Category Archives: Court

VAT: Business or non-business? The 3D Crowd CIC case

By Marcus Ward 4 July 2023

Latest from the courts

Business or non-business?

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of 3D Crowd CIC (3D) the issue was whether a donation of goods, with a subsequent intention to sell similar goods constituted a business activity such that input tax incurred in relation to it was recoverable.

Background

3D was formed at the beginning of the Covid 19 pandemic to produce face protection via the process of 3D printing. Such protection was in high demand, but there was a shortage of suitable products for healthcare workers. The appellant produced 130,000 face shields in the first six weeks of production; which was an admirable feat. However, it was not possible to sell this equipment without the appropriate accreditation. Consequently, to alleviate demand, 3D donated the PPE to the NHS.

By the time accreditation was given the demand for PPE had reduced so it was not possible to sell the 3D printed face coverings as initially intended.

Technical

The issue of business versus non-business has been a contentious issue in the VAT world from day one. This classification is important for two reasons. If an activity is a business (an economic activity) it could be subject to VAT and, as in this case, if an activity is non-business there is usually a restriction of input tax.

Contentions

3D said that input tax could be recovered on costs which involved no direct onward supply of goods or services, but which laid the groundwork for them. That is, the input tax could be attributed to an intended taxable supply, even though that intention was not fulfilled by circumstances outside its control.

HMRC argued that per Longbridge the correct test for determining whether an activity is a business activity is whether there is a direct link between the services or goods supplied and a payment received by the supplier. In this case, there was not so no input tax was reclaimable. HMRC also referred to the decision in Wakefield College, supporting the proposition that an activity is only a business activity if it results in the supply of goods or services for a consideration.

Decision

The FTT found that the VAT incurred on supplies made to 3D, constituted elements:

in connection with 3D seeking CE certification
related to general overheads
related to VAT incurred on materials bought to produce the PPE

Input tax incurred on the costs of accreditation is recoverable because these were incurred in order to sell PPE in the future and for no other purpose. The fact that these costs are not linked to a particular supply (and is in the nature of preparing the ground for future supplies) was irrelevant per The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, para 10.

The VAT incurred on the general overhead costs and on the costs of producing the PPE was incurred in part for business purposes and party for non-business (donations) and should be apportioned using a method agreed between 3D and HMRC.

Commentary

Another case highlighting the difficulty in identifying the distinction between business and non-business and the complexity of input tax attribution. The altruistic efforts of the CIC is to be admired, but such charitable (in the broad sense) activities do not always get their just reward in VAT terms.

VAT: How to characterise a supply – The tests

By Marcus Ward 27 June 2023

In the age-old matter of whether a supply is separate/composite/compound for VAT purposes which and what is the nature of that supply, the Court of Appeal case of Gray & Farrar International LLP has provided very helpful guidance. A background to facts of the initial hearing here (although this decision was overturned by both the UT and the CoA).

I have previously considered these types of supply here, here, here, here, and here. Although not specifically concerning composite/separate supplies, the case sets out a hierarchy of tests to be applied in characterising a single supply for VAT purposes which now sets the standard. These test are:

The Mesto predominance test should be the primary test to be applied in characterising a supply for VAT purposes.
The principal/ancillary test is an available, though not the primary, test. It is only capable of being applied in cases where it is possible to identify a principal element to which all the other elements are minor or ancillary. In cases where it can apply, it is likely to yield the same result as the predominance test.
The “overarching” test is not clearly established in the ECJ jurisprudence, but as a consideration the point should at least be taken into account in deciding averments of predominance in relation to individual elements, and may well be a useful test in its own right.

Comments

The Mesto Test

CJEU Mesto Zamberk Financini (Case C-18/12)

The primary test to be applied when characterising a single supply for VAT purposes is to determine the predominant element from the point of view of the typical consumer with regard to the qualitative and not merely the quantitative importance of the constituent elements.

Principal/ancillary

If a distinct supply represents 50% or more of the overall cost, it can not be considered ancillary to the principal supply. In such cases an apportionment will usually be required.

Overarching

A generic description of the supply which is distinct from the individual elements. In many cases the tax treatment of that overarching single supply according to that description will be self-evident.

CPP

One must also have regard to the Card Protection Plan Ltd case. This has become a landmark case in determining the VAT treatment for single and multiple supplies. In this case the ECJ ruled that standard rated handling charges were not distinct from the supply of exempt insurance. It was noted that ‘a supply that comprises a single service from an economic point of view should not be artificially split’. Notably many subsequent court decisions have since followed this outcome thereby suggesting a general lean towards viewing cases as single supplies where there are reasonable grounds to do so.

VAT – What is reasonable care?

By Marcus Ward 7 June 2023

What is reasonable care, and why is it important?

HMRC state that “Everyone has a responsibility to take reasonable care over their tax affairs. This means doing everything you can to make sure the tax returns and other documents you send to HMRC are accurate.”

If a taxpayer does not take reasonable care HMRC will charge penalties for inaccuracies.

Penalties for inaccuracies

HMRC will charge a penalty if a business submits a return or other document with an inaccuracy that was either as a result of not taking reasonable care, or deliberate, and it results in one of the following:

an understatement of a person’s liability to VAT
a false or inflated claim to repayment of VAT

The penalty amount will depend on the reasons for the inaccuracy and the amount of tax due (or repayable) as a result of correcting the inaccuracy.

How HMRC determine what reasonable care is

HMRC will take a taxpayer’s individual circumstances into account when considering whether they have taken reasonable care. Therefore, there is a difference between what is expected from a small sole trader and a multi-national company with an in-house tax team.

The law defines ‘careless’ as a failure to take reasonable care. The Courts are agreed that reasonable care can best be defined as the behaviour which is that of a prudent and reasonable person in the position of the person in question.

There is no issue of whether or not a business knew about the inaccuracy when the return was submitted. If it did, that would be deliberate and a different penalty regime would apply, see here It is a question of HMRC examining what the business did, or failed to do, and asking whether a prudent and reasonable person would have done that or failed to do that in those circumstances.

Repeated inaccuracies

HMRC consider that repeated inaccuracies may form part of a pattern of behaviour which suggests a lack of care by a business in developing adequate systems for the recording of transactions or preparing VAT returns.

How to make sure you take reasonable care

HMRC expects a business to keep VAT records that allow you to submit accurate VAT returns and other documents to them. Details of record keeping here

They also expect a business to ask HMRC or a tax adviser if it isn’t sure about anything. If a business took reasonable care to get things right but its return was still inaccurate, HMRC should not charge you a penalty. However, If a business did take reasonable care, it will need to demonstrate to HMRC how it did this when they talk to you about penalties.

Reasonable care if you use tax avoidance arrangements*

If a business has used tax avoidance arrangements that HMRC later defeat, they will presume that the business has not taken reasonable care for any inaccuracy in its VAT return or other documents that relate to the use of those arrangements. If the business used a tax adviser with the appropriate expertise, HMRC would normally consider this as having taken reasonable care (unless it’s classed as disqualified advice)

Where a return is sent to HMRC containing an inaccuracy arising from the use of avoidance arrangements the behaviour will always be presumed to be careless unless:

The inaccuracy was deliberate on the person’s part, or
The person satisfies HMRC or a Tribunal that they took reasonable care to avoid the inaccuracy

* Meaning of avoidance arrangements

Arrangements include any agreement, understanding, scheme, transaction or series of transactions (whether or not legally enforceable). So, whilst an arrangement could contain any combination of these things, a single agreement could also amount to an arrangement. Arrangements are `avoidance arrangements’ if, having regard to all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to conclude that the obtaining of a tax advantage was the main purpose, or one of the main purposes of the arrangements.

NB: We at Marcus Ward Consultancy do not promote or advise on tax avoidance arrangements and we will not work with any business which seeks such advice.

Using a tax adviser

If a business uses a tax adviser, it remains that business’ responsibility to make sure it gives the adviser accurate and complete information. If it does not, and it sends HMRC a return that is inaccurate, it could be charged penalties and interest.

Evidence

Before any question of reasonable excuse comes into play, it is important to remember that the initial burden lies on HMRC to establish that events have occurred as a result of which a penalty is, prima facie, due. A mere assertion of the occurrence of the relevant events in a statement of case is not sufficient. Evidence is required and unless sufficient evidence is provided to prove the relevant facts on a balance of probabilities, the penalty must be cancelled without any question of reasonable excuse becoming relevant.

None of us are perfect

Finally, it is worth repeating a comment found in HMRC’s internal guidance “People do make mistakes. We do not expect perfection. We are simply seeking to establish whether the person has taken the care and attention that could be expected from a reasonable person taking reasonable care in similar circumstances…”

A VAT Did you know?

By Marcus Ward 25 May 2023

The sale of ducks is zero rated, but racing pigeons are standard rated.

VAT: Charity exemption for show admittance – The Yorkshire Agricultural Society case

By Marcus Ward 9 May 2023

Latest from the courts

In the Yorkshire Agricultural Society First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether payments for entry into the annual The Great Yorkshire Show qualified as exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 12, item 1 –

“The supply of goods and services by a charity in connection with an event—

1. 1. that is organised for charitable purposes by a charity or jointly by more than one charity,
  2. whose primary purpose is the raising of money, and
  3. that is promoted as being primarily for the raising of money.”

HMRC raised an assessment on the grounds that the supply of admittance fell outwith the exemption so it was standard rated. It appears that this view was formed solely on the basis that the events were not advertised as fundraisers.

The exemption covers events whose primary purpose is the raising of money and which are promoted primarily for that purpose. HMRC contended that the events were not advertised as fundraisers and therefore the exemption did not apply. Not surprisingly, the appellant contended that all of the tests at Group 12 were fully met.

The FTT found difficulty in understanding HMRC’s argument. It was apparent from the relevant: tickets, posters and souvenir programmes all featured the words “The Great Yorkshire Show raises funds for the Yorkshire Agricultural Society to help support farming and the countryside”.

Decision

The FTT spent little time finding for the taxpayer and allowing the appeal. The assessment was withdrawn. There was a separate issue of the assessment being out of time, which was academic given the initial decision. However, The Tribunal was critical of HMRC’s approach to the time limit test (details in the linked decision). HMRC’s argument was that apparently, the taxpayer had brought the assessment on itself by not providing the information which HMRC wanted. The Judge commented: “That is not the same as HMRC being in possession of information which justified it in issuing the Assessment. It is an inversion of the statutory test”.

HMRC’s performance (or lack of it)

Apart from the clear outcome of this case, it also demonstrated how HMRC can get it so wrong. The FTT stated that it was striking that there was very little by way of substantive challenge by HMRC to the appellant’s evidence, nor any detailed exploration of it in cross-examination. The FTT, which is a fact-finding jurisdiction, asked a series of its own questions to establish some facts about the Society’s activities and the Show in better detail. No-one from HMRC filed a witness statement or gave evidence, even though HMRC, in its application to amend its Statement of Case, had said that the decision-maker would be giving evidence. The decision-maker did not give evidence. HMRC were wrong on the assessment and the time limit statutory test and did not cover itself in glory at the hearing.

Commentary

More evidence that if any business receives an assessment, it is always a good idea to get it reviewed. Time and time again we see HMRC make basic errors and misunderstand the VAT position. We have an excellent record on challenging HMRC decisions. Charities have a hard time of it with VAT, and while it is accurate to say that some of the legislation and interpretation is often complex for NFPs, HMRC do not help by taking such ridiculous cases.

VAT: Place of supply – The Sports Invest case

By Marcus Ward 5 May 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal case of Sports Invest UK Ltd the issue was the place of supply (POS) of a football agent’s services (commission received for a player’s transfer).

The POS is often complex from a VAT perspective and depends on the place of belonging (POB) of the supplier and the recipient of the supply. These rules determine if VAT is charged, where VAT is charged and the rate of VAT applicable, additionally, they may impose requirements to register for VAT in different jurisdictions.

Background

Sports Invest was a football agent based in the UK. It received fees in respect of negotiating the transfer of a player: João Mário from a Portuguese club: Sporting Lisbon to an Italian club: Internazionale (Inter Milan). The appellant signed a representation contract with the player which entitled it to commission, and a separate agreement with Inter Milan entitling it to a fee because the player was permanently transferred.

The Issues

To whom did Sports Invest make a supply – club or player? What was the supply? Was there one or two separate supplies? What was the POS?

As appears normal for transactions in the world of football the contractual arrangements were complex, but, in essence as a matter of commercial and economic reality, Sports Invest had agreed the commission with the player in case it was excluded from the deal. However, this did not occur, and the deal was concluded as anticipated. Inter Milan paid The Appellant’s fee in full, but did this affect the agreement between Sports Invest and the player? That is, as HMRC contended, did Inter Milan pay Sports Invest on the player’s behalf (third party consideration) such that there were two supplies; one to the player and one to the cub?

The FTT stated that there was no suggestion that the contracts were “sham documents”.

VAT Liability

The arrangements mattered, as pre-Brexit, a supply of services by a business with a POB in the UK to an individual (B2C) in another EU Member State would have been subject to UK VAT; the POS being where the supplier belonged. HMRC assessed for an element of the fee that it saw related to the supply to the player. The remainder of the fee paid by the club was accepted to be consideration for a UK VAT free supply by the agent to the club (B2B).

Decision

The court found that there was one single supply by The Appellant to Inter Milan. This being the case, the supply was B2B and the POS was where the recipient belonged and so that the entire supply was UK VAT free. There was no (UK) supply to the individual player as that agreement was superseded by the contractual arrangements which were actually put in place and the player owed the agent nothing as the potential payment under that contract was waived.

The appeal against the assessment was upheld.

Commentary

The court’s decision appears to be logical as the supply was to the club who were receiving “something” (the employment contract with the player) and paying for it. The other “safeguarding” agreement appeared to be simple good commercial practice and was ultimately “not required”. This case highlights the often complex issues of; establishing the nature of transactions, the identity of the recipient(s), agency arrangements, the POS and the legal, commercial and economic reality of contracts.

VAT: Are Turmeric shots zero rated food? The Innate-Essence Limited case

By Marcus Ward 5 May 2023

Latest from the courts

In the Innate-Essence Limited (t/a The Turmeric Co) First Tier tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether turmeric shots were zero rated food via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, general item 1 or a standard rated beverage per item 4 of the Excepted items.

The Legislation

“General items Item No 1 Food of a kind used for human consumption. …

Excepted Items Item No … 4 Other beverages (including fruit juices and bottled waters) and syrups, concentrates, essences, powders, crystals or other products for the preparation of beverages.”

The Product

Turmeric roots are crushed and the pulp sieved to extract the liquid. No additional liquids such as apple juice, orange juice or water are added during the production process.

The Shots contain:

small quantities of crushed, whole fresh watermelon and lemons which act as a base and provides a natural preservative effect
fresh pineapple juice
flax oil and black pepper

All the ingredients are cold pressed to retain the maximum nutritional value of the raw ingredients. The Shots are not pasteurised as this would negatively affect the nutritional content of the Shots. No sugar or sweeteners are added to the Shots. The Shots are sold in small 60ml plastic bottles and it was stated that they provided long term health benefits.

The court applied the many tests derived from case law on similar products, and as is usual in these types of cases, the essence of the decision was on whether the Exception for beverages applied to The Shots.

Whether a product is a beverage (standard rated) is typically based on tests established in the Bioconcepts case (via VFOOD7520) as there is no definition of “beverage” in the legislation. The tests:

it must be a drinkable liquid that is commonly consumed
it must be characteristically taken to increase bodily liquid levels, or
taken to slake the thirst, or
consumed to fortify, or
consumed to give pleasure

The principle of the tests is based on the idea that a drinkable liquid is not automatically a beverage, but could be a liquid food that is not a beverage.

The Tribunal found that the Shots were not beverages but zero rated food items. As The judge put it: “In our view, the marketing and customer reviews demonstrate clear consistency in the use to which the Shots are put. The Shots are consumed in one go on a regular, long-term basis for the sole purpose of the claimed health and wellbeing benefits. The purpose of the Shots is entirely functional: to maximise the consumers daily ingestion of curcumin which is achieved by cold pressing the raw ingredients into a liquid. We consider it highly unlikely that a consumer would attempt to ingest the same quantity of raw turmeric in solid form.

The Shots are marketed on the basis of the nutritional content of the high-quality ingredients (primarily raw turmeric) that are stated to support health and wellbeing. The Shots contain black pepper and flax oil, two ingredients that are not commonly found in beverages. The Shots are marketed as requiring regular daily consumption over a long period of time (at least three months) to provide the consumer with the claimed long-term health and wellbeing benefits. A one-off purchase of a Shot would not achieve the stated benefits of drinking a Shot”.

The Tribunal also went to consider the “lunch time pints in pubs” (The Kalron case) issue, but I would rather not comment on whether this is a usual substitute for a lunch…

The appeal was allowed.

Commentary

Yet another food/beverage case. Case law insists that each product must be considered in significant detail to correctly identify the VAT liability and even then, a dispute with HMRC may not be avoided. Very small differences in content, marketing, processes etc can affect the VAT treatment. As new products hit the shop shelves at an increasing rate I suspect that we will be treated to many more such cases in the future. If your business produces or sells similar products, it will be worth considering whether this case assists in any contention for zero rating.

A VAT Did you know?

By Marcus Ward 27 April 2023

Eels, salmon and trout are VAT free when sold dead or alive, but bream, perch, pike and tench are standard rated.

VAT: Was an option to tax valid? The Rolldeen Estates Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 18 April 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Rolldeen Estates Ltd there were a number of issues, inter alia; whether the appellant’s option to tax (OTT) was valid, if not, whether HMRC had the power to deem it valid, whether HMRC acted unreasonably and whether appellant estopped from relying on earlier meeting with an HMRC officer.

Background

The letting of property is an exempt supply, however, a landlord the owner can OTT the property and charge VAT on that supply. If the OTT is exercised, the supplier is able to reclaim input VAT on costs such as repairs and maintenance, but charges output VAT on its supplies. The OTT provisions are set out at The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10.

The appellant in this case had previously submitted an OTT form VAT1614A and charged VAT on the rent to its tenant. Subsequently, the property was sold without charging VAT. HMRC issued an assessment for output tax on the sale value.

Schedule 10

A taxpayer does not need HMRC’s permission to OTT, unless that person has already made exempt supplies in relation to that property – in particular, if the property has already been let without VAT having been charged. In that scenario, the person must apply to HMRC for permission to exercise the OTT, and permission will only be given if HMRC are satisfied that the input tax is fairly attributed as between the exempt period and the taxable period. When OTT the company stated that no previous exempt supplies of the relevant property had been made and this was also confirmed in subsequent correspondence with HMRC.

Appellant’s contentions

The company informed HMRC that the OTT was invalid so that no VAT was due on the sale. Evidence was provided which demonstrated that Rolldeen had made exempt supplies before the date of the OTT so that HMRC’s permission had therefore been required before it could be opted. No permission had been given and therefore there was no valid OTT in place even though the appellant had purported to exercise that option. Also, the appellant submitted that it was unreasonable of HMRC to have exercised the discretion to deem the OTT to have effect, because they had failed to take into account the fact that during an inspection, HMRC had known that Rolldeen had made exempt supplies before OTT.

HMRC’s view

VATA, Schedule 10, para 30 allows HMRC retrospectively to dispense with the requirement for prior permission, and to treat a “purported option as if it had instead been validly exercised”. HMRC issued a decision stating that it was exercising its discretion under Schedule 10, para 30 to treat the relevant property as opted with effect from the date of the VAT1614A and that VAT was due on the sale and the assessment was appropriate.

Decision

The FTT found that:

after an inspection by HMRC it knew that prior exempt supplies had been made
although HMRC knew exempt supplies had already been made Rolldeen was estopped* from relying on that fact, because both parties had shared a “common assumption” that the OTT had been valid
para 30 could be used to retrospectively validate the OTT (albeit only in relation to supplies made after 1 June 2008). In this case that was sufficient as the sale of the property occurred on in March 2015
HMRC had not acted unreasonably because they had not taken into account their own failure to carry out a compliance check
this is exactly the sort of situation for which para 30 was designed
it was entirely reasonable and appropriate of HMRC to deem the purported option to have been validly exercised

The appeal was rejected and the assessment was valid.

Commentary

Again, proof, if proof is needed, that OTT can be a complex and costly area of the tax and care must always be taken. Advice should always be sought, as once an OTT is made, there is usually no going back.

An interesting point in this case was that no case law was cited on this issue and the FTT was unable to identify any.

* The principle of “estoppel” means that a person may be prevented from relying on a particular fact or argument in certain circumstances.

VAT: Evidence for retrospective claims – new guidance

By Marcus Ward 14 March 2023

HMRC has updated its Manual VRM9300 on historic VAT claims.

These types of claims are often called “Fleming” claims and refer to those made before the introduction of the four (once three) year time cap. Such claims extend beyond the period that businesses were required to keep business records and so these were less likely to have remained available.

Standard of Proof where records are unavailable

Where detailed records are unavailable it does not mean there is a lower standard of proof for a claim. The civil standard of proof (on a balance of probabilities) remains.

However, taxpayers’ estimates, assumptions and extrapolations must be sufficiently robust to support a claim. HMRC and the Tribunals must have regard to the evidence that is available, and each claim must be considered on its individual merits.

HMRC state that it “…is not obliged to accept a figure simply because some input tax is due or because it is the claimant’s ‘best guess’ based on the material available”. The claimant must first establish that its method of valuing the claim is reasonable and provide an identifiable repayable amount.

The guidance considers the judgement in the NHS Lothian [2022] UKSC 28 case and its impact on claims where full evidence is unavailable.

Alternative evidence

It is also worth noting that HMRC have the discretion to accept alternative evidence.