Monthly Archives: December 2019

VAT: Issue of zero-rating certificate – The Westow Cricket Club case

By Marcus Ward 18 December 2019

Issue an incorrect certificate to obtain zero rated building work at your peril! Don’t get caught out – A warning.

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Westow Cricket Club (WCC) the appeal was against a penalty levied by HMRC for issuing a certificate to a contractor erroneously under The VAT Act 1994, Section 62 (1).

Background

WCC was an entity run by volunteers but was not a charity, although it was a Community Amateur Sports Club (“CASC”). It decided to build a new pavilion and wished to take advantage of certain zero rating which was available for the construction of a building that the

“…organisation (in conjunction with any other organisation where applicable) will use the building, or the part of the building, for which zero-rating is being sought …..solely for

a relevant charitable purpose, namely by a charity in either or both of the following ways:

….(b) As a village hall or similarly in providing social or recreational facilities for a local community.”

– Public Notice 708 para 14.7.1.

To ensure that the issue of such a certificate was appropriate, the appellant wrote to HMRC giving details about the building project and seeking guidance on the zero rating of supplies to WCC in the course of the construction of the pavilion. The response was important in this case as WCC sought to rely on it as a reasonable excuse. Part or the reply stated:

“HM Revenue & Customs policy prevents this Department from providing a definitive response where we believe that the point is covered by our Public Notices or other published guidance, which, in this case, I believe it is. In view of the above, please refer to section 16 of Public Notice 708 Buildings and construction. This explains when you can issue a certificate. Section 17 includes the certificates. Furthermore, I would refer you to sub-paragraph 14.7.4 which covers what is classed as a village hall or similar building. Providing the new pavilion meets the conditions set out, and it appears to do so, the construction work will be zero-rated for VAT purposes…”

Decision

Regrettably, the FTT found that, despite HMRC’s letter expressing a ‘non definitive’ view; which was wrong, this was insufficient to provide reasonable excuse and could not be relied upon. The FTT made references to the fact that the club was not a charity and could not therefore issue the certificate. Consequently, the 100% penalty was applicable and not disproportionate (the penalty imposed is nothing more than the VAT that would have been paid by any other CASC seeking to build a pavilion incurring a vatable supply of a similar sum).

Commentary

HMRC was criticised for potentially leaving taxpayers in ‘no man’s land’ by expressing a view whilst at the same time saying that this was not a definitive response. This is a common tactic used by HMRC and one which many commentators, including myself, have criticised.

Tribunal’s unease

The judge commented that he trusted that HMRC will take note of his concerns and if this is a matter of policy to revisit it in light of the comments made in this decision. Let us hope HMRC listens. It is also an important case for charities (and others) to note when considering if they are able to obtain the construction of buildings VAT free. This is not a straightforward area, and the penalty for getting it wrong is clearly demonstrated here.

Always get proper advice – and don’t rely on vague rulings from HMRC!

VAT: Top 10 Tips for small businesses and start-ups

By Marcus Ward 17 December 2019

At some point it is likely that a small business or start-up will need to consider VAT. Here are a few pointers:

Should you be registered for VAT?

If your income is above £85,000 pa of taxable supplies, you have no choice. But you can voluntarily register if below this threshold. There are significant penalties for failure to register at the correct time.

Advantages of VAT registration: VAT recovery on expenses plus, perhaps; gravitas for a business
Disadvantages: administration costs plus a potential additional cost to customers if they are unable to recover VAT charged to them (eg; they are private individuals) which could affect your competitiveness

More here

Even non-registered businesses can save VAT

Look to use non-VAT registered suppliers, or non-EU suppliers (however, this may count towards your registration turnover)
If you are purchasing or leasing commercial property, consider looking for non-opted property or raise the issue of your inability to recover VAT in negotiations on the rent
Take advantage of all zero and reduced rates of VAT reliefs available
Challenge suppliers if you consider that a higher rate of VAT has been charged than necessary

Consider using the appropriate simplification scheme

Flat Rate Scheme (1% discount in first year of registration)
Cash Accounting (helps avoid VAT issues on bad debts)
Annual Accounting (can generate real, cash flow and/or administrative savings)
Margin schemes for second-hand goods

Further details here and here

Make sure you recover all pre-registration and/or pre-incorporation VAT

VAT incurred on goods on hand (purchased four years ago or less) and services up to six months before VAT registration is normally recoverable.

Are your VAT liabilities correct?

Many businesses have complex VAT liabilities (eg; financial services, charities, food outlets, insurance brokers, cross border suppliers of goods or services, health, welfare and education service providers, and any business involved in land and property). A review of the VAT treatment may avoid assessments and penalties and may also identify VAT overcharges made which could give rise to reclaims. Additionally, these types of business are often restricted on what input tax they can reclaim. Check business/non-business apportionment and partial exemption restrictions.

VAT – Care with input tax claims

By Marcus Ward 13 December 2019

Claim checklist

You have a purchase invoice showing VAT. You are VAT registered, and you will use the goods or services purchased for your business… can you claim it?

Assuming a business is not partly exempt or not subject to a restriction of recovery of input tax due to non-business activities (and the claim is not for a motor car or business entertainment) the answer is usually yes.

However, HMRC is now, more than ever before, concerned with irregular, dishonest and inaccurate claims. It is an unfortunate fact that some people see making fraudulent claims as an “easy” way to illegally obtain money and, as is often the case, honest taxpayers are affected as a result of the (understandable) concerns of the authorities. Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) or “carousel” fraud has received a lot of publicity over recent years with an estimate of £Billions of Treasury money being obtained by fraudsters. While this has been generally addressed, HMRC consider that there is still significant leakage of VAT as a consequence of dishonest claims. HMRC’s interest also extends to “innocent errors” which result in input tax being overclaimed.

In order to avoid unwanted attention from HMRC, what should a business be watching for when claiming credit for input tax? Broadly, I would counsel making “reasonable enquiries”. This means making basic checks in order to demonstrate to HMRC that a business has taken care to ensure that a claim is appropriate. This is more important in some transactions than others and most regular and straightforward transactions will not be in issue. Here are some pointers that I feel are important to a business:

Was there a supply?

This seems an obvious question, but even if a business holds apparently authentic documentation; if no supply was made, no claim is possible. Perhaps different parts of a business deal with checking the receipt of goods or services and processing documents. Perhaps a business has been the subject of fraud by a supplier. Perhaps the supply was to an individual rather than to the business. Perhaps a transaction was aborted after the documentation was issued. There may be many reasons for a supply not being made, especially when a third party is involved. For example, Co A contracts with Co B to supply goods directly to Co C. Invoices are issued by Co B to Co A and by Co A to Co C. It may not be clear to Co A whether the goods have been delivered, or it may be difficult to check. A lot of fraud depends on “correct” paperwork existing without any goods or services changing hands.

Is the documentation correct?

The VAT regulations set out a long list of details that a VAT invoice must show. Full details on invoicing here If any one of these required items is missing HMRC will disallow a claim. Beware of “suspicious” looking documents including manually amended invoices, unconvincing quality, unexpected names or addresses of a supplier, lack of narrative, “copied” logos or “clip-art” additions etc. One of the details required is obviously the VAT number of the supplier. VAT numbers can be checked for validity here

Additionally, imports of goods require different documentation to support a claim and this is a more complex procedure (which extends to checking whether supplies of goods have been made and physical access to them). A lot of fraud includes a cross border element so extra care should be taken in checking the validity of both the import and the documentation.

Ultimately, it is easy to create a convincing invoice and HMRC is aware of this.

Timing

It is important to claim input tax in the correct period. Even if a claim is a day out it may be disallowed and penalties levied. details of time of supply here

Is there VAT on a supply?

If a supplier charges VAT when they shouldn’t, eg; if a supply is zero rated or exempt or subject to the Transfer of A Going Concern rules (TOGC), it is not possible to reclaim this VAT even if the recipient holds an apparently “valid” invoice. HMRC will disallow such a claim and will look to levy penalties and interest. When in doubt; challenge the supplier’s treatment.

Place of supply

Only UK VAT may be claimed on a UK return, so it is important to check whether UK VAT is actually applicable to a supply. The place of supply (POS) rules are notoriously complex, especially for services, if UK VAT is shown on an invoice incorrectly, and is claimed by the recipient, HMRC will disallow the claim and look to levy a penalty, so enquiries should be made if there is any uncertainty. VAT incurred overseas can, in most cases be recovered, but this is via a different mechanism to a UK VAT return. Details on claiming VAT in other EC Member States here. (As with many things, this may change after Brexit).

One-off, unusual or new transactions

This is the time when most care should be taken, especially if the transaction is of high value. Perhaps it is a new supplier, or perhaps it is a property transaction – if a purchase is out of the ordinary for a business it creates additional exposure to mis-claiming VAT.

To whom is the supply made?

It is only the recipient of goods or services who may make a claim; regardless of; who pays or who invoices are issued to. Care is required with groups of companies and multiple VAT registrations eg; an individual may be registered as a sole proprietor as well as a part of a partnership or director of a limited company, As an illustration, a common error is in a situation where a report is provided to a bank (for example for financing requirements) and the business pays the reporting third party. Although it may be argued that the business pays for the report, and obtains a business benefit from it, the supply is to the bank in contractual terms and the business cannot recover the VAT on the services, in fact, in these circumstances, nobody is able to recover the VAT. Other areas of uncertainty are; restructuring, refinancing or acquisitions, especially where significant professional costs are involved.

e-invoicing

There are additional rules for electronically issued invoices. Details here

A business may issue invoices electronically where the authenticity of the origin, integrity of invoice data, and legibility of invoice content can all be ensured, and the customer agrees to receive invoices electronically.

‘Authenticity of the origin’ means the assurance of the identity of the supplier or issuer of the invoice
‘Integrity of content’ means that the invoice content has not been altered
‘Legibility’ of an invoice means that the invoice can be easily read.

A business is free to choose a method of ensuring authenticity, integrity, and legibility which suits its method of operation. e-invoicing provides additional opportunities for fraudsters, so a business needs to ensure that its processes are bulletproof.

HMRC’s approach

If a claim is significant, or unusual for the business’ trading pattern, it is likely that HMRC will carry out a “pre-credibility” inspection where they check to see if the claim is valid before they release the money. Another regular check is for HMRC to establish whether the supplier has declared the relevant output tax on the other side of the transaction (a so-called “reference”). Not unsurprisingly, they are not keen on making a repayment if, for whatever reason, the supplier has not paid over the output tax.

What should a business do?

In summary, it is prudent for a business to “protect itself” and raise queries if there is any doubt at all over making a claim. It also needs a robust procedure for processing invoices. If enquiries have been made, ensure that these are properly documented for inspection by HMRC as this is evidence which may be used to mitigate any potential penalties, even if a claim is an honest mistake. A review of procedures often flushes out errors and can lead to increased claims being made.

As always, we are happy to assist.

VAT: The extent of exempt childcare. The RSR Sports case

By Marcus Ward 3 December 2019

Latest from the courts

In the RSR Sports Limited First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether the provision of holiday camps for children was exempt healthcare via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 9 – “services… closely linked to the protection of children and young persons” and supplies of “welfare services”

Background

The Appellant traded under the name of Get Active Sports. It provided various services including the provision of school holiday camps which were the subject of the appeal.

The holiday camps were Ofsted registered and “pupils will be safe and receiving the best possible childcare”. The appellant worked with children aged 4-16 and had specially designed programmes from multi-sports and games to themed arts and crafts. The staff that provided the holiday camp services were not required to have any teaching or coaching qualifications (but needed to be DBS checked). They were just required to ensure that the children were kept busy with a variety of activities and were kept safe.

The appellant considered that these supplies constituted supplies of “ services…closely linked to the protection of children and young persons” – within the meaning of Article 132(1)(h) of Council Directive 2006/112/EEC and supplies of “welfare services” under UK legislation as above. HMRC submitted that the predominant element of that single composite supply was the provision of activities because, weighing up objectively, from the position of the parents whose children attended the holiday camps, the importance to those parents of the childcare aspects of the holiday camps in comparison to the importance to them of the various activities which were made available at the holiday camps, the latter outweighed the former. The supplies did not fall within the exemption and should have therefore properly been treated as standard-rated as the primary aim of the appellant in running the camps was to offer sports and activities to the attendees and that the childcare was simply a by-product of the activity-based courses.

Decision

It was decided that the holiday camp services involved the provision of activities in the course of caring for children during the school holidays. In other words, the holiday camp services included both an activities element and a childcare element.

Although the judge commented that; it was fair to say that this case was finely-balanced, the services provided by RSR amounted to a single composite supply of which the predominant element was childcare (as opposed to the provision of activities) and therefore they fell within the scope of the above provisions and qualified for the exemption

The FTT agreed with HMRC that one element of the holiday camp services was the provision of activities, but it did not agree with the proposition that just because the provision of activities was an element of the services, that inevitably means that the provision of those activities, as opposed to the provision of childcare, was the predominant element of its supply.

Commentary

It looks like another close call, but the Tribunal appears to have got it right. An interesting aspect was RSR considering it strange that by offering activities to the children, as opposed to sitting them down in front of a television, the appellant was to deprive itself of the ability to bring the its services within the scope of the exemption. The mere fact that the appellant was encouraging parents to choose active childcare arrangements over more passive ones should not cause the relevant services to fall outside the exemption. So a “bit” of sport was OK, but not too much…

VAT: The importance of accurate accounts – The Euro Systems case

By Marcus Ward 3 December 2019

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Euro Systems (Scotland) Ltd (ESSL) the issue was whether the systems and controls of the appellant could be relied on, or whether an exercise carried out by HMRC which reconciled VAT declarations with unaudited accounts was to be preferred.

Background

HMRC issued an assessment which was a combination of input VAT claimed being overclaimed, and output tax being understated. This was on the basis that the inspector had concerns over the accuracy of records being kept, these were mainly spreadsheets and Sage. A comparison between annual accounts and the relevant returns was made leading to the assessed amount. ESSL had grown quickly, and HMRC considered that the record keeping had not kept pace. An additional point was; why was the business continuing in a VAT repayment situation if it was growing steadily and making profits as per the annual accounts?

The bookkeeping and other administration was carried out by an unqualified and unsupervised receptionist.

The appellant’s director said that the information used to generate the VAT returns was the same as that provided to a firm of chartered accountants to prepare the annual accounts for ESSL, additionally, it had several corruptions within the Sage system, which resulted in a loss of data.

Decision

It was accepted that the appellant had carried out a lot of work to investigate the records due to the corruption of Sage and manually listing many thousand invoices to support input tax claims. However, due to the number of errors and inaccuracies, the records could not be relied on and the figures from HMRC were to be preferred as the accounts had some inherent integrity from being based on double-entry accounting.

The assessment was consequently made in HMRC’s “best judgement”.

Best judgement is set out in the Van Boeckel test:

Van Boeckel “does not envisage that burden being placed on the commissioners of carrying out exhaustive investigations”.

“What the words “best of their judgment” envisage … is that the commissioners will fairly consider all material placed before them and, on that material, come to a decision which is one which is reasonable and not arbitrary as to the amount of tax which is due.”

Subject to an adjustment for the duplication of some figures by HMRC the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Similar reconciliations to the one carried out here, plus bank reconciliations and similar, are a staple in a standard VAT inspection. How these are carried out, and the weight given to them can be contentious and they are often used for more than a broad-brush credibility exercise. We have a good track record in having this type of assessment reduced or removed and, in nearly every case, it is worthwhile challenging any such assessment.

Of course, this case provides a reminder, should one be required, that accurate and timely records are vital to ensure tax compliance and, as we always say: Right Tax, Right Time!

VAT: Input tax claim – business or personal? The Taylor Pearson (Construction) Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 3 December 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Taylor Pearson (Construction) Ltd (TPCL) First Tier Tribunal (FFT) case the issue was whether input tax incurred on professional fees in respect of tax planning and the issue of new (E Class) shares to directors was for business purposes or for the benefit of the directors in their personal capacity.

Background

The overall issue in this appeal was whether the company was entitled to deduct input VAT in relation to services provided by tax advisers as to how the company might reduce its tax and NIC liabilities in rewarding its directors and reduce the income tax liabilities of the directors. There are two specific issues:

Whether the services supplied were used for the purpose of the company’s business within the meaning of VATA 1994, section 24.
Whether the services supplied do not have a direct and immediate link with taxable output supplies because they have a direct and immediate link with exempt supplies, being the issue of share capital in the company.

HMRC argued that this appeal is similar to Customs and Excise Commissioners v Rosner [1994] STC 228 and Finanzamt Köln-Nord v Becker (Case C-104/12) in which input VAT incurred in defending the sole trader or individual employees personally, in criminal proceedings entirely unconnected to the business, was held not to be deductible.

Another issue, which was dealt with fairly perfunctory, was whether the issue of new shares was a supply for VAT purposes to which an element of the input tax could be attributed. As per the Kretztechnik ECJ case and subsequent HMRC guidance – the issue of shares was not a supply and the company was entitled to recover the associated input tax to the extent that its business activities generated taxable supplies (business of making supplies of construction goods and services in TPCL’s case).

Decision

In respect of whether the expenditure was for the benefit of the business, the judge stated that “...The advice in question was provided to the company and although the directors were significant beneficiaries of the arrangements that was entirely in their capacity as directors and employees of the company and not in any personal capacity.”

Further:

“…HMRC argued that the incentivisation of employees did not have a direct and immediate link with the purposes of the business I do not consider that this argument has any merit whatsoever and do not understand why HMRC put it forward. This concerns me.”

It is no wonder that the judge commented on this. This appeal was completely on all fours with the FTT case of Doran Bros (London) which HMRC did not appeal.

Consequently, it was decided that:

the services were used for the purposes of the company’s business, and
they did not have a direct and immediate connection with the issue of share capital.

The appeal was therefore allowed.

Commentary

It was a surprising decision by HMRC to take this to FTT. Case law in respect of Kretztechnik is well established and the purpose to which the funds created by a new share issue were put appears irrelevant. I also find it difficult to see how HMRC could ignore Doran Bros which was very clear and on all fours with this case, while referencing cases in which companies defended its directors against accusations of wrongdoings. In this case, the business purpose was to reward and incentivise TPCL’s directors.

This can be a difficult area of the tax and HMRC’s approach in this case demonstrates that it is prepared take these cases as far as possible. It is nearly always the case that VAT incurred on expenditure which is designed to increase staff morale and performance is a business expense.