Category Archives: Disputes

VAT: Retrospective claims – standard of proof. NHS Lothian case

By Marcus Ward 24 April 2020

Latest from the courts

An interesting and helpful comment was made by the judge in the NHS Lothian Health Board Court of Session (the Scottish equivalent of the Court of Appeal) case.

Background

The case involved a claim for overpaid VAT going back to 1974. The primary issue was not the existence of the taxpayer’s claim to recover overpaid VAT, but the quantification of that claim, and in particular whether the claim can be quantified with sufficient accuracy to permit an order for repayment of tax to be made. In the previous case it was held that the onus of proving that an amount of tax had been paid and not recovered rested upon the taxpayer and that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities and Lord Drummond Young agreed with that proposition here.

Judgement

The specific comments which will be of assistance with businesses with similar clams were:

“The fundamental problem in such cases is that primary evidence does not exist owing to the lapse of time. The absence of such evidence, at least in cases such as the present, is not the fault of the taxpayer, and the lack of evidence should not be held against the taxpayer,”

Outcome

The court urged Tax Tribunals (First Tier Tribunal – FTT and Upper Tribunal – UT) to apply a flexible approach to the burden and standard of proof when making decisions in similar cases; of which there is a considerable number. This approach should apply to so called “Fleming” claims and others in respect of overpaid output tax. We understand that 700 such claims were made by NHS authorities in Great Britain alone, and circa 200 of these remain unresolved.

Commentary

In most cases, a taxpayer is only required to retain records for six years. So the comments made in this case should bolster the chances of success for claims made by other businesses, whether they be for overpaid output tax or underclaimed input tax. There are many and varied reasons why sufficiently detailed could be unavailable; we are looking at a potential 46-year time span. In 1974 record keeping was a different world and physical/manual records were usually the only option. It seems only reasonable that HMRC should make the allowances suggested in this case when it is agreed that a claim is valid in all other respects.

Action

If you, or your client, have had a claim rejected on the basis of insufficient supporting primary evidence, it may be worthwhile revisiting it on the basis of this decision. It sets out helpful and clear guidance and provides businesses with effective, appropriate tax relief where applicable.

VAT: Bad Debt Relief – Increase due to coronavirus. A guide

By Marcus Ward 17 April 2020

The current coronavirus pandemic has thrown up unprecedented difficulties for society as a whole and significant difficulties for commerce. We have considered UK Government’s VAT assistance in previous articles, here here here and here and this is clearly welcomed.

What has become clear is that businesses and consumers will fall into default in increasing numbers as the economy worsens and it is anticipated that the ability to settle of debts on time will significantly decrease and it is apparent that many debts will never be settled. Consequently, it appears timely to look at the available relief.

The VAT position

VAT registered businesses usually account for tax on an accruals basis (but see CAS) and will therefore be required to account for output tax in the same VAT period as an invoice is issued to a customer. If that invoice is not paid and a bad debt arises this would mean that tax has been accounted for on a payment which has not been received.

Relief

Anything which can relieve the burden of VAT is to be welcomed, especially in such trying times. So VAT Bad Debt Relief (BDR) is a useful tool if a business is aware of it and understand when it may be claimed.

It is at the very least frustrating when a client does not pay, and in some cases this situation can lead to the end of a business. At least the VAT charged to the client should not become a cost to a supplier. The BDR mechanism goes some way to protect a business from payment defaulters.

There is a relief however, as normal with tax, there are specific conditions:

Conditions for claiming BDR

The supplier must have supplied goods or services for a consideration in money and must have accounted for and paid VAT on the supply. All or part of the consideration must have been written off as a bad debt by making the appropriate entry in the business’ records (this does not have to be a “formal” procedure and need not be notified to the customer). At least six months (but not more than four years and six months) must have elapsed since the later of the date of supply or the due date for payment.

Records required

Various records and evidence must be kept (for four years from the date of claim), in particular to identify:

the time and nature of the supply, the purchaser, and the consideration
the amount of VAT chargeable on the supply
the accounting period when this VAT was accounted for and paid to HMRC
any payment received for the supply
entries in the refund for bad debts account
the accounting period in which the claim is made

Procedure for claiming BDR

This part is straightforward: The claim is made by including the amount of the refund in Box 4 of the VAT Return for the period in which the debt becomes over six months old. The amount of BDR is either set-off against output tax due, or may create a refund position with HMRC.

Repayment of refund

Repayment of VAT refunded is required where payment is subsequently received or where the above conditions have not been complied with.

Adjustment of input tax for the debtor

Businesses are required to monitor the time they take to pay their suppliers and repay input tax claimed if they have not paid the supplier within six months. Subsequent payment of all or part of the debt will allow a corresponding reclaim of input tax. This is an easy assessment for HMRC to make at inspections, so businesses should make reviewing this matter this a regular exercise.

Finally, there is tax point planning available to defer a tax point until payment is received for providers of continuous supplies of services. Please see here

More on general VAT payment problems here.

VAT: Zero rated books? The Thorstein Gardarsson UT case

By Marcus Ward 14 April 2020

Latest from the courts

In The Thorstein Gardarsson T/A Action Day A Islandi Upper Tribunal (UT) case the issue was whether supplies of an “Action Day Planner” (ADP) were zero-rated as supplies of a book.

Legislation

The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 3, item 1 zero rates – “Books, booklets, brochures, pamphlets and leaflets.” The words in Group 3 are used in their ordinary, everyday sense.

Background

The Appellants (HMRC) appealed against a decision of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) which determined that the ADP is a “book” with the result that supplies of it made by Thorstein Gardarsson (TG) were zero-rated for VAT purposes. TG belonged outside the EU but sold its products B2C via the Amazon platform to consumers in the UK.

HMRC argued that the ADP was properly to be considered a ‘diary’ and thereby stationery which is standard rated. Predictably, TG asserted that the ADP is not a diary and despite it having space in which the ‘student’ seeking to master skills of time management may enter information, doing so is merely part of the learning taught through the narrative sections of the book.

The FTT allowed TG’s earlier appeal and considered the judgment of the High Court in Colour Offset Ltd. [1995] BVC 31 to be binding. The FTT concluded that the main function of the ADP is to teach the user how to better or more effectively manage time. The writing space was no different from a student filling out answers to practice papers or someone completing a crossword puzzle. The ADP was therefore a book and zero rated.

Appeal

In this UT case HMRC appealed the FTT decision on the grounds that whilst Colour Offset was binding on the FTT, it failed to:

identify the correct test set out in Colour Offset
apply the test correctly to the facts it had found

The Product

The external appearance if the ADP is that of a black leather covered book. It had an elastic strap attached to the inside of the back cover that can be wrapped around the front to hold it closed. Inside it has 115 pages. The ADP is described as a time management tool developed to “help people to grow; to teach and instruct people time management skills”. The first 16 pages contain text setting out a narrative of the ethos articulated by the appellant for effective time management. The remainder of the ADP is taken up with 52 double page planners. At the back is a cardboard slip pocket.

Decision

The UT noted that the FTT had quoted from VAT Notice 701/10 and this had led the FTT into error. In the Notice ‘crossword books, exam study guides etc.’ are considered books although the statutory provisions do not mention these at all. The Notice only records HMRC’s practice in this regard and does not have force of law. However, the FTT concluded that because crossword books and exam study guides are referred to as books, it should follow that any item with the necessary physical characteristics ‘which has as its main function informing/educating or recreational enjoyment’ is also a book. The tests in Colour Offset do not refer at all to whether the main function of an item is to inform or educate; nor does it refer to recreational enjoyment.

The UT considered that the FTT approached its task by applying a test that was different from that articulated in Colour Offset and this had the ability to produce a different outcome from the correct test. In doing so, he FTT made an error of law. It also concluded that the ADP is not a book as its main function is to be written in (as distinct from being read or looked at) and that the comparison to crossword puzzles or revision guides is irrelevant. Therefore, ADPs were standard rated and output tax was due on the sale of them.

HMRC’s appeal was allowed, the FTT decision is set aside and directed the matter back to the FTT for reconsideration. It was directed that the FTT makes a decision predicated on the basis that the ADP is not a book.

Commentary

The zero rating of printed matter has long been a moot point in VAT and the amount of detail that the guidance goes into demonstrates this. It should be noted that HMRC guidance set out in Public Notice 701/10 is purely that, and does not have the force of law. This logic extends to all HMRC published guidance unless the narrative specifically states that it has the force of law. A lot of the guidance is based on case law, but certain definitions are unhelpful.

Even the FTT can get it wrong and apply the wrong tests, so if you or your clients have any doubts about the VAT liabilities of supplies made, it is worthwhile having these reviewed by a specialist.

VAT: Extent of exemption for healthcare. The X-GmbH CJEU case

By Marcus Ward 10 March 2020

Latest from the courts

In the CJEU case of X, a German business, the issue was whether services provided by telephone could be treated as exempt. The decision is not available in English in the link above, so thanks to Google translate and very rusty schoolboy language skills!

Background

X provided a healthcare hotline to people covered by certain insurance. The types of services carried out where in respect of medical issues; medical advice, answers to queries, explanations of possible diagnoses and treatments, and patient support programmes for certain conditions. The service was provided by suitably qualified nurses, medical staff and doctors.

The issue

Was this service exempt from VAT as personal care considering it was “support” provided by telephone? He relevant legislation is Article 132(1)(c) of the VAT Directive. A separate issue was whether the staff required additional proof of their professional qualifications to qualify as an exempt service by telephone. The advice was provided via a computer assisted assessment, using targeted questions allowing X to assess the patient’s situation and to advise accordingly. Consequently, there was a degree of automation involved.

The German authorities considered that the supplies fell short of the exemption and raised assessments for output tax due on the services.

Decision

The CJEU has ruled that personal care is not dependent on where it is carried out and there is no bar to it being conducted by telephone. X contended that its services were directly connected with illness and was medical care and, as a result of its activities, the cost of subsequent treatment was reduced.

The court established that the supply was exempt if it met two tests:

it must be a service of personal care, and
it must be carried out within the framework of the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions as defined by the Member State concerned

Therefore, healthcare services carried out by telephone may fall within the exemption, but only if they meet all the conditions for applying this exemption. The test was not how the services were delivered.

Whether X’s services met the exemption conditions depended on case law and whether they were to;

diagnose, treat and cure illnesses or health anomalies
protect (including maintaining or restoring) the health of individuals.
explain diagnosis and therapies
propose modifications to treatments and medication

Such services were likely to have a ‘therapeutic purpose’. However, simply; directing patients to factsheets, providing specialists’ contact details and communicating information is insufficient to qualify for exemption and would be regarded as of a (taxable) administrational nature.

Summary

The services provided by telephone, consisting of providing advice on health and illness, were likely to be exempt, if they pursue a ‘therapeutic aim’. However, this was for the German referring court to verify. On the “additional qualifications” point, EU law does not define medical professions, so it is the responsibility of each Member State to determine the necessary qualifications. In the UK, these qualifications are set out at VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 7, item 1 (mainly; registered or enrolled as a doctor, optician, osteopath, chiropractor, nurse or midwife). It was decided that Article 132(1)(c) does not require that those X’s staff which provide telephone services to obtain additional professional qualifications.

Commentary

There is often significant uncertainty when businesses provide “healthcare”, This has mainly manifested in questions of whether staff or medical services are actually provided (and in more wide-ranging cases, whether the provision of staff is by way of agent or principal). However, with technology moving faster than ever, it is helpful to have these guidelines and the understanding that it is not just “old-fashioned” medical services which are covered by the exemption.

VAT: Interaction of Clawback and the Capital Goods Scheme – The Stichting Schoonzicht case

By Marcus Ward 10 March 2020

Latest from the courts

The difference between intended use and first actual use of an asset.

In the Dutch case of Stichting Schoonzicht (C‑791/18) the AG was asked to provide an opinion on the interaction between clawback and the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) via Directive 2006/112/EC, Articles 185 and 187. Details of the CGS here. In the UK clawback is set out in The General Regulations 1995, Reg 108.

Background

Stichting Schoonzicht constructed a number of apartments which it intended to sell on completion. This would have been a taxable supply and afforded full input tax recovery on the costs incurred on the development. Unfortunately, due to market conditions, the business was unable to find buyers at the appropriate sale price. Therefore, a decision was made to let some of the flats on a short-term basis until the market picked up. This was done and created an exempt supply. The intention to make taxable supplies remained, but in the meantime, exempt supplies had actually been made. This could affect the original input tax claim. Details of partial exemption here.

Technical

The Dutch referring court entertained doubts about the compatibility of the ‘first-use full adjustment’ requirement provided for under Netherlands law and the CGS.

So the issue was whether the CGS (Article 187 of the VAT Directive) applied such that any required adjustments to the initial input tax claim could be made via a CGS calculation, or whether, as the Dutch authorities contended, there should be a one-off clawback of the input tax previously claimed.

Decision

In the AG’s opinion, the Dutch tax authorities could clawback 4/7 of the input tax on the construction (as four of the flats were let and three remained unoccupied). The AG decided that the CGS could co-exist with clawback and that EU Member States are allowed to adjust the initial deduction of input tax using clawback where actual use varies from intended use. A distinction was made between clawback and the CGS. The CGS is intended to adjust input tax claims as a result of fluctuations in the taxable use of capital assets over a period of time (ten years for buildings in the UK).

Commentary

In the UK, there are published easements for input tax recovery in similar circumstances: “VAT: Partial Exemption – adjustments when house builders let their dwellings”. However, this is an interesting AG opinion, is worth a read and it will be interesting to see how this develops. However, with prior planning, this situation may be avoided in the UK (where new house sales are zero rated).

VAT: EC AG’s Opinion – Are aphrodisiacs food?

By Marcus Ward 2 March 2020

Latest from the courts

It’s rare to come across anything vaguely sexy about VAT, but hey ho, aphrodisiacs were the subject of the AG’s opinion in the case of “X” – the name of the Dutch business. The document was published by the European Commission (EC) and is here but unavailable in the English language, presumably as a result of Brexit, unless anyone knows of any other reason.

Opinion

The AG, M. Maciej Szpunar decided that no, aphrodisiacs cannot be treated as food via Directive 2006/112/CE – Article 98 and are therefore not subject to a reduced rate (which would have been zero rated in the UK). The relevant element was:

“Foodstuffs” intended for human consumption “refers to products containing nutrients, and which are in principle consumed for the purpose of supplying said nutrients to the human body”. Products which are normally used to supplement or replace foodstuffs “Means products which are not foodstuffs, but which contain nutrients and are consumed in place of foodstuffs to supply these nutrients to the body, as well as products ingested in order to stimulate the nutritional functions of food or products used to replace them.

Therefore, in the AG’s opinion, the powders and capsules sold by X are different to foodstuffs and supplements and were not subject to the reduced rate. The fact that they may contain elements of nutrition did not override that they were intended to stimulate sexual desire and it was not the intention of the legislation that such products should be subject to the reduced rate as they were not “essential goods”.

That, of course, does not mean that foods which are said to contain aphrodisiac properties such as; asparagus, oysters, watermelons, celery and pomegranates are not reduced rated.

I doubt that Aphrodite – the Greek goddess of love and beauty, knew that ultimately there would be a court case on the rate of indirect tax applicable to such, err; “stimulants”.

AG’s Opinion

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) consists of one judge from each member state, assisted by eleven Advocates General whose role is to consider the written and oral submissions to the court in every case that raises a new point of law, and deliver an impartial opinion to the court on the legal solution.

VAT overpayments – HMRC to consider changes

By Marcus Ward 24 February 2020

VAT overpayments – New direct claims?

If a recipient of a supply makes an overpayment of VAT (usually as a result of standard rated tax being charged when a supply is reduced rated, zero rated or exempt) the remedy for the customer is to go to the supplier to obtain a new invoice/VAT only credit note and. repayment of the VAT paid. However, this can cause practical problems, disputes and an actual cost if a supplier has ceased business or become insolvent. HMRC has recognised that if the supplier has paid output tax on the supply then there is an inherent unfairness.

Following the decision in PORR Építési Kft. (C 691/17) which considered the principles of; proportionality, fiscal neutrality and effectiveness, HMRC invited interested parties to discuss a direct HMRC claim process where the taxpayer has pursued a refund via its supplier for overpaid incorrectly charged VAT but where, as stated in the cases, “recovery is impossible or excessively difficult”. In such cases the taxpayer “must be able to address its application for reimbursement to the tax authority directly”. In the past, HMRC has directed that such claims from them are pursued via the High Court (or County Court if under £30,000). The meeting discussed the new route to direct claims without initial court action including guidance, time limits and claim processes.

We await the outcome eagerly as this situation is quite common, I have found it is an issue particularly in; property and construction supplies, Financial Services and cross-border transactions (place of supply issues). If HMRC are minded to introduce a “direct claim” this will bring welcome relief to taxpayers and introduce fairness for all parties and do away with windfalls received by HMRC.

Government Freeports consultation

By Marcus Ward 14 February 2020

The Government is consulting on plans to create up to ten freeports. Freeports may provide tariff flexibility, customs facilitations and tax measures designed to encourage global trade and attract inward investment post-Brexit. The proposed Freeports will have different customs rules to the rest of the country.

What is a Freeport?

Freeports are secure customs zones located at ports where business can be carried out inside a country’s land border, but where different customs rules apply. The paper says that Freeports may:

reduce administrative burdens and tariff controls
provide relief from duties and import taxes
ease tax and planning regulations
offer simplifications to normal customs processes on imported goods
encourage global trade
provide hotbeds for innovation
increase prosperity areas surrounding Freeports by generating employment opportunities
attract inward investment post-Brexit

Typically, goods brought into a Freeport do not attract a requirement to pay duties until they leave the Freeport and enter the domestic market. No duty at all is payable the goods are re-exported. If raw materials are brought into a Freeport from overseas and processed into a final good before entering the domestic market, then duties will be paid on the final good.

Government aims

It is stated that the government wants Freeports to boost trade, jobs and investment. They say that is why they are proposing cutting red tape by streamlining customs processes, exploring the use of planning measures to speed up planning processes and accelerate development and housing delivery in and around Freeports, and consulting on a comprehensive set of tax breaks to support businesses. Of course, all this would be unnecessary if Brexit had not have occurred.

Deadline

The consultation deadline is 20 April 2020 so there is not a lot of time to make your views known.

VAT: Payment handling charges – The Virgin Media case

By Marcus Ward 5 February 2020

Latest from the courts

In the Virgin Media Ltd First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case a number of issues were considered. These were:

whether payment handling charges were exempt via: The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, items (1) and (5)
whether the supply was separate from other media services
which VAT group member made the supply?
whether there was an intra-group supply
whether there was an abuse of rights

Background

Virgin Media Limited (VML) provided cable TV, broadband and telephone services (media services) to members of the public. It was the representative member of a VAT Group which also contained Virgin Media Payment Limited (VMPL).

If customers choose not to pay by direct debit, they were required to pay a £5 “handling charge”. The handling charge was paid to VMPL and passed to VML on a daily basis. The issue was; what was the correct VAT treatment of the charge?

Contentions

The appellant argued that the £5 charge was optional for the customer and the collection of it was carried out by VMPL and was exempt as the transfer or receipt of, or any dealing with, money. Further, that, despite being members of the same VAT group, there was nothing in the legislation which forced the VAT group to treat supplies by separate entities within that group as a single supply to a recipient outside the group.

HMRC contended that there was a single taxable supply and thus no exempt services were provided and, in fact, VMPL was not making a supply at all (and therefore not to VML as the group representative member). In the first alternative, if it were decided that there was a supply, such a supply was an ancillary component of a single taxable supply by VML as representative group member and not by VMPL as per the Card Protection Plan case. In the second alternative, if both decisions above went against HMRC, that the service provided by VMPL fell outside the exemption so that it was taxable in its own right.

Decision

It was found that:

there was a single supply made to customers
the supply was made by VML as the representative member of the VAT group
the £5 handling charge was an integral part of the overall supply
if not integral, the handling charge was an ancillary supply such that it took on the VAT treatment of the substantive supply
therefore, VMPL does not make any supply to the end users of the overall service
if VMPL does make a supply, it is an intra-group supply to VML which s disregarded for VAT purposes
VMPL does not have a free-standing fiscal identity for VAT purposes
if the FTT is wrong on the above points and VMPL does make a supply of payment handling services to customers, these supplies are taxable and not exempt (per Bookit and NEC) as the supply is simply technical and administrative and does not amount to debt collection
the arrangements do not constitute an abusive practice. The essential aim of the transactions are not to secure a tax advantage so HMRC’s argument on abuse fails

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and a reference to the CJEU was considered inappropriate and output tax was due on the full amount received by the group from customers.

Summary

This was a complex case which suffered significant delays. It does help clarify a number of interconnected issues and demonstrates the amount of care required when planning company structures and the VAT analysis of them.

VAT: Suspension of penalties and special reductions

By Marcus Ward 3 February 2020

HMRC has significant powers to issue penalties for a wide range of reasons (which include imprisonment, but this is not the subject of this article). A summary of the penalty regime here and an overview from HMRC here.

In some circumstances, HMRC can decide to suspend a penalty, or suspension can be requested by a taxpayer.

I thought it worthwhile to look closer at suspension and the guidance HMRC has issued to its officers.

Suspension can only apply to errors which are “careless inaccuracies” in tax declarations, so a penalty for a deliberate error cannot be suspended.

Penalty suspension only applies if HMRC is able to set at least one suspension condition, with the intention that it will help a business avoid penalties for similar inaccuracies in the future.

When can a penalty be suspended?

HMRC use the standard SMART test

Specific – it must be directly related to the cause of the inaccuracy
Measurable – a business will need to demonstrate that it has met the condition
Achievable – a business will need to show that it is able to meet the condition
Realistic – HMRC must realistically expect that a business will meet the condition
Time based – a business must meet the condition by the end of the suspension period

These conditions are in addition to the condition that all returns are filed on time during the suspension period.

When HMRC will not suspend a penalty

HMRC will not suspend penalties if it is not possible to set any SMART conditions
If HMRC believes that it is unlikely a business will comply with any of the suspension conditions
If a business is penalised for an error which arose because it attempted to use a tax avoidance scheme

An example is if HMRC do not believe that an improved record keeping system will/can be put in place.

If HMRC decide not to suspend a penalty, it represents an appealable decision.

Agreement to suspension

Before HMRC will suspend a penalty, a business will need to agree conditions with it. A business will need to:

understand the conditions
meet the conditions
agree that the conditions are proportionate to the size of the inaccuracy
agree that the conditions take a business’ circumstances into account
be clear to both the business and HMRC when the conditions have been met

After a taxpayer has agreed the conditions HMRC will send a Notice of Suspension (NOS).

Length of the suspension period

The length will depend on how long HMRC considers that it will take a business to meet the specific suspension conditions. The maximum suspension period allowed by law is two years but normally it would be less than this.

Action during the suspension period

During the suspension period, a business must meet the conditions it agreed to. It must also ensure that it does not submit any other inaccurate returns, as this is likely another inaccuracy penalty will apply. If another inaccuracy penalty is incurred during the suspension period, the previously suspended penalty must be paid in full.

End of suspension period

At the end of the suspension period HMRC will ask whether the conditions have been fully met. Officers will check records and ask for other evidence, to ensure compliance. If HMRC agree that the conditions have been met, the original penalty will be cancelled. If it is decided that they have not, the penalty must be paid in full. A business cannot appeal against such a decision; however, it may be the subject of judicial review.

Appeal

An appeal may be lodged against:

any Penalty Notice (and/or ask for it to be suspended)
HMRC’s refusal to suspend a penalty
the conditions HMRC have set relating to a suspension

Special reduction

In addition to suspension, HMRC is able to reduce a penalty in “special circumstances”.

Penalty legislation provides for common circumstances and these are therefore taken into account in establishing the liability to and/or level of a penalty.

Special circumstances are either:

uncommon or exceptional, or
where the strict application of the penalty law produces a result that is contrary to the clear compliance intention of that penalty law

To be special circumstances, the circumstances in question must apply to the particular individual and not be general circumstances that apply to many taxpayers by virtue of the penalty legislation.

It is very common that HMRC will not offer special reduction. This does not prevent a taxpayer asking it to consider one. Inspectors are supposed to consider special reduction before deciding on the amount of a penalty, but experience insists that this is uncommon and many are unaware of this particular area of internal guidance.

Summary

If a Penalty Notice is received, we highly recommend that it is reviewed and challenged as appropriate. In a significant number of cases it is possible to mitigate or remove a penalty. If that is not possible, suspension or special reduction may be possible. Never just accept a penalty!