Category Archives: Disputes

VAT – Catering at a university campus; exempt?

By Marcus Ward 3 September 2018

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Olive Garden Catering Company Ltd (OGC) the mian issue was whether catering which was provided to the University of Aberdeen (UOA) students was an exempt supply. The specific issue was whether the catering was a supply “closely connected to education” which in turn depended on which entity was actually making the supply to students. For exemption to apply, OGC would need to be a principal in purchasing the food and other goods and an agent of UOA (pictured above) in delivering the catering (the exemption could not apply to a supply by OGC to the students).

Background

The central issue was whether the supply of food and staff by the appellant to UOA was a single supply of catering services at the standard-rate for VAT purposes (HMRC’s case) or that the main supply was for food at the zero-rate, with the supply of staff being a separate supply and eligible for staff wages concession which was the appellant’s stance. I comment that the procurement as principal and the delivery of catering as agent is common practice in the education sector and this case focussed on whether the relevant documentation actually reflected the economic reality.

Decision

The HMRC internal VAT manual VTAXPER64300 sets out the general principles for determining the VAT treatment of supplies made under a catering contract, which in turn depend in some situations on the capacity in which the caterer supplies its service, whether as principal or agent in the agreement. Of relevance in this case were the following statements:

(1) In general, it has been established practice that agency contracts are most often used in the education sector.

(2) Under agency contracts for the provision of catering it is accepted that:

The client makes a taxable supply of catering to the consumer, or the catering is subsumed within an overall exempt supply, eg; of education
VAT is not charged to the client on wages of the catering staff employed at the unit
VAT is charged on any management fee plus taxable stock and other services
Schools may only exempt supplies which are closely related to the overall provision of education

(3) This contributes to fair competition with in-house providers, and the contract catering industry acknowledges the value of that.

In respect of the contract for the supply of catering services, UOA was the principal and OGC was the agent by reference to the control exercised over; menu specifications, pricing, and the premises in which catering was carried out. The relevant contracts set out that the terms were set by UOA and were indicative of its status as the principal in the catering contract. The judge stated that the catering contracts between UOA and OGC appeared to be an agency contract with OGC acting as the agent. Consequently, the food produced OGC and served by its staff at UOA’s halls of residence was potentially a supply of food in the course of catering that can be subsumed within the overall exempt supply of education by UOA.

Commentary

A win for the appellant, but only after comprehensive consideration of all points and the substantial detailed documentation by the judge. There has been a run of Tribunal cases on the agent/principal point (not just in education and which I have covered in previous articles) and this case serves to demonstrate that each case will be determined on its merits. There can be no blanket VAT treatment and certain factors will point one way and others to a different VAT treatment. In my experience, HMRC are always eager to challenge agent/principal treatment and it is an area which has an enormous tax impact on a business. I always recommend that any contracts/documentation which cover potential agent/principal issues are reviewed to avoid unwanted attention from HMRC. Slight adjustments to agreements often assist in reaching the desired tax treatment. Don’t leave it to chance!

Is tax boring?…On reflection

By Marcus Ward 23 August 2018

I am often asked as a VAT person whether I find tax boring. I do often find it frustrating, some of the mechanics arcane and dealing with HMRC something of a challenge (putting it politely). However, I have been advising on the tax for getting on for 30 years, so it must have its attractions…

I think the best way to put it is by quoting K Maurer:

Tax is not boring. Tax is politics. Tax is geography. Tax is social issues. Tax is financial literacy. Tax is financial empowerment. Tax is problem solving. Tax is helping others create a stronger sense of independence. Tax is anything but boring!

I would also add that tax is challenging as a practitioner, it is also; evaluating information, arriving at creative solutions, hand-holding, standing up for rights, explaining, challenging views and assumptions and…keeping on top of a rapidly changing legislative/legislation and commercial landscapes.

It can also be very silly.

VAT: Adecco Court of Appeal case. Agent or principal?

By Marcus Ward 6 August 2018

Latest from the courts

In the recent Court of Appeal (CA) case of Adecco here the issue was whether the services provided by Adecco – an employment bureau which supplied its clients with temporary staff (temps) were by way of it acting as principal or agent.

Background

Details of the issues as considered in the FTT and UT were covered here

Overview

As is often the case in these types of arrangements, there are some matters that point towards the appellant 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 Adecco or on the full payment made to it (which includes the salaries of the relevant workers).

Decision

The CA decided that the supply of temporary staff by Adecco was as principal and consequently, VAT was due on the full amount received, not just the commission retained.

Reasoning

The CA focussed on the contractual position. Among the reasons provided for this decision were as follows (I have somewhat summarised). I think it worthwhile looking in some detail at these:

There was no question of the temps having provided their services under contracts with the clients: no such contracts existed. The contractual position must be that the temps’ services were provided to clients in pursuance of the contracts between Adecco and its clients and Adecco and the temps.
Although the contract between Adecco and a temp referred to the temp undertaking an assignment “for a client” and providing services “to the client”, it also spoke of the client requiring the temp’s services “through Adecco” and of the temp being supplied “through Adecco”.
While temps were to be subject to the control of clients, that was something that the temps agreed with Adecco, not the clients. The fact that the contract between Adecco and a temp barred any third party from having rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 confirms that the relevant provisions were to be enforceable only by Adecco, which, on the strength of them, was able to agree with its clients that the temps should be under their control. Adecco can fairly be described as conferring such control on its clients. (Broadly; the employment regulations required Adecco to treat itself as a principal with the result that that it could not therefore treat itself as an agent).
Adecco paid temps on its own behalf, not as agent for the clients.
Adecco by did not drop out of the picture once it had introduced a temp to a client. It was responsible for paying the temp (and for handling national insurance contributions and the like) and had to do so regardless of whether it received payment from the client Adecco also enjoyed rights of termination and suspension. It is noteworthy (as the UT said) that the contract between Adecco and a temp proceeded on the basis that a temp’s unauthorised absence could “result in a breach of obligations which we owe to the client”.
Adecco did not perform just administrative functions in relation to the temps. The temps, after all, were entitled to be paid by Adecco, not the clients.
Adecco charged a client a single sum for each hour a temp worked. It did not split its fees into remuneration for the temp and commission for itself.
The fact that Adecco had no control over a temp in advance of his taking up his assignment with the client did not matter.
Adecco undoubtedly supplied the services of employed temps to its clients.
In all the circumstances, both contractually and as a matter of economic and commercial reality, the temps’ services were supplied to clients via Adecco. In other words, Adecco did not merely supply its clients with introductory and ancillary services, and VAT was payable on the totality of what it was paid by clients.

Action

Clearly this was not the outcome the appellant desired, and it may impact similar arrangements in place for other businesses. Although found on the precise nature of the relevant contracts, the outcome of this case is not limited to employment bureaux and similar but must be considered in most cases where commission is received by an “agent”. These may include, inter alia; taxi services, driving schools, transport, travel agents, training/education, online services, repairs, warrantee work and many other types of business. It is crucial that contracts are regularly reviewed the ensure that the appropriate VAT treatment is applied and that they are clear on the agent/principal relationship. If there is any doubt, please contact us as it is often one of the most ambiguous areas of VAT.

VAT – Zipvit Court of Appeal decision

By Marcus Ward 18 July 2018

Latest from the courts

The Zipvit Court of Appeal (CA) case here

Background

A full background of this long running case may be found here

In summary: It was previously decided that certain supplies made by Royal Mail (RM) to its customers were taxable. This was on the basis of the TNT CJEU case. RM had treated them as exempt. HMRC was out of time to collect output tax, but claims made by recipients of RM’s services made retrospective claims. These claims were predicated on the basis that the amount paid to RM included VAT at the appropriate rate (it was embedded in the charge) and that UK VAT legislation stipulates that the “taxable amount” for any supply, is the amount paid by the customer including any VAT included in the price. HMRC maintained that the absence of a VAT invoice showing that VAT was charged to Zipvit by RM, and giving details of the rate of tax and the amount charged, was fatal to Zipvit’s claim to recover input tax.

The decisions in the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) went against Zipvit so the appeal went to the CA.

Decision

The CA upheld the decisions in the previous courts. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the relevant VAT had been “due or paid” on the supplies received from RM. It further appeared that evidence which was not present at earlier hearings showed that the amounts paid were exclusive of VAT which meant that VAT was not embedded in the consideration paid.

Importance

In the words of the judge Lord Justice Henderson the appeal raised some important questions of principle in the law of VAT. They arise when supplies of goods or services, which were wrongly assumed by the parties to the relevant transactions and by HMR to be exempt from VAT at the time of supply, are later discovered to have been subject to the standard rate of tax when they were made, following a decision to that effect by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Where the recipient of those goods or services was itself a registered trader which made taxable supplies on which it accounted for output tax, the basic question is whether, once the true position has become known, the recipient is in principle entitled to recover as an input tax credit the tax element of the consideration which it paid for the original supplies. If so, does it make any difference if the supplier has failed to pay the tax which should have been paid on the original supplies, and if the recipient is in consequence unable to produce a tax invoice from the supplier showing the amount of the input tax which it seeks to recover?

So a fundamental tenet of VAT was considered, as well as the matter of this being the lead case behind which many others were stood. I understand that the quantum of claims submitted is circa £1 billion in total so there was a lot riding on this decision.

Commentary

In my view, this is an important case for the above technical reasons and the whole decision bears reading in order to understand some of the intricacies of a business claiming input tax.

Beyblades – a Customs Duty case

By Marcus Ward 17 July 2018

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal (CA) case of Hasbro European Trading BV (Hasbro) the issue was whether Customs Duty (CD) was due on the import of Beyblades. If they fall within the definition of a toy CD is payable at 4.7%. However, if they are more accurately classified as a game they are treated as duty free – so a significant difference in import cost dependent on what, superficially, appears to be a somewhat question of semantics.

Beyblades

For the purposes of the case, it is important to understand what a Beyblade is and how it is used.

Beyblade is the brand name for a line of spinning tops originally developed and manufactured by Tomy in Japan. The main novelty is that they are a series of items which are customisable, with interchangeable parts. A Beyblade is set in motion by means of a rip-cord powered launcher.

A “game” is played with two players. Each player is allowed a number of Beyblades to choose from during a match. Players may use any parts available to them to make their Beyblades), but may not switch parts once a match has started. The first player to reach seven points wins. Points are awarded to the player based on how their Beyblade knocks out the opponent’s

One point is awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade stops spinning
One point is awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade is knocked out of the stadium or into a pocket on the edge of the ring
Two points are awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade breaks during a game

The Arguments

The case concerned the classification of Beyblades’. The appellant, Hasbro contended that Beyblades are correctly classified as “articles for … table or parlour games” under heading 9504 of the Combined Nomenclature. In contrast, HMRC maintained that Beyblades should be classified as “other toys” under heading 9503, The First-tier Tribunal FTT and the Upper Tribunal (U’) both previously agreed with HMRC’s analysis.

Classification

There are “explanatory notes” to the Harmonised System (HSENNs). The CA ruled that the classification rule which prefers the most specific description does not apply at the level of the HSENs: they are an important guide to interpretation, but do not have force of law.

The Decision

The CA allowed the appeal and went against the decisions in the FTT and UT. The judge concluded that “In the circumstances, it seems to me to fall to us to decide which of the alternative headings provides the more specific description. In my view, it is heading 9504. As I see it, “articles for … parlour games” encompasses a more limited range of goods than “toys” and “more clearly identifies Beyblades”, particularly since, as I say, “articles for … parlour games” reflects the fact that Beyblades are meant to be used in games…”. The fact that Beyblades are used in a competitive scenario seems to have swung the decision which knocked out HMRC. Consequently, there was no CD payable as they fell to be duty free.

Commentary

It does beg the question; why did this issue need to get to the CA for the appellant to finally win (but of course, this isn’t the first case which has raised that question). Perseverance was clearly the key word here. If you are convinced that HMRC is wrong on ay matter, it really does pay to challenge any ruling.

VAT – Top 10 Tips for small businesses and start ups

By Marcus Ward 5 July 2018

VAT Basics

Small business and start ups have a lot of things to think about – VAT being just one. However, failure to consider VAT can lead to difficulties and penalties. So here are some pointers for new and/or growing bushiness:

Plan ahead and know when to register for VAT
Make contact with your advisers
Monitor your turnover so that you know when you are approaching the VAT registration threshold
Keep your records up-to-date and check accounting documents
Speak to us if things go wrong or there’s something you don’t understand
Deal with VAT enquiries or HMRC’s requests for information promptly
Manage the VAT within your business cashflow
Don’t worry if Customs make contact with you
Right tax – right time
If you are not happy with Customs’ behaviour or have received an unhelpful or incorrect ruling; challenge it.

The overall message is; talk to a professional at an early stage. Timing is very important for VAT and you usually only have one chance to get it right.

Finally, regarding the first point – it may benefit a business to VAT register before it is required to (a so-called voluntary registration). I shall look at that in more depth in my next article.

New RCB 5 – VAT treatment of goods supplied on approval

By Marcus Ward 25 June 2018

Goods supplied on approval

Meaning

Goods supplied on approval is an arrangement under which items of durable nature are provided to a prospective customer for a pre-purchase trial. These items are returnable after a specified period in re-saleable condition if not accepted for purchase.

New publication

HMRC has announced via Revenue and Customs Brief 5 (2018) “RCB 5” changes to the way goods supplied on approval are treated for VAT purposes.

The broad thrust of RCB 5 is that, in HMRC’s opinion, taxpayers are using the rules for goods supplied on approval when this treatment is inappropriate.

The goods supplied on approval rules

Output tax is due at the end of the approval period. That is, tax is deferred until a time the goods are adopted (if they are). These rules are distinct from a supply of goods with a subsequent right to return them. In these cases the tax point is when title passes.

Sale on approval was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Littlewoods Organisation plc (VTD 14977). The Tribunal held that goods were supplied on approval where there is no contract of sale unless, and until, the recipient concerned adopted or was deemed to have adopted the goods. The judge in that case decided that Littlewoods did not supply goods on approval. This case appears to have triggered an HMRC initiative to look at the number of businesses which may be incorrectly deferring output tax by using these rules. It concluded that a lot fewer taxpayers were actually providing goods on approval than previously thought.

Technical

The basic tax point for a supply of goods in these situations is determined by the VAT Act 1994 section 6(2) (c) which applies in the case of goods on approval. It delays the basic tax point until the time when the goods are adopted by the customer or twelve months from the date they were originally despatched, whichever is the earlier

Section 6(2)

(2) … a supply of goods shall be treated as taking place –

(a) if the goods are to be removed, at the time of the removal;

(b) … ;

(c) if the goods (being sent or taken on approval or sale or return or similar terms) are removed before it is known whether a supply will take place, at the time it becomes certain that the supply has taken place or, if sooner, 12 months after the removal.

The guidance

HMRC has published the RCB to provide guidance on how businesses should review their transactions in order to establish whether they are using sale on approval treatment correctly.

Indicators of goods supplied on approval

Whether or not goods are supplied on approval will depend on the facts in each case and will require consideration of a number of indicators which will have to be carefully weighed against each other. Relevant indicators include the following factors but they are not exhaustive.

The terms and conditions of trading, and all contractual terms applying.
The time when title in the goods passes to the buyer.
The time at which the buyer has the right to dispose of the goods as owner.
The view presented to the customer in marketing literature, order forms, delivery notes, statements etc.
The rights of the customer to return unwanted goods.
The terms of any supply of credit finance provided with the goods.
The time when payment for the goods is demanded.
The time when payment for the goods is received.
The time when the buyer assumes responsibility for the upkeep and insurance of the goods.
Anything the buyer does to signify his adoption of the goods.
The calculation of the minimum payment due for goods delivered.
The time when a sale is recognised in the financial accounts of the business.

(these indicators are not featured in RCB 5).

Deadline

HMRC state that from 18 September 2018 all business must change their accounting systems and accurately apply the appropriate VAT treatment. However, no action will be taken for past inaccuracies and taxpayers will not be required to make any changes to records or declarations.

Delivery charges

In normal circumstances, the fee charged for delivery follows the VAT liability of the goods being supplied (it is a single supply of delivered goods). However, the RCB somewhat controversially, states that when goods are supplied on approval the delivery charge is not ancillary. HMRC conclude that as delivery occurs before the customer or the supplier know whether there will be a supply of goods, delivery is an aim in itself, represents a separate, independent supply and is not dependent upon the supply of goods. The purpose of the delivery service is to facilitate the customer inspecting the goods to decide whether or not they wish to purchase them. This is always a standard rated supply and consequently, output tax is due on this fee, whether or not the goods are adopted (and with a tax point prior to adoption or return). I expect that this analysis will be challenged at some point as it does not, in my mind, sit comfortably with previously decided case law.

Action

Businesses which consider themselves to be supplying goods on approval (usually mail order businesses) need to review their terms and manner of trading to identify whether that is indeed the case. Consideration must be given to the above indicators, the ruling in the Littlewoods case and the information in RCB 5. If what is being provided falls outside the definition of a supply on approval, the necessary changes are required in order to recognise a sale at an earlier time. Even if goods are supplied on approval, the VAT treatment of delivery charges need to be reconsidered and adjusted if need be. We can assist if required.

VAT: Wakefield College – Court of Appeal case

By Marcus Ward 1 June 2018

Latest from the courts

Further to my article on the Wakefield College case here the Court of Appeal (CA) has dismissed the college’s appeal that certain of its activities were non-business.

Background

The detailed background was set out in the above linked article, but to recap: In order for certain building works supplied to the appellant to be zero rated the resultant building has to be used for a “relevant charitable purpose” – that is; not for business purposes. This is the case even if there is a small amount of business activity in the building (as long as these can be shown to be insignificant; which is taken to be less than 5% of the activities in the whole building).

The issue

The issue here was whether the education provided by the college could be deemed non-business because, although the majority was grant funded, students were also required to make a contribution to their education. This is dependent upon whether the provision of courses by the college to students paying subsidised fees was, an economic activity carried on by it for the purposes of article 9 of the VAT Directive and consequently, a “business” within Note (6) of Group 5 in Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994.

The 1994 Act provides, at group 5 of schedule 8, for the zero-rating of various supplies made in the course of construction of certain buildings including:

“The supply in the course of construction of

(a) a building … intended solely for use for … a relevant charitable purpose…

of any services related to the construction other than the services of an architect, surveyor or any person acting as a consultant or in a supervisory capacity”.

Note (6) to group 5 provides:

“Use for a relevant charitable purpose means use by a charity… –

(a) otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a business.”

Decision

The CA found that the fact that the students paid for education (an exempt supply) meant that it was a business activity as consideration flowed in both directions. The proportion of the costs paid by the student amounted to between 25% and 30% of the total cost and could therefore not be deemed insignificant.

Commentary

It is worth reconsidering comments made by the judge in his summing up in the Upper Tribunal hearing.

“We cannot leave this appeal without expressing some disquiet that it should have reached us at all. It is common ground that the College is a charity, and that the bulk of its income is derived from public funds. Because that public funding does not cover all of its costs it is compelled to seek income from other sources; but its doing so does not alter the fact that it remains a charity providing education for young people. If, by careful management or good fortune, it can earn its further income in one way rather than another, or can keep the extent of the income earned in particular ways below an arbitrary threshold, it can escape a tax burden on the construction of a building intended for its charitable purpose, but if it is unable to do so, even to a trivial extent, it is compelled to suffer not some but all of that tax burden. We think it unlikely that Parliament intended such a capricious system. We consider it unlikely, too, that Parliament would consider it a sensible use of public money for the parties to litigate this dispute twice before the FTT and now twice before this tribunal. We do not blame the parties; the College is obliged to maximise the resources available to it for the pursuit of its charitable activities, just as HMRC are obliged to collect tax which is due. Rather, we think the legislation should be reconsidered. It cannot be impossible to relieve 16 charities of an unintended tax burden while at the same time protecting commercial organisations from unfair competition and preventing abuse”.

So, although the result may be seen as “unfair” on the college, the strict letter of the VAT legislation does not provide the courts with any alternative but to impose a VAT charge on the construction works – a charge which the college will have to bear as it is unable to recover it as input tax due to the partial exemption rules.

This illustrates the complexity with both the concept of business/non-business and property and construction issues. When the two technical areas collide, as in this case, matters can get very complicated and proper advice is vital. This is especially important with charities as they benefit from very few VAT reliefs and it is important to ensure that those available are correctly taken advantage of.

VAT: No such thing as a free meal (or drink) – The M&S case

By Marcus Ward 14 May 2018

Latest from the courts – Marks & Spencer First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case; what is the value of a “free” bottle of wine?

Background

I shall do this without the seductive TV ad voiceover… Like many retailers M&S has and does run various promotions designed to improve its financial performance. A number of those promotions are based on the proposition that a customer who buys certain products from M&S will receive something “free”. In this instant case, M&S sells a combination meal known as a “Dine In”. This comprises; a main course, a side dish and a pudding, along with a bottle of wine which is advertised as free: “Dine In for £10 with Free Wine”. I’m sure many have sampled these offers. The commercial rationale for the promotion involved M&S taking a calculated risk. It reached a decision to lower its aggregate profit margin on the separate items in the offer compared to their retail sales price in the expectation that this will be more than compensated for by changes in customer behaviour as a result of the promotion.

It is interesting to note that M&S anticipated the benefits could arise in a number of ways. Sales of the items included in the promotion might increase, which would improve turnover and put the retailer in a stronger negotiating position with its suppliers of those items. More casual customers might take up the promotion, increasing footfall. In doing so, they and other customers might take the opportunity to add other items to their shopping basket, the so-called “halo effect”. In a less tangible sense, the M&S’s brand might be generally enhanced.

In M&S’s online T&Cs the following narrative appears “For the avoidance of doubt, as the value attributed to the free wine in this deal is £0.00, if returned, no refund will be due…”

The aggregate shelf price of the three food items in the Dine In promotion, if bought separately, varied considerably but would always have been at least £10, and in most cases more.

The VAT issue

Should output tax be accounted for on the whole supply? Or, assuming that the food was zero rated, what, if any, output tax should be declared on the wine? Or should the entire supply be VAT free?

The contentions

M&S’s first contention was that the wine was free so no output tax was due. The reason why the wine was provided free was for M&S to receive certain benefits (set out above). Secondly, the Dine In Promotion is in fact two promotions. The first is an offer of three food items for £10. The second promotion, conditional on the first, is an offer of free wine. The former offer makes commercial sense both for M&S and the customer on its own terms. The food offer is complete in its own right, and the supply of wine for no consideration is a separate transaction. Thirdly, this is a multiple supply. The Dine In Promotion results in three or four separate supplies for VAT purposes, namely the three food items and the wine. This is not a case of what would otherwise be a single supply being artificially broken down. There are separate transactions, entitled to be valued separately for VAT. A further argument was that there is no separate or allocable consideration for the wine element of the Dine In Promotion. The free wine is an inducement, and is conditional on the food offer, but does not generate any separate identifiable consideration for VAT purposes.

Clearly HMRC disagreed and argued that the Dine In deal represented the sale of four items for £10. There was no free gift of the wine and consequently, an element of the £10 should be allocated to the value of the wine. Or put another way, it was a single promotional deal and is not a sale of food items for £10 plus a supply of wine for nil consideration. HMRC further contended that the duty to account for output tax and the right to deduct input tax form an “inseparable whole”. M&S’s position, if correct, would result in a failure to impose a charge to tax on the ultimate consumer, and untaxed (or, in effect, zero rated) consumption of standard rated goods and that militates very strongly against M&S’s position.

It was agreed that, by purchase value, the wine represented the most expensive part of the meal deal. HMRC proposed a value of output tax of 70 pence per meal deal was appropriate.

Decision

The judge agreed with HMRC and that output tax was due on the element of the £10 price attributable to the wine. Contractually, the meal deal was a single offer with a conditional element, ie; the provision of the wine was conditional on the customer paying £10 for the purchase of the food items. Although the customer may perceive the wine to be free (presumably as a result of the way in which the meal deal was held out and advertised) however, for VAT purposes, the customer paid £10 for all four elements of the deal. The Dine In promotion was a single offer, with all four items supplied simultaneously and in the same till transaction for consumption on the payment of £10. Receipt of the wine was conditional on payment of the £10 and the purchase of the food items. The wine was not provided unconditionally and with no strings attached.

Commentary

This was hardly a surprising decision. Similar retail offers have been considered in the past and the outcomes were broadly similar to this decision. The FTT distinguished Hartwell, Lex, Kuwait Petroleum, and Tesco plc cases in this respect which the appellants put forward to support their arguments. As always with VAT, promotions and offers can create valuation issues. It is important to consider VAT when marketing offers are provided.

UPDATE

July 2019

Via the Upper Tribunal (UT) case Marks and Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2019] BVC 514 the UT upheld the FTT decision and dismissed M&S’s appeal.

VAT – Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) What is it? How does it work?

By Marcus Ward 14 May 2018

ADR and VAT

What is ADR?

ADR is the involvement of a third party (a facilitator) to help resolve disputes between HMRC and taxpayers. It is mainly used by SMEs and individuals for VAT purposes, although it is not limited to these entities. Its aim is to reduce costs for both parties (the taxpayer and HMRC) when disputes occur and to reduce the number of cases that reach statutory review and/or Tribunal.

The process

Practically, a typical process is; HMRC officials and the facilitator meet with the taxpayer and adviser in a room, and agree on what the disputes are. They then retire to two separate, private rooms, and the facilitator goes between the two parties and mediates on a resolution.

ADR is a free service and the only costs the taxpayer will incur are fees from their advisers on preparation and any representation they require on the day.

Features of ADR

Without prejudice discussions – Anything said or documents produced during the ADR process cannot be used in future proceedings without the express consent of both parties subject to the obligations placed on the parties by the operation of English law
Evidence is that ADR can work for both VAT and Direct Taxes disputes both before and after an appealable decision or assessment has been made. However, ADR for VAT disputes is more suited to post appealable decision and assessments
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a Code of Conduct – a MOU is created to commit taxpayers/agents to the requirements of the ADR process
The average time for all completed ADR cases is 61 days. This figure is from application to resolution. The average elapsed time for VAT it is 53 days
The average age of VAT disputes is eight months
An ADR Panel has been created to accept or reject applications for ADR. It screens all applications and not just those where ADR was thought to be inappropriate.
Customer / Agent Questionnaire Summary – Findings from customers and agents included:
- An appreciation of the personal interaction that the ADR process allowed
- Facilitators were even handed and impartial in all cases and kept the taxpayer well informed
- ADR was particularly well suited to resolution of long standing disputes.

Is Tribunal preferable?

Taking a case to Tribunal is often an expensive, complicated and time consuming option, but used to be the only option open to a taxpayer to challenge a decision made to HMRC. From personal experience, the number of cases from which HMRC withdraw “on the steps of the court” illustrate a weakness in their legal procedures and possibly a lack of confidence in presenting their cases. This is very frustrating for our clients as they have already incurred costs and invested time when HMRC could have pulled out a lot earlier. Of course, our clients cannot apply for costs. The sheer number of cases going through the Tribunal process means that there are often very long and frustrating delays getting an appeal heard.

A true alternative?

Therefore, should we welcome ADR as a watered down version of a Tribunal hearing? Or is it actually something else entirely?

HMRC say that “ADR provides an excellent opportunity for Local Compliance to handle disputes in a modern and collaborative way. It is not intended to replace statutory internal review which is an already established process aimed at resolving disputes without a tribunal hearing. Review looks at legal challenges to decisions whereas ADR is more suitable for disputes where there might be more than one tenable legal outcome”.

Results so far

After an initial two-year pilot which shaped the final programme, and was guided by a Working Together group that included CIOT, AAT, ICAEW and legal representatives HMRC concluded that “ADR has shown that many disputes, where an impasse has been reached, can be resolved quickly without having to go to tribunal.” And “ADR is a fair and even-handed way of resolving tax disputes between HMRC and its customers and helps save time and costs for everyone.” Ignoring the dreadful use of the word “customers”… what has the profession made of the scheme?

Hui Ling McCarthy – Barrister has reported “HMRC’s ADR studies have produced extremely encouraging and positive results – owing in large part to HMRC’s willingness to engage with taxpayers, advisers and the professional bodies and vice versa. Taxpayers involved in a dispute with HMRC would be well-advised to take advantage of ADR wherever appropriate”.

Outcome

So what was the outcome of the two year scheme? The headline is that 58% of cases were successfully resolved, 8% were partially resolved and 34% were unresolved.

Of the fully resolved facilitations

33% were resolved by educating the taxpayer/agent about the correct tax position.
24% were resolved due to the facilitator obtaining further evidence.
23% were resolved by educating the HMRC decision maker about the correct tax position.
20% were resolved through facilitators restoring communication between both parties.

Conclusion

These figures are encouraging and the conclusion that; well planned, constructive meetings, with the intervention of an HMRC facilitator, do increase the chances of dispute resolution, appear to be well founded.

Further, the fact that the project team saw no evidence of any demand from HMRC, taxpayers or their agents for access to external mediators and that there is also conclusive evidence from taxpayers that HMRC facilitators have acted in a fair and even-handed manner add to the feeling that ADR is a useful new tool.

Commentary

The comments from HMRC on ADR is (probably understandable) positive. However, reactions from the profession and taxpayers who have gone through the process are equally generous on ADR as a mechanism for settling disputes.

My view is that any alternative to a Tribunal hearing is welcome and even if ADR works half as well as reports conclude then it should certainly be explored. It should definitely be considered as an alternative to simply accepting a decision from HMRC with which a taxpayer disagrees.