Category Archives: Disputes

VAT: Brexit – Intending Trader registration for overseas businesses

By Marcus Ward 14 June 2019

With the continuing uncertainty over a No-Deal Brexit, which appears to be a more likely prospect given recent political events, HMRC has made a statement on the process of registering non-UK EU businesses as intending traders in the UK.

Background

What is an intending trader?

An intending trader is a person who, on the date of the registration request:

is carrying on a business
has not started making taxable supplies
has an intention to make taxable supplies in the future

If the business satisfies HMRC of its intention, HMRC must VAT register it. VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, 9 (b). It is, in some cases, difficult to convince that there is a genuine intention to make taxable supplies. This often comes down to documentary evidence.

Why do overseas businesses need to register as intending traders?

In the event of a No-deal Brexit, it is assumed that the EU VAT simplification that relieves the current obligation to be registered in the UK will no longer available. As a consequence, the EU supplier will itself become responsible for accounting for VAT on sales deemed to be made in the UK. In order to do this, the business will require a UK VAT registration. As the simplification is in place until Brexit, the registration will be required the very day after the UK leaves the EU – currently 1 November 2019.

Therefore, many EU businesses have applied for UK VAT registration as intending traders. That is, they do not currently make supplies, but intend to in the future (from 1 November 2109).

The issue

The Chartered Institute of Taxation has reported that businesses applying for intending trader registrations are experiencing difficulties with the process.

In response, HMRC have stated:

“Businesses in the position you have described can register for VAT using the Advanced Notification facility, by registering online requesting a voluntary registration from an advanced date of 1 November 2019. In the ‘business activity’ section they should enter trade class/SIC code 99000 European Community. In the free text box they should describe accurately what the business does and ensure there is a positive amount entered in the ‘taxable turnover in the next 12 months’ box. If this is not done the application will be rejected. This information will enable the VAT Registration Team (VRT) to identify and actively manage any registration that is conditional on the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

If there is a change to the date of withdrawal from the EU, the VRT will amend the Advanced Notification date to match this new date. If the UK enters a transitional period or agrees a deal with the EU that allows current arrangements to continue then the registration will be cancelled. The approval of an Advanced Notification registration in these circumstances is only made as a contingency for the UK leaving the EU without a deal and the VAT number may not be used unless that happens. The business will receive an automated notification of an Advanced Notification VAT Registration and the VRT may follow this up with a manual letter to further explain the conditions and both.

With the UK having agreed an extension to the date of withdrawal from the EU, we would not expect businesses to use this facility until closer to the 1st November.”

It is clearly prudent for overseas businesses which make certain supplies in the UK to properly prepare for a No-Deal Brexit. However, experience insists that many have not identified or made provisions for this outcome.

We are able to assist and advise other EU Member State businesses on this process.

VAT: Holiday Lets – don’t get caught out

By Marcus Ward 14 June 2019

Further to the usual complexity with VAT and property, I have been increasingly asked about the VAT position of holiday lets, so this is a timely piece on the subject.

All residential letting is exempt… except holiday lets, which are standard rated at 20%. So, what is the difference? A house is a house, but the VAT treatment depends on how the property is advertised or “held out”.

If a property is held out for holiday accommodation, then the rental income is taxable.

What is holiday accommodation?

Holiday accommodation includes, but is not restricted to; any house, flat, chalet, villa, beach hut, tent, caravan or houseboat. Accommodation advertised or held out as suitable for holiday or leisure use is always treated as holiday accommodation. Also, increasingly, it is common for farms and estates to have cottages and converted barns within their grounds, which are exploited as furnished holiday lets so this use must be recognised for VAT purposes. Residential accommodation that just happens to be situated at a holiday resort is not necessarily holiday accommodation.

This treats holiday lets the same way as; hotels, inns and B&B were VAT applies, which is fair.

Off-season lettings

If holiday accommodation is let during off-season, it should be treated as exempt from VAT provided it is let as residential accommodation for more than 28 days and holiday trade in the area is clearly seasonal.

What does this mean?

If the letting business exceeds the VAT registration threshold, currently £85,000, it must register for VAT. This usually means that either the business would lose a sixth of its income to HMRC or its letting fees would increase by 20% – which is not usually an option in a particularly price sensitive market. The only upside to registration is that VAT incurred on costs relating to the letting (input tax) would be recoverable. This may be on expenditure such as; agents’ fees, maintenance, refurbishments, laundry, websites and advertising etc.

Agents

If a property owner provides a property to a holiday letting agent and the agent itself provides the letting directly to the end users, this does not avoid the standard rating, even if the agent pays a guaranteed rent to the freeholder. This can catch some property owners out.

Sale of the property

When the owner sells the property, although it may have been used for standard rated purposes, the sale is usually treated as exempt. However, zero rating may be available for the first sale or long lease if it is a new dwelling with no occupancy restrictions. The sale of a “pure” holiday property is likely to be standard rated if it is less than three years old. To add to the complexity, it is also possible that the sale may qualify as a VAT free Transfer Of A Going Concern (TOGC). These are important distinctions because they determine, not only if VAT is chargeable, but, if the sale is exempt, there is usually a clawback of input tax previously claimed, potentially visa the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS).

Overseas properties

A final point: please do not forget overseas property lets. My article here sets out the tax risks.

Summary

There are a lot of VAT pitfalls for a business providing holiday lettings. But for a single site business, unless the property is large or very high end, it is likely that the income will below £85,000 and VAT can be ignored. However, it is important to monitor income and costs to establish whether:

registration is required
registration is beneficial (usually, but not exclusively, for major refurbishment projects).

As always, please contact me if you, or your clients, have any queries.

VAT: Domestic reverse charge for building services – Latest

By Marcus Ward 12 June 2019

The new domestic reverse charge for building and construction services will be introduced on 1 October 2019. Details here

HMRC have now published comprehensive guidance which appears to cover all scenarios (but almost certainly there will be transactions which will produce disputes).

Brief Overview

The domestic reverse charge is a major change to the way VAT is collected in the building and construction industry.

It means the customer receiving the service will have to pay VAT to HMRC instead of paying the supplier.

It will only apply to individuals or businesses registered for VAT in the UK.

This will affect a business if it supplies specified services reported under the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS). A business will need to prepare for the change by:

checking whether the reverse charge affects either sales, purchases or both
informing regular clients or suppliers
ensuring a business’ accounting systems and software are updated to deal with the reverse charge
considering whether the change will have an impact on cashflow

The reverse charge does not apply if the service is zero rated or if the customer is not registered for VAT in the UK. It also does not apply to services which are supplied to end users or intermediaries connected with end users. More details here.

Please contact us if you have any queries.

VAT: When is the building of a house complete? (And why is it important?)

By Marcus Ward 11 June 2019

Completion of a residential dwelling

A technical point which comes up surprisingly often and seems innocuous is: when is a building “complete”? The following case is helpful, and I thank Les Howard for bringing it to my attention.

The date that the construction of a dwelling is deemed to be complete is important for a number of reasons. The issue in the case of Mr and Mrs James was whether certain works could be zero rated via the VAT Act Schedule 8 Group 5 Item 2 (The supply in the course of the construction of a building designed as a dwelling…) or as HMRC contended, they were the reconstruction or alteration of an existing building and the work should be standard rated.

Background

The James used a contractor to plaster the entire interior of their house in the course of its construction. However, the work was demonstrably defective to such an extent that the James commenced legal proceedings. A surveyor advised that all of the old plaster needed to be hacked off and replaced by new plastering installed by a new firm. The stripping out and replacement works took place after the Certificate of Completion had been issued.

The James claimed input tax on the house construction via the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme.

Technical

HMRC refused the James’ claim to have the remedial work zero-rated because, in their view, the re-plastering works amounted to the reconstruction or alteration of the house which was, when the supplies were made, an “existing building”. They proffered Note 16 of Schedule 5 which provides that “the construction of a building” does not include “(a) … the conversion, reconstruction or alteration of an existing building”.

They stated that zero-rating only applied if the work formed part of the construction of a zero-rated building. They had previously decided that the work of snagging or correction of faults carried out after the building had been completed could only be zero-rated if it was carried out by the original contractors and correction of faults formed part of the building contract. When the snagging is carried out by a different contractor, the work is to an existing building and does not qualify for zero rating.

The James stated that the Customs’ guidelines on snagging do not take into account extraordinary circumstances. Their contention was that the re-plastering works were zero rated because they had no choice but to engage the services of a different contractor other than the one who carried out the original works.

Decision

The judge found for the appellant – the re-plastering works were zero rated.

There was a query as to why The James applied for a Certificate of Completion before the plastering was completed. In nearly all cases such a certificate would crystallise the date the building was complete.

The reasons were given as:

the need for funds. The James could not remortgage the house without the certificate and they needed to borrow a substantial amount
they could not reclaim VAT under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme until the Certificate of Completion had been issued
they were aware that the building inspector was beginning to wonder why the building works were taking such a long time
they needed the house assessed for Council Tax which could only happen when the certificate had been issued
the Certificate was issued as part of the procedure required by the Building Act 1984 and the Building Regulations of 2000

These reasons were accepted by the judge.

Despite the respondents stating that:

for the reasons given above
the fact that the James had been living in the house for some time
they had obtained the Certificate of Completion
the new plastering work had been done by the new plasterer such that the house had been constructed before supply of the new plasterer’s services had been made
the house was an “existing building”

the judge was satisfied that in the circumstances the new plastering work was supplied in the course of the construction of the building as a dwelling house and that there was no reconstruction or alteration of an existing building in the sense contemplated by Note (16) to Group 5 Schedule 8.

He observed that the Certificate of Completion records that the substantive requirements of the Building Regulations have been satisfied. But to the naked eye the old plasterwork was obviously inadequate and dangerous ad he could not possibly consider that the construction project had finished until the new plasterwork was installed. The James’ construction project was to build a new dwelling house. Plasterwork of an acceptable standard was an integral part of the construction works. The new plasterwork was done at the earliest practicable opportunity.

Commentary

Care should be taken when considering when the completion of a house build takes place. There are time limits for DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme clams and clearly, as this case illustrates, usually work done to a house after completion does not qualify for zero rating. So, if the owner of a house is thinking of, say, building a conservatory for example, it is more prudent in VAT terms to construct it at the same time as a new house is built, and certainly before completion.

I would say that the appellant in this case achieved a surprisingly good result.

VAT: What is a TOGC? Why is it important?

By Marcus Ward 6 June 2019

What is a Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC)?

Normally the sale of the assets of a VAT registered business will be subject to VAT at the appropriate rate. A TOGC, however is the sale of a business including assets which must be treated as a matter of law, as “neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services” by virtue of meeting certain conditions. It is always the seller who is responsible for applying the correct VAT treatment and will be required to support their decision.

Where the sale meets the conditions, the supply is outside the scope of VAT and therefore VAT is not chargeable.

The word ‘business’ has the meaning set out in The VAT Act 1994, section 94 and ‘going concern’ has the meaning that at the point in time to which the description applies, the business is live or operating and has all parts and features necessary to keep it in operation, as distinct from its being only an inert aggregation of assets.

TOGC Conditions

The conditions for VAT free treatment of a TOGC:

The assets must be sold as a business, or part of a business, as a going concern
The assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part (HMRC guidance uses the words “intend to use…” which, in some cases may provide additional comfort)
There must be no break in trading
Where the seller is a taxable person (VAT registered) the purchaser must be a taxable person already or immediately become, as a result of the transfer, a taxable person
Where only part of a business is sold it must be capable of separate operation
There must not be a series of immediately consecutive transfers
Where the transfer includes property which is standard-rated, either because the seller has opted to tax it or because it is a ‘new’ or uncompleted commercial building the purchaser must opt to tax the property and notify this to HMRC no later than the date of the supply. This may be the date of completion or, if earlier, the date of receipt of payment or part payment (eg; a deposit). There are additional anti-avoidance requirements regarding the buyer’s option to tax

Please note that the above list has been compiled for this article from; the legislation, HMRC guidance and case law. Specific advice must be sought.

Property transfer

The sale of a property may qualify for TOGC if the above tests are met. Usually, but not exclusively, a TOGC sale is the sale of a tenanted building when the sale is with the benefit of the existing lease(s) – (the sale of a property rental business rather than of the property itself). Another example of a property TOGC is where a property under construction is sold (a development business). As may be seen, timing with a property TOGC is of utmost importance. For example, an option to tax one day late will invalidate TOGC treatment. A guide to land and property.

What purpose do the TOGC rules serve?

The TOGC provisions are intended to simplify accounting for VAT when a business changes hands. The main purposes are to:

relieve the buyer from the burden of funding VAT on the purchase, helping businesses by improving their cash flow and avoiding the need to separately value assets which may be liable at different rates or are exempt and which have been sold as a whole
protect government revenue by removing a charge to tax and entitlement to input tax where the output tax may not be paid to HMRC, for example, where a business charges tax, which is claimed by the new business but not paid by the selling business

What if it goes wrong?

TOGC treatment is not optional. A sale is either a TOGC or it isn’t. It is a rare situation in that the VAT treatment depends on; what the purchaser’s intentions are, what the seller is told, and what the purchaser actually does. All this being outside the seller’s control.

Add VAT when TOGC treatment applies:

Often, the TOGC point can be missed, especially in complex property transactions.

The addition of VAT is sometimes considered a “safe” VAT position. However, output tax will have been charged incorrectly, which means that when the buyer claims VAT shown on the relevant invoice, this will be disallowed. This can lead to;

potential penalties and interest from HMRC
the buyer having to recover the VAT payment (often the seller, having sold a business can be difficult to track down and then obtain payment from)
significant cash flow issues (HMRC will need to be repaid the input tax claim immediately)
if a property sale, SDLT is likely to be overpaid

Sale treated as a TOGC when it is a taxable supply:

When VAT free TOGC treatment is applied to a taxable supply (possibly as one, or more of the TOGC conditions are not met) then there is a tax underdeclaration. The seller will be assessed by HMRC and penalties and interest are likely to be levied. There is then the seller’s requirement to attempt to obtain the VAT payment from the buyer. Similarly to above, this is not always straightforward or possible and it may be that the contract prohibits additional payment. There is likely to be unexpected funding issues for the buyer if (s)he does decide to make the payment.

Considering the usually high value of sales of businesses, the VAT cost of getting it wrong can be significant.

Summary

This is a complex area of the tax and an easy issue to miss when there are a considerable number of other factors to consider when a business is sold. Extensive case law (example here and changes to HMRC policy here ) insists that there is often a dichotomy between a commercial interpretation of a going concern and HMRC’s view. I sometimes find that the buyer’s intentions change such that the TOGC initially applied becomes invalid when the change in the use of assets (from what was notified to the seller) actually takes place. HMRC is not always sympathetic in these situations. One of the questions I am often asked is: “How long does the buyer have to operate the business after purchase so that TOGC treatment applies?” Unsurprisingly, there is no set answer to this and HMRC do not set a specific period. My view, and it is just my view, is that an absolute minimum time is one VAT quarter.

Contracts are important in most TOGC cases, so it really pays to review them from a VAT perspective.

I very strongly advise that specialist advice is obtained in cases where a business, or property is sold. Yes, I know I would say that!

VAT: Zero rating of prescriptions

By Marcus Ward 29 April 2019

Latest from the courts

The UK is unique in the EU for the zero rating of medicines prescribed by a registered medical practitioner.

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Pearl Chemist Ltd (Pearl) the issue was whether the development of new technology and legislation affected the zero rating of prescriptions written by UK registered and non-UK registered doctors and the interpretation of “registered medical practitioner”.

Background

Pearl is authorised to dispense medicines prescribed online by doctors based in countries based in the European Economic Area. It contracted with a third party which operated websites which offered medical screening and services, primarily for conditions such as erectile dysfunction, hair loss and obesity/weight loss.

Customers of the third party could obtain an online consultation with qualified doctors. If the doctor decided to issue a prescription, the written prescription would be sent to Pearl who would then despatch the medicine directly to the individual customer on behalf of the third party. Pearl treated all these supplies as zero-rated. The relevant law covering such prescriptions changed in 2008 such that it was now possible to dispense drugs prescribed by a qualified doctor based outside the UK.

HMRC formed the view that these supplies were not covered by the UK zero rating on the basis that an EU qualified doctor who is not registered with the GMC is not a registered medical practitioner. An assessment for output tax was issued in respect of supplies made against prescriptions written by non-UK doctors.

The issues

The issues, broadly were:

Are qualified doctors based outside the UK covered by the description “registered medical practitioner” in UK legislation?
If not, does this breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality? (Whether there is clear discrimination between identical supplies made on the prescription of UK doctors and doctors from other EU countries)

Decision

The judge ruled that the UK zero rating does not cover prescriptions written by non-UK doctors as they are not within the definition of “registered medical practitioner” Consequently, the supplies must be standard rated in the UK. However, the exclusion of medicines prescribed by overseas doctors from the zero-rating constitutes a breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality. This seemed good news for Pearl, but…the Tribunal stated that it was unable to provide an effective remedy for that breach and accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed HRMC’s assessment.

Commentary

This decision seems rather harsh on the appellant. It appears that the judge ruled that she had no power to override UK Parliament’s intention despite the inherent “unfairness” of the outcome of this intention where identical supplies were treated differently depending on where the prescription was written.

Certainly an odd one and I wonder if this is the last of this matter. Any business in a similar situation may need to review its position on the basis of this decision.

Changes to recovery of VAT on imports

By Marcus Ward 15 April 2019

HMRC have recently issued RCB 2 (2019) which sets out HMRC’s view on Toll Manufacturers (TM). TM is an arrangement in which a company which has a specialised equipment processes raw materials or semi-finished goods for another company. It may also be called toll processing. Typically, a TM will import, say, pharmaceutical goods, process and distribute them within the UK for clinical trials on behalf of an overseas owner.

HMRC has become aware that a number of UK TMs have paid import VAT on behalf of overseas customers have also claimed a corresponding deduction for input tax under VAT Act 1994 Section 24. However, there is no provision in UK law for such deduction.

Current treatment

TMs will usually act as importer and recover import VAT via a C79 despite them not being the owner of the goods (the owner instructs the TM to carry out works on their goods on their behalf).

HMRC has now confirmed that this VAT treatment is incorrect, and it will no longer be permitted.

New treatment

Only the owner of the goods will be treated as the importer and be able to recover import VAT. TMs will no longer be able to claim this VAT.

However, HMRC will not require TMs to make adjustments to past claims and the treatment will only be required going forward.

Introduction

The change comes into effect from 15 July 2019

Affect

Affected TMs are likely to need to make significant changes to their systems before that date.

Overseas owners of the relevant goods will either need to:

register for UK VAT and claim the import VAT on a “regular” return, or
make a claim via the Thirteenth VAT Directive (86/560/EEC)

NB: In cases where title has passed before import into the UK (businesses sell on the goods before importing them into the UK so ownership and title has passed to the new owner, however the business that sold the goods acts as importer on UK import declarations, pays the import VAT to HMRC and receives the import VAT certificate – C79) the correct procedure is for the new owner of the goods to be the importer of record and reclaim the import VAT and not the previous owner.

As with many areas of VAT, a No-Deal Brexit is likely to increase the complications for such cross-border transactions in the future.

Please contact us if you have any queries or require assistance on this matter.

VAT: Brexit referrals to CJEU

By Marcus Ward 2 April 2019

A quickie

What happens to referrals to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) after Brexit day?

Put simply, from the date the UK leaves the EU UK courts will no longer be able to refer cases to CJEU. Cases referred to CJEU before the date of leaving may still be heard.

We understand that there has been a late surge of referrals before the cut off date. This is likely to mean that there will be significant number of CJEU cases which can directly impact the UK for a time to come even though the UK is no longer a Member State.

This of course assumes that:

The UK leaves the EU
UK politicians do not actually agree some sort of compromise with the EU on this point
The Brexit date is not deferred for a long period (in which case referrals to, and decisions of, the CJEU will have direct relevance to UK VAT for many years, or even decades…).

VAT Success Stories

By Marcus Ward 1 April 2019

I often write about how it is important to seek VAT advice at the right time, see triggerpoints. So, I thought that I’d give some practical examples on where we have saved our clients money, time and aggravation.

Investment company

HMRC denied claims for input tax incurred on costs relating to the potential acquisition of an overseas business and threatened to deregister the plc as it was not, currently, making taxable supplies. Additionally, HMRC contended that even if VAT registration was appropriate, the input tax incurred did not relate to taxable supplies and was therefore blocked.

We were able to persuade HMRC that our client had a right to be VAT registered because It intended to make taxable supplies (supplies with a place of supply outside the UK which would have been taxable if made in the UK) and that the input tax was recoverable as it related to these intended taxable supplies (management charges to the acquired business). This is a hot topic at the moment, but we were able to eventually demonstrate, with considerable and detailed evidence that there was a true intention.

This meant that UK VAT registration was correct and input tax running into hundreds of thousands of pounds incurred in the UK was repaid.

Restaurant

We identified and submitted a claim for a West End restaurant for nearly £200,000 overpaid output tax. We finally agreed the repayment with HMRC after dealing with issues such as the quantum of the claim and unjust enrichment.

Developer

Our property developing client specialises in very high-end residential projects in exclusive parts of London. They built a dwelling using an existing façade and part of a side elevation. We contended that it was a new build (zero rated sale and no VAT on construction costs and full input tax recovery on other costs). HMRC took the view that it was work on an existing dwelling so that 5% applied and input tax was not recoverable. After site visits, detailed plans, current and historical photograph evidence HMRC accepted the holy grail of new build. The overall cost of the project was tens of millions.

Charity

A charity client was supplying services to the NHS. The issue was whether they were standard rated supplies of staff or exempt medical services. We argued successfully that, despite previous rulings, the supplies were exempt, which benefited all parties. Our client was able to deregister from VAT, but not only that, we persuaded HMRC that input tax previously claimed could be kept. This was a rather pleasant surprise outcome. We also avoided any penalties and interest so that VAT did not represent a cost to the charity in any way. If the VAT was required to be repaid to HMRC it is likely that the charity would have been wound up.

Shoot

A group of friends met to shoot game as a hobby. They made financial contributions to the syndicate in order to take part. HMRC considered that this was a business activity and threatened to go back over 40 years and assess for output tax on the syndicate’s takings which amounted to many hundreds of thousands of pounds and would have meant the shoot could not continue. We appealed the decision to retrospectively register the syndicate.

After a four-year battle HMRC settled on the steps of the Tribunal. We were able to demonstrate that the syndicate was run on a cost sharing basis and is not “an activity likely to be carried out by a private undertaking on a market, organised within a professional framework and generally performed in the interest of generating a profit.” – A happy client.

Chemist

We assisted a chemist client who, for unfortunate reasons, had not been able to submit proper VAT returns for a number of years. We were able to reconstruct the VAT records which showed a repayment of circa £500,000 of VAT was due. We successfully negotiated with HMRC and assisted with the inspection which was generated by the claim.

The message? Never accept a HMRC decision, and seek good advice!

VAT: Partial exemption, the N Brown case

By Marcus Ward 18 March 2019

Latest from the courts.

Partial exemption has always been, and probably always will be, the most complex and oft debated area of the tax.

Attribution

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of N Brown Group plc the issue was how to attribute input tax incurred on marketing. This included:

online
catalogues and leaflets
parcel packs
inserts in magazines and newspapers
direct mailings
advertisements in publications
TV advertisements
telemarketing
brand development
PR
celebrity endorsements
market research
photo shoots

Background

N Brown, as you may know, sells clothing and household goods online to the public. It has only a few retail stores so does not have the facility that a “bricks and mortar” retailer would have of displaying goods in its stores. It therefore has to incur significant marketing costs to bring its products to the attention of its customers and present them in an attractive way that encourages sales. The activities of the appellant include the sale of these goods, which is standard-rated for VAT purposes, and the provision of finance, which is exempt for VAT purposes. The finance element is the provision of credit which produces significant income from the interest on monthly balances which consumers do not pay off.

Issue

The issue was whether the input tax incurred on the marketing was attributable to the sale of goods which were advertised or, as HMRC contended; to both its taxable and exempt income (so that it was residual). If HMRC were correct an element of the input tax would fall to be irrecoverable via the appellants’ partial exemption calculation. HMRC’s position was that the input tax which N Brown incurred in respect of the marketing is residual because, although they did not seek to deny the existence of a “direct and immediate link” between the relevant goods and services and taxable supplies that the appellant made, they consider that there is also a direct and immediate link to the exempt credit provided.

Unsurprisingly, N Brown’s position was that the vast majority of goods and services received in connection with the marketing had a “direct and immediate link” only with taxable supplies that it made and so the relevant input tax was not residual and is therefore recoverable in full.

A subtle distinction, however, as £42 million of VAT was at stake, quite a vital one!

Technical

A general guide to partial exemption is available here

Broadly, a partially exempt business is required to attribute input tax incurred to three categories:

Taxable activities (here, the sale of goods) fully recoverable
Exempt activities (here the provision of credit) not recoverable
Non-attributable (residual) – input tax attributable to both taxable and exempt activities, or neither. This input tax must be apportioned either by the “standard method” or special method agreed with HMRC.

Decision

The judge found that there was a two-way relationship between the sale of the goods and the provision of credit terms. As a consequence, the input tax fell into the category of non-attributable (residual) even if the relevant advertisements made no mention of credit at all. It was also found that the standard method (used by HMRC) did not produce a reasonable outcome so the assessment issued by HMRC would need adjustment in the taxpayer’s favour. This required a different method to be devised and that certain elements of exempt income could be ignored in the calculation. I suspect that negotiations on an agreeable method might take some time…

Commentary

This case demonstrates that care is always required when costs are attributed to a business’ activities. This is especially important when the costs are significant. There tends to be a lot of “debate” with HMRC on such matters and slight nuances can affect attribution and thus the outcome of the calculation. It is an area which always requires specialised advice.