Category Archives: International

VAT: Zero-rated exports. The Procurement International case

By Marcus Ward 7 November 2024

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Procurement International Ltd (PIL) the issue was whether the movement of goods constituted a zero-rated export.

Background

Both parties essentially agreed the facts: The Appellant’s business is that of a reward recognition programme fulfiller. The Appellant had a catalogue of available products, and it maintained a stock of the most ordered items in its warehouse. PIL supplied these goods to customers who run reward recognition programmes on behalf of their customers who, in turn, want to reward to their customers and/or employees (reward recipients – RR). The reward programme operators (RPOs) provide a platform through which those entitled to receive rewards can such rewards. The RPO will then place orders PIL for the goods.

A shipper collected the goods from PIL in the UK and shipped them directly to the RR (wherever located). The shipper provided the services of delivery including relevant customs clearances etc. on behalf of the Appellant. PIL had zero-rated the supply of goods sent to RRs located overseas. All goods delivered to RRs outside the UK are delivered duty paid (DDP) or delivered at place (DAP). As may be seen by Incoterms the Appellant remained at risk in respect of the goods and liable for all carriage costs and is responsible for performing or contracting for the performance of all customs (export and import) obligations. The Appellant was responsible for all fees, duties, tariffs, and taxes. Accordingly, the Appellant is responsible for, and at risk until, the goods are delivered “by placing them at the disposal of the buyer at the agreed point, if any, or at the named place of destination or by procuring that the goods are so delivered”.

Contentions

HMRC argued that in situations where the RPO was UK VAT registered, the appellant was making a supply of goods to the RPO at a time when the goods were physically located in the UK, and consequently there was a standard-rated supply. It issued an assessment to recover the output tax considered to be underdeclared.

PIL contended that there was a supply of delivered goods which were zero-rated when the goods were removed to a location outside the UK. It was responsible (via contracts which were accepted to reflect the reality of the transactions) for arranging the transport of the goods.

Decision

The FTT held that there was a single composite supplies of delivered goods, and these were a zero-rated supply of exported goods by PIL. The supplies were not made on terms that the RPOs collected or arranged for collection of the goods to remove them from the UK. The Tribunal found that the RPOs took title to the goods at the time they were delivered to the RR, and not before such that it was PIL and not the RPOs who was the exporter. This meant that the RPOs would be regarded as making their supplies outside the UK and would be responsible for overseas VAT as the Place Of Supply (POS) would be in the country in which it took title to the goods (but that was not an issue in this case).

The appeal was allowed, and the assessment was withdrawn.

Legislation

Domestic legislation relevant here is The VAT Act 1994:

Section 6(2) which fixes the time of supply of goods involving removal as the time they are removed
Section 7 VATA sets out the basis on which the place of supply is determined. Section 7(2) states that: “if the supply of any goods does not involve their removal from or to the United Kingdom they shall be treated as supplied in the United Kingdom if they are in the United Kingdom and otherwise shall be treated as supplied outside the United Kingdom”.
Section 30(6) VATA provides that a supply of goods is zero-rated where such supply is made in the UK and HMRC are satisfied that the person supplying the goods has exported them
For completeness, VAT Regulations 1995, regulation 129 provides the framework for the zero-rating goods removed from the UK by and on behalf of the purchaser of the goods.

Some paragraphs of VAT Notice 703 have the force of law which applies here, namely the sections on:

direct and indirect exports
conditions which must be met in full for goods to be zero-rated as exports
definition of an exporter
the appointment of a freight forwarder or other party to manage the export transactions and declarations on behalf of the supplier of exporter.
the conditions and time limits for zero rating
a situation in which there are multiple transactions leading to one movement of goods

Commentary

The Incoterms set out in the relevant contracts were vital in demonstrating the responsibilities of the parties and consequently, who actually exported the goods. It is crucial when analysing the VAT treatment of transactions to recognise each party’s responsibilities, and importantly, when (and therefore where) the change in possession of the goods takes place.

VAT: Split payments and e-invoicing

By Marcus Ward 15 October 2024

The recent announcement of an e-invoicing consultation means that businesses should consider the impacts of the intended introduction now.

When this is published (potentially in the Budget on 30 October) it is be anticipated it will cover the intended effective date, how it will affect types of taxpayer, eg; B2B and B2C, how it will be implemented, and its range.

This raises further questions “down the line”, so here we look a step further and consider “split payments” as there has been a lot of conversation and media coverage on this subject.

What are split payments (sometimes known as “real-time extraction”)?

Split payments use card payment technology to collect VAT on online sales and transfer it directly to HMRC rather than the seller collecting it from the buyer along with the payment for the supply, and then declaring it to HMRC on a return in the usual way.

Clearly, HMRC is very keen to introduce such a system, but there are significant hurdles, the biggest being the complexity for online sellers, payment processors, input tax systems, agents, advisers and HMRC itself.

Where are we on split payments?

HMRC has previously published a Prior Information Notice (PIN) and associated Request for Information (RFI), seeking views on the outline requirements and proposed procurement process split payments. This should, inter alia, assist HMRC in:

identifying where it is intended that the purchased goods or services are to be delivered and/or consumed
the possibility to apply a split only above or below a certain value threshold
the feasibility for the splitting mechanism to calculate a composite VAT total across a mixed basket of goods and/ or services, each potentially with a different rate of VAT.

This builds on previous information gathering/consultations/discussions carried out some years ago.

Background

The expansion of the online shopping market has brought unprecedented levels of transactions. The results of digitalisation have also brought challenges for tax systems. Jurisdictions all over the world are currently grappling with the question of how to prevent large VAT losses, which can arise from cross-border online sales. This happens when consumers buy goods from outside their jurisdiction from sellers who, through fraud or ignorance, do not comply with their tax obligations. It is costing the UK tax authorities an estimated £1 billion to £1.5 billion (figures for 2015-16) a year. The UK government believes that intercepting VAT through intermediaries in the payment cycle, split payment potentially offers a powerful means of enforcing VAT compliance on sellers who are outside the UK’s jurisdiction.

Fraud

The fraud carried out by online sellers is not particularly sophisticated but is difficult to combat. Simply, sellers either use a fake VAT number to collect VAT without declaring it, or even more basically, collect the VAT and disappear.

Proposed spilt payment methods

The way in which payments are split represent difficult technical VAT issues, particularly when sales are at different VAT rates. The three proposals are:

Standard rate split. This assumes that all sales are liable to the standard rate VAT and does not recognise any input tax deduction. Extraction of 20% of tax, regardless of the actual liability (potentially, 5%, or zero) appears unfair and would be very difficult to impose. Cashflow would be negatively affected too.
Flat Rate Scheme (FRS). This is a proposal by HMRC to insist that online sellers overseas to use the FRS using a specific new rate for this purpose. The FRS threshold of £150,000 pa could be increased for overseas businesses, but this would potentially give overseas sellers an advantage over UK businesses, so politically, if nothing else, would prove to be a hard sell.
Net effective rate. This would mean an overseas business calculating its own exact net effective rate, based on its outputs and inputs from the previous year’s transactions (similar to TOMS).
Composite rate. A composite VAT total across a mixed range of goods or services, each potentially with a different rate of VAT. The mechanism for carrying this calculation out is unclear.

There may be more proposals forthcoming, but none of the above proposals appear reasonable and the complexity they would bring would seem to rule them out as matters stand – although this has not previously stopped HMRC introducing certain measures and the obvious benefits to the authorities cannot be ignored.

Overall

The technology for split payments currently exists and is being used in some Latin American countries (and Poland). The concept is part of a larger movement towards real-time taxation and MTD. Our view is that split payments are coming, but we do not know in which form or when.

This article is based on one first published by MWCL on 9 January 2023.

VAT: Second-hand goods scheme and best judgement – The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited case

By Marcus Ward 7 October 2024

Latest from the courts

The second-hands of time.

In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether the second-hand goods margin scheme (margin scheme) was applicable and whether HMRC’s assessments for £5,474,249 (later reduced to £5,004,595) of underdeclared of output tax were issued in best judgement.

Background

The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited (A&M) sold second-hand wristwatches with the majority of the sales properly accounted for via the margin scheme. However, from information obtained from Italian tax authorities in respect of supply chain fraud, HMRC issued the assessments on the basis that supplies of certain goods did not meet the conditions of the margin scheme so that output tax was due on the full value of the watches rather than the difference between the purchase and sale values. HMRC decided to penalise A&M because the errors were deliberate and prompted and subsequently to issue a PLN on the basis that such conduct was attributable to the director. A&M is a “High Value Dealer” for anti-money laundering purposes.

Contentions

Appellant

The appellant claimed that HMRC did not use best judgement on the grounds that:

the inspector did not impartially consider the evidence
HMRC lacked sufficient evidence to raise an assessment thereby failing to meet the Van Boeckel test
the calculated amounts were no more than unreasonable and random guesses
the inspector did not approach the investigation with an open mind to such an extent that it could not be said that the assessments and penalties were the product of the reasonable behaviours of HMRC
put in terms of the case law: HMRC had acted in a way which no reasonable body of commissioners could have acted or, put another way, had been vindictive, dishonest or capricious

so the assessments and penalties were invalid.

Whilst accepting that a best judgment challenge is a high bar A&M contended that the conduct and mindset of HMRC’s investigating and assessing officer was so unreasonable that it vitiated the whole assessment.

Respondent

HMRC contended that the assessments were based on best judgement and that its focus was not on the supply chain fraud claims (as claimed by A&M). Additionally, a previous inspection in 2014 had raised prior concerns which provided adequate grounds for the assessments. Moreover, A&M was aware of the terms of operation of the second-hand margin scheme and considered that A&M had wilfully misused the scheme in several regards. The scheme had been incorrectly used for goods purchased by way of intracommunity supplies – which had been imported with the appellant claiming input tax on the imports and then including them in the margin scheme. A&M wilfully failed to carry out due diligence on its suppliers.

Best Judgement

It may be helpful if we consider what the words “best judgement” mean. This was best described by Woolf J in Van Boeckel v CEC [1981] STC 290

“What the words ‘best of their judgement’ envisage, in my view, is that the commissioners will fairly consider all material before them and, on that material, come to a decision which is one which is reasonable and not arbitrary as to the amount of tax which is due. As long as there is some material on which the commissioners can reasonably act, then they are not required to carry out investigations which may or may not result in further material being placed before them.”

Technical

The second-hand margin scheme is provided for under The VAT Act 1994, Section 50A, The Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 and certain paragraphs of VAT Notice 718 which have force of law.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. It was found that A&M deliberately rendered inaccurate VAT returns. The director of the company was aware both of how the margin scheme worked and that the terms of the scheme had to be complied with if a supply was to be taxed under the it. A&M was found to have acted deliberately in misusing the scheme by including ineligible supplies. A&M had been lax in the completion of its stock book, and it had not met the record-keeping requirements necessary to use the scheme for the relevant transactions. Additionally, some of its EU suppliers were not registered for VAT, a fact A&M did not take steps to discover, and so related purchases could not qualify for the scheme. Also, it was likely that some of the purchases were of new watches which made them ineligible for the margin scheme.

Re, evidence; the FTT found much of the A&M director’s evidence to have been self-serving and, in parts, evasive and that it did not consider that the integrity of HMRC could be impugned. The court determined that; the inspector was diligent and thorough, HMRC had legitimate concerns regarding A&M’s use of the margin scheme generally and specifically and there was a wider concern that the company was a participant in fraudulent supply chains. The FTT considered that the investigation was proportionately carried out considering these concerns and the assessments raised in exercise of best judgment.

Penalties and PLN

The case further considered penalties: whether the appellant’s conduct was deliberate (yes – appeal dismissed). Whether the Personal Liability Notice (PLN) [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] was appropriate for the conduct attributed to the director – whether his conduct led to penalty (yes – appeal dismissed).

Commentary

This case is a long read, but worthwhile for comments on; the margin scheme use, HMRC’s inspection methods, best judgement, evidence and MTIC amongst other matters.

UK e-invoicing initiative and consultation

By Marcus Ward 30 September 2024

The future for e-invoicing

On 23 September 2024, the Government announced plans to encourage an increased use of e-invoicing among businesses and government departments to reduce administrative burdens, enhance cash flow, boost productivity, and minimise tax filing errors.

E-invoicing is a long-accepted form of commercial data exchange and is becoming important for regulatory authorities.

HMRC will initiate a consultation process to gather feedback on fostering investment in e-invoicing. The consultation date has not yet been specified, but we recommend that businesses should prepare for potential mandatory e-invoicing. This consultation will seek input from businesses on how HMRC can support investment in and uptake of e-invoicing.

The initiative reflects global trend towards e-invoicing and HMRC’s focus on digital transformation.

Further information on, and a glossary for, e-invoicing here.

A VAT Did you know?

By Marcus Ward 27 August 2024

The Irish Supreme Court ruled that the bread sold by the restaurant chain Subway was too sweet to be classified as bread and that the high sugar content meant that it could not be zero rated.

VAT: Carousel fraud – How to recognise it and how to avoid been caught in it

By Marcus Ward 8 August 2024

VAT carousel fraud, also known as missing trader fraud or missing trader intra-community (MTIC) fraud, is a complex and highly sophisticated process used by organised criminals which involves defrauding governments of money that should be paid in VAT. It involves a series of transactions where goods are repeatedly bought and sold across borders, with the criminal acquiring goods free of VAT (exports of goods are tax free) and then reselling them with VAT added. The fraudster then does not pay output tax to the relevant authority, usually disappearing or closing the business without doing so. It mainly takes place in Europe, but also increasingly in South East Asia.

Round and round

If the goods are not sold to consumers (B2C) but rather, the transactions pass through a series of businesses. To perpetuate a carousel fraud, companies often create a number of sham shell companies to conceal the nature of the transactions in a complex web. The shell companies continue to trade with each other, and the transactions go round and round like a carousel. This can be almost endless. It is possible for the same goods to be traded many times between companies within the carousel fraud scheme network. Often, these transactions do not actually occur – the goods do not actually move from one party to another, but false invoices are issued.

It is common for these criminals to use the fraudulent money they have illegitimately obtained from other large scale illegal activities.

Innocent participants

Unfortunately, carousel fraud can involve innocent businesses. This often mean that these businesses suffer a VAT cost because HMRC will refuse to repay an input tax claim as the matching output tax was not paid by the missing trader. HMRC do this on the basis that the claimant knew, or should have known, that (s)he was involved in a VAT fraud (so perhaps not always so innocent).

Refusal to repay an input tax claim

This option is available to governments using the “Kittel” principle. This refers to a Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case – Axel Kittel & Recolta Recycling SPRL (C-439/04 and C-440/04) where it was held a taxable person must forego his right to reclaim input tax where “it is ascertained, having regard to objective factors, that the taxable person knew or should have known that, by his purchase, he was participating in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT”.

The right of input tax deduction may also be denied where the taxpayer could/should have guessed that their transactions involved VAT fraud.

Due diligence

It is crucial that businesses carry out comprehensive due diligence/risk assessment to avoid buying goods that have been subject to carousel fraud anywhere along the supply chain. It is not enough to avoid a refusal to repay input tax to say to HMRC that a business just “didn’t know” about a previous fraud. The scope of verification of a transaction will depend on its size, value, and the type of business, eg; whether it is a new or existing business partner. Transactions with regular suppliers should also be verified, although there should be be a lower risk of VAT fraud.

HMRC sets out in its internal manuals guidance on due diligence and risk assessment which is helpful. The following quote sets out the authorities’ overview:

“The important thing to remember is that merely making enquiries is not enough. The taxable person must take appropriate action based on the results of those enquiries. Therefore, for example, if the taxable person has undertaken effective due diligence/risk assessment on its supplier and that due diligence/risk assessment shows one or more of the following results in relation to the supplier:

only been trading for a very short period of time,
managed to achieve a large income in that short period of time,
a poor credit rating,
returned only partly completed application or trading forms,
contacted the taxable person out-of-the-blue etc,

and yet the taxable person still goes ahead and trades without making any further enquiries, this could lead to the conclusion that the due diligence/risk assessment was casually undertaken and of no value”.

Carousel VAT fraud investigations

HMRC carries out serious VAT investigations via the procedures set out in Public Notice 160 in cases where they have reason to believe dishonest conduct has taken place. These are often cases where larger amounts of VAT are involved and/or where HMRC suspect fraudulent behaviour. If a business is under investigation for carousel VAT fraud it will receive a letter from HMRC. The consequences of a carousel VAT fraud conviction are serious, and a recipient of such a letter is strongly advised to contact a specialist carousel fraud barrister immediately to provide expert legal guidance.

The Reverse charge (RC) mechanism

Governments take the threat of carousel VAT fraud very seriously and are continually implementing new measures to deter the schemes. The UK has introduced changes to the way that VAT is charged on mobile telephones, computer chips and emissions allowances to help prevent crime (it was common to use these goods and services in carousel fraud).

The RC mechanism requires the purchaser, rather than the supplier, to account for VAT on the supply via a self-supply. Therefore, the supplier does not collect VAT, so it cannot defraud the government.

The future

VAT policy is consistently updated, so businesses must be aware of these changes to ensure compliance. Technology is being progressively used to fight fraud, and again, businesses need to be aware of this and the obligation to upgrade their own technology to comply with, say; real time reporting, eInvoicing, and other innovations. Compliance technology is increasingly employed to detect inconsistent transactions which means that a business must be compliant, because if it isn’t it will be easier for the tax authorities to detect. Even if non-compliance is unintentional the exposure to penalties and interest is increased.

VAT: Tax point of telecommunications – The Lycamobile case

By Marcus Ward 7 August 2024

Latest from the courts

In the Lycamobile UK Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether VAT was chargeable on the supply of a “Plan Bundle” at the time when it was sold and by reference to the whole of the consideration that was paid for it, or whether VAT was instead chargeable only when, and only to the extent that, the allowances in the Plan Bundle were actually used. The time of supply (tax point) was important because not only would it dictate when output tax was due, but more importantly here, if the appeal succeeded, there would be no supply of the element of the bundle which was not used, so no output tax would be due on it.

Background

The Plan Bundles comprised rights to future telecommunication services; telephone calls, text messages and data (together, “Allowances”). There were hundreds of different Plan Bundles sold by the Appellant and the precise composition of those Plan Bundles varied.

Contentions

Lycamobile considered that that the services contained within each Plan Bundle were supplied only as and when the Allowances were used, so that the consideration which was received for each Plan Bundle would be recognised for VAT purposes only to the extent that the Plan Bundle was actually used. In the alternative, these supplies could be considered as multi-purpose vouchers such that output tax was not due when they were issued, but when the service was used. Very briefly, the contention was that it was possible that not all of the use would be standard rated in the UK.

Unsurprisingly, HMRC argued that that those services were supplied when the relevant Plan Bundle was sold (up-front) and output tax was due on the amount paid, regardless of usage.

Decision

The Tribunal placed emphasis on “the legal and economic context” and “the purpose of the customers in paying their consideration”.

It decided that the terms of the Plan Bundle created a legal relationship between Lycamobile and the customer. The Bundle was itself the provision of telecommunication services when sold. The customers were aware that they were entitled to use their Allowances and could decide whether to, or not. As a consequence, consumption was aligned with payment and created a tax point at the time of that payment. There was a direct link between those services and the consideration paid by the customer.

The Tribunal also considered the vouchers point. There were significant changes to the rules for Face Value Vouchers on 1 January 2019 (the supplies spanned this date), but the FTT found that the Plan Bundles were not monetary entitlements for future services under either set of rules, so the tax point rules for vouchers did not apply here.

The appeal was dismissed and HMRC assessments totalling over £51 million were upheld.

Commentary

Not an unexpected result, but an illustration of the importance of; tax points, legal and economic realities, and what customers think they are paying for. All important aspects in analysing what is being provided, and when.

How to pay duties and VAT on imports – updated guidance

By Marcus Ward 22 July 2024

HMRC has updated its guidance on how to pay Customs Duty, Excise Duties and VAT on imports from outside the UK.

The document covers, inter alia:

The update includes the removal of references to the Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) system, as all import declarations must now be made through the Customs Declaration Service.

VAT: Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme registered businesses list updated

By Marcus Ward 18 July 2024

HMRC has updated its tool to check if businesses that stores third party goods in the UK is registered with the Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme for traders based outside of the UK.

The scheme applies to a business which stores any goods that:

were imported from a country outside the UK
are owned by, or stored on behalf of, someone established outside the UK
are being offered for sale and have not been sold in the UK before

If the scheme applies, failure to apply means a business:

will not be allowed to trade as a fulfilment business
will risk a £10,000 penalty and a criminal conviction

To apply

Apply online for the Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme.

A business cannot use an agent to apply on its behalf.

Overseas businesses claiming VAT incurred in the UK

By Marcus Ward 10 June 2024

Update

The HMRC form for overseas businesses claiming VAT incurred in the UK has been updated.

The form VAT65A to reclaim VAT paid in the UK if a business is not registered in the UK has been amended to include information about corresponding with HMRC by email.

Claims in the UK

A non-UK based business may make a claim for recovery of VAT incurred in the UK. Typically, these are costs such as; employee travel and subsistence, service charges, exhibition costs, tooling, imports of goods, training, purchases of goods in the UK, and clinical trials etc.

Who can claim?

The scheme is available for any businesses that are:

not VAT registered in the UK
have no place of business or other residence in the UK
do not make any supplies in the UK

What cannot be claimed?

The usual rules that apply to UK business claiming input tax also apply to claims from overseas. Consequently, the likes of; business entertainment, car purchase, non-business use and supplies used for exempt activities are usually barred.

Amount

There is no maximum claim amount, but for most periods of less than twelve months a minimum of £130 of VAT must be claimed. For annual claims or for periods less than three months ending on 30 June, the VAT must be at least £16.

Process

The business must obtain a Certificate Of Status (CoS) from its local tax or government department to accompany a claim.

The CoS must be the original and contain the:

name, address and official stamp of the authorising body
claimants name and address
nature of the claimant’s business
claimant’s business registration number

The CoS is only valid for twelve months. Once it has expired you will need to submit a new CoS.

HMRC has previously announced (RCB 12 – 2018) that it is taken a firmer stance on what constitutes an acceptable CoS.

Claim form

The application form is a VAT65A and is available here Original invoices which show the VAT charged must be submitted with the claim form and CoS. Applications without a certificate, or certificates and claim forms received after the deadline are not accepted by HMRC. It is possible for a business to appoint an agent to register to enable them to make refund applications on behalf of that business.

Deadline

Claim periods run annually up to 30 June and must be submitted by 31 December of the same year. With the usual Christmas rush and distractions, it may be easy to overlook this deadline and some claims may be significant. Unfortunately, this is not a rapid process and even if claims are accurate and the supporting documents are in all in order the claim often takes some time to be repaid. Although the deadline is the end of the year HMRC say that it will allow an additional three months for submission of a CoS (only).

Payment

Refunds are made within six months of a “satisfactory application”.