never had the intention of performing. He had been found guilty as a criminal and been sentenced to time in prison as well as having been served a confiscation order for in excess of £60,000. The confiscated funds had been divided equally amongst his victims by way of compensation for their loss.

HMRC contended that Mr Saunders was engaged in a business activity and should have been registered for VAT. The Tribunal believed that the crucial issue was whether or not there had been a supply for a consideration made in the furtherance of business. Giving consideration to the examples of drug dealers (who can pass title in goods) and fences (who cannot as they never gained title) as well as the definition of a supply in accordance with VAT law, the Tribunal held that there was no supply by Mr Saunders for the monies he received.

The assessment and associated penalties against Mr Saunders were quashed, it was held that his conduct had led to a “total failure of consideration” which was evidenced by the fact that 100% of the confiscated money was paid back to the victims.

Constable Comment: This was an interesting case in that it analysed Mr Saunders as akin to a drug dealer or someone fencing stolen goods. A particularly interesting point raised was the fact that a drug dealer can pass title to his goods and thus his turnover represents supplies and consideration so, in turn, could create an obligation to register for VAT. This illustrates the point that a lack of compliance with the law does not discount the supplies made from turnover for VAT purposes.

 

Constable VAT Focus 14 February 2019

14th February 2019

HMRC NEWS

Check When a Business Must Follow the Rules for Making Tax Digital for VAT

Find out if and when you (or your clients) need to follow the rules for Making Tax Digital for VAT.

Use Software to Submit Your VAT Returns

If you submit VAT returns as a sole trader, limited company, partnership or as part of a VAT group, you may be eligible to join the Making Tax Digital Pilot for VAT.

Making Tax Digital for VAT as an Agent

Follow these steps if you are an agent and you want to submit VAT returns for your clients digitally.

 

CONSTABLE VAT NEWS

 

We have an upcoming Breakfast on 27th February where we will discuss the impact of Brexit on VAT. Please book yourself a spot as food will be provided for those with reserved spaces. For details, please see here.

The CIOT have released a useful illustration of when businesses must register for the Making Tax Digital pilot for VAT. Our analysis can be found here.

 

CASE REVIEW

 

CJEU

 

1. Evidence in Criminal Prosecutions

This case concerned the EU law around the collection of VAT as well as the general EU principle of effectiveness. The main case focusses on a Bulgarian VAT offence but the questions before the CJEU in this instance concerned whether EU law must be interpreted as precluding a national court from applying a national provision excluding evidence which was obtained illegally.

Petar Dzivev and others were charged with having committed fraud in Bulgaria and sought to profit by not paying over tax owed to the Bulgarian tax authorities. A Bulgarian Court ordered that telecommunications between Mr. Dzivev and others involved should be intercepted.

It is common ground that the Court which authorised the interception did not have the necessary jurisdiction to do so, therefore the interceptions were not in accordance with the law of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights.

The CJEU held that in cases such as this, EU law cannot require a national court to disapply a procedural rule preventing the state’s reliance on illegally obtained evidence. It was observed that even in situations where only this type of evidence is capable of proving that the offences were committed, EU law still may not prevent a national court from excluding evidence obtained illegally.

Constable Comment: In this instance the right to privacy given to individuals under the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights was given priority over the ability of the state to effectively collect taxes under the principle of effectiveness. It is not a surprising result but it is demonstrative of the EU’s tendency to confer rights on individuals over member states.

 

FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL

 

2. Agent or Principal?

This case concerned whether or not Mr Bryn Williams was acting as an agent or a principal in relation to the taxi business which he operates. He takes bookings for and tenders for contracts with local authorities who provide cab travel. He sends his drivers out to complete the contracts he signs.

HMRC contended that he acts as a principal, supplying taxi services to local authorities and, in turn, receiving taxi services from drivers, all for a consideration. They stated that Mr. Williams owns some of the cars himself and he bears the running costs of the contracts, which were negotiated without driver input. Mr. Williams argued that he was an agent, highlighting various factors pointing to this such as the fact that drivers could negotiate fess with him and keep their cars at home.

As with all agent or principal cases, regard was given to the material aspects of the operation as opposed to the strict wording of contracts. The Tribunal considered the nature of the connection between the driver and the local authority who Mr. Williams paired up. A typical agency situation would involve Mr. Williams negotiating on behalf of a driver, ultimately to form a contract between the driver and the local authority.

It was found that when Mr. Williams was negotiating the contracts with the local authorities there was no pre-determined driver meaning that there was no relationship between the local authority and the driver. Therefore it was held that Mr. Williams must be acting as a principal as there was no driver on whose behalf he was acting.

Constable Comment: This case shows the delicate balance of factors that determine whether someone is an agent or a principal. Due regard must be had to the contracts in place but also the commercial reality of the transaction. This case highlighted some useful areas of consideration and if your business operates in a similar way to Mr William’s, it is essential to ensure it is operating correctly to avoid unexpected VAT bills in the future.

 

 

3. Reasonable Excuse: Default Surcharge

This case concerned Ms. Chandler, a VAT registered sole trader who used the Flat Rate Scheme (FRS) to account for her VAT. In 2015 HMRC visited her and discovered that she had failed to increase the FRS percentage used in line with both statutory increases and the expiration of the “first year reduction” of 1%. HMRC sought to penalise Mr. Chandler but she contended that the default surcharge should not apply to her as HMRC had not taken all payments made by Ms. Chandler into account.

Ms. Chandler had made payments to HMRC but had made them to the wrong account; she had previously traded using a different registration number and mistakenly paid her VAT liability into this account meaning the funds were suspended and held by HMRC. HMRC did not accept this as payment, asserting that in order for a payment to be effective it had to be credited to the correct account. The Tribunal found this to be incorrect. It was found that the VAT regulations only require VAT to be paid to the Controller: which taxpayer account is not mentioned.

Despite this, there were still some historic accounting periods which attracted a default surcharge. For these periods Ms. Chandler argued that she had a reasonable excuse for the lack of funds which rendered her incapable of making payments to HMRC. Whilst an inability to pay cannot constitute a reasonable excuse, the Tribunal is willing to accept that the underlying cause of a lack of funds may indeed constitute such an excuse. Accepting that a fraud committed against Ms. Chandler constituted a reasonable excuse for the remaining periods, the Tribunal held that all surcharges against her were cancelled.

Constable Comment: This case is a useful example of where there is a reasonable excuse for having made late payments to HMRC. Whilst HMRC and the Tribunals are normally reluctant to accept a lack of funds as an excuse for late payment, in this instance there was a clear reason for the insufficiency of funds, the effects of which were being felt later.

 

If these cases raise any points that you would like to clarify or discuss, or you have any other VAT related concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Constable VAT and we will be pleased to assist.

 

 

 

Constable VAT Focus 15 November 2018

15th November 2018

 

This VAT Focus provides the usual updates of HMRC news, in particular updates on the availability of certain HMRC services in the upcoming planned downtime. We also cover some of the most recent developments from the Tax Tribunal and Court of Justice of the European Union including the decision in the C&D Foods Acquisitions ApS case.

 

HMRC NEWS

 

Service Availability of VAT Mini One Stop Shop

Check for any issues and service availability of the VAT Mini One Stop Shop.

Service Availability of EU VAT Refunds online

Check for any issues and service availability of EU VAT Refunds online.

Service Availability of VAT online

Check for any issues and service availability of VAT online.

Service Availability of EC Sales List

Check for any issues and service availability of ECSL.

Service Availability of Reverse Charge Sales List

Check for any issues and service availability of Reverse Charge Sales List

 

CASE REVIEW

CJEU

 

1. Holdings Companies Recovering VAT

C&D Foods Acquisition ApS was the Danish parent company in the Arovit group which included Arovit Holdings. Arovit Holdings controlled Arovit Petfood which, in turn, owned other companies within the group. C&D Foods provided management and IT services to Arovit Petfood in exchange for a fee to which VAT was added.

The Arovit group failed to repay a loan received from Kaupthing Bank so the group was acquired for EUR1 by the bank. The bank then entered into a number of consultancy agreements on behalf of C&D Foods in relation to selling the shares in Arovit Petfood to satisy the outstanding debt. Having paid the money over for the consultancy, C&D sought to recover the input VAT on the fees.

The Danish tax authorities refused this claim on the grounds that the expenditure by C&D did not relate to their taxable supplies or exhibit any connection with them at all.

The Court held that owing to the fact that there is no connection between the taxable activities of the company being sold and the input VAT incurred on consultancy relating to that company’s sale, the transactions are themselves outside the scope of VAT and, therefore, no right to deduct the VAT ever arose.

Constable Comment: This decision gave much consideration to the rules of holding companies seeking to recover VAT on activities other than purely holding and acquiring shares which is outside the scope of VAT. The rules are complicated and can easily lead to mistakes and there is significant case law relating to holding companies recovering VAT. It is always prudent to seek professional advice before making a VAT reclaim using a holding company involved in a complex business structure.

 

Upper Tribunal

 

2. Exemption for Supplies Closely Linked with Supplies of Education

This appeal concerned whether sales of goods by a student’s union can benefit from the VAT exemption for supplies closely associated with education. The FTT had previously ruled in HMRC’s favour, holding that the supplies did not benefit from the exemption.

The Upper Tribunal considered that Loughborough Student’s Union (LSU) could constitute an eligible body for the purposes of the exemption as it is a registered charity and any surplus cash generated is assigned to the continuance of its own, charitable activities.

However, despite being an eligible body, the Court considered that in order for the exemption to take effect the supplies being provided must be closely related to a supply of VAT exempt education. As LSU does not make supplies of education and does not make its supplies to an education provider but rather to individual students, it will not be able to benefit from the exemption.

The UT concluded that the supplies made by LSU were not closely linked to education in any event as the supplies of education provided by the University would be just as good without the supplies of household goods made by the SU. Other supplies which could be associated with education such as stationery were not shown adequately by LSU to benefit from the exemption.

The appeal was dismissed.

Constable Comment: This case demonstrates that a mere association with an eligible body such as a University does not mean that educational VAT exemptions extend to all supplies made by affiliates of that body. Interestingly there was some consideration given to supplies of art materials by LSU which could be associated with education and therefore benefit from the exemption, however LSU failed to show this to any substantial degree.

 

 

3. Amending Grounds of Appeal

This decision relates to an application by Ballards of Finchley Plc (Ballards) to amend its grounds of appeal relating to a historic Fleming claim for overpaid output VAT.

Ballards submitted a claim in 2003 claiming repayment of VAT overpaid during the period from 1 April 1973 to May 1999. Following the decision in Fleming, HMRC wrote in 2017 agreeing to pay part of the total amount claimed subject to certain confirmations and that, if the House of Lords were to overrule Fleming, an agreement to pay back the money to HMRC.

There was correspondence between the parties during which the accountants of the appellant wrote to HMRC seeking to adjust the amount of the reclaim, asserting that the retail price index used by HMRC failed to take into account times of great inflation. It was on these grounds that Ballards sought to amend their appeal. HMRC sought to deny the amendment on the grounds that the claims had already been settled and could, therefore, no longer be subject to the Tribunal’s discretion.

Giving consideration to case law, this decision revolved around whether the claims could be regarded as “completed” by the agreement in 2007. It is an established principle that where a claim has been paid in full the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to amend the grounds of appeal since it can no longer hear the appeal.

The Tribunal decided that, despite the fact that Ballards may have to pay the money back, the claims are to be seen as settled and there is no right to amend their grounds of appeal. The Tribunal also refused to employ discretion in this case on the grounds that “…it would be to no avail.”

Constable Comment: Legislation and case law both dictate that once a claim has been settled or “completed” then it is no longer within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to analyse that claim. In this instance Counsel for the appellant sought to increase the value of a claim by asserting that incorrect inflation calculations had been performed when calculating the initial claim. This case reaffirms that once an agreement is reached between HMRC and the taxpayer, that agreement is, in most cases, conclusive.

 

 

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 27 September 2018

27th September 2018

HMRC NEWS

Trading Goods Regulated Under the “New Approach” if There Is No Brexit

How trading in harmonised goods regulated under the New Approach would be affected if the UK leaves the EU with no deal.

Software Suppliers Supporting Making Tax Digital for VAT

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

Customs Declaration Service

The Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) process is being replaced by CDS, a modern and flexible system that can handle anticipated future import and export growth.

 

CHANGE OF WEBSITE AND EMAIL ADDRESSES

Constable VAT Consultancy is in the process of updating its website to make it easier to access information about our services and to keep you up to date all the upcoming changes in VAT. The first step in this process is a change in our website and email addresses from ukvatadvice.com to constablevat.com. You don’t need to do anything to continue to access our website or your usual contacts, all mail and website traffic will automatically be rerouted. However, you will notice that emails coming to you will show our new email addresses. If you are in any doubt at any time as to whether an email you receive from us is genuine please call our office on 01206 321029.

 

CASE REVIEW

 

Upper Tier Tribunal

 

1. Splitting Single Supplies

This appeal concerns whether the VAT legislation allows application of a reduced rate of VAT to a component of what is, for VAT purposes, otherwise regarded as a single, standard rated supply. The Appellant had received assessments from HMRC for underpaid output VAT owing to the fact that single supplies were being split between standard and reduced rates of VAT.

A N Checker supplied and installed boilers along with energy-saving materials in domestic properties. The question before the Tribunal was whether the supplies were single supplies subject to either one or two rates of VAT. A N Checker did not argue that the whole supply should benefit from the reduced rate because of the reduced-rated component of the supply but that the reduced-rated component should benefit from the reduced rate despite being part of a single, standard rated supply of the installation of boilers.

The Tribunal found that, in the absence of a legislative provision for apportionment, a component of a single supply does not benefit from a reduced rate when forming part of a single, standard rated supply. It was asserted that, despite ambiguity in the construction of the legislation, there is no presumption in favour of a more liberal application or interpretation of the reduced rating provisions. The appeal was dismissed.

Constable Comment: Whilst certain supplies may be clearly defined and their treatment definitively described in VAT legislation, there are businesses which may make complex supplies of combined goods and services. In light of this decision, these businesses may wish to refresh existing practices and seek professional advice around the VAT treatment of their supplies.

 

First Tier Tribunal

 

2. Alteration or Annexe

This decision concerned the VAT liability of construction works undertaken at a church building, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster sought to argue that the construction of a new hall attached to the old building after the remodelling of the church constituted an annexe to an existing building and should qualify for zero-rating. HMRC argued that the new hall constituted an alteration, enlargement or extension and was excluded from the zero-rate.

Prior to the construction, the Church had been separated into two areas, a worship area and a hall. The two were distinct from each other. The new hall had its own doors and was kept separate from the Churches area of worship; the hall being used for social events such as whist drives. The Tribunal considered that the construction work had been carried out in order to expand worship space for the Church and therefore, that the hall was a supplementary structure and an annexe to an already existing building.

The FTT also considered that the annexe could operate separately from the main Church with its own doors, toilet facilities, kitchen and radiators. It is held that the costs incurred were correctly treated as zero-rated by the Diocese.

Constable Comment: This case will be of interest to anyone carrying out construction works. It is prudent to seek professional advice before works begin as if the incorrect rate of VAT is applied throughout a lengthy and expensive project, it is possible that HMRC will seek to recover any input VAT incorrectly claimed or issue VAT penalty assessments if a certificate is issued to a contractor claiming zero-rating in error.

 

3. DIY Housebuilder’s Scheme

This appeal is against a decision by HMRC to refuse a refund of VAT incurred on the construction of a building as a DIY Housebuilder.

The Appellant received planning permission in 2011 for a proposed building to be used for tourism purposes only. This was an explicit term in the permission and it was specifically stated that the property “…shall not be occupied on a permanent basis.” Following completion of the construction, the DIY VAT refund claim was submitted to HMRC seeking to recover the VAT incurred on the costs of the build.

The VAT repayment was denied on the grounds that the property was only for business purposes; one of the covenants attached to the planning permission being that the property be used for tourism purposes only. HMRC contended that this meant that the property had been constructed in the course of business and so the DIY housebuilders scheme was inapplicable.

Giving a reasonable amount of time to the Appellant’s submissions, the Tribunal found in favour of HMRC and upheld its refusal to repay VAT incurred on the grounds that the intention and planning permission for the development was specifically for business purposes and prohibited domestic use.

Constable Comment: The DIY Housebuilder’s scheme enables people wishing to build their own homes to put themselves on a level playing field with property developers who can recover their input tax provided that they intend to make taxable supplies. It can be a complex process and standards of proof can be very high. If you are considering submitting a DIY Housebuilder’s claim or beginning a project then please do not hesitate to contact Constable VAT. In this case the appellant could have VAT registered voluntarily, supplies of holiday accommodation being standard rated, and reclaimed VAT incurred. VAT would have to have been accounted for on supplies of holiday accommodation moving forward.

 

4. Personal Export Scheme

This is an appeal against a decision by HMRC to refuse to allow the personal export scheme to apply to the Appellant’s export of a vehicle.

Hofmanns Henley Limited (HHL) is a car dealership which agreed the sale of a car to a customer resident in Jersey. It was intended that the Personal Export Scheme be applied to export the car at the zero-rate of VAT. Having agreed the sale and sent the appropriate paperwork to HMRC, the car was supplied to the customer.

HMRC refused the application to use the scheme claiming that HHL did not have the necessary pre-approval to zero-rate the car’s export; whilst the forms had been sent off, they had not been approved prior to the car’s removal from the UK.

HHL conceded that it had made a mistake but asserted that it was, at least in part, the fault of HMRC’s misdirection given over the telephone. HMRC also concede that the incorrect information was given to the Appellant over the ‘phone but state that the complaints in relation to this had been handled separately through the formal grievance procedure.

The Tribunal held in favour of HMRC as the criteria for the application of the Personal Export Scheme had not been met.

Constable Comment: Whilst this case revealed mistakes by both sides it serves to prove an important point. HMRC telephone conversations and Public Notices are not to be relied on as the law. For any high value purchase or acquisition with a potentially complex cross-border transaction and application of a special scheme it is vital to seek professional advice to ensure the highest degree of compliance. In circumstances such as these, HMRC often state “the law is the law” even in cases of official error. Where doubt or ambiguity exists, submitting a non-statutory clearance application to HMRC is the safest approach because HMRC will be bound by this, provided full facts have been presented.

CVC VAT Focus 13 September 2018

13th September 2018

HMRC NEWS

HMRC and online marketplaces agreement to promote VAT compliance

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

Claim a VAT refund as an organisation not registered for VAT

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

Software suppliers supporting Making Tax Digital

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

Cash accounting scheme (VAT Notice 731)

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

CVC MAKING TAX DIGITAL UPDATE

 

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

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

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

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

 

CASE REVIEW

First Tier Tribunal

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

2. Golden Cube – Whether output tax was understated

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

CVC VAT Focus 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.

 

 

CVC VAT Focus 31 May 2018

31st May 2018

HMRC NEWS

Imports and VAT (Notice 702)

One must now report imports that are over £873 in value on a Single Administrative Document.

 

OTHER VAT NEWS

We understand that HMRC has begun to contact firms directly regarding the VAT treatment of electronic searches following the Brabners LLP VAT case summarised on our website. The Law Society has issued guidance which can be viewed here.

 

CVC BLOG

VAT recovery, supplying insurance and the benefits of customer location

VAT exempt supplies do not normally provide a right to reclaim VAT on costs incurred in making such supplies. However, certain supplies that would ordinarily give no right to input VAT recovery may be ‘specified’ to do so when the customer is located outside the EU. Follow the link to read our most recent blog, by Robert Thorpe, which explains this further.

 

CASE REVIEW

CJEU

1. Retrospective application of VAT exemption schemes

In this matter, the domestic Courts of Hungary ask whether EU law precludes national legislation prohibiting retroactive application of a special VAT exemption scheme for small traders to an eligible, taxable person but who did not declare the commencement of his taxable activities and did not, therefore, opt for the application of that scheme.

 

In the main proceedings, Mr. Dávid Vámos had made taxable supplies from 2007 until January 2014 seeking to support his usual income. However, he failed to register this activity with the tax authorities, also failing to raise invoices and keep receipts. Following an investigation into his tax affairs, Mr Vámos registered for VAT on 22 January 2014 and opted for application of the exemption. A secondary investigation by the domestic tax authorities revealed a VAT debt. The tax authority took the view that national law did not allow retrospective application of the option to be exempt from VAT and so imposed the relevant penalties.

 

The question before the Court is whether national legislation preventing the retrospective application of a VAT exemption scheme is contrary to EU law. Mr Vámos contended that he should have been asked if he wished to retrospectively exercise the option when he registered as he was eligible for the scheme.

 

The Opinion of the Court in this instance is that, given exemption can lead to mixed results for businesses, it cannot be assumed that all taxable persons entitled to an exemption intend to opt for it. Taking into account the effect retrospective application of the exemption would have on previous transactions and other businesses, the Court held it reasonable that the domestic tax authorities require taxable persons to make an express choice of the VAT regime they wish to have applied if it is different to the default regime.

 

The Court also agreed with Hungarian tax authorities that allowing taxable persons who failed to declare the commencement of their activities to retrospectively exercise that option would give an unfair advantage, distorting competition in their favour, breaking the principle of fiscal neutrality. Concluding, it is asserted that EU law does not preclude national legislation prohibiting retrospective application of special exemption schemes, even in cases where the taxable person fulfils all the material conditions for using the scheme.

 

CVC Comment: This case should serve as a reminder of the importance of considering tax and legal obligations before, as opposed to after, beginning to carry on what is or could be considered to be a trade.

2. Divergent criminal thresholds for taxation

Mauro Scialdone

This request for a preliminary ruling concerned interpretation of the EU law relating to criminal penalties for failing to pay VAT within the time limit prescribed by domestic (Italian) law. The General Provisions of the PFI Convention provide that in cases of serious fraud involving more than €50,000, penalties including imprisonment must be available to Member States.

 

Italian law provided for the penalty of imprisonment in cases where the taxpayer failed to pay, within the relevant time limits, any VAT owed over €50,000. The same penalties applied to other taxes such as income tax. Subsequent updates to Italian law saw the threshold for imprisonment increase for failure to pay VAT to €250,000.00 and for income tax to €150,000.00.

 

Whilst much consideration was given to other issues, the questions relating to VAT before the CJEU concerned whether EU law precludes domestic legislation from prescribing different thresholds for criminalising failure to pay VAT and income tax. Consideration was given to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence. The Italian authorities contended that as the two taxes have different collection and administrative regimes and differing degrees of identifiability of fraud, the distinction in penalties was justified.

 

It was held that neither principle precludes domestic legislation such as that in the main proceedings which provides that failure to pay, within the given time limit, the VAT resulting from the annual tax return constitutes a criminal offence only when the amount of unpaid VAT exceeds €250,000.00 whereas a threshold of €150,000.00 applies to failure to pay income tax.

 

CVC Comment: This case makes clear that seriously non-compliant taxpayers can face custodial sentences as well as fines. It highlights some of the differences between direct and indirect tax regimes and the judgment reflects an understanding of this.

Upper Tribunal

 

3.Student Accommodation: Zero-rating Certificate

This appeal concerned the liability of supplies made by Summit Electrical Installations Limited (Summit) as a sub-contractor to a development of student accommodation. Create Construction (Create) had appointed Summit after receiving a zero-rating certificate from the developer stating that the development was for a relevant residential purpose (RRP). As the certificate stated RRP, HMRC contended that only supplies by Create to the developer could be zero-rated and Summit’s supplies should be standard rated as they were sub-contractors. Summit refuted this stating that they could rely on zero-rating provisions as the supplies were made in the course of the construction of a building designed as a number of dwellings.

 

The FTT agreed with Summit, also considering an issue of planning conditions which HMRC contended prohibited zero-rating; as the buildings must be let to students of certain Universities, there was a prohibition of separate use or disposal of the flats. The FTT dismissed this as the flats could be sold separately so long as students lived in them.

 

HMRC appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) against the decision in relation to the prohibition of separate use or disposal, asserting that the development failed to qualify as “dwellings” due to the alleged prohibition on separate use or disposal. The UT found that, in accordance with case law, for there to be a prohibition on separate use for the purposes at hand there must be a prohibition on the use of the premises separate from the use of some other specific land, a connection to the Universities mentioned in the planning consent was not sufficient. The UT upheld the decision of the FTT and dismissed HMRC’s appeal, allowing Summit’s supplies to be zero-rated as in the course of construction of a building to be used as a number of dwellings.

 

CVC Comment: This is a positive result for Summit as well as, potentially, for other sub-contractors appointed by Create. This judgment shows the importance of planning before taking on any development projects. Had the Tribunal found differently, Summit and other contractors may have been burdened with a VAT debt.

 

First Tier Tribunal

 

4. Adjustments, agreements and time limits

HMRC sought here to strike out an appeal by Buckingham Bingo Limited (BBL) on the grounds that BBL were appealing against a letter from HMRC which did not contain any appealable decision. In 2012, BBL submitted a VAT return which included a reclaim for £1,616,384.44 overpaid output VAT. HMRC promptly issued a decision denying this reclaim and BBL did not appeal on the basis of costs.

 

Following developments in case law (KE Entertainments Ltd) BBL wrote to HMRC seeking to recover the original amount. HMRC replied on 5 January 2017 stating that they had already ruled on this matter and that BBL had decided not to appeal. It was also noted that there are time limits on adjustments to VAT returns, out of which BBL found itself.

 

The FTT agreed with HMRC that the time limits relating to adjustments applied and that the letter dated 5 January 2017 did not contain an appealable decision but more reaffirmed an earlier one. BBL argued that it would be unfair if it were not allowed to make an adjustment in the same way as Carlton Clubs and KE Entertainment Limited and so should be granted an extension to make an appeal. The Tribunal dismissed this, placing great weight on the need for finality in decisions and stressing that BBL had already stated in 2012 that it would not appeal the original decision based on costs.

 

The Tribunal agreed with HMRC, on all grounds, and BBL’s appeal was struck out. It is not granted any extension to amend its notice of appeal.

 

CVC Comment: It is essential to be aware of all relevant time limits when it comes to making adjustments to VAT returns. This case shows that the Tribunal takes due process seriously and will not agree with the taxpayer because their position might seem unfair. It is also a useful reminder to make sure all communications should be carefully and appropriately worded to prevent interpretive issues arising.

 

5. Appeal by post: letter not received by Tribunal

This decision relates to an appeal made by Porter & Co (Porter) challenging VAT surcharge liability for VAT periods 05/13 and 11/13, of which it was informed on 4 March 2014. Porter was originally given the right to appeal the surcharge notices within 30 days of receipt.

 

Porter apparently responded with a notice of appeal on 2 April 2014, however the Tribunal has no record of having received this letter. Indeed, a notice was received but on 31 July 2017. As well as relevant case law, legislation dictates that when “serving” something by post, the service takes place at the time of postage so long as the postage is done correctly. Whilst the appeal was not sent tracked or special delivery, this is not a legal requirement. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal found in favour of Porter but in determining when this would have been received, it was concluded that the appeal, had it arrived, would have arrived a day out of time anyway.

 

The Tribunal needed to consider, therefore, whether permission should be given for the notice of appeal to be given late. As it was only one day out of time and in the interest of not offering prejudice to HMRC, the Tribunal were inclined to give permission for the late notice and held in favour of Porter.

 

CVC Comment: The Tribunal gave this ruling a caveat that, had they not found the original notice for appeal was only one day out of time, it would not have been inclined to give permission. Had the Tribunal ruled it received the notice on 31 July 2017 then it would have been three years late and this would have been too long. This is a demonstration that the Tribunal will take timing and intention into account when dealing with taxpayers.

 

CVC VAT Focus 17 May 2018

17th May 2018

 

HMRC NEWS

VAT on antiques or art from historic houses (Notice 701/12)

This explains which disposals of assets from historic houses are within the scope of VAT.

HMRC and online marketplaces agreement to promote VAT compliance

HMRC has committed to working with online marketplaces to set out a cooperation agreement to promote VAT compliance.

VAT: missing trader fraud

Find out how to spot VAT missing trader fraud and how to protect yourself or your business from organised criminals.

Revoke an option to tax after 20 years have passed

Form VAT1614J has been updated.

 

OTHER VAT NEWS

We understand that HMRC has begun to contact firms directly regarding the VAT treatment of electronic searches following the Brabners LLP VAT case summarised on our website. The Law Society has issued guidance which can be viewed here.

CVC BLOG

VAT recovery, supplying insurance and the benefits of customer location

Exempt supplies do not normally provide a right to reclaim VAT on costs incurred in making such supplies. However, certain supplies that would ordinarily give no right to VAT recovery may be ‘specified’ to do so when the customer is located outside the EU. Follow the link to read our most recent blog, by Robert Thorpe, which explains this further.

CASE REVIEW

CJEU

 

1. Right of deduction after a tax inspection

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of EU law and the principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality. In the main proceedings, Zabrus Siret filed VAT returns following tax inspections requesting repayment of VAT. The national tax authorities refused to reimburse this tax as the amounts being claimed related to a tax period which had already been subject to an inspection by the domestic tax authority. Zabrus Siret appealed this decision.

There were two questions before the court in this instance, amounting to one main question, being whether EU law precluded national legislation which the right to reclaim VAT in respect of a tax period which had previously been subject to a tax inspection.

As the Court has held previously, the right of deduction is an integral part of the VAT system and may not, in general, be limited. The right to deduct VAT in Romania is subject to a five year limitation period which is shortened in the event of a tax inspection. The effect of this is that the taxpayer cannot correct VAT returns for tax periods which have been subject to an inspection. Whilst the Romanian authorities argued that this was a legitimate practice, the Court held that the EU law principles does preclude national legislation which prevent, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a taxable person from claiming his right of deduction following a tax inspection.

 

CVC Comment: The right of deduction is fundamental and can only be limited in very specific circumstances. This ruling demonstrates that even where domestic laws seem to preclude this right in line with EU law, the CJEU are prepared to rule in favour of the taxpayer in matters such as those at hand. In practice this decision will have no impact on UK taxpayers as the UK rule preventing recovery of VAT once a VAT period is more than four years old is considered proportionate to the needs of the State to have certainty on its fiscal position.

 

2. Deductibility of VAT in a failed takeover

This case concerns Ryanair’s bid to take over Aer Lingus. Despite failing with its bid, Ryanair incurred significant VAT costs. Ryanair claimed a deduction of this VAT, which was denied by the Irish tax authorities on the grounds that acquisition and holding of shares does not constitute an economic activity within EU law.

Two questions are before the CJEU in this instance; whether an intention to provide management services to a takeover target is sufficient to establish that the acquirer is involved in an economic activity and if there can be a direct and immediate link between professional services rendered in the context of such a potential takeover and the potential provision of management services.

The Court has yet to issue a judgment but the Advocate General has issued a preliminary opinion, that input tax recovery was justified by Ryanair, not as a holding company, but because it was seeking to take over Aer Lingus in order to extend an operating business.

CVC Comment: We await a CJEU decision but if this follows the AG’s opinion then this would suggest that HMRC’s policies on input tax recovery are, in some cases, too restrictive.

 Court of Appeal

 

3. VAT recovery: VAT incurred in relation to investment activity

The Court of Appeal has referred matters raised in The Chancellor, Master and Scholars of the University of Cambridge case to the CJEU for guidance. The Court of Appeal proposes to ask the CJEU for guidance on the following:

  • Where management fees are incurred in relation to a non-taxable investment activity is it possible to make the necessary link between those costs and the economic activities which are subsidised with the investment income.
  • The Court of Appeal also seeks confirmation that its reading of the Sveda decision is correct and that no distinction is to be made between exempt and non-taxable transactions for deciding whether input tax is deductible.

CVC comment: the First Tier and Upper Tribunal previously ruled that the input tax incurred in relation to investment management fees could be treated as residual input tax and is recoverable to the extent that income derived supports taxable business activities. Taxpayers must hope that the CJEU agree.

 

4. Zero-rating the construction of a relevant charitable purpose building

Wakefield College, a charity, appealed against the Upper Tribunal’s decision that construction services provided to it in the course of constructing a new building were not zero-rated for VAT purposes. The supply in the course of construction of a building intended for use for a relevant charitable purpose i.e. a non-business activity, may be zero-rated.

The issue in this case was whether subsidised fees charged to students prevents the zero-rate from applying because it renders the education a business activity.

The Court of Appeal found that the supply of courses by Wakefield College to students paying subsidised fees is a business activity. The Court of Appeal provided the following reasons for its decisions:

  • The sole activity of the College is the provision of educational courses, this is not an ancillary activity.
  • The provision of courses to students paying subsidised fees is significant.
  • The fees paid by subsidised students are significant in amount.
  • The subsidised fees made a significant contribution to the cost of providing courses.
  • The level of course fees was fixed by reference to the cost of the courses.
  • The fees were not fixed by reference to the means of the student.

The College’s appeal was dismissed.

CVC comment: Wakefield College previously won its case before the First Tier Tribunal; however, HMRC succeeded in appealing the FTT’s decision to the Upper Tribunal. This decision provides further clarification of ‘non-business’ for VAT purposes. The Court of Appeal considered the CJEU decisions in Borsele and Finland, as well as the decision in Longridge on the Thames.

Upper Tribunal

 

5. Third party consideration in a points reward scheme

This appeal by Marriot Rewards LLC & Whitbread Group PLC concerned whether payments made by Marriot Rewards (MR) to hotels participating in the loyalty scheme were consideration as a supply to MR or, alternatively, represented third party consideration paid by MR for supplies to customers redeeming points earned on the scheme, the reward being a “free” stay in a hotel. MR had submitted a reclaim of input VAT on the basis that payments made to participating hotels were consideration for services supplied.

A further issue arose; if payments were not third party consideration then were they payments for services relating to immovable property or advertising. This was relevant to the issue of where the supplies arose under VAT place of supply rules.

Upholding the decision of the FTT, the UT held that payments made by MR to hotels participating in the scheme were for supplies of services to MR. As regards the question of whether the supplies were related to land (immovable property) or advertising, the UT held that the supplies fell into neither description. This was relevant because for periods prior to 2010 Whitbread had sought to recover overpaid output VAT on the basis that it was, as a participating hotel operator, supplying services that fell outside the scope of VAT. Conversely, for periods after 2010, HMRC argued that the supplies should not have attracted VAT under the general place of supply rule, such that MR was ineligible to reclaim that VAT under the 13th Directive (MR wanted the services to be land related such that UK VAT charged could be reclaimed.

CVC Comment: This was a complex case involving three parties with different interests in the outcome. However, as far as the fundamental question of who redeems supplied services to it further undermines HMRC’s attempts to view the beneficiary of business promotion schemes as the recipient of supplies, a preferred analysis if HMRC in seeking to block VAT refunds. Whilst there are aspects of this case and appeal which are unique, those operating points rewards schemes should consider and clarify the VAT position in relation to any supplies made between parent groups and “redeeming” participating parties. It is also important to consider carefully exactly what supplies are being made and where they are being made for tax purposes.

First Tier Tribunal

 

6. Requirement to provide security for VAT

This appeal concerns a requirement to provide security to HMRC in respect of, amongst other taxes, VAT. Owing to historic non-compliance by the appellant and on-going non-compliance following entering into a “Time to Pay” arrangement with HMRC for substantial arrears, HMRC served a Notice to Derby Access Scaffolding (DAS), the appellant, requiring security for future VAT.

It was submitted by the appellant that the Notices requiring security to be provided were flawed and unreasonable. HMRC had failed to enter into dialogue with the appellant and had therefore made unreasonable projections of profit for DAS. It was also submitted that HMRC’s internal reviews could not be fair as they were internal and that the principle that decisions be made in a fair and reasonable manner had not been followed in this case. HMRC contended that it was reasonable to require security in the given circumstances, especially when considering historic non-compliance.

The Tribunal gave very little consideration to the notion that HMRC’s internal reviews were not partial. It also held that there is no obligation on HMRC to enter into dialogue with those to whom it serves notices of requirement of security and that for the purposes of protection of the revenue the amounts required in security were not unreasonable. Ultimately DAS failed to satisfy the Tribunal on any aspect of its appeal and the appeal was therefore dismissed.

CVC Comment: In cases of serious non-compliance, HMRC will seek security against not only VAT but all other taxes. This case illustrates that when the obstacles to challenging such a judgment are exceedingly high and the Tribunal has shown no enthusiasm for involving itself in matters of detail and respects HMRC’s discretion.