Category Archives: Court

VAT: DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – The Brian Lawton case

By Marcus Ward 25 November 2024

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Brian Lawton the issue was whether a second claim under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme was valid.

Background

Mr Lawton appealed against the refusal of HMRC to pay a claim submitted in respect of the conversion of a barn into a dwelling and subsequent extensions. Unfortunately, the project faced delays and increased costs due to the Covid-19 pandemic. He claimed a refund of VAT in June 2021, which HMRC repaid. The appellant submitted a second planning application for an extension, which was approved, and the work was completed in October 2022. He then made a second VAT claim October 2022 which HMRC refused.

The issue

Whether it was possible to make more than one single VAT refund claim via the scheme when the project was split into two specific phases. Planning permission was granted for two developments, the:

first permission was for the conversion of a barn to a dwelling
second permission was for an extension to existing barn conversion for two bedrooms

– whether the second claim was ineligible for a refund as an extension to an existing dwelling and whether decision to disallow claim for a VAT refund was correct.

Arguments

Lawton contended that it was possible to make two separate claims due to the distinct nature of the projects, and that his first claim had been erroneous since the barn conversion was uninhabitable.

HMRC’s view was that the second claim related to an extension to a dwelling and not the actual conversion and was consequently ineligible.

Decision

Despite the FTT being sympathetic to BL’s predicament in progressing the first application development at the time of the Covid pandemic and the lockdown with the financial and economic challenges these brought about, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal considered that HMRC were entitled to insist that only one claim was made under the scheme in circumstances where there has been no repayment in error or invoices and works carried out before the claim was submitted and left out of account in error or invoices issued late by a contractor.

It considered that the first claim was the only one which could be made and was restricted to the stage of development that Lawton had submitted and was covered by the completion certificate of March 2021, being “the conversion of a barn to a dwelling”.

The court emphasised that completion for VAT purposes must align with original planning permissions and agreed with HMRC’s position that extensions to existing dwellings do not qualify for refunds under the scheme.

Legislation

The VAT Act 1994, Section 35.

Commentary

This case highlights how important both timing and adhering precisely to the rules of the scheme are. The cost of a self-build can be significant and recovering any VAT incurred is important to ensure budgets are met as far as possible.

Further reading

Background to the scheme here, ten top tips here and further information and other cases on the scheme:

VAT: Zero-rated exports. The Procurement International case

By Marcus Ward 7 November 2024

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Procurement International Ltd (PIL) the issue was whether the movement of goods constituted a zero-rated export.

Background

Both parties essentially agreed the facts: The Appellant’s business is that of a reward recognition programme fulfiller. The Appellant had a catalogue of available products, and it maintained a stock of the most ordered items in its warehouse. PIL supplied these goods to customers who run reward recognition programmes on behalf of their customers who, in turn, want to reward to their customers and/or employees (reward recipients – RR). The reward programme operators (RPOs) provide a platform through which those entitled to receive rewards can such rewards. The RPO will then place orders PIL for the goods.

A shipper collected the goods from PIL in the UK and shipped them directly to the RR (wherever located). The shipper provided the services of delivery including relevant customs clearances etc. on behalf of the Appellant. PIL had zero-rated the supply of goods sent to RRs located overseas. All goods delivered to RRs outside the UK are delivered duty paid (DDP) or delivered at place (DAP). As may be seen by Incoterms the Appellant remained at risk in respect of the goods and liable for all carriage costs and is responsible for performing or contracting for the performance of all customs (export and import) obligations. The Appellant was responsible for all fees, duties, tariffs, and taxes. Accordingly, the Appellant is responsible for, and at risk until, the goods are delivered “by placing them at the disposal of the buyer at the agreed point, if any, or at the named place of destination or by procuring that the goods are so delivered”.

Contentions

HMRC argued that in situations where the RPO was UK VAT registered, the appellant was making a supply of goods to the RPO at a time when the goods were physically located in the UK, and consequently there was a standard-rated supply. It issued an assessment to recover the output tax considered to be underdeclared.

PIL contended that there was a supply of delivered goods which were zero-rated when the goods were removed to a location outside the UK. It was responsible (via contracts which were accepted to reflect the reality of the transactions) for arranging the transport of the goods.

Decision

The FTT held that there was a single composite supplies of delivered goods, and these were a zero-rated supply of exported goods by PIL. The supplies were not made on terms that the RPOs collected or arranged for collection of the goods to remove them from the UK. The Tribunal found that the RPOs took title to the goods at the time they were delivered to the RR, and not before such that it was PIL and not the RPOs who was the exporter. This meant that the RPOs would be regarded as making their supplies outside the UK and would be responsible for overseas VAT as the Place Of Supply (POS) would be in the country in which it took title to the goods (but that was not an issue in this case).

The appeal was allowed, and the assessment was withdrawn.

Legislation

Domestic legislation relevant here is The VAT Act 1994:

Section 6(2) which fixes the time of supply of goods involving removal as the time they are removed
Section 7 VATA sets out the basis on which the place of supply is determined. Section 7(2) states that: “if the supply of any goods does not involve their removal from or to the United Kingdom they shall be treated as supplied in the United Kingdom if they are in the United Kingdom and otherwise shall be treated as supplied outside the United Kingdom”.
Section 30(6) VATA provides that a supply of goods is zero-rated where such supply is made in the UK and HMRC are satisfied that the person supplying the goods has exported them
For completeness, VAT Regulations 1995, regulation 129 provides the framework for the zero-rating goods removed from the UK by and on behalf of the purchaser of the goods.

Some paragraphs of VAT Notice 703 have the force of law which applies here, namely the sections on:

direct and indirect exports
conditions which must be met in full for goods to be zero-rated as exports
definition of an exporter
the appointment of a freight forwarder or other party to manage the export transactions and declarations on behalf of the supplier of exporter.
the conditions and time limits for zero rating
a situation in which there are multiple transactions leading to one movement of goods

Commentary

The Incoterms set out in the relevant contracts were vital in demonstrating the responsibilities of the parties and consequently, who actually exported the goods. It is crucial when analysing the VAT treatment of transactions to recognise each party’s responsibilities, and importantly, when (and therefore where) the change in possession of the goods takes place.

VAT: Second-hand goods scheme and best judgement – The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited case

By Marcus Ward 7 October 2024

Latest from the courts

The second-hands of time.

In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether the second-hand goods margin scheme (margin scheme) was applicable and whether HMRC’s assessments for £5,474,249 (later reduced to £5,004,595) of underdeclared of output tax were issued in best judgement.

Background

The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited (A&M) sold second-hand wristwatches with the majority of the sales properly accounted for via the margin scheme. However, from information obtained from Italian tax authorities in respect of supply chain fraud, HMRC issued the assessments on the basis that supplies of certain goods did not meet the conditions of the margin scheme so that output tax was due on the full value of the watches rather than the difference between the purchase and sale values. HMRC decided to penalise A&M because the errors were deliberate and prompted and subsequently to issue a PLN on the basis that such conduct was attributable to the director. A&M is a “High Value Dealer” for anti-money laundering purposes.

Contentions

Appellant

The appellant claimed that HMRC did not use best judgement on the grounds that:

the inspector did not impartially consider the evidence
HMRC lacked sufficient evidence to raise an assessment thereby failing to meet the Van Boeckel test
the calculated amounts were no more than unreasonable and random guesses
the inspector did not approach the investigation with an open mind to such an extent that it could not be said that the assessments and penalties were the product of the reasonable behaviours of HMRC
put in terms of the case law: HMRC had acted in a way which no reasonable body of commissioners could have acted or, put another way, had been vindictive, dishonest or capricious

so the assessments and penalties were invalid.

Whilst accepting that a best judgment challenge is a high bar A&M contended that the conduct and mindset of HMRC’s investigating and assessing officer was so unreasonable that it vitiated the whole assessment.

Respondent

HMRC contended that the assessments were based on best judgement and that its focus was not on the supply chain fraud claims (as claimed by A&M). Additionally, a previous inspection in 2014 had raised prior concerns which provided adequate grounds for the assessments. Moreover, A&M was aware of the terms of operation of the second-hand margin scheme and considered that A&M had wilfully misused the scheme in several regards. The scheme had been incorrectly used for goods purchased by way of intracommunity supplies – which had been imported with the appellant claiming input tax on the imports and then including them in the margin scheme. A&M wilfully failed to carry out due diligence on its suppliers.

Best Judgement

It may be helpful if we consider what the words “best judgement” mean. This was best described by Woolf J in Van Boeckel v CEC [1981] STC 290

“What the words ‘best of their judgement’ envisage, in my view, is that the commissioners will fairly consider all material 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. As long as there is some material on which the commissioners can reasonably act, then they are not required to carry out investigations which may or may not result in further material being placed before them.”

Technical

The second-hand margin scheme is provided for under The VAT Act 1994, Section 50A, The Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 and certain paragraphs of VAT Notice 718 which have force of law.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. It was found that A&M deliberately rendered inaccurate VAT returns. The director of the company was aware both of how the margin scheme worked and that the terms of the scheme had to be complied with if a supply was to be taxed under the it. A&M was found to have acted deliberately in misusing the scheme by including ineligible supplies. A&M had been lax in the completion of its stock book, and it had not met the record-keeping requirements necessary to use the scheme for the relevant transactions. Additionally, some of its EU suppliers were not registered for VAT, a fact A&M did not take steps to discover, and so related purchases could not qualify for the scheme. Also, it was likely that some of the purchases were of new watches which made them ineligible for the margin scheme.

Re, evidence; the FTT found much of the A&M director’s evidence to have been self-serving and, in parts, evasive and that it did not consider that the integrity of HMRC could be impugned. The court determined that; the inspector was diligent and thorough, HMRC had legitimate concerns regarding A&M’s use of the margin scheme generally and specifically and there was a wider concern that the company was a participant in fraudulent supply chains. The FTT considered that the investigation was proportionately carried out considering these concerns and the assessments raised in exercise of best judgment.

Penalties and PLN

The case further considered penalties: whether the appellant’s conduct was deliberate (yes – appeal dismissed). Whether the Personal Liability Notice (PLN) [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] was appropriate for the conduct attributed to the director – whether his conduct led to penalty (yes – appeal dismissed).

Commentary

This case is a long read, but worthwhile for comments on; the margin scheme use, HMRC’s inspection methods, best judgement, evidence and MTIC amongst other matters.

The VAT treatment of sightseeing passes. The Go City Limited case

By Marcus Ward 3 September 2024

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Go City Ltd the issue was the VAT treatment of passes (“sightseeing packages”) sold by the appellant. Should they be outside the scope of VAT as multi-purpose vouchers (MPVs) or whether “functioning as a ticket”? The difference being the time of supply (tax point).

The issues

The appellant sells passes which enables the buyer to enter London attractions and travel on certain types of transport. The passes were sold at a price lower than the usual admittance price at the attractions. HMRC originally accepted that the supplies were of “face value vouchers” (MPV – see below) via The VAT Act, Schedule 10A, and latterly Schedule 10B, but later changed its view. It raised assessments for the deemed underdeclarations.

Tax point

The difference in VAT treatment is, essentially:

Face value vouchers (FVV) that can be used for more than one type of good or service (multi-purpose – “MPV”) – No VAT due when sold (if sold at or below their monetary value).
FVVs that can only be used for one type of good or service (single-purpose) – VAT due on the value of the voucher when issued.

Moreover, the above means that for single purpose vouchers, VAT is due whether the voucher is actually redeemed or not – there is no way to reduce output tax previously accounted for if the voucher is not used. Whereas for MPVs VAT is only due when they are redeemed. More background on vouchers below.

Contentions

Go City Ltd argued that what was being sold was MPV and output tax was only due when the voucher was redeemed.

HMRC contended that the sale was of a “ticket” (effectively a single purpose voucher) and that output tax was due “up-front”.

Decision

The appeal allowed. The Tribunal concluded that he passes were MPVs and their sale was consequently outside the scope of VAT. No output tax was due at the time they were sold.

The passes were not only outside the scope of VAT because they are MPVs, but also because the supplies take place when the customer uses the pass, and not when it is purchased. The position is essentially the same as in Findmypast and MacDonald Resorts .

Furthermore, the FTT considered the validity of a number of the assessments HMRC issued. These were raised “to protect HMRC’s position” in respect of the alleged underdeclaration of output tax. The court ruled that these assessments were invalid because, at the time they were raised, HMRC did not have a view that the appellant’s returns were incorrect, as a final decision had yet to be made.

Commentary

The correct decision I feel. A long read, but well worth it for interested parties.

Technical background

Face value vouchers

Recent changes, radically alter the UK rules for face value vouchers (FVV). FVVs are vouchers, tokens, stamps (physical or electronic) which entitle the holder to certain goods or services up to the value on the face of the vouchers from the supplier of those goods or services. Examples of FVVs would include vouchers sold by popular group discount websites, vouchers sold by high street retailers, book tokens, stamps and various high street vouchers.

Single or multi-purpose

The most important distinction for FFVs is whether a voucher is a single purpose voucher or multi-purpose voucher. If it is a multi-purpose voucher, then little has changed. If it is a single purpose voucher, however, HMRC will now require output tax to be accounted for at the date it is issued. Single purpose vouchers are vouchers which carry the right to receive only one type of goods or services which are all subject to a single rate of VAT. Multi-purpose vouchers are anything else. The differences can be quite subtle.

For example:

a voucher which entitles you to download an e-book from one seller will be a single purpose voucher. A voucher which entitles you to purchase books (zero rated) or stationery (standard rated) from the same seller will be multi-purpose.
a voucher which entitles you to £100 of food at a restaurant which does not sell takeaways is probably single purpose, whereas if the restaurant has a cold salad bar and the buyer can buy a zero-rated take-away with the voucher (and/or standard rated hot food) then it would likely to be multi-purpose.

A VAT Did you know?

By Marcus Ward 27 August 2024

The Irish Supreme Court ruled that the bread sold by the restaurant chain Subway was too sweet to be classified as bread and that the high sugar content meant that it could not be zero rated.

VAT: Carousel fraud – How to recognise it and how to avoid been caught in it

By Marcus Ward 8 August 2024

VAT carousel fraud, also known as missing trader fraud or missing trader intra-community (MTIC) fraud, is a complex and highly sophisticated process used by organised criminals which involves defrauding governments of money that should be paid in VAT. It involves a series of transactions where goods are repeatedly bought and sold across borders, with the criminal acquiring goods free of VAT (exports of goods are tax free) and then reselling them with VAT added. The fraudster then does not pay output tax to the relevant authority, usually disappearing or closing the business without doing so. It mainly takes place in Europe, but also increasingly in South East Asia.

Round and round

If the goods are not sold to consumers (B2C) but rather, the transactions pass through a series of businesses. To perpetuate a carousel fraud, companies often create a number of sham shell companies to conceal the nature of the transactions in a complex web. The shell companies continue to trade with each other, and the transactions go round and round like a carousel. This can be almost endless. It is possible for the same goods to be traded many times between companies within the carousel fraud scheme network. Often, these transactions do not actually occur – the goods do not actually move from one party to another, but false invoices are issued.

It is common for these criminals to use the fraudulent money they have illegitimately obtained from other large scale illegal activities.

Innocent participants

Unfortunately, carousel fraud can involve innocent businesses. This often mean that these businesses suffer a VAT cost because HMRC will refuse to repay an input tax claim as the matching output tax was not paid by the missing trader. HMRC do this on the basis that the claimant knew, or should have known, that (s)he was involved in a VAT fraud (so perhaps not always so innocent).

Refusal to repay an input tax claim

This option is available to governments using the “Kittel” principle. This refers to a Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case – Axel Kittel & Recolta Recycling SPRL (C-439/04 and C-440/04) where it was held a taxable person must forego his right to reclaim input tax where “it is ascertained, having regard to objective factors, that the taxable person knew or should have known that, by his purchase, he was participating in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT”.

The right of input tax deduction may also be denied where the taxpayer could/should have guessed that their transactions involved VAT fraud.

Due diligence

It is crucial that businesses carry out comprehensive due diligence/risk assessment to avoid buying goods that have been subject to carousel fraud anywhere along the supply chain. It is not enough to avoid a refusal to repay input tax to say to HMRC that a business just “didn’t know” about a previous fraud. The scope of verification of a transaction will depend on its size, value, and the type of business, eg; whether it is a new or existing business partner. Transactions with regular suppliers should also be verified, although there should be be a lower risk of VAT fraud.

HMRC sets out in its internal manuals guidance on due diligence and risk assessment which is helpful. The following quote sets out the authorities’ overview:

“The important thing to remember is that merely making enquiries is not enough. The taxable person must take appropriate action based on the results of those enquiries. Therefore, for example, if the taxable person has undertaken effective due diligence/risk assessment on its supplier and that due diligence/risk assessment shows one or more of the following results in relation to the supplier:

only been trading for a very short period of time,
managed to achieve a large income in that short period of time,
a poor credit rating,
returned only partly completed application or trading forms,
contacted the taxable person out-of-the-blue etc,

and yet the taxable person still goes ahead and trades without making any further enquiries, this could lead to the conclusion that the due diligence/risk assessment was casually undertaken and of no value”.

Carousel VAT fraud investigations

HMRC carries out serious VAT investigations via the procedures set out in Public Notice 160 in cases where they have reason to believe dishonest conduct has taken place. These are often cases where larger amounts of VAT are involved and/or where HMRC suspect fraudulent behaviour. If a business is under investigation for carousel VAT fraud it will receive a letter from HMRC. The consequences of a carousel VAT fraud conviction are serious, and a recipient of such a letter is strongly advised to contact a specialist carousel fraud barrister immediately to provide expert legal guidance.

The Reverse charge (RC) mechanism

Governments take the threat of carousel VAT fraud very seriously and are continually implementing new measures to deter the schemes. The UK has introduced changes to the way that VAT is charged on mobile telephones, computer chips and emissions allowances to help prevent crime (it was common to use these goods and services in carousel fraud).

The RC mechanism requires the purchaser, rather than the supplier, to account for VAT on the supply via a self-supply. Therefore, the supplier does not collect VAT, so it cannot defraud the government.

The future

VAT policy is consistently updated, so businesses must be aware of these changes to ensure compliance. Technology is being progressively used to fight fraud, and again, businesses need to be aware of this and the obligation to upgrade their own technology to comply with, say; real time reporting, eInvoicing, and other innovations. Compliance technology is increasingly employed to detect inconsistent transactions which means that a business must be compliant, because if it isn’t it will be easier for the tax authorities to detect. Even if non-compliance is unintentional the exposure to penalties and interest is increased.

VAT: Tax point of telecommunications – The Lycamobile case

By Marcus Ward 7 August 2024

Latest from the courts

In the Lycamobile UK Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether VAT was chargeable on the supply of a “Plan Bundle” at the time when it was sold and by reference to the whole of the consideration that was paid for it, or whether VAT was instead chargeable only when, and only to the extent that, the allowances in the Plan Bundle were actually used. The time of supply (tax point) was important because not only would it dictate when output tax was due, but more importantly here, if the appeal succeeded, there would be no supply of the element of the bundle which was not used, so no output tax would be due on it.

Background

The Plan Bundles comprised rights to future telecommunication services; telephone calls, text messages and data (together, “Allowances”). There were hundreds of different Plan Bundles sold by the Appellant and the precise composition of those Plan Bundles varied.

Contentions

Lycamobile considered that that the services contained within each Plan Bundle were supplied only as and when the Allowances were used, so that the consideration which was received for each Plan Bundle would be recognised for VAT purposes only to the extent that the Plan Bundle was actually used. In the alternative, these supplies could be considered as multi-purpose vouchers such that output tax was not due when they were issued, but when the service was used. Very briefly, the contention was that it was possible that not all of the use would be standard rated in the UK.

Unsurprisingly, HMRC argued that that those services were supplied when the relevant Plan Bundle was sold (up-front) and output tax was due on the amount paid, regardless of usage.

Decision

The Tribunal placed emphasis on “the legal and economic context” and “the purpose of the customers in paying their consideration”.

It decided that the terms of the Plan Bundle created a legal relationship between Lycamobile and the customer. The Bundle was itself the provision of telecommunication services when sold. The customers were aware that they were entitled to use their Allowances and could decide whether to, or not. As a consequence, consumption was aligned with payment and created a tax point at the time of that payment. There was a direct link between those services and the consideration paid by the customer.

The Tribunal also considered the vouchers point. There were significant changes to the rules for Face Value Vouchers on 1 January 2019 (the supplies spanned this date), but the FTT found that the Plan Bundles were not monetary entitlements for future services under either set of rules, so the tax point rules for vouchers did not apply here.

The appeal was dismissed and HMRC assessments totalling over £51 million were upheld.

Commentary

Not an unexpected result, but an illustration of the importance of; tax points, legal and economic realities, and what customers think they are paying for. All important aspects in analysing what is being provided, and when.

VAT: More on separate and single supplies. The KFC dip pot case

By Marcus Ward 10 June 2024

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier tribunal case of Queenscourt Limited the issue was whether dip pots supplied as part of a takeaway meal deal are a separate zero-rated supply (of cold food) or whether they are part of a single VATable supply of hot food.

Background

The appellant had originally accounted for output tax on the basis that dip pots formed part of a single standard rated supply with other food. However, following advice, it then formed the view that zero-rating applied to these pots and submitted a claim for overpaid output tax. HMRC agreed to repay the VAT claimed.

Subsequently, a further claim as made on a similar basis for a later period. This was considered by a different officer who refused to make the repayment on the basis that there was no separate supply of the dip pots. This called into question whether the payment of the initial claim was correct. The officer considered the previous repayment to have been incorrect and issued assessments in order to recover the amount which had been repaid.

Queenscourt now appealed both against the decision to refuse the repayment claimed in the second error correction notice and also against the recovery assessment relating to the first error correction notice. Moreover, the recovery assessments are invalid as there has been no change in circumstances and no new facts have come to light since HMRC agreed to repay the tax. Alternatively, it argues that HMRC are prevented from recovering the tax, either on the basis of legitimate expectation or estoppel by convention, in each case arising as a result of HMRC’s original agreement that that tax should be repaid.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed.

On the dip point issue, the FTT stated that it was unlikely the dip would be eaten on its own, or as an end in itself, unlike the coleslaw or cookie elements – It is a means of better enjoying the hot food. Consequently, it is an element of a standard rated single composite supply of hot takeaway food.
Legitimate expectation – Whilst the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to consider arguments based on legitimate expectation in the context of an appeal against a recovery assessment, it is not in this case sufficiently unfair for HMRC to resile from their initial acceptance of the claim made in the first error correction notice and to apply the correct tax treatment.
Estoppel – HMRC is not estopped from making or relying on their recovery assessments as there has been no detrimental reliance on the original position taken by HMRC in connection with any subsequent mutual dealings.

Commentary

It is difficult to see the end of single/multiple supply cases, as my previous articles consider:

Here, here, here, here, and how to categorise a supply here.

VAT: Are cosmetic skin treatments exempt medical care? The Skin Science case

By Marcus Ward 8 May 2024

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Gillian Graham T/A Skin Science the issue was whether certain cosmetic skin treatments were exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 1 which covers services for the primary purpose of protecting, restoring or maintaining health: “medical care”

Were the services provided by Skin Science (SS) medical care?

Background

SS ran a clinic at 10 Harley Street, London and Ms Graham was a Registered General Nurse (RGN).

As an RGN the Appellant must submit revalidation every three years to the Nursing & Midwifery Council. The revalidation process requires her to demonstrate evidence of the scope of her professional practice including; evidence of hours worked, case studies, discussions with other medical professionals to obtain feedback and attending training courses. The Appellant’s realm of practice is disorders of the skin.

Patients generally attend the Appellant’s clinic by choice and are not referred to the Appellant by a doctor or psychologist. Some clients might see the Appellant following referrals from beauticians who may be unable to carry out treatments for certain conditions.

The treatments that the Appellant provides to her patients are not generally part of a treatment plan which involves other health professionals. SS could not confirm whether psychiatrists, psychological professionals or doctors would prescribe fillers or toxin for the conditions that she diagnoses.

A range of treatments were provided, including:

Restylane
Pix Cannula
Teosyal light filling
Muscle relaxing injections
Dermal roller
Glycolic Acid Peel
TCA Peel
Botox
Belotero Volume
Dermal fillers
Face lift by injection
Hollywood Eye Magic Serum
Belotero injections

SS provided a description of each treatment to the Tribunal.

The appellant also prescribed medicines such as; Lidocaine, Botulinum, Scleremo, Zinerate and Tretinoin.

Contentions

SS argued that the supplies of skin care treatments are exempt from VAT as they are supplies of medical care. She diagnoses recognised medical conditions, provides treatment to address those conditions and is fully qualified to do so. As all of her treatments are aimed at treating or curing those recognised medical conditions, they inevitably have a therapeutic purpose. Although they may improve the appearance of the patients and in some cases be regarded as inherently cosmetic, this is consequential as the primary purpose is to address an underlying medical condition whether physical or psychological or both. Moreover, purpose should be determined by a medical professional and not by HMRC.

HMRC contended that these supplies were standard rated (causing SS to become VAT registered) as they did not have the primary purpose of protecting, restoring or maintaining health as they were overwhelmingly cosmetic and so do not satisfy the requirements of the exemption.

Decision

It was noted that the concept of the “provision of medical care” does not include medical interventions carried out for a purpose other than that of diagnosing, treating and in so far as possible, curing diseases or health disorders and it is the purpose of the medical intervention rather than merely the qualifications of the person providing it that is key.

Health problems may be psychological, they are not limited to physical problems. Where treatment is for purely cosmetic reasons it cannot be within the exemption. Where, however, the purpose of the treatment is to treat or provide care for persons who as a result of illness, injury or a congenital physical impairment are in need of plastic surgery or other cosmetic treatment then this may fall within the concept of medical care.

The Appellant is not a psychological professional under Item 1(c) of Group 7 (health professionals) or a psychiatrist under Item 1(a) (medical practitioners), so the focus must be on what is within the scope of an RGN’s profession. The judge found that the Appellant had not proven her case that diagnosing and treating conditions which are psychological is within the scope of her profession as an RGN.

The decision was that the treatments were not for the primary purpose of protecting, restoring or maintaining health and so not “medical care” and consequently the appeal was dismissed.

A parallel outcome to a similar case in the Skin Clinics Ltd case. Other cases on medical exemption here, here and here.

Commentary

There has been an ongoing debate as to what constitutes medical care. Over 20 years ago I was advising a large London clinic on this very point and much turned on whether patients’ mental health was improved by undergoing what many would regard as cosmetic procedures. We were somewhat handicapped in our arguments by the fact that many of the patients were lap dancers undergoing breast augmentation on the direction of the owner of the club…

It is crucial to apply the above tests to any medical services to determine whether they come within the exemption.

It is worth remembering that not all services provided by a medically registered practitioner are exempt. The question of whether the medical care exemption is engaged in any given case will turn on the particular facts.

Tax points and VAT groups – The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd CoA case

By Marcus Ward 11 April 2024

Latest from the courts

In the The Prudential Assurance Company Limited (Pru) Court of Appeal (CoA) case the issues were the “difficult” questions in respect of the relationship between the VAT grouping rules and the time of supply (tax point) legislation. Is VAT is applicable on a continuous supply of services where these services were supplied while the companies were VAT grouped, but invoices were issued after the supplier left the VAT group?

Background

Pru was at the relevant time carrying on with-profits life and insurance business. Silverfleet Capital Limited (Silverfleet) provided Pru with investment management services. Under an agreement dated 30 August 2002, the consideration which Silverfleet received for its services comprised a management fee calculated by reference to the amount of investments made during the period in which services were provided and performance fees, payable in the event that the performance of certain funds exceeded a set benchmark rate of return.

When Silverfleet was rendering its investment management services, Pru was the representative member of a VAT group of which Silverfleet was also a member. However, in 2007 a management buy-out was effected, as a result of which Silverfleet ceased to be a member of Pru’s VAT group. It also ceased to provide management services to Pru.

During 2014 and 2015, the hurdle rate set under the 2002 agreement was passed. Silverfleet accordingly invoiced Prudential at various dates between 2015 and 2016 for fees totalling £9,330,805.92 (“the Performance Fees”) plus VAT at 20%.

The Issues

The CoA considered whether the Performance Fees are subject to VAT.

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided the point in favour of Pru. However, HMRC succeeded in an appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UT). In a decision that decision, the UT concluded that VAT was chargeable on the Performance Fees.

In its decision, the FTT queried whether regulation 90 of the VAT Regulations went so far as to direct that Silverfleet’s services had not been provided within a VAT group and had been “supplied in the course or furtherance of a business that in the VAT group world was not being carried on”. Further, the FTT was “unable to see what feature distinguishes [Prudential’s] case from that of the taxpayer in [B J Rice & Associates v Customs and Excise Commissioners]”.

In contrast, the UT considered that, pursuant to regulation 90 of the VAT Regulations, Silverfleet’s services were to be treated as having been supplied when invoiced and, hence, at a time when Silverfleet and Prudential were no longer members of the same VAT group. That being so, section 43 of VATA 1994 was not, in the UT’s view, in point. The UT also considered that the FTT had erred in regarding itself as bound by B J Rice & Associates v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1996] STC 581 (“B J Rice”) to allow the appeal. Unlike Mr Rice, the UT said in its decision, Silverfleet “was not entirely outside the scope of VAT when the Services were rendered, but rather it was subject to a specific set of assumptions and disregards”.

Pru contended that Silverfleet should not be considered to have made the supply in the course or furtherance of any business carried on by it. The business will instead be assumed to have been carried on by Pru. This was important because if VAT was applicable to the services Pru would not be in a position to recover it (in full at least) due to partial exemption which represented a large VAT cost.

Unsurprisingly, HMRC considered that output tax was due because at the tax point, Silverfleet as no longer part of the VAT group.

Legislation

The VAT Act 1994, section 43 lays down the rules in respect of VAT groups, and The VAT Regulations 1995, regulation 90 makes provision with respect to the time at which continuous supplies of services are to be treated as supplied for VAT purposes.

Section 43 explains that any supply by one member of a VAT group to another is to be “disregarded” and that “any business carried on by a member of the group shall be treated as carried on by the representative member”. Does this mean that no VAT is chargeable on an intra-group supply regardless of whether the supplier has left the group by the time consideration for the supply is the subject of a VAT invoice and paid? Or is section 43 inapplicable in respect of continuous supplies insofar as the consideration is invoiced and received only after the supplier is no longer a member of the VAT group because regulation 90 provides for the services to be treated as supplied at the time of the invoice or payment?

Decision

The appeal was dismissed and HMTC’s assessment was upheld. It was not possible to disregard the supply as intra-group and the tax point rules for the continuous supply of services meant that it was a taxable supply. The decision was not unanimous, with the decision by the judges being a 2:1 majority.

Commentary

This was a close decision and highlights the necessity of considering the interaction between VAT groups and tax points and the implications of timings. The case makes interesting reading in full (well, for VAT people anyway!) for the technical discussions and the disagreement between the judges.