Category Archives: Disputes

VAT treatment of lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed goods

By Marcus Ward 24 March 2025

Is output tax due on goods that, for various reasons, cannot be sold, or are sold at a discount?

HMRC says that the VAT treatment depends on whether or not there was actually a supply of goods, what happened to them, who was responsible for them at the time and whether a VAT invoice was issued. The value of any supply will also need to recognise any credit given to the customer.

So, as often is the case with the tax, the answer is: “It depends”. So, let’s look at the categories to find out:

Lost goods

This depends on who lost the goods.

Sometimes a business will sell goods to a customer, but they did not receive them because they went astray. This could happen, for example, if goods are lost in the post.

customer is responsible for loss

If the customer is responsible for any losses before the goods are delivered, then VAT is due on the full amount of the sale.

supplier responsible for loss

If the supplier is responsible for any losses before the goods are delivered, then the way VAT is dealt with will depend on whether an invoice has been issued.

If an invoice has been issued, output tax is due on the amount invoiced, less the value of any credit given to the customer. So, if credit has been given a full refund, no VAT will be due.

If no invoice has been issued, there is no VAT due. This is because nothing has been supplied. It is prudent to make a note in the business records that the goods were lost an no invoice was raised.

Stolen goods

If goods are stolen from a business’ premises no VAT is due – as long as any customer has not been invoiced. HMRC are very likely to examine such circumstances as it is sometimes used as an ‘excuse’ for underdeclarations. Consequently, we always advise businesses to hold as much evidence as possible to support a claim that theft has taken place.

Goods stolen from a supplier’s premises after they have been sold to a customer- If the contract with the customer means that they are responsible for the goods while they are on the supplier’s premises – there has been a supply and output tax is due.

If the customer is not responsible for the goods when they are stolen, then if:

a VAT invoice issued – VAT is due on the amount invoiced (but subject to subsequent amendment to the quantum)
no invoice has been issued – there is no VAT due because there is no supply

NB: If cash is stolen from a business, this does not reduce the value of output tax on any supply.

Fraud

If goods are lost due to fraud it can be difficult to demonstrate or evidence. To avoid paying output tax on goods lost to a fraud a business is required to:

report the incident to the police
contact HMRC and give them the case details – this will entail providing a crime or case reference number given by the police. HMRC will consider each case and advise appropriately

Damaged goods

Damaged goods may be sold on at a discounted price, or they might have some scrap value. Output tax is due on whatever income is received for the goods sold. If an insurer makes a payment in respect of the damage, no VAT is due on this income.

Destroyed goods

If goods are destroyed such that they cannot be sold, and these are handed over (or what is left of them) to the insurer, no VAT is due on the disposal. Furthermore, there is no output tax due on any money received from the insurer. HMRC will need to see evidence of the insurance claim, and details of any insurance payment, on their next inspection of the business.

Records

Maintaining meticulous records is crucial for VAT compliance and it is very likely that such issues will be examined closely on HMRC inspections. This is because unexpected reductions in output tax will usually trigger enquiries. Input tax claims for the original purchase of the goods will be unaffected, so any mark-up type exercise will flag up the discrepancy.

VAT: Are hair transplants ‘medical care’? – The Advanced Hair Technology Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 12 March 2025

Latest from the courts

In the Advanced Hair Technology Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether hair transplants are exempt supplies of medical care, or were they for ‘cosmetic’ purposes and consequently standard rated?

Background

Advanced Hair Technology Ltd (AHT) was a medical practice trading as The Farjo Hair Institute which specialised in hair restoration surgery. It treated conditions related to hair loss, in particular androgenetic alopecia (AGA). Dr Farjo who carried out the work is qualified is a medical practitioner with the Royal College of Surgeons. The output tax which HMRC deemed due was circa £2,500,000.

The sole issue was what AHT provided covered by the definition ‘medical care’?

Legislation

The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 1 covers services which are for the primary purpose of protecting, restoring, or maintaining health: “medical care”.

Contentions

AHT argued that it was treating patients for medical conditions, as opposed to providing aesthetic surgery and consequently, its supplies were exempt. The appellant explained that several patients believed that hair loss had affected their self-confidence and so the surgery improved their overall health (which includes a mental health element). Furthermore, the surgery helps to protect the skin from future photodamage, minor trauma and thermal insult.

HMRC contended that none of the patients had any recorded prior psychiatric conditions, eg; depression or anxiety, nor had any stated that they were looking to benefit from the surgery beyond it improving their appearance and confidence. Additionally, no recipients of the treatment said that they were seeking any of the above physical protections.

Therefore, the treatment was a standard rated cosmetic procedure.

Decision

The meaning of ‘medical care’ was considered by the Court of Appeal in its decision in Mercy Global [2023] EWCA Civ 1073.

The court agreed with HMRC that a “principal purpose” test must be applied in all cases.

The evidence before the FTT was that by the age of 70 at least 80% of caucasian men suffer from hair loss as a result of AGA, and this is part of the normal process of aging. AGA is not considered a medical condition but rather a symptom.

AHT’s contention that the procedures serve a therapeutic purpose related to psychological issues was dismissed due to a lack of evidence from qualified practitioners. This reinforced the FTT’s view that the treatments were primarily cosmetic, rather than for medical reasons because altering one’s physical appearance was for aesthetic purposes.

The relevant supplies were therefore outside the exemption.

The appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

The judgment provides some guidance on the interpretation of the definition of medical care for the purposes of the exemption and follows similar recent cases which we covered here:

Skin Science

Skin Rich

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 in determining the VAT liability.

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 a certain club…

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 .

Interestingly, the judge here stated that the medical exemption may apply to some patients whose hair loss was a result of trauma caused by cancer treatment.

VAT: When is a bar a bar? – The Anglia Ruskin Students’ Union case

By Marcus Ward 17 February 2025

Latest from the courts

A student union tried to argue that a bar is not a bar. It did not go well.

In the case of The Anglia Ruskin Students’ Union the High Court considered the appellant’s application for judicial review of HMRC’s decision that “92” which was operated on the university’s campus was a bar.

The importance of this description of the venue was that if it was indeed a bar, the supplies from it would be standard rated. This is because the supplies of catering to students by eligible bodies, including universities”, are exempt from VAT, on the basis that the supplies are closely related to exempt supplies of education, however, the exemption does not cover food and drink sold in bars.

The union contended that ‘bar’ means a place that does not supply catering, or, alternatively, predominantly or mainly serves alcohol.

HMRC, predictably argued that a bar is “somewhere where one can buy and drink alcoholic and other drinks, as well as food”, and that 92 met that definition.

The court agreed with HMRC that the bar was indeed a bar and did not grant permission to appeal.

So, now we know, a bar is a bar, not a café… or anything else really.

Technical

* Student unions often provide catering alongside universities. Since March 2002, HMRC has operated a published concession extending the exemption granted to supplies of catering made by universities to student unions.

VAT: Input tax claims – alternative evidence

By Marcus Ward 12 February 2025

What can be used to make a claim?

It is well known that in order to claim input tax on expenditure a business is required to have a valid tax invoice to support it. But what if there is no VAT invoice? Can HMRC accept any other evidence to support a claim? Well, the answer is yes… sometimes.

HMRC has discretion provided by legislation: VAT Regulations 1995/2518 Reg 29(2). Specifically, the wording most relevant here is “…such other documentary evidence of the charge to VAT as the Commissioners may direct.” Broadly, a business must hold the correct evidence before being able to exercise the right to deduct.

Where claims to deduct VAT are not supported by a valid VAT invoice HMRC staff are required to consider whether there is satisfactory alternative evidence of the taxable supply available to support deduction. HMRC staff should not simply refuse a claim without giving reasonable consideration to such evidence. HMRC has a duty to ensure that taxpayers pay no more tax than is properly due. However, this obligation is balanced against a duty to protect the public revenue.

Full details of tax invoices here.

What HMRC consider

HMRC staff are required to work through the following checklist:

Does the business have alternative documentary evidence other than an invoice (for example a supplier statement)?
Does the business have evidence of receipt of a taxable supply on which VAT has been charged?
Does the business have evidence of payment?
Does the business have evidence of how the goods/services have been consumed or evidence regarding their onward supply?
How did the business know the supplier existed?
How was the business relationship with the supplier established? For example: How was contact made?
Does the business know where the supplier operates from (have staff visited?)
How did the business contact them?
How does the business know the supplier can supply the goods or services?
If goods, how does the business know they are not stolen?
How does the business return faulty supplies?

Outcome

If the responses to the above tests are credible, HMRC staff should exercise their discretion to allow the taxpayer to deduct the input tax. Overall, HMRC is required to be satisfied that sufficient evidence is held by the business which demonstrates that VAT has been paid on a taxable supply of goods or services received by that business and which were used by that business for its taxable activities

Challenge HMRC’s decision

A business may only challenge HMRC’s decision not to allow a claim (did not exercise its discretion) if it acted in an unfair or unreasonable way. In these cases, the onus is on the taxpayer to demonstrate that HMRC have been unreasonable in not using the available discretion. This is quite often a difficult thing to do.

Case law

Not surprisingly, there is significant case law on this subject. The most relevant and recent being the Upper Tribunal (UT) cases of James Boyce Scandico Ltdv and Wasteaway Shropshire Limited.

Tips

If possible, always obtain a proper tax invoice from a supplier, and don’t lose it! The level of evidence required when no invoice is held usually depends on the value of the claim. There would be a difference between persuading an inspector that £20 input tax on stationery is recoverable and the claiming of £200,000 VAT on a property purchase is permissible. As always in VAT, if you get it wrong and claim VAT without the appropriate evidence there is likely to be a penalty to pay.

If you, or your clients are in dispute with HMRC on input tax claims, please contact us.

VAT penalties and surcharges – time limits for appeals. The Excel case

By Marcus Ward 10 February 2025

Latest from the courts

The recent Xcel Consult Limited First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case serves as a reminder on the tight time limits for appealing against VAT penalties and surcharges.

The VAT Act 1994 Section 83G sets out a statutory time limit for bringing appeals in respect of VAT penalties and surcharges of the kind in question in this case. An appeal is to be made to the tribunal before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date of the document notifying the decision to which the appeal relates.

Section 83G(6) provides that an appeal may be made after the expiry of the statutory period if the Tribunal gives permission. In deciding whether to give permission to allow the late appeal, the three-stage test set out in Maitland is applied. These tests are:

(1) establish the length of the delay and whether it is serious and/or significant

(2) establish the reason or reasons why the delay occurred

(3) evaluate all the circumstances of the case, using a balancing exercise to assess the merits of the reason(s) given for the delay and the prejudice which would be caused to both parties by granting or refusing permission, and in doing so take into account “the particular importance of the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and for statutory time limits to be respected”.

Commentary

Our advice is to always respond within the 30 day limit, as relying on an out of time appeal can be risky. If that is not possible, an appeal should be submitted asap to ensure that test 1) above is not a reason to reject a submission.

VAT: Supply of self-contained apartments covered by TOMS? The Sonder UT case

By Marcus Ward 21 January 2025

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Sonder Europe Limited (Sonder) the issue was whether apartments leased to Sonder and used to provide short-term accommodation to corporate and leisure travellers were supplies of a designated travel service via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) and whether the bought-in supply was used for the direct benefit of travellers (as required by TOMS).

Background

Sonder leased apartments from landlords on a medium to long-term basis and used them to provide accommodation to travellers on a short-term basis (one night to a month; the average stay being five nights). Sonder furnished some apartments as well as undertaking occasional decorating and maintenance.

The sole issue was whether these supplies are covered by TOMS. TOMS is not optional.

Initially in the FTT it was decided that output tax was due via TOMS. This was an appeal by HMRC against that First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision.

The issue

Whether VAT was accountable using TOMS – on the margin, or on the full amount received from travellers by Sonder.

Legislation

TOMS is authorised by the VAT Act 1994, section 53 and via SI 1987/1806.

Arguments

Sonder contended that the supply was “for the direct benefit of the traveller” as required by the VAT (Tour Operators) Order 1987 and that the accommodation was provided “…without material alteration or further processing”. Consequently, TOMS applied. The FTT decided that Sonder did not materially alter or process the apartments.

HMRC maintained that the FTT decision was based on the physical alternations made rather than the actual characteristics of the supplies. Consequently, these were not supplies covered by the 1987 Order and output tax was due on the total income received for these services.

Decision

The UT upheld HMRC’s appeal and decided that TOMS did not apply n these circumstances The UT found that the FTT’s decision was in error in that it did not have regard to whether the services bought in were supplied to it for the direct benefit of travellers. Furthermore, the short-term leases to occupy property as holiday accommodation were materially altered from interests in land for a period of years supplied by the landlords.

The services received by Sonder from the landlords were not for the direct benefit of the travellers and Sonder’s supplies were not for the benefit of the users without material alteration and further processing. Consequently, there was not a supply of bought-in services, but rather an ‘in-house’ supply which was not covered by TOMS.

To the UT, the position was even clearer in relation to unfurnished apartments. Sonder acquired an interest in land for a term of years in an unfurnished apartment. It furnished the apartment and then supplied a short-term licence to a traveller to occupy as holiday accommodation. What was supplied to the traveller was materially different to what was supplied to Sonder.

Commentary

Another illustration of the complexities of TOMS and the significant impact on a business of getting the rules wrong. The fact that the UT remade the decision demonstrates that different interpretations are possible on similar facts. Moreover, even slight differences in business models can result in different VAT outcomes.

VAT: Personal Liability Notices

By Marcus Ward 16 December 2024

A Personal Liability Notice (PLN) can be issued by HMRC to a company’s director(s) to transfer the liability to pay VAT or a VAT penalty from the company to an individual. A PLN can also be issued to a member of an LLP.

When a PLN is issued

An officer or officers of a company may be personally liable to pay all or part of the company penalty where:

a company is liable to a penalty for a deliberate wrongdoing and
the wrongdoing is attributable to the deliberate action of an officer or officers of the company

Additionally, one of the two circumstances below must also apply

the officer gained or attempted to gain personally from the wrongdoing, or
the company is insolvent or likely to become insolvent

Any grounds for suspicion that the company may become insolvent should to be supported by evidence, for example, where there are cash flow problems, insufficient assets to cover liabilities, or evidence of phoenixism.

An officer’s liability to pay a penalty also applies to inaccuracy penalties.

Liable persons

The company officers are known in HMRC guidance as “liable officers”. These include:

elected officers
managers
directors
company secretary
any other person managing or purporting to manage any of the company’s affairs.

LLP officers are members.

A PLN’s power gives HMRC the right to recover all or part of the penalty from the liable officer rather than the company/LLP itself.

Where there is more than one deliberate wrongdoing, each deliberate wrongdoing must be considered separately for the purpose of establishing whether it should be attributed to an officer or officers.

Wrongdoings

There are four types of wrongdoings:

the issue of an invoice showing VAT by an unauthorised person
misuse of a product so that it attracts a higher rate of excise duty
the handling of goods on which payment of excise duty is outstanding
knowingly disposing of, or causing or permitting the disposal of, material at an unauthorised waste site

The wrongdoing must arise from the deliberate action of an officer of the company.

Personal gain

Once HMRC has attributed the deliberate wrongdoing to one or more company officers it must consider whether any of the officers, by fact or implication, have gained or attempted to gain personally from the wrongdoing. It is sufficient to show that each officer has gained or attempted to gain. It will not however always be possible to establish the full extent to which each officer has gained or attempted to gain, in which case HMRC would issue the PLN based on best judgment of the amount they attempted to gain personally, eg:

the officer may accept that there was an actual or attempted personal gain from a deliberate wrongdoing that can be attributed to them, or
it may be clear from business records or the officer’s lifestyle that they gained or attempted to gain personally from the results of the deliberate wrongdoing

Appeals

A liable officer can appeal against

a decision to pursue them for all or part of the penalty assessed on the company, as set out in the PLN, including whether the penalty is attributable to them, and
the amount of the penalty HMRC has allocated to them
They cannot however appeal against a decision that they have gained or attempted to gain personally from the deliberate wrongdoing, or that the company is likely to go into liquidation

PLNs are subject to the same procedures as company penalties.

Legislation

Finance Act 2008, Schedule 41: Penalties: failure to notify and certain VAT and Excise wrongdoing.

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: Deductions from, and sacrifice of; salary

By Marcus Ward 4 November 2024

This has been a difficult area historically, but as a result of the CJEU Astra Zeneca case, there is more certainty, although it was not beneficial for businesses. We look at the distinction between deductions from salary and salary sacrifice below, along with the VAT treatment of specific examples.

Current position

Generally, if deductions are made from salary for goods or services provided by an employer to their employees, these are liable to VAT. The remuneration an employee forgoes is consideration for the taxable benefits provided and output VAT will be due from, and input VAT recoverable, by the employer. Please see below for some specific circumstances.

Historical position

Deduction from salary – where an amount is deducted from an employee’s pay in return for a supply of goods or services by the employer. Output tax is due on the amount deducted from the employee’s salary and is input tax recoverable.
Salary sacrifice – for VAT purposes “salary sacrifice” describes an arrangement where an employee opts to receive optional benefits provided by the employer and forgoes part of their salary in return. Employees who choose to take a benefit have their employment contracts amended to reflect the new arrangements. No output tax was due as it was not deemed to be a taxable supply.

We have come across businesses who erroneously still apply the past rules – which changed on 1 January 2012.

Valuation

In most cases the value of the benefit for VAT purposes will be the same as the salary deducted or foregone. Where the true value is not reflected, for example where benefits are supplied below what it cost to acquire them, the value should be based on the cost to the employer.

Specific staff benefits

Cycle to work scheme

Under this scheme employers purchase bicycles and safety equipment and provide them to employees. Where this is under a salary sacrifice arrangement employers must account for output tax based on the value of the salary foregone by the employee in exchange for the hire or loan of a bicycle.

Childcare and childcare vouchers

Businesses that put arrangements in place whereby their employees forego part of their salary and allocate that salary to pay for childcare provided by a third party are not making a supply of childcare. Any related costs incurred by the business, such as payroll and administration, are general overheads of the business.

Face Value Vouchers

Where vouchers, such as those available from high street retailers, are provided under a salary sacrifice arrangement, input tax may be claimed and output tax is due on the consideration paid by the employee.

Food and catering provided by employers

Employers may provide their staff with free or subsidised meals, snacks, or drinks. Where employees pay for the meal the normal VAT treatment will apply. If employees make no payment, VAT is not due, provided the benefit is available to all staff. Where employees pay for meals under a salary sacrifice arrangement, employers must account for VAT on the value of the supplies unless they are zero-rated. An employer may claim the input tax incurred on related purchases, subject to the normal rules.

Cars

Most businesses are prevented from recovering VAT in full on the purchase and leasing of company cars. The input tax block on cars, generally: 100% on purchases, and 50% on leasing, means that employers do not account for output tax when cars are made available to employees. Where an employer suffers no input tax restriction, output tax is due.