Category Archives: Court

VAT: Fraudster ordered to pay £37 million

By   5 August 2021
0

Latest from the courts

A high level fraudster who skipped his trial and fled to Dubai has been ordered to pay more than £37 million. Failure to do so will result in ten years in prison. He played a major role in this missing trader fraud (MTIC) which involves the theft of Value Added Tax from HMRC. He was part of a conspiracy to use a network of companies and a huge number of transactions to cover up the theft of VAT.

Adam Umerji, 43, was convicted in his absence of offences of conspiracy to cheat the government’s revenue and conspiracy to transfer criminal property, in a prosecution conducted by the CPS Specialist Fraud Division after a complex criminal investigation by HMRC.

Background

Missing trader fraud (also called missing trader intra-community fraud or MTIC fraud) involves the theft of VAT from a government by fraudsters who exploit VAT rules, most commonly the EU rules which provide that the movement of goods between Member States is VAT free. There are different variations of the fraud but they generally involve a trader charging VAT on the sale of goods and absconding with the VAT (instead of paying the VAT to the government’s taxation authority). The term “missing trader” is used because the fraudster has gone missing with the VAT.

A common form of missing trader fraud is carousel fraud. In carousel fraud, VAT and goods are passed around between companies and jurisdictions.

VAT: The “business” of shooting – a tale

By   14 July 2021
0

Sometimes one is involved in a dispute which goes to the core of the tax.  This is a case which highlights basic VAT principles, HMRC’s approach to an issue and the lengths to which a taxpayer has to go to defend his position.

Are you sitting comfortably?

A day out in the countryside; striding across beautiful landscape, amongst friends, enjoying each other’s’ company and a bit of sport – can this really be the subject of such intense debate with HMRC? Well, unfortunately this seems to be the case when it comes to the operation of a day’s shooting. In the eyes of the taxman, whether or not a profit or a surplus is achieved, shooting, conducted in the course of furtherance of a business is subject to VAT.

This is not usually an issue which shooting syndicates find themselves having to address; they are not concerned with the ins and outs of what constitutes a business for the purposes of the VAT legislation. However, HMRC was pursuing this issue in earnest and they have a team devoted solely to attacking shoots.

Who is HMRC targeting?

HMRC seem to be focusing on syndicate run shoots which are not registered for VAT but who HMRC believe are operating on business principles. If an organisation is operating as a business then it may be liable to register for VAT if certain income thresholds are exceeded. The shoot will then have to charge output VAT on the supplies it makes.  In my case there would have been a significant assessment plus penalties and interest which could double the past VAT bill.

How is HMRC attacking the issue?

HMRC is looking closely at the specific activities of syndicate shoots in order to build an argument demonstrating that the organisation of the shoot is run on “sound business principles”.  The reason that there is room for debate on this matter is that what constitutes a business is not explicitly defined anywhere in the VAT legislation either in UK or EC law. Rather, the issue has been defined in case law.

The defining case was Lord Fisher, which co-incidentally also concerned a shoot. This case is relied upon throughout the VAT world to give guidance on what constitutes a business – and not just in respect of shoots but for all types of activity.

Anyway, back to this syndicate…

I was involved in a battle lasting four years which concerned a local shoot run for over five decades by a group of friends and which was provided only for the benefit of the syndicate members. The shoot was not open to the common commercial market place or members of the public and the shoot did not advertise. HMRC spent a great deal of time trying to understand the finer details of the running of this shoot and concluded that it was a business

We advised The Shoot to appeal to the VAT Tribunal against HMRC’s decision to levy VAT on its activities.

They key to the syndicate’s defence was to demonstrate that no true business would operate commercially in the way that The Shoot does.  If it did, it would be completely unprofitable and would soon be out of business. To demonstrate this effectively, every aspect of the shoot was examined in detail and compared and contrasted with the way a commercial shoot operates. This involved everything from the lunch arrangements, CVs of the gamekeepers and how beautiful the land is, right through to whether chicks or poults are purchased and whether local deer were sold to the highest bidder. However, the most important factor was the demonstration that the syndicate does not have a profit built in to the cost structure and the amounts that the syndicate members contribute. The syndicate is run on a cost sharing basis and is not “an activity likely to be carried out by a private undertaking on a market, organised within a professional framework and generally performed in the interest of generating a profit.”

It all sounds so simple to those familiar with the industry but unfortunately from a VAT ‘business’ perspective it has been a long, stressful and costly argument for the appellant to make.  A few days before the case was to be heard at the Tribunal, HMRC withdrew their assessment and conceded the case.

HMRC had seen the many witness statements filed by the members of the syndicate waxing lyrical about how this was an age-old hobby run by a few friends and in no way could it be considered a commercial business. They had seen the expert witness report written by a specialist in the field. The distinctions made between commercial and syndicate shooting were made very clear. They had also seen the powerful argument which concluded that the shoot “cannot seriously be suggested to amount to a ‘business’ for the purpose of the VAT code”.

What this means?

Of course this victory over HMRC was a fantastic result for the members of The Shoot, but from a practical point of view quite frustrating in that the case was not heard; denying other entities the benefit of the predicted victory.  Alas, it was one case that HMRC could not afford to lose.

It is therefore likely that HMRC will continue to target other shoots where they think they can ‘win’ or at least not be challenged.

Have you been affected? – What should you do next?

If this makes for frighteningly familiar reading and you or your local syndicate shoot are, or have been, under HMRC investigation then it is vital that you should take professional advice.  As I orchestrated the defence for The Shoot we believe that we are the leading advisers in such matters.

 For completeness, the six tests derived from the Lord Fisher case (and others) are:
  1. Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
  2. Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
  3. Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
  4. Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
  5. Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
  6. 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?

The case of Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft is also helpful in looking at what a business is.

VAT: Day-care services by private bodies are taxable

By   22 June 2021
0

Latest from the courts

Following the Supreme Court decisions in Life Services Ltd and The Learning Centre (Romford) Ltd HMRC have published guidance in Revenue & Customs Brief 9 (2021).

NB: This guidance applies to bodies in England and Wales only – Scotland and Northern Ireland have different rules.

The relevant cases concerned the VAT liability of day-care services provided by private bodies to vulnerable adults in England. They confirmed that HMRC’s interpretation of the legislation is correct; that providers of day-care must be charities, public bodies or regulated by the relevant authority (“approved, licensed, registered or exempted from registration by any Minister or other authority pursuant to a provision of a public general Act”) in order to be able to exempt these services.

The legislation is: The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, group 7, item 9.

It is understood that there were a significant number of claims stood behind the Supreme Court cases and these will now fail.

HMRC state that providers who have not accounted for VAT on supply of these services must do so with immediate effect.

Commentary

This is a further example of the VAT complexity in the provision of health and welfare services. It has always been an area ripe for disputes and such bodies and their advisers would be prudent to review the tax treatment of their supplies. There are usually two discrete areas of potential problems; whether services are business or non-business, and if business – do they fall within the various exemptions found at Schedule 9, group 7, items 1 to 11.

VAT: Input tax recovery – whether a taxable supply. The Door Specialist case

By   9 June 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal case of The Door Specialist Limited (TDSL) the issue was whether an HMRC assessment for overclaimed input tax was correct.

Background

The appellant recovered input tax on the import of goods (doors). The company did not sell the doors, but simply gave the goods (no consideration provided) to a separate company called Just Doors (JD).  It was JD who made the sales of the doors to third party customers.  TDSL and JD were under common ownership but no VAT group in place at the relevant time. TDSL was VAT registered as it made separate, unrelated taxable supplies of property rental

Arguments

HMRC contended that as there was no onward taxable supply of the doors by TDSL, no input tax was recoverable per The VAT Act 1994 section 24 (1). TDSL relied on HMRC’s published guidance (Notices 700 and 700/7) in relation to gifts and proposed that it would be proper to assess for output tax on the “supply” to JD rather than denying the input tax claim.  

Issues

The issues may therefore be summarised as whether;

  • the relevant goods were used for the purpose of any economic activity by TDSL
  • the doors could be treated as business gifts as contended by the applicant such that the input tax was recoverable.

Further cases on economic activity/business here, here and here

Decision

It was decided that as there was no direct and immediate link between the purchase of the goods and any onward taxable supply in the course of business or economic activity by TDSL (as required by the outcome of the cases of BAA Ltd JDI International Leasing Ltd) the disallowance of the input tax was appropriate. The advancement of the business gifts contention did not assist the taxpayer as this was not an economic activity in itself. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

 Commentary

A clear example of not considering the VAT implications when carrying out transactions. This tax cost could have easily been avoided if TDSL had sold the doors to JD. As both parties were fully taxable, there would have been no VAT hit. Business gifts and promotional activities are also often a complex area of VAT and as one former colleague once remarked “If you have a marketing department you have a VAT issue”.

VAT Single and Multiple Supplies

By   11 May 2021
0

Accounting for VAT can be problematic when the supply of goods and services consist of multiple components. In such cases it is necessary to consider whether each component of the supply should be assessed independently or whether the components should be dealt with as one.

Precise treatment is not specifically addressed in UK or European Law and instead a decision is made based upon a review of the essential features of the transaction. For instance, a meal on an airplane is a normal feature of the zero rated travel provided and is not considered a separate standard rated supply to the travel itself. Conversely a meal on a river cruise is a separate supply to that of the zero rated cruise itself and as such is a separate standard rated supply.

A single price is not therefore a decisive indicator of a single supply. Instead what needs to be considered is whether there is just one principal supply or several distinct independent supplies that are provided.

Through the development of case law and HMRC guidance the following situations have been clarified. I have written about the most important, recent cases here, here, here, here and here.

The 50% rule

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.

Postal charges

VAT on postage follows the treatment of VAT on the main supply. For example, for mail order items the postage on book is zero rated, whereas the postage on a printer is standard rated.

There are however situations where postage is treated as a separate supply to the goods if, for example, the postage is not expected and is an additional request by the customer.

Subscriptions

If there is one particular reason for the subscription then the fee is considered to be one single supply. If there are separate reasons for the subscription then the fee should be proportioned accordingly and the appropriate VAT treatment should be applied to each element of the supply.

Printed matter

Usually books, newspapers, magazines and music are zero rated whilst items seen as stationery such as membership cards and notebooks are standard rated. For materials supplied with items that can be used independently then there are two supplies, for example a film supplied with a magazine.

A package test can also be applied, where if there are more zero rated items then standard rated items the entire package becomes zero rated, or vice versa.

Two part tariffs

If there are two payments relating to a single supply, the two payments are treated as one and the VAT treatment follows that of the one supply.

Supplies involving land

Services provided on land tend to be viewed as one complete supply. The land aspect is not usually a separate service that the customer receives and instead allows the main service to be provided.

One instance where this may not apply is service charges, which may need to be apportioned if they contain independent supplies such as rent and cleaning. Independent supplies are made if the customer can choose which of the services they would like.

Summary

Card Protection Plan Ltd 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 open market value? The Jupiter case

By   11 May 2021
0


Latest from the courts

In the First Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Jupiter Asset Management Group Ltd the issue was the value of management services to an associated third party VAT group.

Background

The value is important because if HMRC believe that a supply between two connected parties (as defined by The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Section 839) is undervalue and the recipient cannot recover the relevant input tax in full, it is permitted via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 6, PART 2, para 1 (1) to substitute open market value (OMV) by way of a Notice.

This paragraph is specifically intended to counter tax avoidance. If a supply between connected persons is made below open market value for a legitimate reason that the trader can substantiate, and which is unconnected with avoidance HMRC has the discretion not to issue a Notice. In Jupiter, HMRC directed that OMV be used to calculate the charge as it considered that value was too low and issued an assessment for underdeclared output tax.

Decision

In the absence of comparable supplies, OMV was to be determined by reference to:

  • the full cost of making the supplies;
  • the full cost included the costs incurred on goods and services used in making the supplies and general overhead costs the input tax in respect of which had been recovered
  • the remuneration paid to the executive directors to the extent that that remuneration related to activities performed by the executive directors in making the supplies of the management services

Consequently, the appeal against the output tax assessment was dismissed.

Commentary

An expected outcome, but ne which emphasises that care should be taken with transactions between connected parties, management charges and inter-company charges in general. This is even more relevant since the decision in the Norseman Gold plc case

A VAT did you know?

By   29 April 2021
0

Wigs for teddy bears are subject to duty, but in a recent Upper Tribunal case it was ruled that ‘realistic” hearts used for a Build-A-Bear toy are duty free. 

VAT: Is a car wash a car park? The RK Fuels Ltd case

By   26 April 2021
0

Latest from the courts

More on car parking.

In the RK Fuels Ltd First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether the lease of an area of the supplier’s petrol station to a business operating a car wash was an exempt right over land or whether it was excluded from the exemption because it was a car park (the ‘grant of facilities for parking a vehicle’ VAT Act Schedule 9, Grp. 1, Item [1] [h]) and was therefore standard rated.

Background

Although the tenant operated a car wash (and not a car park) and this was a permitted use under the commercial use agreement, the car wash was located on land used as a car park.

The appellant contended that the car park was rented to carry out the business of car washing, and this is clearly stated in the lease agreement. It is not rented as a car park to park cars. Furthermore, a VAT inspection was carried out by HMRC and the point about the rental income being exempt was raised and accepted by HMRC.

HMRC relied on, inter alia, the fact that the relevant part of the lease stated that “the landlord agrees to rent to the tenant the car park. The car park will be used for only the following permitted use (the Permitted use): as a car wash business. Neither the car park nor any part of the premises will be used at any time during the terms of this lease by the tenant for any purpose other than the permitted use.” And the fact that the appellant was permitted an alternative use of the car park to run a car wash does not cause the area to cease to be a car park, nor does it mean that it cannot be used as a car park. There is a need for cars to be parked on the land whilst waiting to be washed, dried, and cleaned. Without the ability to park a car on the land, the permitted use could not occur.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The judge found that a grant of facilities for parking vehicles was made, either expressly or by necessary implication and so was standard rated. Further, the occupation of the car park under the terms of the lease agreement is a means to enable the car wash facility to operate. The site for parking is any place where a motor vehicle may be parked. It was also found that the fact that a person may not leave a vehicle does not render a vehicle any less parked.

The fact that the land was referred to as a “car park” consistently throughout the lease agreement was always going to be a problem for the appellant.

The court went on to consider whether a licence over land had been granted. It is a long-standing principle that a central characteristic of a licence over land is the right to exclude others. As the tenant had no right to exclude others from the relevant land (because, as an example given; customers of the petrol station could park there to visit the shop) there was no exempt supply of the right over land.

Commentary

There were other subsidiary issues, namely on whether an option to tax had been made but this was redundant considering the court’s decision on the substantive point. The decision was unsurprising even considering the guidance set out in VAT Notice 742 para 4.3:

 “When a supply is of land rather than parking facilities 

If you grant an interest in, or right over or licence to occupy land in the following circumstances, your supply will be exempted, unless you have opted to tax… 

·         letting of land or buildings where any reference to parking a vehicle is incidental to the main use..”

Even if the argument could be made that the parking was incidental, as the decision was that there was not an interest in, or right over or licence to occupy land the ancillary use point fell away.

Another nail in the coffin of the appeal was that the court found that the decision in the Fareham Borough Council [2014] TC04129 (which found that the right to operate was not an exempt right over land) applied in this case.

Care should be taken when analysing the VAT treatment of a lease. It is tempting to consider that if there is a lease, and it is of land, it is sufficient to merit exemption, but this case demonstrates that further consideration must always be given.

VAT: Car parking provided by a hospital – Exempt? Non-Business? Taxable?

By   20 April 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (The Trust) First Tier (FT) case the issue was whether pay and display car park charges were subject to VAT considering the status and activities of the Trust.

Background

The Trust provided parking for staff and visitors at the 14 sites for which it was responsible. The question was whether output tax was due on the parking charges. The Trust submitted a claim for overpaid VAT considering that either:

  • there was no economic activity, or, if there was,
  • there was a “special legal regime” which meant that tax was not due because The Trust was not a taxable person, or
  • the parking charges were closely related to the Trust’s exempt activity (medical care) such that they themselves were exempt

HMRC rejected the claim on the grounds that car parking is a standard rated supply and The Trust appealed against this decision.

It was agreed that The Trust, in carrying out its statutory activities (NHS medical services) is not in business (no economic activity) and therefore the services were outside the scope of VAT. Some private medical services were also supplied, and it was common ground that these were exempt.

Decision

The court found that:

  • the Trust made supplies for a consideration for the purposes of obtaining income on a continuing basis so there was economic activity
  • the Trust did not provide car parking under a “special legal regime” as a public authority; there is no concept of special legal regime in the relevant legislation
  • the treatment of The Trust as a non-taxable person re; car parking would lead to significant distortion of competition
  • supplies of car parking were not closely related to medical care. The service must be an indispensable stage and integral in the supply of medical services, ie; the diagnosis, treatment and cure of diseases or health disorders
  • the supply of car parking was consequently a taxable business activity carried out by a taxable person, was not exempt, so output tax was properly due.

Commentary

We are aware of a number of cases stayed behind this appeal and there will be disappointment, but little surprise (I suspect) at the outcome. Car parking is a significant source of income for hospitals, medical centres and clinics etc, but this case made it clear that there is no difference in VAT terms between hospital parking and other commercial car parks.

VAT: Treatment of transactions involving cryptoassets. New guidance

By   8 April 2021
0

Further to my articles on cryptoassets and Bitcoin HMRC have published an updated Cryptoassets Manual CRYPTO40000 which sets out its interpretation of trading in cryptocurrencies.

It covers:

  • economic activity
  • supplies of tokens
  • exchanges
  • exemption
  • value
  • case law
  • betting and gaming
  • other taxes; CGT, CT, CTCG, Income Tax, NIC and Stamp Taxes

Any business dealing in any way with cryptoassets needs to understand the VAT and other tax implications of services to, and by it.