Category Archives: EC

VAT – The Default Surcharge. What is it, is it fair and will the regime change?

By Marcus Ward 1 December 2015

What is the Default Surcharge?

Default Surcharge is a civil penalty to encourage businesses to submit their VAT returns and pay the tax due on time.

When will a Default Surcharge be issued?

A business is in default if it sends in its VAT return and or the VAT due late. No surcharge is issued the first time a business is late but a warning (a Surcharge Liability Notice) is issued. Subsequent defaults within the following twelve months (the “surcharge period”) may result in a surcharge assessment. Each time that a default occurs the surcharge period will be extended. There is no liability to a surcharge if a nil or repayment return is submitted late, or the VAT due is paid on time but the return is submitted late (although a default is still recorded).

How much is the surcharge?

The surcharge is calculated as a percentage of the VAT that is unpaid at the due date. If no return is submitted the amount of VAT due will be assessed and the surcharge based on that amount. The rate is set at 2 per cent for the first default following the Surcharge Liability Notice, and rises to 5 per cent, 10 per cent and 15 per cent for subsequent defaults within the surcharge period. A surcharge assessment is not issued at the 2 per cent and 5 per cent rates if it is calculated at less than £200 but a default is still recorded and the surcharge period extended. At the 10 per cent and 15 per cent the surcharge will be the greater of the calculated amount or £30.

Specific issues

The default surcharge can be particularly swingeing for a fast growing company. Let’s say that a small company grows quickly. In the early days the administration was rather haphazard, as is often the case, and a number of returns and payments were submitted late. Fast forward and the turnover, and the VAT payable, has grown significantly. Being late at this time means that the amount of default surcharge is considerably higher than when the original default which created the surcharge took place. This leads us onto whether the surcharge is proportionate.

A business with cashflow difficulties may well ask whether it should be penalised by HMRC for having those difficulties; which of course will add to the problem.

Proportionality

The existing, long-standing default surcharge regime has always had issues with the principle of proportionality. The regime has regularly been challenged in the Courts.

Is it proportionate that a same penalty is applied for a payment which is one day late and one which is one year late? This is a matter which has concerned both HMRC and the Courts for a number of years.

In the Upper Tribunal case of Total Technology (Engineering) Ltd the Judge concluded that it was possible for an individual surcharge to be disproportionate, but that the system as a whole was not fundamentally flawed. It is also worth noting that in In Equoland judgment the judge stated that a penalty which is automatic and does not take into account the circumstances is at the least tending towards being disproportionate. The default surcharge is automatic and it is one of the few penalties that cannot be mitigated in any circumstances.

Defence against a surcharge

In order to have a surcharge withdrawn it is necessary to demonstrate that a business had a reasonable excuse for the default.

This is a subject of an article on its own. Certain factors, like relaying on a third party are not accepted as a reasonable excuse. HMRC state that a business will not be in default if they, or the independent tribunal, agree that there is a reasonable excuse for failing to submit a VAT Return and/or payment on time.

There is no legal definition of reasonable excuse but HMRC will look closely at the circumstances that led to the default.

If the circumstance that led to the default were unforeseen and inescapable and a business is able to show that its conduct was that of a conscientious person who accepted the need to comply with VAT requirements, then it may amount to a reasonable excuse.

What sort of circumstances might count as reasonable excuse?

HMRC provide guidelines on circumstances where there might be a reasonable excuse for failing to submit a VAT Return and/or payment on time. These include:

computer breakdown
illness
loss of key personnel
unexpected cash crisis – where funds are unavailable to pay your tax due following the sudden reduction or withdrawal of overdraft facilities, sudden non-payment by a normally reliable customer, insolvency of a large customer, fraud or burglary. A simple lack of money is unlikely to be accepted as a reasonable excuse.
loss of records

Latest

A recent discussion document sought views from businesses and individuals on potential improvements to how HMRC applies penalties (including the default surcharge) for failing to pay what is owed or to meet deadlines for returns or registration.

HMRC is considering whether and how it should differentiate between those who deliberately and persistently fail to meet administrative deadlines or to pay what they should on time, and those who make occasional and genuine errors for which other responses might be more appropriate.

In the document HMRC highlight two issues with the current VAT default surcharge regime. The first is the concern that while the absence of penalty for the initial offence in a 12 month period gives business the chance to get processes right, some customers simply ignore this warning.

The second concern is the issue of proportionality which fails to distinguish between payments that are one or two days late or many months late.

In my view, it is likely that in the near future we will hear proposals for the system being amended. I think we may anticipate the introduction of mitigation and suspension.

VAT Compound Interest – Latest

By Marcus Ward 24 November 2015

Proposed introduction of a new tax.

The Littlewoods case is slowly making its way through the court system with the CJEU ruling that there is a right to the taxpayer of adequate indemnity in respect of tax incorrectly collected via a mistake of law. There are myriad claims to which this will apply, especially “Fleming” claims where they covered a significant period of time a number of years ago.

HMRC has now applied to Supreme Court’s decision for permission to appeal the decision and we expect the Supreme Court’s verdict within the next month.

HMRC appear very concerned that it will ultimately be required to pay large amounts of interest to taxpayers who have suffered as a result of HMRC applying the relevant law incorrectly. Consequently, it has announced that the Summer Finance Bill 2015 will impose a 45% corporation tax charge on compound interest. There will be no right of set off or deduction for other losses. HMRC will withhold the corporation tax from any payment of interest made. This will take effect on 21 October 2015 (although the relevant legislation will not become law until 2016 indicating that HMRC is indeed running scared).

It is understood that there are a number of parties currently working on ways to challenge the legality of the proposed legislation.

Action

Claims already submitted

No immediate action is required, although it may be beneficial to review the basis of the claim, how it was made and what the status of it is currently.

New claims

For businesses which have received repayments due to HMRC error, it may be worthwhile reviewing the position to determine whether a claim for compound interest is appropriate and if so, to make a claim as soon as possible. We would, of course, be happy to advise on this and assist where necessary.

VAT – Where do I belong?!

By Marcus Ward 16 November 2015

The concept of “belonging” is very important in VAT as it determines where a supply takes place and thus the rate applicable and the country in which is due. (The so-called “Place Of Supply, or POS). It is necessary, for most supplies, to establish where both the supplier, and the recipient belongs. Because this is a complex area of VAT it is not difficult to be overpaying tax in one country, not paying tax where it is properly due, or missing the tax issue completely.

A relevant business person `belongs’ in the relevant country. A `relevant country’ means:

the country in which the person has a business establishment, or some other fixed establishment (if it has none in any other country);
if the person has a business establishment, or some other fixed establishment or establishments, in more than one country, the country of the relevant establishment (ie; the establishment most directly concerned with the supply); and
otherwise, the country of the person’s usual place of residence (in the case of a body corporate, where it is legally constituted).

A person who is not a relevant business person `belongs’ in the country of his usual place of residence. The `belonging’ definition applies equally to the recipient of a supply, where relevant.

Business establishment is not defined in the legislation but is taken by HMRC to mean the principal place of business. It is usually the head office, headquarters or ‘seat’ from which the business is run. There can only be one such place and it may take the form of an office, showroom or factory.

Fixed establishment is not defined in the legislation but is taken by HMRC to mean an establishment (other than the business establishment) which has both the technical and human resources necessary for providing and receiving services on a permanent basis. A business may therefore have several fixed establishments, including a branch of the business or an agency. A temporary presence of human and technical resources does not create a fixed establishment in the UK.

Usual place of residence. A body corporate has its usual place of residence where it is legally constituted. The usual place of residence of an individual is not defined in the legislation. HMRC interpret the phrase according to the ordinary usage of the words, ie; normally the country where the individual has set up home with his/her family and is in full-time employment. An individual is not resident in a country if only visiting as a tourist.

More than one establishment. Where the supplier/recipient has establishments in more than one country, the supplies made from/received at each establishment must be considered separately. For each supply of services, the establishment which is actually providing/receiving the services is normally the one most directly connected with the supply but all facts should be considered including

for suppliers, from which establishment the services are actually provided;
for recipients, at which establishment the services are actually consumed, effectively used or enjoyed;
which establishment appears on the contracts, correspondence and invoices;
where directors or others who entered into the contract are permanently based; and
at which establishment decisions are taken and controls are exercised over the performance of the contract.

However, where an establishment is actually providing/receiving the supply of services, it is normally that establishment which is most directly connected with the supply, even if the contractual position is different.

VAT groups

A VAT group is treated as a single entity. This also applies when applying the ‘place of belonging’. As a result, a group has establishments wherever any member of the group has establishments.

This is an area which often leads to uncertainty, and therefore VAT issues. It is also an area where VAT planning may; save time, resources and avoid unexpected VAT costs, either in the UK or another country.

For more on our International Services

VAT – EC Commission drops plans for standard return

By Marcus Ward 4 November 2015

The European Commission (EC) has, this week, announced that it is to drop plans to introduce a standard VAT return across all 28 Member States.

The original idea was to assist businesses which are required to submit returns in different jurisdictions in different languages by harmonising the information required and standardising the methodologies across Member States.

Although the intention is/was laudable, it would have likely increased complexity for the UK VAT return which is one of the most straightforward.

The changes to VAT reporting was due to be introduced in 2017.

The original plan has met with little support and the Commission has decided to focus on other harmonisation measures.

VAT – An important ECJ case which will affect charities – Sveda

By Marcus Ward 28 October 2015

A benefit to charities?

In the case of Sveda (C-126/14) which was recently heard by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) the issue was whether input tax was recoverable on the construction of a recreational woodland path which ended at a shop that Sveda owned and made taxable supplies from. Full case here

90% of the construction costs were met by Grant received from the Lithuanian Ministry of Agriculture on the condition that the path was made available free of charge to the public for a period of five years. There was no dispute that the grant was outside the scope income for Sveda.

The authorities disallowed the VAT claimed on 100% of the costs on the grounds there was no link to taxable supplies since free access is a non-economic activity because there was no consideration paid to use the path. Alternatively, there was a contention that only 10% of the VAT should be reclaimed, since the company only met 10% of the cost.

Sveda argued that, although the path could be used free of charge, the purpose was increase taxable sales from its shop (food, drink and souvenirs). This meant there was a link between the VAT incurred and its economic activity as a whole.

The ECJ rejected the view that the input tax should be blocked in its entirety or in part. Its view was that the expenditure was incurred with the intention of carrying out an economic taxable activity, even if there was no direct link to any one specific supply and use of the path was free. The VAT was overhead VAT. No exempt supplies (that would break the chain of deduction) took place.

So, although the path was used for a non-business activity (free access) the ECJ deemed that the input tax incurred on the costs of building the path was deductible. As there was a link to economic activities the VAT is treated as overhead and, in this case, fully recoverable.

Although Sveda is a commercial company and the decision will no doubt be of assistance to commercial entities, there may be a significant impact on charities and NFP organisations. This judgment highlights the basic right to deduct VAT where a link to taxable supplies made by a taxable person can be demonstrated. It does not matter whether the link is to one taxable supply or to all the taxable economic activities. The non-business use of the asset did not prevent recovery. The outcome would no doubt have been different if Sveda was only involved in building the path and just providing free access to it without also selling items form the shop.

On a personal note, this case has echoes of one I took to Tribunal for The Imperial War Museum – with a similar successful outcome. HMRC views here

Let’s hope it will be just as useful for the taxpayer as the landmark IWM decision.

If you think you, or a charity you are aware of, or a client of yours may be affected by this decision, please contact me. This may be the case if the charity undertakes both business and non-activities. I would always counsel that a charity should have its activities reviewed from a VAT perspective. There are usually savings that could be made.

VAT Distance Selling – avoidance structure now deemed ineffective

By Marcus Ward 26 October 2015

The EC Commission’s VAT Committee has recently issued new guidelines to counter perceived avoidance of registering for Distance Selling by businesses.

In cases where the supplier is responsible for the delivery of goods B2C; typically mail-order and increasingly goods purchased online (so called “delivered goods”) the supplier is required to VAT register in the EC Member State of its customer(s) once a certain threshold is met. For full details of Distance Selling see here.

In order to avoid having to register, some business have sought to avoid their supply falling within the definition of delivered goods by splitting the sale of goods and the delivery.

The UK raised concerns about the planning and structures put in place to obviate the need to register in other EC Member States. The VAT Committee has recognised these concerns and has today issued new guidelines on Distance Sales

In addition to the current rules (set out in Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Principal VAT Directive) a Distance Sale will have occurred when goods have been “dispatched or transported by or on behalf of the supplier” in any cases where the supplier “intervenes directly or indirectly in the transport or dispatch of the goods.” The Committee has stated that it considers that the supplier shall be regarded as having intervened indirectly in the transport or dispatch of the goods if any of the following conditions apply:

(i) The transport or dispatch of the goods is sub-contracted by the supplier to a third party who delivers the goods to the customer.

(ii) The dispatch or transport of the goods is provided by a third party but the supplier bears totally or partially the responsibility for the delivery of the goods to the customer.

(iii) The supplier invoices and collects the transport fees from the customer and further remits them to a third party that arranges the dispatch or transport of the goods.

The Committee further clarified that, in other cases of “intervention,” in particular where the supplier actively promotes the delivery services of a third party to the customer, puts the customer and the third party in contact and provides to the third party the information needed for the delivery of the goods, the seller should likewise be regarded as having “intervened indirectly” in the transport or dispatch of the goods.

Note: These guidelines issued by the VAT Committee are merely views of an advisory committee, they do not constitute an official interpretation of EC law and therefore do not bind the Commission or the Member States. However, the Committee’s views are highly influential and it is likely that Member States will review their procedures and implement these guidelines.

Distance Selling VAT registration can apply retrospectively and assessments and penalties for late registration and underdeclaration of VAT are likely. Also, with different VAT rates applicable in different Member States even if VAT has (incorrectly) been charged at the rate applicable in the Member State where the supplier belongs (rather than the customer) this will likely be at the incorrect rate and recovery of this incorrectly paid VAT will also create issues.

Please contact us if the above changes will affect your business as action must be taken immediately.

VAT – Trading in Bitcoin ruled exempt by ECJ

By Marcus Ward 22 October 2015

VAT – Trading in Bitcoin ruled exempt by ECJ

Further to my article of 13 March 2014 here

The European Court of Justice (ECJ), the highest court of appeal for EC matters, has ruled that trading in digital, such as bitcoin, is exempt. this is on the basis that they are a method of payment with no intrinsic value, like goods or commodities. They are therefore covered by the exemption relating to “currency, bank notes and coins used as legal tender” – (Article 135 (1) of the VAT directive).

This confirms that the UK authority’s approach is correct and that the VAT treatment applied in Germany, Poland and Sweden where those authorities treated the relevant transactions as subject to VAT, is erroneous.

This is good news for the UK as it is a big (if not the biggest) player in the bitcoin sector.

VAT – Latest from the courts on multiple or composite supplies

By Marcus Ward 14 October 2015

In the seemingly endless and conflicting series of cases on whether certain supplies are multiple (at different VAT rates) or single, the latest decision from the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) this week doesn’t really clarify matters.

In Metropolitan International Schools

The Appellant provided distance learning courses. The courses in question included various trade courses, such as electrical and plumbing courses. One single price was charged for the courses. Customers were provided with manuals that described the particular subject matter on a step-by-step basis. The Appellant’s aim was that the manuals should be entirely comprehensive, and that the information contained in them would be all that was required to enable customers to master the particular subjects. There was no additional provision of classroom tuition. Tutor support was provided via phone calls or emails. No examinations were provided, nor any degrees, qualifications or diplomas. The courses were generally designed to prepare customers to take third party examinations.

Both the appellant and HMRC contended that the supply of distance learning courses was a single supply. Unsurprisingly, the appellant thought that the supply was of zero rated printed matter, and HMRC contended that it was a single supply of (non-exempt) education so all of the supply was standard rated.

Among others, the main point was whether the Appellant’s supplies of distance learning courses were single or multiple supplies and, assuming that the provision was of one single composite supply, whether that supply was a supply of zero-rated books coupled with ancillary services or standard-rated education (with the books being ancillary).

This meant that, if a single supply, it was necessary to consider which element was predominant.

The FTT held that the end result sought by customers from the supply made by the Appellant was to learn, and to accomplish that aim essentially by reading the vast amount of printed material. The Appellant’s essential supply was the sale of manuals and all of the other features of the supply were appropriately regarded as add-on ancillary functions. The Tribunal therefore held that there was only one single supply in the present case and that it took its nature from that of the principal supply, namely the zero-rated provision of books. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that there was one single supply of zero-rated books.

It should be noted that The Tribunal found it difficult to rationalise all of the relevant case law authorities and to arrive, with confidence, at the correct tests to apply in identifying the nature of the single supply. Indeed, the Tribunal observed that this decision may well lead to appeals to a higher court, and quite possibly a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union for guidance.

So… are we any further on with this matter? Not really.

Changes to the treatment of cross-border movement of goods from 1 May 2016

By Marcus Ward 8 October 2015

How will goods cross EC borders post UCC?

HMRC has updated its guidance notes on the Union Customs Code (UCC) which is being introduced across the EC on 1 May 2016.

Details here

Main points

The UCC is a revision of the Modernised Customs Code (MCC) and there will be a number of changes to how goods cross EU borders.
Some transitional arrangements will operate until 2020.
Mandatory guarantees for most special procedures and temporary storage (TS) – this only applies to new authorisations.
The ability to make some movements under TS rather than national transit or Electronic Transit System (ETS) – formerly New Computerised Transit System (NCTS).
The removal of the earlier sales provisions relating to valuation – but there are some transitional arrangements.
All communications between customs authorities and economic operators must be electronic.
Valuation: The earlier sale facility will be withdrawn and replaced by a last sale only rule.
Under the UCC there will be some circumstances where the provision of a guarantee is mandatory.
Royalties and licence fees – Currently, for a royalty fee to be liable to duty it must: relate to the imported goods, and be paid as a condition of sale of those imported goods. Under the UCC, royalties and licence fees will generally be paid as a condition of the sale of the goods and should be included in the customs value.

Some procedures and reliefs will cease or change on 30 April 2016, these are:

The €10 waiver of customs duty for free circulation customs declarations – where customs duty is payable no de-minimis exemption will apply – this doesn’t affect any Community System of Duty Reliefs (CSDR) duty reliefs.
Goods being declared to Onward Supply Relief (OSR) can only be entered using a full customs declaration or the Simplified Declaration Procedure (SDP).
The use of Information Sheets for Special Procedures (INF) documents with an Entry in Declarant’s Records (EIDR).
Inward Processing Drawback (IP (D)) and Low Value Bulking Imports (LVBI) authorisations will no longer be valid and these authorisations can’t be used to import goods regardless of any expiry dates shown on your authorisations.
Processing under Customs Control (PCC) authorisation holders will be given an Inward Processing (IP) authorisation number which must be used for new importations after 30 April 2016.
Type D customs warehousing authorisation holders will be given a new authorisation number with a prefix of C (for type D authorisation), or E (for a type E warehouse with type D rules of assessment) – these must be used for entries to customs warehouses after 1 May 2016, the normal debt rules of assessment will apply.
Goods being declared to LVBI will only be entered using an SDP authorisation.

System changes

HMRC expects that some changes to economic operators’ systems will be needed. However this will depend on which authorisations are held and what procedures or processes individual businesses use. A plan for the major IT changes is already in place.

Economic Operator Registration and Identification (EORI)

There are no changes to the EORI process. It is a requirement for all economic operators (such as businesses) involved in international trade to be registered and to have an EORI number. You’ll need to have an EORI number to be able to apply for any customs authorisations, approvals or decisions. For details on EORI see here

VAT – Proof of evidence of Intra-EC supplies

By Marcus Ward 23 September 2015

A B2B supply of goods from one Member State to another (a dispatch) is VAT free (with the recipient dealing with acquisition tax in the Member State of receipt). However, in order to VAT free treatment to apply evidence that the goods have moved cross-border must be provided and satisfy the authorities in the Member State of dispatch.

The level of evidence and type of documents required to support the right to VAT free treatment varies significantly between Member States. This has led to confusion and difficulties for businesses.

As a result the EC VAT Expert Group* have, this week, produced a paper (paper 46) named “‘Proof of evidence of Intra-EU supplies’” Here: 46 – Proof of IC Supplies

As well as identifying the wide discretion afforded to Member States as to the type of documents required, it notes that this discretion and lack of clarity often leads to disproportionate compliance burdens for businesses involved in the cross border supply of goods. This also results in the fundamental principle of fiscal neutrality and the free movements of goods being impaired.

In summary

The Group’s findings may be summarised:

Diversity of documentation

Most Member States rely on a myriad of documents which may not be listed in national legislation. Such diversity is a problem and may require businesses to provide documentary evidence that cannot be reasonably obtained. This practice does not reconcile with principles established by the ECJ. The paper adds that tax authorities tend to focus on certain formalities and not permit alternative evidence.

Local initiatives

The paper notes that based on Article 131 of the VAT Directive, and often in light of the fight against fraud, tax authorities are introducing local initiatives. The compatibility of these with the EC framework may be questioned and is causing increasing burdens and costs on legitimate taxpayers.

Importance given by tax authorities to the “knowledge test”

The paper considers that the level of demand from tax authorities to document intra-EC trade should not be upgraded because of fraud cases. Documentary evidence is of a type fraudsters would typically provide. The wide margin of interpretation left to tax authorities and judges regarding concepts such as “good faith” means that further guidance may be required. This, however, should not extend up to a requirement for suppliers to show evidence to authorities that their customers acted in good faith.

Diversity of practices; timing versus legal certainty

The diversity of approaches across EC Member States generates costs and increase risks for businesses operating in different Member States.

Conclusion

The paper considered some recent ECJ case law on cross-border transactions and concluded VAT free treatment should be granted to the supplier when:

1) It demonstrates that the transaction meets the substantive criteria of that provision, namely that it is entered into with another taxable person in a Member State other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods begins. This would be done with the supplier holding at least three non-contradictory documents or elements certifying the transport or dispatch to another Member State.

2) In this context, a reasonable customer assessment could be expected from taxpayers when tax authorities audit whether the transactions are taking place in the context of fraud and/or abuse.

Next Steps

It is recommended that new guidance could be adopted in an Implementing Regulation or an explanatory note to the relevant Articles in the VAT Directive could be prepared by the Commission.

It will be interesting to see if these recommendations are adopted. It would make life a lot more straightforward for businesses who trade cross-border in the EC. Although the UK has one of the most practical regimes in this respect, even genuine movements of goods from the UK can result in an unexpected and unwelcome VAT charge because of a lack of specific documentation.

* The VAT Expert Group assists and advises the European Commission on VAT matters. Details here