Category Archives: Contract

VAT: DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – deadline for claims extended

By Marcus Ward 20 March 2023

The DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme is a tax refund mechanism for people who build, or arrange to have built, a house they intend to live in. It also applies to converting commercial property into a house(s). This puts a person who constructs their own home on equal footing with commercial housebuilders. There is no need to be VAT registered in order to make the claim.

One of the main problems was the very strict (and rigorously enforced) deadline of three months for the submission of the claim form. This is from completion of the build (usually this is when the certificate of practical completion is issued) or the building is inhabited, although it can be earlier if the certificate is delayed.

A case on when a house is considered to be complete here.

However, HMRC has announced that this deadline will be extended to six months from a date yet to be announced. This extension is welcome as it is often difficult to collect all the required information and documentation. In addition, the whole process will be digitised some time in the future which will also simplify the process.

The Scheme can be complex, but here is our Top Ten Tips for claimants.

VAT: TOMS – negative margin permitted? The Square case

By Marcus Ward 31 January 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of The Squa.re Limited (TSL) the issue was whether unsold inventory or inventory sold at a loss could affect the calculation of the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS).

Background

TSL provided serviced apartments to travellers. The company leased accommodation from the owners of the properties who were frequently, if not exclusively, private individuals who were not registered for VAT.

These leases were often for an extended period, eg; annual leases, such that the appellant is committed under the terms of the lease even where the accommodation cannot then be on supplied or not supplied for a profit.

The Issue

The issue was whether TOMS operated in such a way as to permit a negative calculation resulting in repayment to the appellant. HMRC issued an assessment because, while they accepted that there may be a zero margin on a TOMS supply, they considered that a negative margin was not permitted by the scheme. TSL maintained that a repayment of overdeclared output tax was appropriate if a loss was made (an “overall negative margin”) as TOMS does not exclude the possibility of a negative margin.

The dispute between the parties was a technical one only and concerned the interpretation of the statutory provisions implementing TOMS into UK law.

Legal

The domestic implementation of the TOMS is authorised by The Value Added Tax Act 1994, Section 53 and found in Value Added Tax (Tour Operators’) Order 1987 (SI1987/1806). Guidance is provided via Notice 709/5 and Sections 8 to 13 have the force of law.

Decision

The Tribunal determined that it was clear from the legislation that the taxable amount is concerned with the supply made, and not the VAT incurred on the various cost components. Under normal VAT accounting the output tax charged on supplies is calculated by reference to the consideration received by the supplier from the customer. There can realistically be no concept of negative consideration.

The FTT considered that there is no basis inherent within TOMS which would permit a calculation of a negative sum. There had been a supply (of a designated travel service) for a consideration, and it is the taxable amount of that supply which was to be determined. A negative taxable amount is a “conceptual impossibility”. A negative margin arises as a consequence of a lack of profitability, but VAT is a transaction tax and not a tax on profit.

When sold at a loss where the total calculation resulted in a negative margin the annual sum due by way of output tax would be nil (not a repayment).

Where the accommodation is not sold at all, the FTT noted that this cost represented a cost of doing business but, on the basis that there has been no onward supply, there is no supply which meets the definition of a designated travel service. The relevant accommodation is not for the direct benefit of any traveller so there is no supply and TOMS is irrelevant.

Whilst the FTT considered that were it the case that identified costs incurred in buying in goods and services which are not then the subject of an onward supply should be excluded from TOMS calculations, costs associated with the block booking of accommodation of the type incurred by TSL were to be included. Where such costs exceed the value obtained by onward supply, the negative margin forms part of the annual calculation. However, where the global calculation results in a negative margin the tax due for the year under TOMS is nil and there was no basis for a repayment to TSL.

There was no basis on which to permit an overall TOMS negative margin and the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Another demonstration of the complexities of TOMS and the potential pitfalls.

It may be useful to note that input tax claims are not permitted in TOMS calculations, however, any VAT incurred on any bought in, but unsold, services would not be excluded from recovery as there is no TOMS supply. The input tax on unsold inventory was a general cost of doing business and, as such, recoverable in the normal way. Consequently, there may be circumstances for businesses using TOMS where input tax incurred on unsold elements may be claimed outside of TOMS

VAT: Discounts – value of supply. The TalkTalk case

By Marcus Ward 11 January 2023

In the First Tier tribunal (FTT) case of TalkTalk Telecom Limited the issue was the amount of consideration received on which output tax was due. Specifically, whether “prompt payment discounts” which were offered, but not taken up by customers, reduced the value of a supply.

Background

TalkTalk offered most of its retail customers the option of receiving a 15% discount on its services if their monthly bills were paid within 24 hours.

TalkTalk accounted for output tax on the basis that the consideration received was reduced by the discount, whether or not customers had in fact paid within the 24 hours. In other words; whether or not the discount had actually been applied so that customers paid less.

The appellant considered that this approach was consistent with Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 6 Para 4(1), which provides:

“Where goods or services are supplied for a consideration in money and on terms allowing a discount for prompt payment, the consideration shall be taken for the purposes of section 19 as reduced by the discount, whether or not payment is made in accordance with those terms.”

HMRC’s contention was that the offer only reduced the consideration for VAT purposes where customers had actually paid the reduced amount, and that there was no reduction when the discount was not taken up.

Decision

The above legislation only applies to services supplied “on terms allowing a discount for prompt payment”. In deciding whether this was the case in this appeal the FTT analysed the contractual position.

The contracts were governed by terms and conditions (T&Cs) published on TTL’s website. This discount was not referred to in the T&Cs, but on a separate dedicated page within the same website.

The judge decided that the discount contractual term comes into existence at exactly the same moment as the payment and the supply. There was not a contractual term under the T&C’s under which a lower amount was payable if payments were made earlier. On this point, TalkTalk contended that the T&Cs were varied by the subsequent discount option, and, as a result, the services had been “supplied…on terms allowing a discount for prompt payment” as required by Para 4(1), but this argument was rejected.

As per the Virgin Media Upper Tribunal case the Tribunal considered that the position was different between services billed in advance, and services billed in arrears.

Advance payments

The contractual variation did not include an offer for the customer to pay a discounted amount at some point in the future, so Para 4(1) did not apply to services billed in advance.

Payment in arrears

The FTT ruled that customers accepted the discount offer after delivery of the services. The supply had therefore been made on the terms set out in the T&Cs, and the customer was therefore contractually required to pay the full amount. The discount option was an offer by the appellant to accept a lower sum with an earlier payment date to discharge that pre-existing contractual obligation. As a matter of law, this was an offer to accept a post-supply rebate of consideration already due and therefore it could not be a discount.

The appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Another case which highlights both the complexity of the rules on consideration and the importance of contracts. At stake here was VAT of £10,606,226.00 which was deemed to be underpaid during a four-month period only. If in doubt – take advice!

VAT: What are split payments?

By Marcus Ward 9 January 2023

The term “split payment” is increasingly cropping up in conversations and in the media, so I thought it would be a good time to look at the concept.

Split payments, sometimes called real-time extraction, uses card payment technology to collect VAT on online sales and transfer it directly to HMRC rather than the seller collecting it from the buyer along with the payment for the supply, and then declaring it to HMRC on a return in the usual way.

Clearly, HMRC is very keen to introduce such a system, but there are significant hurdles, the biggest being the complexity for online sellers, payment processors, input tax systems, agents, advisers and HMRC itself.

Where are we on split payments?

At the end of the year HMRC published a Prior Information Notice (PIN) and associated Request for Information (RFI), seeking views on the outline requirements and proposed procurement process split payments. This should, inter alia, assist HMRC in:

identifying where it is intended that the purchased goods or services are to be delivered and/or consumed
the possibility to apply a split only above or below a certain value threshold
the feasibility for the splitting mechanism to calculate a composite VAT total across a mixed basket of goods and/ or services, each potentially with a different rate of VAT.

This builds on previous information gathering/consultations/discussions carried out a number of years ago.

Background

The expansion of the online shopping market has brought unprecedented levels of transactions. The results of digitalisation have also brought challenges for tax systems. Jurisdictions all over the world are currently grappling with the question of how to prevent large VAT losses, which can arise from cross-border online sales. This happens when consumers buy goods from outside their jurisdiction from sellers who, through fraud or ignorance, do not comply with their tax obligations. It is costing the UK tax authorities an estimated £1 billion to £1.5 billion (figures for 2015-16) a year. The UK government believes that intercepting VAT through intermediaries in the payment cycle, split payment potentially offers a powerful means of enforcing VAT compliance on sellers who are outside the UK’s jurisdiction.

Fraud

The fraud carried out by online sellers is not particularly sophisticated but is difficult to combat. Simply, sellers either use a fake VAT number to collect VAT without declaring it, or even more basically, collect the VAT and disappear.

Proposed spilt payment methods

The way in which payments are split represent difficult technical VAT issues, particularly when sales are at different VAT rates. The three proposals are:

Standard rate split. This assumes that all sales are liable to the standard rate VAT and does not recognise any input tax deduction. Extraction of 20% of tax, regardless of the actual liability (potentially, 5%, or zero) appears unfair and would be very difficult to impose. Cashflow would be negatively affected too.
Flat Rate Scheme (FRS). This is a proposal by HMRC to insist that online sellers overseas to use the FRS using a specific new rate for this purpose. The FRS threshold of £150,000 pa could be increased for overseas businesses, but this would potentially give overseas sellers an advantage over UK businesses, so politically, if nothing else, would prove to be a hard sell.
Net effective rate. This would mean an overseas business calculating its own exact net effective rate, based on its outputs and inputs from the previous year’s transactions (similar to TOMS).
Composite rate. A composite VAT total across a mixed range of goods or services, each potentially with a different rate of VAT. The mechanism for carrying this calculation out is unclear.

There may be more proposals forthcoming, but none of the above proposals appear reasonable and the complexity they would bring would seem to rule them out as matters stand – although this has not previously stopped HMRC introducing certain measures and the obvious benefits to the authorities cannot be ignored.

Overall

The technology for split payments currently exists and is being used in some Latin American countries (and Poland). The concept is part of a larger movement towards real-time taxation and MTD. Our view is that split payments are coming, but we do not know in which form or when.

VAT: What is unjust enrichment?

By Marcus Ward 2 November 2022

If a business has overdeclared output tax on past returns then it seems reasonable that this should be corrected, either by adjusting a current return or submitting a form VAT652 if the “error” is over £10,000 net.

If it is a genuine adjustment, surely HMRC must recognise the correction and either make a repayment or offset the overdeclaration against a current amount of VAT due.

The answer is yes, but… “unjust enrichment”…

Unjust enrichment

HMRC has a defence of unjust enrichment via The VAT Act 1994, sect 80(3)

“It shall be a defence, in relation to a claim under this section by virtue of subsection (1) or (1A) above, that the crediting of an amount would unjustly enrich the claimant.”

This means that HMRC can refuse to repay a claim if they can show that it would unjustly enrich the taxpayer.

It should always be borne in mind that if a claimant absorbed the burden of the wrongly charged VAT himself then unjust enrichment cannot be used as a defence against refusal to repay the claim. Loss or damage to a business due to overpaid VAT is considered in detail here.

Meaning

A refusal to repay a VAT claim using the unjust enrichment contention is to prevent a business becoming enriched at the expense of other entities who actually bore the cost of the incorrectly charged VAT. The authorities consider that a taxpayer should not be put into a better position by recovering the VAT than if VAT had not been charged at all. HMRC regard it as appropriate for unjust enrichment to be considered every time a claim is made.

The recipients of the corrected supply may be final consumers but can also be businesses, charities, etc, who were unable to deduct the overcharged VAT as input tax.

The salient point being whether the VAT was added to the price charged by the claimant or whether the claimant would have charged less had he known that his supplies were not liable to VAT.

HMRC consider that the process of establishing whether a claimant will be unjustly enriched by payment of his claim is two-stage procedure.

First stage

Whether the burden of the overdeclared VAT being claimed was passed on to the claimant’s customers, that is, whether the claimant charged the market rate* plus VAT. This is done on the basis of an economic analysis of the market in which the claimant is operating see; Berkshire Golf Club [2015] UKFTT 627 (TC).

If the customer deducted the wrongly invoiced output tax as input tax, HMRC is entitled to assume that the supplier passed the economic burden of the tax charge on to its customers. In this case, the VAT wrongly accounted for is a cost neither to the supplier nor to the customer.

Second stage

This stage occurs if the claimant accepts that he passed the burden of the tax charge on to his customers but argues that doing that caused loss or damage to his business, for example, by loss of customers or of profits, ie; has the taxpayer been economically damaged by having to bear the VAT cost?

The burden of proof of establishing that there is unjust enrichment falls upon HMRC. The standard of proof is the civil standard of proof; on a balance of probabilities.

HMRC will require the claimant to provide all of the relevant information on; pricing, policy and any other relevant documentation that establishes the pricing strategy**. It is to the taxpayer’s advantage to demonstrate that their margins have been depressed, as they have been required to charge VAT incorrectly.

Factors that HMRC consider:

who are the claimant’s competitors?
what is its market? (comparisons made with other competitors’ products)
how does the business set its prices?
what are the business’ overheads?
any other factors that may affect the prices

The reimbursement scheme

This is an undertaking to comply with certain reimbursement arrangements. The full text of the required undertaking is set out here.

This scheme applies where a business accepts, or HMRC prove, that by receiving a refund of sums incorrectly accounted for as output tax the business would be unjustly enriched at its customers’ expense and it wishes to refund the money they overpaid. If a customer was able to deduct all of the mistaken VAT charge as input tax HMRC will not regard them as having borne the burden of the charge.

In such cases HMRC will only make a refund of overpaid VAT if the taxpayer agrees to reimburse those customers in accordance with the terms of the scheme. More details Notice 700/45.

If HMRC repay a claim and the claimant is unable or unwilling to reimburse its customers (who bore the cost) with any amounts paid to him by HMRC then unjust enrichment will always apply. See The Deluxe High Court case.

Prices after a claim

It is worth bearing in mind that where a claimant has kept prices the same after he has found out that no VAT was due on the supplies in question, courts are likely to assume that that is because the business was charging the market rate. That assumption is made on the basis that, if the market rate were less, he would be compelled to reduce his prices. HMRC often check any post-claim price changes (or lack thereof).

Case law (summary)

The salient points from European Court of Justice case law may be summarised as:

a person who has wrongly accounted for VAT is entitled to recover it
HMRC is entitled to refuse to repay where it can show that the claimant did not bear the economic burden of the wrongly paid tax but passed it on to its customers
the invocation of the unjust enrichment defence is the restriction of a personal right derived from EU law, and so it is something that should be done only exceptionally
the unjust enrichment defence cannot be invoked simply on the grounds that the VAT was shown separately on an invoice
before HMRC can invoke the unjust enrichment defence it must carry out an economic analysis of the market in which the claimant is operating
the case law of both the European and the UK courts assumes that, in a free market economy, a trader required to account for a transaction-based tax will charge the market rate, not market rate plus tax

* The case law of the European Court of Justice and of the courts in the UK begin with the assumption that in a free market economy (and probably even in a managed economy) a business will charge the market rate and account for any VAT out of his profit margin.

** A pricing strategy is a business’s approach to determining the price at which it offers goods or services to the market. Pricing policies ensure businesses remain profitable and they give them the flexibility to price separate products differently.

Pricing policies refer to the processes and methodologies a businesses uses to set prices for their supplies. There are various pricing strategies that may be used, but some of the more common ones include:

value-based pricing
competitive pricing
price skimming
cost-plus pricing
penetration pricing
economy pricing
dynamic pricing

Further reading

VAT: Which entity receives a supply? The Star Services case

By Marcus Ward 8 September 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Star Services Oxford Limited (Star) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was the identity of the entity receiving the supply, whether it held a valid tax invoice, and whether input tax could be claimed.

Background

The appellant claimed input tax incurred on rental payments to Oxford City Council. This was disallowed by HMRC on the grounds that the rental agreement was with Mr Latifi (a sole proprietor in a property rental business) and not the company which was VAT registered.

After the rental agreement was signed the business was incorporated and carried on a bed and breakfast activities from the premises, along with two separate sub-lets to third parties. One party paid rent to Star and one directly to Mr Latifi.

Contentions

HMRC argued that:

Mr Latifi and the Appellant are separate legal entities, both of whom are required to register for VAT separately if carrying on taxable business activities
the assessment was correct as the company was not entitled to an input tax credit as it was not the person who had incurred the liability
the Appellant did not hold a valid VAT invoice, which entitles it to deduct the input tax

Star contended:

there was a technical error in the lease agreement
the assessment was excessive
subsequent to the assessment, the lease was registered to the Appellant
the lease was acquired in Mr Latifi’s name because the Appellant did not exist at the time that the lease agreement was entered into. At the relevant time there was an innocent omission to transfer the lease from Mr Latifi’s name to the Appellant’s name, and the delay was caused by forgetfulness
a company may, under The VAT Act 1994 s. 24(6)(c) and if permitted by Regulations, claim input tax on the pre-incorporation supplies received for its business
the Appellant has accounted for the VAT (therefore there was no loss of tax)
the fact that Mr Latifi is beneficial owner of both “the company” (by virtue of controlling shares and directorship) and “the property” must have an impact on the decision to assess

Decision

The appeal was dismissed.

The Appellant was not entitled to claim input tax on the invoices and HMRC were correct to disallow input tax. It did not receive the supply and it did not hold a VAT invoice.

It was decided that the legal relationship was between Oxford City Council and Mr Latifi. This is because the lease agreement was between these parties and not the Appellant.

It was found that the rent from one sub-tenant was paid to Mr Latifi directly and is not accounted for by the Appellant and that the reassigned lease has no bearing on the property rental activities undertaken by Mr Latifi prior to the reassignment.

The rules on pre-incorporation supplies* do not apply in this case because Mr Latifi, as sole proprietor, and the Appellant, are separate legal entities, requiring separate VAT registration.

Interestingly, a recent case was relied on: In Tower Bridge GP Ltd the Court of Appeal ruled that absent a valid VAT invoice showing the supplier’s VAT number and the customer’s name, the right to deduct input tax on that invoice could not be exercised.

Summary

An unfortunate oversight was sufficient for HMRC to refuse the input tax claim. This case does have a whiff of unfairness about it, but by applying the letter of the law the outcome is unarguable. The contentions here are similar to those in the Aitmatov Academy case.

Another case of taking care with claims.

* A business may, generally, claim the VAT incurred on services it has purchased for its taxable business purposes during the six months prior to VAT registration .
The VAT Act 1994, s 24(6) (c) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Reg 111.

VAT: Disclosed and undisclosed agents

By Marcus Ward 20 July 2022

There has been substantial case law on whether a business acts as agent or principal, the most recent being:

In this brief article I consider the distinction between disclosed and undisclosed agents and the VAT position of each.

Agent

An agent is a person who has been legally empowered to act on behalf of another entity (a principal). An agent may be employed to represent a client in negotiations and other dealings with third parties under his direction. The agent may be given decision-making authority. The relationship between a principal and agent can be disclosed or undisclosed to a third party. A disclosed agent acts in the name of the principal, whereas an undisclosed agent acts in his own name.

VAT Treatment

Disclosed Agents

A disclosed agent acts in the name of the principal and the client is aware that they are dealing with an agent of the principal. The relevant supply is made by the principal to the client. The agent does not make the supply to the client, but rather, to (usually) the principal in respect of commission for its services of acting as the “middle-man” in the transaction.

Output tax is due on the full selling price of the goods or services supplied by the principal. The value is not reduced by any amount paid to the agent. The agent will invoice the principal for his services and in most cases the principal will recover this as input tax (subject to the usual rules).

Undisclosed Agents

The buyer of goods or services will not (usually) know the name of the principal and will deal with the agent in the agent’s own name. The legislation states that ‘where a taxable person acting in his own name but on behalf of another person takes part in a supply of services, he shall be deemed to have received and supplied those services himself’.

This means that the supply of goods or services by an undisclosed agent is treated as a simultaneous supply to, and by, the agent. The agent is treated as both the purchaser (from the principal) and seller (to the client/customer).

The agent treats the goods as its own purchase – incurring VAT charged by the principal and then declares output tax on the onward sale to the client. The input tax charged by the principal is usually recoverable by the undisclosed agent. In some circumstances, the purchase and sale will have different VAT liabilities, eg; the sale of goods may be a VATable UK supply, but the onward sale could be a zero rated export. Generally, the principal is not put in a less advantageous position by operating through an agent.

Summary

It is sometimes difficult to establish whether an entity acts as agent or principal, and if agent, whether it is in a disclosed or undisclosed capacity. Not only is the VAT treatment different, but the distinction effects where goods or services are deemed to be supplied for VAT purposes. The place of supply rules dictates such matters as VAT registration (UK and overseas) whether (and where) VAT is chargeable and the compliance obligations of the principal and agent.

It is important to analyse the terms of the relevant contracts/agreements between the agent and principal to establish the nature of the relationship. However, it also necessary to consider the commercial reality of transactions between the parties as this may differ from the contract.

VAT treatment of deposits and advance payments

By Marcus Ward 19 July 2022

One query that constantly reappears is that of the VAT treatment of deposits.

This may be because there are different types of deposits with different VAT rules for each. I thought that it would be helpful for all the rules to be set out in one place, and some comments on how certain transactions are structured, so…

Broadly, we are looking at the tax point rules. The tax point is the time at which output tax is due and input tax recoverable. More on tax points here

A business may have various commercial arrangements for payments such as:

receiving advance payments
being paid in instalments
credit sales
periodic payments for continuous supplies
security deposits for goods hired

I consider these below, as well as some specific arrangements:

Advance payments and deposits

An advance payment, or deposit, is a proportion of the total selling price that a customer pays a business before it supplies them with goods or services.

The tax point if an advance payment is made is whichever of the following happens first:

the date a VAT invoice for the advance payment is issued
the date you the advance payment is received

The VAT due on the value of the advance payment (only, not the full value of the overall supply) is included on the VAT return for the period when the tax point occurs.

If the customer pays the remaining balance before the goods are delivered or the services are performed, a further tax point is created when whichever of the following happens first:

the date a VAT invoice for the balance is issued
payment of the balance is received

So VAT is due on the balance on the return for when the further tax point occurs.

Returnable deposits

A business may ask its customers to pay a deposit when they hire goods. No VAT is due if the deposit is either:

refunded in full to the customer when they return the goods safely
kept by you to compensate you for loss or damage

Forfeit deposits

If a customer is asked for a deposit against goods or services but they then don’t buy them or use the services, it may be decided to retain the deposit. Usually the arrangement is that the customer is told/agrees in advance and it is part of the conditions for the sale. This arrangement is known as forfeit deposit. It often occurs when, for example, an hotel business makes a charge for reserving a room.

VAT should be declared on receipt of the deposit or when a VAT invoice is issued, whichever happens first.

HMRC has confirmed a new policy that output tax remains due on a deposit, even if the customer does not use the goods or services for which it was paid. This came into force with effect from 1 March 2019, cancelling HMRC’s previous rules which permitted non-refundable deposits to be treated as VAT free compensation.

Continuous supplies

If you supply services on a continuous basis and you receive regular or occasional payments, a tax point is created every time a VAT invoice is issued or a payment received, whichever happens first. An article on tax planning for continuous supplies here

If payments are due regularly a business may issue a VAT invoice at the beginning of any period of up to a year for all the payments due in that period (as long as there’s more than one payment due). If it is decided to issue an invoice at the start of a period, no VAT is declared on any payment until either the date the payment is due or the date it is received, whichever happens first.

Credit and conditional sales

This is where the rules can get rather more complex.

A credit sale means the sale of goods which immediately become the property of the customer but where the price is paid in instalments.
A conditional sale is where goods are supplied to a customer but the goods remain the seller’s property until they are paid for in full.

The tax point for a credit sale or a conditional sale is created at the time you supply the goods or services to your customer. This is the basic tax point and is when you should account for the VAT on the full value of the goods.

This basic tax point may be over-ridden and an actual tax point created if a business:

issues a VAT invoice or receives payment before supplying the goods or services
issues a VAT invoice up to 14 days after the basic tax point

Credit sales where finance is provided to the customer

If goods are offered on credit to a customer and a finance company is not involved, the supplier is financing the credit itself. If the credit charge is shown separately on an invoice issued to the customer, it will be exempt from VAT. Other fees relating to the credit charge such as; administration, documentation or acceptance fees will also be exempt. VAT is declared on the full value of the goods that have been supplied on the VAT Return for that period.

If goods or services are supplied on interest free credit by arranging with a customer for them to pay over a set period without charging them interest then VAT is declared on the full selling price when you make the supplies.

Credit sales involving a finance company

When a business makes credit sales involving a finance company, the finance company either:

becomes the owner of the goods, eg; when a purchase is financed by a hire-purchase agreement
does not become the owner of the goods, eg; when a purchase is financed by a loan agreement

Hire purchase agreements

If the finance company becomes the owner of goods, the business is supplying the goods to the finance company and not the customer. There is no charge for providing the credit, so the seller accounts for VAT on the value of the goods at the time they are supplied to the finance company. Any commission received from the finance company for introducing them to the customer is usually subject to VAT.

Loan agreements

If the finance company does not become owner of the goods, the supplier is selling the goods directly to its customer. The business is not supplying the goods to the finance company, even though the finance company may pay the seller direct. VAT is due on the selling price to the customer, even if the seller receives a lower amount from the finance company. The contract between the customer and the finance company for credit is a completely separate transaction to the sale of the goods.

Specific areas

The following are areas where the rules on the treatment may differ

Cash Accounting Scheme

If a business uses the cash accounting scheme here it accounts for output tax when it receives payment from its customers unless it is a returnable deposit

Property

Care should be taken with deposits in property transactions. This is especially important if property is purchased at auction.

These comments only apply to the purchase of property on which VAT is due (commercial property less than three years old or subject to the option to tax). If a deposit is paid into a stakeholder, solicitor’s or escrow account (usually on exchange) and the vendor has no access to this money before completion no tax point is created. Otherwise, any advance payment is treated as above and creates a tax point on which output tax is due to the extent of the deposit amount. Vendors at auction can fall foul of these rules. If no other tax point has been created, output tax is due on completion.

Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS)

TOMS has distinct rules on deposits. Under normal VAT rules, the tax point is usually when an invoice is issued or payment received (as above). Under TOMS, the normal time of supply is the departure date of the holiday or the first occupation of accommodation. However, in some cases this is overridden. If the tour operator receives more than one payment, it may have more than one tax point. Each time a payment is received exceeding 20% of the selling price, a tax point for that amount is created. A tax point is also created each time the payments received to date (and not already accounted for) exceed 20% when added together. There are options available for deposits received when operating TOMS, so specific advice should be sought.

VAT Registration

In calculating turnover for registration, deposits must be included which create a tax point in the “historic” test. Care should also be taken that a large deposit does not trigger immediate VAT registration by virtue of the “future” test. This is; if it is foreseeable at any time that receipts in the next 30 days on their own would exceed the turnover limit, currently £85,000, then the registration date would be the beginning of that 30-day period.

Flat Rate Scheme

A business applies the appropriate flat rate percentage to the value of the deposit received (unless it is a returnable deposit). In most cases the issue of an invoice may be ignored if the option to use a version of cash accounting in the Flat Rate Scheme is taken. More on the FRS here and here

Please contact us if you have any queries on this article or would like your treatment of deposits reviewed to:

Ensure treatment is correct to avoid penalties, and/or;
Establish whether planning is available to properly defer payments of output tax under the tax point rules.

VAT: The meaning of “business” and “non-business”- New guidance

By Marcus Ward 15 June 2022

HMRC has issued new guidance: Revenue and Customs Brief 10(2022) on how to determine if an entity carries out business or non-business (NB) activities. This goes to the core of the tax and establishes whether a person:

is registerable for VAT
charges output tax
can recover input tax

It mainly affects charities, NFP, an organisation which receives grants or subsidies and entities which are carrying out NB activities.

Previous tests

Since 1981 previous cases (mainly Lord Fisher and Morrison’s Academy) have set out the following business tests:

Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
Are the taxable supplies that are being made of a kind which, subject to differences of detail, are commonly made by those who seek to profit from them?

Changes

The guidance states that the ‘predominant concern’ is now irrelevant. The focus is on whether there is a direct link between the services the recipient receives, and the payment made rather than on the wider context of the organisation’s charitable objectives or motive. This is as a result of the Longbridge case.

I often think it helps if a person bears in mind here the comment in the EC case of Tolsma translated as: “…the question is whether services carried on by [a person] were carried on for the payment or simply with the payment”.

There is now a two-part test derived from the Wakefield College Court of Appeal case.

Test One:

The activity results in a supply of goods or services for consideration. This requires a legal relationship between the supplier and the recipient. The initial question is whether the supply is made for a consideration. An activity that does not involve the making of supplies for consideration is not a business activity.

Test Two:

The supply is made for the purpose of obtaining income therefrom (remuneration)

More on the definition of taxable supply here.

Where there is a direct or sufficient nexus between the supplies provided and the payments made, the activity is regarded as business (a taxable supply). The Wakefield case made a distinction between consideration and remuneration. Simply because a payment is received for a service provided does not itself mean that the activity is business. For an activity to be regarded as economic it must be carried out for the purpose of obtaining income (remuneration) even if the charge is below cost.

HMRC states that although it will no longer apply the above Lord Fisher tests, it accepts that they “can be used as a set of tools designed to help identify those factors which should be considered.” So Lord Fisher lives on in some form.

Further information

More detail is provided by HMRC in the updated Internal Guidance VBNB10000

Further reading

The following articles consider case law and other relevant business/NB issues:

Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft

Healthwatch Hampshire CIC

Pertempts Limited

VAT: The importance of Transfer of a Going Concern rules. The Haymarket case

By Marcus Ward 6 June 2022

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Haymarket Media Group Limited (Haymarket) the issue was whether the sale of Teddington TV Studios qualified as a VAT free Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC).

Background

The site in question was subjected to an Option To Tax (OTT) by the supplier. The sale of the property was with the benefit of planning consent for the development of flats and houses on the site after demolition of the TV studios.

Subject of the appeal

The transferor/vendor had previously let a small building on the site to the purchaser’s advisers and, on this basis, the sale was structured to be a TOGC as a property rental business. HMRC raised an assessment as it considered that neither a property rental business, nor a property development business had been transferred.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The FTT found that, despite the short lived and minor letting, this did not constitute a business. Further, that even if this had been a business, the contract required vacant possession so a business could not have been continued.

The contention that a property development business was being carried on was also rejected. Despite significant costs being incurred by Haymarket in obtaining the planning permission, the intention* was always to sell the site to a developer, rather than the appellant carrying out the development itself (there was no meaningful work being carried out on the site). The fact that planning permission was obtained did not mean that there was an ongoing property development business which could be transferred.

* The importance of “intention” in VAT is considered here and here.

Technical

In order for a transaction to qualify for a VAT free TOGC, ALL of the following conditions must be met:

the assets must be sold as a business, or part of a business, as a going concern
the assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part (HMRC guidance uses the words “intend to use…” which, in some cases may provide additional comfort)
there must be no break in trading
where the seller is a taxable person (VAT registered) the purchaser must be a taxable person already or immediately become, as a result of the transfer, a taxable person
where only part of a business is sold it must be capable of separate operation
there must not be a series of immediately consecutive transfers

In this case, the first, second and third tests was failed leaving the supply to be VAT-able as a result of the OTT.

More on the complex subject of TOGCs including case law here, here, here, and here.

Commentary

TOGCs are often a minefield for taxpayers and their advisers, especially if property is involved. Not only is land law and the relevant VAT legislation complex, but property transactions are usually high value, with a lot of VAT at stake (the VAT in this case was £17 million). Additionally, they are often “one-offs” and frequently outside the usual commercial expertise of people running the business. We strongly advise that comprehensive technical advice is always obtained when TOGC is mooted by one side or the other, particularly when the relevant asset is involved in property letting or development.