Category Archives: Court

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.

A CASC is not a charity for VAT – The Eynsham Cricket Club case

By   2 March 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal (CoA) case of Eynsham Cricket Club (ECC) the issue is whether a Community Amateur Sport Club (CASC) is able to take advantage of VAT reliefs in the same way as a charity.

Background

The question was whether supplies of construction services of building a new cricket pavilion for a CASC qualify for zero-rating via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8. Group 5, item 2 (a) “The supply in the course of the construction of a building designed as a dwelling or number of dwellings or intended for use solely for a relevant residential purpose or a relevant charitable purpose…”Emphasis added.

The outcome depended on whether ECC was a charity. That in turn depends on whether:

  • ECC was “established for charitable purposes only” pursuant to Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2010
  • Section 6 of the Charities Act 2011 applied and had the effect of preventing ECC from being treated as “established for charitable purposes”
  • ECC satisfied the other conditions, and in particular, the “registration condition”

Decision

It was determined that CASCs cannot be treated as charities for VAT purposes as the above criteria were not met. Therefore, the construction of ECC’s new pavilion did not qualify for zero-rating and was standard rated. It was noted that becoming a CASC meant that certain charitable benefits were forgone in return for relief for certain administrative and management chores.

Commentary

It appears that ECC had the opportunity to register as a charity, but apparently, unlike a near neighbour cricket club, decided not to.

“Charity” is not defined in VAT legislation, so this case is a reminder that it should not be assumed that every entity which may have charitable objectives, or generally exist in order to benefit a section of the community qualifies as a charity for the tax.

VAT: Uber Supreme Court case

By   23 February 2021
0

Latest from the courts

As many would have heard, the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals driving taxis are “workers” rather than third party contractors. Although not a VAT case, it has This decision has highlighted a number of VAT issues.

Agent versus principal

The main matter in VAT terms is; which party is making the supply? This is often a point of dispute with HMRC, especially with taxi businesses, driving schools, the operation of online platforms, travel and accommodation, and many other types of businesses. It is one of the most common areas of disagreement as many cases have demonstrated, eg; here, here, here, and here.

The difference

VAT legislation does not define agency for the purposes of the tax.

As is often the case in these types of arrangements, there are some matters that point towards a business acting as agent, and others indicating that the proper VAT treatment is that of principal. The important difference, of course, being whether output tax is due on the “commission” received by an agent (20% in Uber’s case), or on the full payment made to it by the end user.

Uber contended that the drivers were independent contractors who work under contracts made directly with the customers and are not employees. Thus, they (Uber) acted as agent. One main argument advanced by them was that the drivers were free to work for other businesses (although in reality this was very unlikely due to the market share held by Uber).

Contract

It also demonstrates both the importance of a contract (or lack of one in Uber’s case), and how all parties act in relation to it. There have been many VAT cases on how much weight should be given to a written agreement versus what the relevant parties actually agree, how they act, how the services are performed and what the customer thinks is the position (who [s]he thinks is providing the service).

Decision

Finding that the drivers work for, and under contracts with, Uber, the following aspects supported its decision – Uber sets the fare, the terms are set by Uber and drivers have no input, Uber restricts communications between driver and passenger, and Uber exercises significant control over the way in which the services are delivered.

Update

A similar decision has been made in the Dutch courts in the Deliveroo case.

Next steps

Commentary

We wait to hear how HMRC will proceed as a result of this case. There is a chance that it may attack taxi firms which they have previously accepted as agent on the grounds that they are principals – providing the service via their ‘employees/workers” and so assessing output tax on the full value of the fare paid.

VAT: Bad Debt Relief – The Regency UT case

By   3 February 2021
0

Bad Debt Relief (BDR) is a mechanism which goes some way to protect a business from payment defaulters. Under the normal rules of VAT, a supplier is required to account for output tax, even if the supply has not been paid for (however, the use of cash accounting or certain retail schemes removes the problem of VAT on bad debts from the supplier).

The specific relief for unpaid VAT is via the BDR scheme.

Background

In the Regency Factors plc Upper tribunal (UT) case the issue was whether the appellant met the conditions in The VAT General Regulations 1995, Reg 168 for claiming BDR via The VAT Act 1994, section 36.

Regency provides a factoring service to its clients for which it is paid a fee. VAT invoices for those fees were issued to clients when the invoices which are being factored are assigned to Regency for collection.

Regency appealed against a decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) in which it dismissed Regency’s appeal against VAT assessments made by HMRC to withdraw BDR which Regency had claimed in its VAT returns.

Regency contended that it is entitled to BDR for the VAT element on the fees that were unpaid by its clients. HMRC contended that Regency is not entitled to BDR because the consideration for the supply was received by Regency and there was no bad debt to write off.

Decision

The UT deliberated on when consideration is received for factoring services and accepted that some debts were bad. However, it decided that Regency had not maintained a bad debt account as required for Reg 168. Consequently, HMRC was correct in refusing to pay the BDR claim.

Commentary

As always with VAT, it is important to keep complete and accurate records, as this case demonstrates. Reg 168 states (where relevant):

(2) Save as the Commissioners may otherwise allow, the record referred to in paragraph (1) above shall consist of the following information in respect of each claim made

  (a) in respect of each relevant supply for that claim—

    (i) the amount of VAT chargeable,

    (ii) the prescribed accounting period in which the VAT chargeable was accounted for and paid to the Commissioners,

   (iii) the date and number of any invoice issued in relation thereto or, where there is no such invoice, such information as is necessary to identify the time, nature and purchaser thereof, and

    (iv) any payment received therefore,

      (b) the outstanding amount to which the claim relates,

      (c) the amount of the claim, and

      (d) the prescribed accounting period in which the claim was made.

(3) Any records created in pursuance of this regulation shall be kept in a single account to be known as the “refunds for bad debts account”.

VAT: Unjust enrichment. The Deluxe case

By   13 January 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the Deluxe Property Holdings Limited High Court case (Deluxe) the issue was whether a VAT claim needed to be passed back to the supplier after a correction – whether the unjust enrichment applied.

Background

Deluxe employed SCL Construction Limited (SCL) to carry out building works. SCL raised invoices in respect of the construction of student accommodation at 20%. It was, however, common ground that the works were in fact zero-rated. SCL recovered the overcharged VAT from HMRC via a VAT Act 1994 Section 80 claim. SCL undertook to repay the amount of VAT to Deluxe via section 10 of VAT Notice 700/45. Without such written reimbursement undertaking, HMRC would have been entitled to refuse the claim. SCL did not make the payment to Deluxe.

Issue

The issue between the parties was whether:

  • SCL holds the accounting credit obtained from HMRC on trust for Deluxe, or;
  • the claim is only in debt, in which case SCL sought to set-off such the claim against other monies that it alleges are owed by Deluxe

Decision

The court ruled that SCL had undertaken to reimburse its customer all of the amount credited by HMRC without any deduction, for whatever purpose. Further, SCL had undertaken that it could not use the credit for any other purpose. It was a payment made by HMRC for the sole and express purpose of allowing SCL to reimburse the mistakenly charged VAT to Deluxe and was clearly intended to restrict SCL’s freedom of disposal so that the credit was to be exclusively used for the stated purpose without set-off.

Although SCL gave its undertaking to HMRC rather than to Deluxe to pass on the money, it held the repayment on trust for Deluxe and gave rise to a Quistclose Trust*

Additionally, a constructive trust arose because it would be unacceptable for SCL to derive a benefit of the VAT repayment.

The court found that SCL has acted in breach of trust and is liable as trustee to restore the trust fund and transfer to Deluxe the balance of the trust property without offsetting it against amounts that it claimed it was owed by Deluxe.

Commentary

This is a logical and expected decision and the reasoning is helpful for similar disputes.

*  A trust may arise where one person, A, advances money to another, B, on the understanding that B is not to have the free disposal of the money and that it may only be applied for the purpose stated by A. The effect of the trust is to reserve in A the beneficial interest in the money, so providing him with some proprietary security for his advance.

VAT: Is the supply of football pitches an exempt right over land? The Netbusters case.

By   11 November 2020
0

Latest from the courts.

In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Netbusters (UK) Limited the issue was whether the supply was the standard rated provision of sporting facilities, or an exempt right over land.

Background

Netbusters organised football and netball leagues and provided the playing facilities (artificial pitches for football and courts for netball). The hire of the facilities was for a defined period of time and no other party had the right to access the pitches during those times. The hire could be a block, or one-off booking. The appellant contended that the supplies were exempt via VAT Act 1994, Sch 9, Group 1 – “The grant of any interest in or right over land or of any licence to occupy land…”  However, item 1 Note (para m) excludes the “the grant of facilities for playing any sport or participating in any physical recreation” in which case they become standard rated. To add complexity, Note 16 overrides the exception for sporting facilities (so they are exempt) if the grant of the facilities is for:

“(a) a continuous period of use exceeding 24 hours; or

(b) a series of 10 or more periods, whether or not exceeding 24 hours in total, where the following conditions are satisfied—

(i) each period is in respect of the same activity carried on at the same place;

(ii) the interval between each period is not less than one day and not more than 14 days;

(iii) consideration is payable by reference to the whole series and is evidenced by written agreement;

(iv) the grantee has exclusive use of the facilities; and

(v) the grantee is a school, a club, an association or an organisation representing affiliated clubs or constituent associations.”

I have a simplified flowchart which may assist if you, or your clients, need to look at these types of supplies further.

Another issue was whether Netbusters’ league/tournament management services which were, in principle, available independently of pitch hire, but in practice rarely were provided in that way, were separate supplies or composite. There was a single price payable for both pitch hire and league management services.

The appellant contended that its supplies were exempt via VAT Act 1994, Sch 9, Group 1 or that Revenue and Customs Brief 8 (2014): sports leagues, is applicable which states “HMRC accepts that the decision of the FTT is applicable to all traders who operate in circumstances akin to Goals Soccer Centres plc. This includes traders who hire the pitches from third parties such as local authorities, schools and clubs…”

HMRC argued that there was no intention to create a tenancy and the agreements between the parties did not provide for exclusive use of the premises, so the supplies fell to be standard rated.

Decision

The appeal was allowed; the supply was a singe exempt supply because the objective character of the supplies were properly categorised as the granting of interests in, rights over or licenses to occupy land. It was found to be significant Netbusters (or its customers) had the ability to exclude others from the pitches during the period of the matches.

It was therefore unnecessary to consider whether Netbusters’ supplies grants of facilities satisfy all the conditions set out in Note 16 (although the FTT were disinclined to do this anyway as a consequence of the way respondent prepared its case).

Commentary

The issue of the nature sporting rights has a long and acrimonious history both in the UK and EU courts. Any business providing similar services are advised to review the VAT treatment applied.