Category Archives: Land & Property

VAT: Car boot sale pitches are exempt – The Rufforth Park case

By Marcus Ward 14 February 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Rufforth Park Limited (RPL) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether pitches for car boot and auto jumble sales were subject to VAT or were they a simple licence to occupy land and exempt?

Background

The appellant has been running car boot sales at Rufforth Park for the more than forty years. When RPL began the car boot sales, the VAT office was asked to confirm that it did not need to charge VAT on the fees for the pitches. It was told that it should charge VAT, and did so. After a number of years, RPL demonstrated to the VAT office that other businesses in a similar position were not charging VAT. HMRC then agreed and the VAT the company had paid was refunded with interest. The company has not charged VAT on the pitch fees since. After a routine inspection HMRC formed the view that there were a number of services that, together, formed a standard rated supply and assessed for VAT on that basis. RPL appealed against this decision.

Technical

HMRC concluded that the fees for the pitches should be standard rated because the supply of the pitches was provided with other goods and services which constituted a single overarching supply of a service, not merely the right to occupy land. The reasons were:

Forty years of running car boot sales had built up a reputation which is a tangible benefit to stallholders. The reputation of regular events is part of the supply the stall holder receives.

Advertising to bring buyers to the site for the benefit of stall holders is part of the supply.

The amenities on site enable buyers better to enjoy their time at the car boot sale and are part of the supply.

The sellers benefit from the amenities as well as the activities undertaken by RPL to attract buyers to the site to buy items from the sellers. Those activities include:

advertising
on site café
toilets
parking
capital improvements to the site to make it more attractive to buyers
provision of some pitches under cover
cleaning the site after the events
RPL had real and significant responsibilities to the sellers (although HMRC did not specify what they were)

This was said to show there was more to the supply than the exempt passive supply of land for a stall to sell items.

The appellant submitted that the supply in this case is a single supply of a pitch rental and one must look at all the circumstances in order to establish its nature. Regard must be had to the commercial and economic realities. The renting of a pitch in a car boot sale in the present case was a relatively passive activity linked to the passage of time and not generating any significant added value and so is VAT free.

Decision

The court found that that the nature of the supply provided in return for the pitch fees is a licence to occupy land within The VAT Act, Schedule 9, Group 1, Item 1 and accordingly the fees were exempt. The appeal was allowed.

Commentary

Yet another case demonstrating the uncertainty in this area. Superficially, there is little difference in the facts of this case to those in the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Zombory-Moldovan (trading as Craft Carnival) which found that supplies of pitches at craft fairs were standard rated. However, the court found that this case could be distinguished on its facts. Which may be summarised as:

there was no formal contract between RPL and its sellers
it was not possible to book in advance
there was no selection of sellers. Anyone who arrived and paid would get a space, allocated by RPL
the advertising on the company’s website, local TV, and Facebook provided only basic information to both buyers and sellers about times and prices
RPL had no obligation to put on the car boot sales or the auto jumbles. Sellers have no right to attend. If there was no sale, they would have no recompense.
no tables, chairs or electricity were provided, even for an extra fee
there was no provision of security
the toilet and refreshment facilities were basic
the Appellant had carried out such maintenance as is required but had not attempted to enhance the facilities
whilst the car boot sales and auto jumbles might be efficiently run, they are simple events involving only the Appellant’s land and its employees and not requiring any particular organisational or management skills. Well run is not the same thing as “expertly organised and expertly run”.

It is important when considering these two decisions to establish precisely what is being supplied, as small differences in facts can affect the VAT treatment. The more “basic” the supply, the more likely that exemption will apply, but it is a question of small degrees of difference.

Is room hire subject to VAT? – The Errol Willy Salons case

By Marcus Ward 24 January 2022

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Errol Willy Salons Ltd (2022) TC 08370 the issue was whether the rent of two rooms were an exempt right over land, or the standard rated supply of facilities.

Background

Room hire is usually exempt from VAT unless it is subject to an option to tax. However, it can be subsumed into a different rated another supply if something more than a “bare” room is provided. In such cases, it would follow the VAT treatment of the composite supply.

The Issue

In the Errol Willy Salons case, HMRC formed the view that what was being supplied was facilities (the room occupation being a minor part of the supply) and therefore subject to VAT. In its opinion the economic and social reality was that the beauticians were provided with a licence to trade from the premises. The appellant occupied the ground floor – operating a hairdressing business. The rooms over the saloon were rented to third party beauticians. The occupants furnished the rooms themselves, provided their own equipment, set their own pricing and opening hours. They did have use of certain services and facilities; a receptionist and toilets, but it was understood that the services were rarely used. Unsurprisingly, the appellant disagreed and contended that the other services were incidental or subsidiary to the exempt supply of the room rental.

The decision

The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the assessment. It found that “non-rent” services provided to the beauticians were limited in nature and not essential to the beauticians’ businesses Consequently, the arrangements amounted to a supply of property (a licence to occupy the rooms) rather than a supply of taxable facilities and was therefore exempt.

Commentary

This is the latest in a long line of issues on composite/separate supplies and room hire/facilities disputes, especially in relation to weddings. It is important to establish precisely what is being provided to establish the correct VAT treatment and advice should be ought if there is any doubt about the VAT liability.

The CIOT has long advocated that it is not the case that every package of supplies involving room hire and other things must be a composite supply of something other than an exempt letting of land.

NB: This case is different to hairdresser chair rentals which remain standard rated.

VAT: Roof panels are not insulation. The Greenspace case

By Marcus Ward 2 December 2021

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Greenspace Limited the issue was whether insulated roof panels were “energy-saving materials” per VAT Act 1994, sect 29A, Schedule 7A, group 2, items 1 and 2 and thus liable at the reduced rate of 5%. Or rather at the standard rate of 20% on the basis that they were a supply of a roof itself.

Background

The appellant supplied and installed roof panels for conservatories which comprised a layer of close-cell extruded polystyrene foam (Styrofoam) around 71mm thick. The Styrofoam was covered with a thin aluminium layer and a protective powder coating which are together around 2mm thick. The supplies were made to residential customers and the panels were fitted onto their pre-existing conservatory roofs. The Panels were slotted into place on the existing roof structure and Greenspace did not replace its customers’ existing roof framework when doing this; the struts and glazing bars that supported the previous glass or polycarbonate panels were left in place. Consequently, the Panels were not self-supporting and could only be used if the customer already had an existing conservatory roof structure.

The decision

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided in 2020 that the panels were not “insulation for a roof” but were a new roof in their own right, and that the appellant’s supplies did not therefore qualify for the reduced rate of VAT (unlike insulation that could be separately attached to a roof, the panels actually formed the roof).

The UT dismissed the new appeal and found that the FTT had not been obliged to compare the roof after Greenspace had installed its panels to the original roof. The frame that was retained could not itself be described as a roof, and the provision of the Thermotec panels which made the conservatory weatherproof as well as insulating it could properly be categorised as the provision of a new roof.

One of Greenspace’s grounds of appeal was that the FTT decision was vitiated by the assumption that because the panels took the form of roof coverings, they were necessarily incapable of constituting “insulation for … roofs”. The appellant argued that as this was a flawed assumption (that Greenspace’s supplies “must” be treated as something more than insulation) the decision should be set aside. This contention was rejected by the UT judge.

Commentary

A fine distinction is often required to be made to establish the correct VAT treatment of a supply. In this case a degree of semantics was required to determine whether the panels were energy-saving materials (even when they certainly saved energy). On such small things turned the assessment of £2.6 million here. It always pays to double check VAT treatments rather than making assumptions.

VAT: Input tax recovery. The Mpala Mufwankolo case

By Marcus Ward 15 November 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Mr Mufwankolo the dispute was whether the appellant was able to recover VAT charged by the landlord of the property from which he ran his business – a licenced retail outlet on Tottenham High Road.

Background

The landlord had opted to tax the commercial property and charged VAT on the rent. The appellant was a sole proprietor; however, the lease was in the name of Mr Mufwankolo’s wife, and the rent demands showed her name and not that of the sole proprietor. It was contended by the appellant, but not evidenced, that the lease had originally been in both his and his wife’s names, despite his wife being the sole signatory.

The issues

Could the appellant recover input tax?

Did the business receive the supply?
Was there appropriate evidence?

It was clear that the business operated from the relevant property and consequently, in normal circumstances, the rent would be a genuine cost component of the business.

The Decision

The FTT found that there was no entitlement to an input tax claim and the appeal was dismissed. The lease was solely in the wife’s name and the business was the applicant as a sole proprietor. (There was an obvious potential for a partnership and an argument that a partnership was originally intended was advanced. The status of registration was challenged in 2003, but, crucially, not pursued).

It was possible for the property to be sub-let by the wife to the husband, however, this did not affect the VAT treatment as matters stood. Additionally, there was no evidence that the appellant actually paid any of the rent, as this was done by the tenant. There were no VAT invoices addressed to the sole proprietor.

Given the facts, there was no supply to the appellant, so there was no input tax to claim, and the issue of acceptable evidence fell away.

It was a certainty that the appeal could not succeed.

Commentary

There were a number of ways that this VAT cost could have easily been avoided had a little thought been given to the VAT arrangements. An oversight that created an avoidable tax hit.

A helpful guide to input tax considerations here: Care with input tax claims.

Legislation

The VAT Act 1994 Section 3 – Taxable person

The VAT Act 1994 Section 4 – Taxable supply

The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (1) – Input tax

The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (6) – Input tax claim evidence

Oops! – Top Ten VAT howlers

By Marcus Ward 2 November 2021

I am often asked what the most frequent VAT errors made by a business are. I usually reply along the lines of “a general poor understanding of VAT, considering the tax too late or just plain missing a VAT issue”. While this is unquestionably true, a little further thought results in this top ten list of VAT horrors:

Not considering that HMRC may be wrong. There is a general assumption that HMRC know what they are doing. While this is true in most cases, the complexity and fast moving nature of the tax can often catch an inspector out. Added to this is the fact that in most cases inspectors refer to HMRC guidance (which is HMRC’s interpretation of the law) rather to the legislation itself. Reference to the legislation isn’t always straightforward either, as often EC rather than UK domestic legislation is cited to support an analysis. The moral to the story is that tax is complicated for the regulator as well, and no business should feel fearful or reticent about challenging a HMRC decision.
Missing a VAT issue altogether. A lot of errors are as a result of VAT not being considered at all. This is usually in relation to unusual or one-off transactions (particularly land and property or sales of businesses). Not recognising a VAT triggerpoint can result in an unexpected VAT bill, penalties and interest, plus a possible reduction of income of 20% or an added 20% in costs. Of course, one of the basic howlers is not registering at the correct time. Beware the late registration penalty, plus even more stringent penalties if HMRC consider that not registering has been done deliberately.
Not considering alternative structures. If VAT is looked at early enough, there is very often ways to avoid VAT representing a cost. Even if this is not possible, there may be ways of mitigating a VAT hit.
Assuming that all transactions with overseas customers are VAT free. There is no “one size fits all” treatment for cross border transactions. There are different rules for goods and services and a vast array of different rules for different services. The increase in trading via the internet has only added to the complexity in this area, and with new technology only likely to increase the rate of new types of supply it is crucial to consider the implications of tax; in the UK and elsewhere.
Leaving VAT planning to the last minute. VAT is time sensitive and it is not usually possible to plan retrospectively. Once an event has occurred it is normally too late to amend any transactions or structures. VAT shouldn’t wag the commercial dog, but failure to deal with it at the right time may be either a deal-breaker or a costly mistake.
Getting the option to tax wrong. Opting to tax is one area of VAT where a taxpayer has a choice. This affords the possibility of making the wrong choice, for whatever reasons. Not opting to tax when beneficial, or opting when it is detrimental can hugely impact on the profitability of a project. Not many businesses can carry the cost of, say, not being able to recover VAT on the purchase of a property, or not being able to recover input tax on a big refurbishment. Additionally, seeing expected income being reduced by 20% will usually wipe out any profit in a transaction.
Not realising a business is partly exempt. For a business, exemption is a VAT cost, not a relief. Apart from the complexity of partial exemption, a partly exempt business will not be permitted to reclaim all of the input tax it incurs and this represents an actual cost. In fact, a business which only makes exempt supplies will not be able to VAT register, so all input tax will be lost. There is a lot of planning that may be employed for partly exempt businesses and not taking advantage of this often creates additional VAT costs.
Relying on the partial exemption standard method to the business’ disadvantage. A partly exempt business has the opportunity to consider many methods to calculate irrecoverable input tax. The default method, the “standard method” often provides an unfair and costly result. I recommend that any partly exempt business obtains a review of its activities from a specialist. I have been able to save significant amounts for clients simply by agreeing an alternative partial exemption method with HMRC.
Not taking advantage of the available reliefs. There are a range of reliefs available, if one knows where to look. From Bad Debt Relief, Zero Rating (VAT nirvana!) and certain de minimis limits to charity reliefs and the Flat Rate Scheme, there are a number of easements and simplifications which could save a business money and reduce administrative and time costs.
Forgetting the impact of the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS). The range of costs covered by this scheme has been expanded recently. Broadly, VAT incurred on certain expenditure is required to be adjusted over a five or ten year period. Failure to recognise this could either result in assessments and penalties, or a position whereby input tax has been under-claimed. The CGS also “passes on” when a TOGC occurs, so extra caution is necessary in these cases.

So, you may ask: “How do I make sure that I avoid these VAT pitfalls?” – And you would be right to ask.

Of course, I would recommend that you engage a VAT specialist to help reduce the exposure to VAT costs!

VAT: DIY housebuilders can make more than one claim – The Ellis case

By Marcus Ward 18 October 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Andrew Ellis and Jane Bromley [2021] TC08277, the issue was whether a person constructing their own house can make more than one claim for VAT incurred.

Background

The DIY Housebuilder’s Scheme enables a DIY housebuilder to recover VAT incurred on the construction of a house in which the constructor will live. Details here.

In this case, the specific issue was whether, despite the HMRC guidance notes on the scheme claim form explicitly stating that only one claim can be made, whether two claims may be submitted and paid by the respondent.

The appellant constructed a house over a period of five years (he was a jobbing builder and the work was generally only undertaken at weekends and holidays). To aid cash flow, an initial claim was made, followed by a second two years later.

The relevant legislation is The VAT Act 1994 section 35.

Decision

The appeal was allowed. The FTT found that HMRC’s rule that only one claim could be made under the DIY housebuilder’s scheme was ultra vires and that multiple claims should be permitted.

The judge stated that “…there is no express indication that only one claim may be made. Like many provisions, section 35 VATA is drafted in the singular. Drafting in the singular is an established technique to assist in clarity and to enable the proposal to be dealt with succinctly. As there is no express indication to the contrary in section 35 VATA, section 6 Interpretation Act 1978 applies to confirm that the reference to “a claim” in section 35 VATA must be read as including “claims”.

Commentary

This is good news for claimants who often must wait a number of years for a house to be built and therefore carry the VAT cost until the end of the project.

This case presumably means that it is possible to make claims as the project progresses and there is no need to wait until completion.

We await comment on this case from HMRC, but it is hoped that clarification will be forthcoming on whether the result of this case will be accepted.

VAT: Construction of a dwelling – zero-rated? The CMJ (Aberdeen) case

By Marcus Ward 18 August 2021

Latest from the courts

The First-Tier tribunal (FTT) considered the case of CMJ (Aberdeen) Limited (CMJ) and whether the supply of building services in respect of the construction of a dwelling were correctly zero rated by the appellant. HMRC deemed that the construction services were standard rated on the basis that the works were not carried out in accordance with the terms of the relevant statutory planning consent.

Background

HMRC’s view was that, although planning consent was in place at the time the construction services were supplied by the appellant, that planning consent permitted only the alteration or enlargement of a dwelling and did not allow for the construction of a dwelling. HMRC accept that the property was constructed as a new building, but that this was not permitted by the planning consent and so the construction was not carried out in accordance with it.

CMJ contended that statutory planning consent had been obtained for the construction via a combination of the planning consent and a construction building warrant which it had obtained from the relevant authority, and which allowed for the construction of a new building.

Legislation

The zero rating for the construction of new dwellings is contained in The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5, item 2

“The supply in the course of the construction of

(a) a building designed as a dwelling…”

Note 2 to Group 5 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act include the following:

“(2) A building is designed as a dwelling or a number of dwellings where in relation to each dwelling the following conditions are satisfied…

…(d) statutory planning consent has been granted in respect of that dwelling and its construction or conversion has been carried out in accordance with that consent.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. It was judged that the building warrant did not comprise statutory planning consent for the purposes of note 2 (d) because:

Planning consent and building warrants operate under different statutory regimes.

Breach of planning consent is dealt with separately from a breach of the building warrant legislation, and each is dealt with by the specific statutory regime . If there is a breach of planning consent, it would not affect the validity of the building warrant, and vice versa.

The Building Standards Handbook states that the purpose of the building standards system is setting out the standards to be met when building work takes place. This is different from planning consent which is consent to allow the authority to permit development on a piece of land. They are distinct and separate regimes aimed at distinct and separate issues. While planning permission is about how the house will look, a building warrant is about whether it meets building standards.

Both planning permission and a building warrant is required. One is no substitute for the other.

It is possible to obtain retrospective planning consent, the judge did not believe it is possible to get a retrospective building warrant.

It was not possible to carry out works of construction in accordance with a valid statutory consent, since no such consent had been given for construction at the time that the building works were carried out.

Commentary

The legislation covering building work is complex and there are many traps for the unwary. Even the seemingly straightforward matter of whether a new dwelling is constructed can produce difficulties, as in this case. We always counsel that proper VAT advice is sought in such circumstances.

VAT: Land and property exemptions

By Marcus Ward 5 August 2021

Further to my article on VAT: Land and property simplification and HMRC’s call for evidence the ICAEW has reiterated its call for all VAT land and property exemptions to be abolished and recommends the removal of all VAT options.

ICAEW also concludes that following the UK’s departure from the EU the government is in the best position since the introduction of VAT to thoroughly review the structure of the tax.

ICAEW also suggests that all land and property transactions should subject to VAT at either the standard rate or reduced rate, other than those relating to domestic property which should remain zero rated. This approach would remove many of the complexities of the current regime, it concludes.

Commentary

This is one area of the tax that is crying out for simplification and the case put forward by ICAEW has its merits. In my view, the Government should go further and review many complexities of the tax. As one example, the rules in respect of the sale of food products is ridiculously complex and produces odd and unexpected outcomes. Also, other exemptions would benefit from reconsideration, particularly financial services and insurance, but I suspect that the current government has a lot on its plate, much of it of its own making.

VAT: Partial Exemption -What Is It? What do I need to know?

By Marcus Ward 21 July 2021

VAT Basics

As part of our guides to VAT basics, we take a brief look at partial exemption and how it affects a business.

The first point to make is that partial exemption is often complex and costly. In some cases it may be avoided by planning and in others it is a fact of life for a business which needs to be managed properly.

Background

The VAT a business incurs on its expenditure is called input tax. For most businesses this is reclaimed from HMRC on VAT returns if it relates to standard rated or zero rated sales (referred to as “taxable supplies”) that that business makes. Exempt supplies are not to be confused with non-business income which are dealt with under a different regime.

However, a business which makes exempt sales may not be in a position to recover all of the input tax which it incurred. A business in this position is called partly exempt. Generally, any input tax which directly relates to exempt supplies is irrecoverable. In addition, an element of that business’ general overheads, e.g.; light, heat, telephone, computers, professional fees, etc are deemed to be in part attributable to exempt supplies and a calculation must be performed to establish the element which falls to be irrecoverable.

Input tax which falls within the overheads category must be apportioned according to a so called; partial exemption method. The “Standard Method” requires a comparison between the value of taxable and exempt supplies made by the business. The calculation is; the percentage of taxable supplies of all supplies multiplied by the input tax to be apportioned which gives the element of VAT input tax which may be recovered. Other partial exemption methods (so called Special Methods) are available by specific agreement with HMRC. A flowchart which illustrates the Standard Method of apportionment is below.

partial exemption flowchart1

Which businesses are affected?

Any business which receives income from the following sources may be affected by partial exemption:

Property letting and sales – generally all types of supply of land*
Financial services
Insurance
Betting, gaming and lotteries
Education
Health and welfare
Sport, sports competitions and physical education
Cultural services

This list is not exhaustive.

* Most businesses which do not routinely make exempt supplies usually encounter exemption in the area of land and property and it is an easy trap to fall into not to consider VAT when involved in property transactions. This is one area where VAT planning may be of assistance as it is possible in most situations to deliberately choose to add VAT to an exempt supply to avoid a loss of input tax. This is known as the option to tax, and it is considered in more detail here.

De Minimis relief

There is however relief available for a business in the form of de minimis limits. Broadly, if the total of the irrecoverable directly attributable (to exempt suppliers) and the element of overhead input tax which has been established using a partial exemption method falls to be de minimis, all of that input tax may be recovered in the normal way. The de minimis limit is currently £7,500 per annum of input tax and one half of all input tax for the year.

As a result, after using the partial exemption method, should the input tax fall below £7,500 (£625 per month) and 50% of all input tax for a year it is recoverable in full. This calculation is required every quarter (for businesses which render returns on a quarterly basis) with a review at the year end, called an annual adjustment carried out at the end of a business’ partial exemption year. The quarterly de minimis is consequently £1,875 of exempt input tax which represents spending of under £10,000 net; not a huge amount.

Should the de minimis limits be breached, all input tax relating to exempt supplies is irrecoverable.

The value for the de minimis limit has been in place for over 25 years (when it was increased by a huge £25 per month) and it is rather ridiculous that it has not been increased to reflect inflation. This, coupled with the fact that the VAT rate has increased significantly means that the relief which was once very useful for a business has withered away to such an extent that partial exemption catches even very small businesses which I am sure goes against the original purpose of the relief.

In summary – for a business exemption is a burden not a relief. It represents a real cost in terms of tax payable, time and other resources, in addition to uncertainty. We often find that this is an area which HMRC examine closely and one which benefits from proactive negotiation with HMRC.

VAT: Land and property – “simplification” ahead?

By Marcus Ward 19 July 2021

HMRC has issued a call for evidence in respect of land exemption. HMRC acknowledges the complexity of the existing VAT rules on land and property and would like to hear views from businesses on the application of the current rules, and whether these rules could be simplified.

The application of VAT on land and property transactions is complicated. A range of different rates and exemptions can apply depending on the facts and circumstances of individual situations and the precise treatment of a transaction or project is often open to interpretation.

Complexity

The paper identifies a number of reasons why this area is extremely complicated:

over the years the amount of legislation has increased, and the land VAT exemption now contains fifteen exceptions and twenty-six sets of notes
some businesses can be required to make several separate decisions before the VAT liability of their supply can be established. Eg; once a business has established that it is supplying land (not always straightforward) it then has to consider whether that supply falls within one of the exceptions to the exemption. If it does fall within one of the exceptions, it then has to consider a number of conditions to establish whether it is excluded from that exception
businesses may spend a disproportionate amount of time and money to establish the correct liability of their land supplies. This can also cause additional burdens for HMRC to assure compliance of these businesses
the development of new markets and services that did not exist when VAT was introduced
the impact of precedent case law (both UK and EU)
the uncertainty of establishing when an exempt supply of land becomes a taxable supply of facilities

The Option to Tax

The option to tax legislation enables a business to tax some supplies of land that would otherwise be treated as exempt from VAT. The usual rationale behind making such a choice is to be able to recover the VAT incurred on costs and overheads of a business, or to meet the conditions of a Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC).

Suggestions

The document then suggests some ideas for simplification:

removing the ability to opt and making all relevant transactions exempt
removing the option to tax and making all land and property taxable at a reduced rate
making all commercial land and property taxable at the standard rate with an option to exempt

The first suggestion would result in many businesses incurring irrecoverable input tax which would be a direct cost, so this appears very unattractive.

The second seems a better option, but would bring new housing into the VAT net and I doubt that this would play out very well with the public.

The final suggestion would certainly simplify matters but would add VAT costs to entities which cannot recover any/all input tax, eg; charities, financial service providers, insurance companies, education bodies, health and welfare organisations and cultural services.

The document states that “The Government wants UK businesses to operate in the best possible environment and remain both productive and competitive”.

It remains to be seen whether the suggestions above (or other proposals put forward) will achieve this, but removing choices for a business (regardless of whether simplification is actually realised) is rarely a good idea and I wonder if simplification could be reached in other ways. If you have an interest in this area, please respond to this call as input is valuable for all parties.

Responses should be sent by 3 August 2021 by email to landsimplification@hmrc.gov.uk.