Category Archives: Disputes

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.

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 – Apportionment issues: Complex and costly

By   16 February 2021
0

The dictionary definition of the verb to apportion is “to distribute or allocate proportionally; divide and assign according to some rule of proportional distribution”. 

So why is apportionment important in the world of VAT and where would a business encounter the need to apportion? I thought that it might be useful to take an overall look at the subject as it is one of, if not the most, contentious areas of VAT. If affects both output tax declarations and input tax claims, so I have looked at these two areas separately. If an apportionment is inaccurate it will either result in paying too much tax, or risking penalties and additional attention from HMRC; both of which are to be avoided!

The overriding point in all these examples is that any apportionment must be “fair and reasonable”.

Supplies

The following are examples of where a business needs to apportion the value of sales:

  • Retail sales

Retailers find it difficult to account for VAT in the normal way so they use what is known as a retail scheme. There are various schemes but they all provide a formula for calculating VAT on sales at the standard, reduced and zero rate. This is needed for shops that sell goods at different rates, eg; food, clothing and books alongside standard rated supplies.  As an example, in Apportionment Scheme 1 a business works out the value of its purchases for retail sale at different rates of VAT and applies those proportions to its sales.

  • Construction

A good example here is if a developer employs a contractor to construct a new building which contains retail units on the ground floor with flats above.  The construction of the commercial part is standard rated, but the building of the residential element is zero rated.  The contractor has to apportion his supply between the two VAT rates.  This apportionment could be made with reference to floorspace, costs, value or any other method which provides a fair and reasonable result.  The value of supplies relating to property is often high, so it is important that the apportionment is accurate and not open to challenge from HMRC.  I recommend that agreement on the method used is agreed with HMRC prior to the supply in order to avoid any subsequent issues.

  • Property letting

Let us assume that in the construction example above, when the construction is complete, the developer lets the whole building to a third party. He chooses to opt to tax the property in order to recover the attributable input tax.  The option has no effect on the residential element which will represent an exempt supply. Consequently, an apportionment must be made between the letting income in respect of the shops and flats.

  • Subscriptions

There has been a great deal of case law on whether subscriptions to certain organisations by which the subscriber obtains various benefits represent a single supply at a certain VAT rate, or separate supplies at different rates. A common example is zero rated printed matter with other exempt or standard rated supplies.

  • Take away

Most are familiar with the furore over the “pasty tax” and even with the U-turn, the provision of food/catering is often the subject of disputes over apportionment.  Broadly; the sale of cold food for take away is zero rated and hot food and eat in (catering) is standard rated.  There have been myriad cases on what’s hot and what’s not, what constitutes a premises (for eat in), and how food is “held out” for sale. The recent Subway dispute highlights the subtleties in this area. I have successfully claimed significant amounts of overpaid output tax based on this kind of apportionment and it is always worth reviewing a business’s position.  New products are arriving all the time and circumstances of a business can change.  A word of warning here; HMRC regularly mount covert observation exercises to record the proportion of customers eating in to those taking away.  They also carry out “test eats” so it is crucial that any method used to apportion sales is accurate and supportable.

  • Opticians

Opticians have a difficult time of it with VAT.  Examinations and advice services are exempt healthcare, but the sale of goods; spectacles and contact lenses, is standard rated.  Almost always a customer/patient pays a single amount which covers the services as well as the goods. Apportionment in these cases is very difficult and has been the subject of disagreement and tribunal cases for many years; some of which I have been involved in.  Not only is the sales value apportionment complex, but many opticians are partly exempt which causes additional difficulties. I recommend that all opticians review their VAT position.

Input tax recovery

  • Business/Non-Business (BNB)

If an entity is involved in both business and non-business activities, eg; a charity which provides free advice and also has a shop which sells donated goods. It is unable to recover all of the VAT it incurs.  VAT attributable to non-business activities is not input tax and cannot be reclaimed.  Therefore it is necessary to calculate the quantum of VAT attributable to BNB activities, that VAT which cannot be attributed is called overhead VAT and must be apportioned between BNB activities.  There are many varied ways of doing this as the VAT legislation does not specify any particular method.  Therefore it is important to consider all of the available alternatives. Examples of these are; income, expenditure, time, floorspace, transaction count etc.

  • Partial exemption

Similarly to BNB if a business makes exempt supplies, eg; certain property letting, insurance and financial products, it cannot recover input tax attributable to those exempt supplies (unless the value is de minimis). Overhead input tax needs to be apportioned between taxable and exempt supplies.  The standard method of doing this is to apply the ratio of taxable versus exempt supply values to the overhead tax. However, there are many “special methods” available, but these have to be agreed with HMRC.  Partial exemption is often complex and always results in an actual VAT cost to a business, so it is always worthwhile to review the position regularly.  Exemption is not a relief to a business.

  • Attribution

In both BNB and partial exemption situations before considering overheads all VAT must, as far as possible, be attributed to either taxable or exempt and non-business activities. This in itself is a form of apportionment and it is often not clear how the supply received has been used by a business, that is; of which activity is it a cost component?

  • Business entertainment

At certain events staff may attend along with other guests who are not employed. The recovery of input tax in respect of staff entertainment is recoverable but (generally) entertaining non staff members is blocked. Therefore an apportionment of the VAT incurred on such entertainment is required.

  • Business and private use of an asset

If a company owns, say, a yacht or a helicopter and uses it for a director’s own private use, but it is chartered to third parties when not being used (business use) an apportionment must be made between the two activities. The most usual way of doing this is on a time basis. Apportionment will also be required in the example of a business owning a holiday home used for both business and private purposes. Input tax relating to private (non-business) use is always blocked.

  • Motoring expenses

It is common for a staff member to use a car for both business and private purposes.  Input tax is only recoverable in respect of the business use so an apportionment is required.  This may be done by keeping detailed mileage records, or more simply by applying the Road Fuel Scale Charge which is a set figure per month which represents a disallowance for private use.

The above examples are not exhaustive but I hope they give a flavour to the subject.

If your business apportions, or should apportion, values for either income or expenditure I strongly recommend a review on the method.  There is often no “right answer” for an apportionment and I often find that HMRC impose unnecessarily harsh demands on a taxpayer.  Additionally, many business are unaware of alternatives or are resistant to challenging HMRC even when they have a good case.

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 – How to apply for a non-statutory clearance

By   16 December 2020
0

One would think that it would be a relatively straightforward matter to write to HMRC to obtain a ruling (non-stat clearance) on a matter. Surely a taxpayer ought to be able to set out the issue, describe the transaction, provide a tax analysis and ask HMRC whether they consider the proposed VAT treatment appropriate. Well, of course, it is not as simple as that (this is VAT after all).

So, what are the issues and what hurdles must be cleared before HMRC engage with a written query?

Checklist

First, there is a checklist which a business must consider and include in a non-stat clearance. Inter alia, this list includes:

  • Information about the transaction(s)
  • The reasons why the business is undertaking the transaction
  • The relevant facts about the transaction, set out chronologically as transaction steps,
  • The answer sought – set out your view of the tax consequences of the transaction
  • Any details that are contingent, eg; on future events or the consent of others
  • Information about commercial background
  • Explain the significance of the tax result in achieving the desired outcome
  • Explain why you chose this form of transaction over another that could achieve the same commercial result, where you have considered alternative forms
  • Information about legal points
  • Outline the specific legislation at issue
  • Why you believe the application of the legislation is open to possible different interpretations, summary of those different interpretations, and why the tax consequences are uncertain, including reference to our published guidance or to case law
  • Any legal advice you have already received, and you are content to disclose
  • Details of how you intend to use the clearance, such as for public documents
  • Information about the disclosure of a tax avoidance scheme that covers all or part of the transaction

Failure to address any items on the checklist usually means no determination will be forthcoming.

An applicant must also set out what HMRC guidance (including internal guidance) legislation, case law and other information has been considered. We find it helpful to reproduce the full checklist (as HMRC advise) and provide a comprehensive response to each point in order to avoid a straightforward refusal to respond.

Genuine uncertainty

One of the main reasons HMRC refuses to provide a non-stat clearance is that it considers that there is no genuine uncertainty; in other words, “go and look at the guidance”. This is very unhelpful after time and effort, and fees cost has gone into the application. The fact that an application is required to set out what guidance etc has been considered, and why it is ambiguous in the relevant circumstances does not seem to carry very much weight. I find it is unhelpful to say, “if it wasn’t uncertain, we wouldn’t be writing to you”! We recommend that a full explanation of the genuine uncertainty is provided to forestall such a HMRC refusal to reply.

Chances

Experience insists that it is difficult to obtain a non-stat clearance which is of any value. Quite often, HMRC will reply saying that their letter is not a non-stat clearance, but then go on to address (at least) some of the issues. This sometimes provides a degree of comfort. An approach that I sometimes adopt is to say, “we believe this to be the correct VAT treatment, and one we will apply to the transaction unless you advise otherwise with reasons”. This sometimes creates a reaction.

HMRC guidance

Details of obtaining a non-stat clearance here.

Address

I find that applications are looked at quicker if they are emailed: nonstatutoryclearanceteam.hmrc@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk. However, there is a 2mb size limit which is often unhelpful. If emailing, an applicant should state that you confirm that you understand and accept the risks involved in using email (otherwise this can cause delays).

Postal address

HM Revenue & Customs, Non-Statutory Clearance Team, S0563. 5th Floor, Saxon House, 1 Causeway Lane, Leicester , LE1 4AA

What HMRC will not rule on

  • Incomplete information
  • When there is no genuine uncertainty
  • When they consider it planning advice, or approval of a planning arrangements
  • HMRC believes that the intention is to avoid tax
  • There is a statutory clearance applicable to the transaction
  • Whether activities constitute a business
  • Whether a transaction represents a Transfer Of a Going Concern (TOGC).

Reliance

Even if a business does obtain a determination, is it possible to rely on it? The answer is no (well, not always). I consider this here.

Summary

It is understandable that a business wants certainty on a transaction, and it ought to be able to rely on HMRC for confirmation of its own analysis, but obtaining such an opinion is fraught with difficulties, frustrations and (genuine) uncertainty. It seems that HMRC will go to lengths to avoid giving a decision, but they are not reticent in penalising a taxpayer once a business has made a decision, applied it, and HMRC subsequently disagree with the VAT analysis.

A wholly unacceptable situation.

How to deal with VAT debt

By   4 December 2020
0

In the current climate many businesses are struggling to make payments to HMRC. This clearly can have serious consequences and reduced income due to the Covid 19 coronavirus adds more problems.

This article looks at how to manage a VAT debt position; what can be done, and what not to do.

The first, and most important point to make is; do not ignore a tax debt. It will not go away and, in VAT there is, in most cases a four-year limit for assessing tax, but once assessed or declared, there is no time bar for collecting the debt.

HMRC look for a taxpayer to be taking steps to make a payment, or for a disclosure of the reason funds are unavailable. If HMRC’s Debt Management & Banking team have no idea of the cause of non-payment they will assume that the matter is being ignored and the full force of their powers are likely to be invoked. For background on HMRC’s VAT recovery procedures and powers see here. It is no surprise to learn that the extent of their powers is sweeping and formidable.

Is the VAT debt correct?

The first step is to establish whether a VAT debt is accurate. If it is a result of a normal return, then ensure the declaration is correct. If it is the result of an assessment by HMRC, always challenge it. In the majority of cases, we can assist with getting an assessment reduced or removed completely. A debt may be made up of a combination of; actual VAT, surcharges, penalties and interest

Time To Pay (TTP)

Such an arrangement with HMRC enables a debt to be spread over a period of time. This is usually, but not always, the most beneficial course of action. The process is that the taxpayer submits a proposal for settling the debt over a set period (a “best offer”) in instalments. HMRC may accept the offer, refuse it outright or make a “counter-offer”.

Matters to consider when submitting a VAT TTP proposal:

  • The shorter the payment period proposed the more likely HMRC is to accept
  • The sooner a TTP proposal is made the better
  • HMRC is unlikely to agree a TTP longer than 12 months and most are for a significant shorter period
  • An offer of an up-front payment also increases the chance of agreement
  • An agreed TTP avoids penalties for late payment (as long as it is adhered to, otherwise penalties will apply)
  • If payments are missed HMRC will withdraw from the TTP and the entire debt (plus penalties and interest) will become due immediately
  • A TTP will avoid HMRC using its debt collection powers
  • HMRC is likely to request sight of; cash flow forecasts, management accounts and company cash reserve details to evidence a ‘best offer”
  • Also, information on; management of costs, potential sale of assets, availability of loans, other debts, ability to pay future VAT liabilities may be requested
  • A business with a history of previous TTPs is less likely to be able to agree a new one
  • If a formal TTP cannot be agreed, it is still beneficial for a business to make payments as and when they can be afforded. This keeps HMRC onside and may make discussions about future payment more fruitful

What HMRC expect

HMRC look for various ways a business can raise funds to pay a VAT debt, these include:

  • Sale of assets
  • Anticipated income, eg; large customer payment, contract or other demonstrable future income
  • Bank or similar loans (including family members)
  • Charge on home
  • Alternative fundraising methods

The Debt Management & Banking staff have experience and knowledge of these methods and also use credit agencies.  

Summary

It is always important to talk to HMRC. An ongoing dialogue can improve the debt situation and avoid HMRC taking unilateral action – which is nearly always detrimental to a business. Check that the debt is correct. Consider a TTP arrangement or alternative ways to raise funds. Talk to your advisers.

A debt is often the result of an assessment and penalties. A look at penalties (and how to avoid them) here and an article on how to survive HMRC’s enforcement powers here.

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.