Two months ago the Court of Appeal mainly ruled in favour of Associated Newspapers on the treatment of vouchers. Commentary and links here
The decision consequently cast doubt on HMRC’s published guidance on the VAT treatment of vouchers.
HMRC have announced that they are seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Although this further delays definitive rules on vouchers, it is hoped that if it goes to the Supreme Court we will get some sort of closure on this matter.
Changes to VAT on the day the UK leaves the EU – details of new White Paper
There has been significant confusion and differing views over how the UK would treat existing CJEU case law and its impact on the UK legislation when the UK leaves the EU.
Welcome certainty and clarity has been provided by the publication of a White Paper in respect The Great Repeal Bill (GRB). Full details of the GRB here
Background
The European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) gives effect in UK law to the EU treaties. It incorporates EU law into the UK domestic legal order and provides for the supremacy of EU law. It also requires UK courts to follow the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Some EU law applies directly without the need for specific domestic implementing legislation, while other parts of EU law need to be implemented in the UK through domestic legislation. As explained in the White Paper, domestic legislation other than the ECA also gives effect to some of the UK’s obligations under EU law. The government states that “…it is important to repeal the ECA to ensure there is maximum clarity as to the law that applies in the UK, and to reflect the fact that following the UK’s exit from the EU it will be UK law, not EU law, that is supreme.” The GRB will repeal the ECA on the day we leave the EU.
Overview
The main point stressed in the White Paper is that “The same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before. It will then be for democratically elected representatives in the UK to decide on any changes to that law, after full scrutiny and proper debate” and “This Bill will, wherever practical and appropriate, convert EU law into UK law from the day we leave so that we can make the right decisions in the national interest at a time that we choose.”
The intention is that the GRB will do three things:
This means that case law precedent from the CJEU will continue to apply (for a time at least). Any uncertainties/disagreements over the meaning of UK law after the UK leaves the EC that has been derived from EU cases will be decided by reference to the CJEU case law as it exists on the day the UK leaves. As a consequence, the GRB is likely to give CJEU case law similar precedent status to the UK Supreme Court. The result is that Tribunals (and other court cases) will be heard in a similar way as they are now and both sides may continue to rely on case law as they have up to this point. Any changes to the VAT legislation, if any, may then be made at a more leisurely pace while providing certainty while this is done.
Customs
There will also be changes to the current UK Customs regime as a consequence of the UK leaving the Single Market. The Customs Declaration Services (CDS) programme is intended to replace the existing system for handling import and export freight (CHIEF) from January 2019. Now that the Government has made a decision to leave the EU customs union, there is concern that this project is in place on time. A letter from the Treasury Select Committee states that “even modest delays, there is potential for major disruption to trade and economic activity”.
There are still a lot of uncertainties which will not be dealt with until we know the terms of the UK leaving and we will try to report these as soon as we have any information. Please subscribe to our free monthly e-newsletter to keep up to date on this, and other VAT developments. Simply email us at marcus.ward@consultant.com
The Adecco case
In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Adecco the judge considered the tripartite situation between certain self-employed workers, employment businesses (Adecco) and the actual clients. Specifically, whether Adecco provides self-employed temporary workers to clients for the total consideration paid by client or only introductory services for commission retained by the employment business. Broadly, whether temporary workers supply their services to Adecco or to the clients.
Background
Based on the Reed Employment Ltd v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 200 (TC) “Reed” case. Reed also concerned the VAT treatment of supplies by an employment bureau in relation to the services of non-employed temps. The FTT in Reed concluded that the employment bureau was making supplies of introductory services to clients in respect of the placement of non-employed temps. The value of the introductory services was the commission charged to clients for the introduction of the temps and the employment bureau was only required to charge and account for VAT on its commission and not on the non-employed temps’ remuneration. Following Reed, Adecco made claims for repayment of the VAT which it had charged and accounted for in respect of payments representing the non-employed temps’ remuneration. HMRC rejected the claims. One of the reasons given for the rejection was that Adecco did not merely supply a service of introducing the non-employed temps to the clients but also supplied the non-employed temps’ services.
Decision
The UT found in favour of HMRC. It found that output tax is due on the full amount paid by the clients rather than the commission retained. The full amount included earnings paid to the temporary workers. The decision was based on the contracts in place in this instant case and it is possible that a different outcome would have occurred if a wider view was taken and/or if the relationship between contracts and economic reality had been considered.
Consequences
It is unlikely that this will be the definitive word on the matter and it is expected that further challenges to HMRC’s stance will be made given the two different outcomes in Reed and Adecco. As always in these types of cases, it demonstrates the importance of contracts and careful consideration of the relationships between the parties.
For more on agent/principal relationships please see my articles on latest relevant court cases here and here
Please contact us if this case impacts on your business or that of your clients.
VAT payment problems
In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Swanfield Limited (Swanfield)
The matter was whether HMRC had the right to allocate payments made by the applicant to specific periods against the wishes of the taxpayer.
Background
Swanfield was late with returns/payments such that it was subject to the Default Surcharge (DS) mechanism. Details of the DS regime here
HMRC issued DSs to Swanfield, many at the maximum rate 15%. The total involved was said to be over £290,000. However, if the payments made by Swanfield had been allocated in a certain way (broadly; to recent debts as desired by the taxpayer) it would have substantially reduced the amount payable. However, HMRC allocated the payments to previous, older periods which were not the subject of a DS.
The Issue
The issue was relatively straightforward; did HMRC have the authority to allocate payments as they deemed fit, or could the taxpayer make payments for specific periods as required?
The Decision
The UT found that Swanfield were entitled to allocate payments made to amounts which would become due on supplies made in the (then) current period, even though the due date had not yet arrived. Additionally, HMRC did not have the authority to unilaterally allocate payments made by the taxpayer to historical liabilities as they saw fit, in cases where the taxpayer has explicitly made those payments in relation to current periods. In cases where there is no specific instruction in respect of allocation of the payment, HMRC was entitled to allocate payment without any obligation to minimise DS. The UT remitted this case back to the First Tier Tribunal to decide, as a matter of fact, whether Swanfield had actually made the necessary allocation.
Commentary
This is a helpful case which sets out clearly the responsibilities of both parties. It underlines the necessity of a taxpayer to focus on payments and how to manage a debt position to mitigate any penalties. Staying silent on payments plays into the hands of HMRC. It is crucial to take a proper view of a business’ VAT payment position, especially if there is difficulties lodging returns of making payment. Planning often reduces the overall amount payable, or provides for additional time to pay (TTP). A helpful overview of payment problems here
Things can be done if a business is getting into difficulties with VAT; whether they are; reporting, submitting returns, making payments, or if there are disputes with HMRC. There are also structures that may be put in place to assist with VAT cashflow.
We would always counsel a business not to bury its head in the sand if there are difficulties with HMRC. Please make contact with us and, in almost all cases, we can improve the situation, along with providing some relief from worries. VAT may be payable, but there are ways of managing payments – as this case demonstrates.
In the First Tier Tribunal case of Grange Road Car Sales one of the main issues was the evidence required to satisfy HMRC that goods have actually left the UK (and, as exports, be zero rated). If a business cannot satisfy HMRC then the sales must be standard rated. There are different levels of evidence required for different types of export, and this case is a handy reminder of the importance of having the correct documentation. I have briefly set out below the different requirements and would strongly advise that any business that exports, regularly or occasionally, to keep this situation under constant review. It is an area which is easy for HMRC to “pick off” transactions and to be “unsatisfied”…
The case
In this case the supplier of cars was based in Northern Ireland and purportedly exported cars to the Republic of Ireland. The purchasers were said to drive the cars over the land boundary. In brief, the appeal was thrown out because both the evidence given in court and the documentation provided appears to have been woefully lacking; which is putting it politely. The case makes entertaining reading (if reading about VAT cases is your thing!). However, it does raise a serious point about exports.
An overview of export requirements
These requirements for exports are set out in Public Notice 703 (although in this case, as the supply was said to be intra-EU, the rules are set out in Public Notice 725). Not only are the requirements prescribed in detail, but they have the force of law (unlike a lot of HMRC’s published Notices). Unless these conditions are met, it is not possible to treat an export as zero rated, even if a business knows that the goods have physically left the UK.
Proof of export
The section of the Notice covering evidence is mainly set out in paragraph 6.
Official evidence
Official evidence is produced by Customs systems, for example Goods Departed Messages (GDM) generated by NES.
Commercial transport evidence
This describes the physical movement of the goods, for example:
Photocopy certificates of shipment are not normally acceptable as evidence of export, nor are photocopy bills of lading, sea-waybills or air-waybills (unless authenticated by the shipping or airline).
Supplementary evidence
You are likely to hold, within your accounting system some, or all, of the following:
You must hold sufficient evidence to prove that a transaction has taken place, though it will probably not be necessary for you to hold all of the items listed.
What must be shown on export evidence?
Vague descriptions of goods, quantities or values are not acceptable. An accurate value, for example; £50,000 must be shown and not excluded or replaced by a lower or higher amount.
How long must I retain export documentation?
To substantiate zero-rating a transaction you must make sure that the proof of export is:
What happens if I do not hold the correct export evidence?
If you do not hold the correct export evidence, within the appropriate time limits, then the goods supplied become subject to VAT at the appropriate UK rate.
Additional, or different, evidence is required in the following cases:
This list is not exhaustive.
Summary
As may be seen, there is a degree of complexity here, and curiously, just waving a car off to a different country does not create, in itself, a zero rated export.
We are able to review a business’ export procedures to ensure that, as far as possible, HMRC is satisfied that goods have left the UK and that the correct documentation is held to evidence this.
Please contact us if this service is of interest.
In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Cohens Chemist the issue was whether VAT paid on employees’ mileage expenses was recoverable.
Background
The appellant offers a delivery service of prescription medicines. This service was undertaken by the appellants’ employees, using their own vehicles. The employees buy the fuel which is to be used in their vehicles, with their own money, and later submit claims to the appellants for the payment of a mileage allowance related to the distance covered. The allowance includes an element of reimbursement for the fuel used. The appellant then claim credit for the input tax included in the cost of the fuel which they have reimbursed in this way. This is permissible via VAT (Input Tax) (Reimbursement by Employers of Employees’ Business Use of Road Fuel) Regulations 2005. HMRC sought to disallow these claims on the basis that there were no supporting invoices form the petrol stations and that the detailed records kept were not sufficient to support the recovery of VAT.
Decision
Unfortunately for the taxpayer, it was decided that the failure by to retain fuel receipts in compliance with mandatory requirement of Regulations meant that the disallowance of the input tax claims was appropriate. This was particularly costly for Cohens Chemist as the input tax at stake here was £67,000. Additionally, the Tribunal held that there was discretion to allow alternative evidence and that this discretion was reasonably exercised to reject the claim.
Commentary
A very simple lesson to be learned from this case:
Always obtain and retain fuel receipts!
Failure to do so can be very costly, and it does not matter how detailed and accurate your fuel records are. You must check your system for the VAT treatment of fuel allowances.
Recovery of input tax on goods included in the sale of a new house.
The recent Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Taylor Wimpey plc considered whether builders of new dwellings are able to recover input tax incurred on certain expenditure on goods supplied with the sale of a new house. We are aware that there are many cases stood behind this hearing and it is understood that the appellant’s claim amounts to circa £60 million alone. Unfortunately, the UT ruled against the appellant.
The rules
Before considering the impact of the case, I thought it worthwhile to look at the rules on this matter.
There is in place a Blocking Order (“Builders’ Block”) which prohibits recovery of input tax on goods which are not “building materials”. In most cases it is simple to determine what building materials are; bricks, mortar, timber etc, but the difficulty comes with items such as white goods (ovens, hobs, washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators etc) carpets, and similar. So what are the rules?
These are set out in HMRC’s VAT Notice 708 para 13.2
There are five criteria:
To qualify as building materials, goods have to meet all of these criteria
Examples of specific goods are given at VAT Notice 708 para 13.8
The case
Generally, Taylor Wimpey’s argument was that under the VAT law in force at the time of the claim it was entitled to recover the VAT paid on these items and the Builders’ Block did not prevent it from recovering input tax on these goods. The VAT was properly recoverable as it was attributable to the zero rated sale of the house when complete. Taylor Wimpey further contended that if the Builder’s Block did apply, it was unlawful under EU law and should therefore be disapplied. Additionally, there was a challenge on the meaning of “incorporates … in any part of the building or its site” and the meaning of “ordinarily installed by builders as fixtures”.
The Builders’ Block which prevents housebuilders from reclaiming VAT on such goods was challenged on the basis that the UK was not allowed to extend input tax blocks, as it had done in 1984 (white goods) and 1987 (carpets).
The decision
The UT ruled that the block could be extended in relation to supplies which were zero-rated and that the block properly applied to most of appellants’ claim. The UT held that only goods “ordinarily installed” in a house were excepted from the block, but that exception does not cover white goods and fitted carpets supplied since the appropriate rule changes.
Commentary
This ruling was not really a surprise and, unless Taylor Wimpey pursues this further it provides clarity. It demonstrates that technology and the requirements of a modern house purchaser have moved on significantly since the 1970s and 1980s. I doubt many houses built in the 1970s had dishwashers or extractor hoods. The ruling does bear reading from a technical viewpoint as my summary does not go into the full reasons for the decision. If you, or your client have a claim stood behind this case it is obviously not good news as claims for white goods are extremely limited. If you have mistakenly claimed for white or similar goods, it would be prudent to review the position in light of this case. The decision also affects claims via the DIY Housebuilder’s Scheme. Details of this scheme here
The First Tier Tribunal case of University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne is a useful reminder of the impact of the Reverse Charge.
A brief guide to the Reverse Charge is included below.
Background
As with many UK universities, Newcastle was keen to encourage applications to study from new students from overseas. This is an important form of income for the institution. It used local (overseas) agents to recruit students. Some 40% of those students were studying as undergraduates, 40% as postgraduates on one year “taught” courses and 20% as postgraduate research students studying for doctorates. In 2014 the University had agreements with more than 100 agents worldwide. The agents used their own resources to recruit students for universities around the world, including in the UK. The University entered into contractual arrangements with agents and paid commission to them. In 2008 the University paid agent commissions of £1.034m, rising to £2.214m in 2012.
The Tribunal was required to consider whether the services supplied by the agents were a single supply to University or separate supplies to both the University and students. If the entire supply is to the University then the Reverse Charge is applicable and, because the University is partly exempt, this would create a VAT cost to it. If the supplies are to both the students and the University, the Reverse Charge element would be less and the VAT cost reduced. (There were changes to the Place Of Supply legislation during the period under consideration, but I have tried to focus on the overall impact in this article.)
The University contended that agents made two supplies: a supply to the University of recruitment services and a supply to students of support services. The commission paid by the University should therefore be apportioned so as to reflect in part direct consideration paid by the University for supplies of services to it, and in part third party consideration for services supplied to the students. The supplies to students would not made in the UK and therefore were not subject to UK VAT.
Decision
After thorough consideration of all of the relevant material, the judge decided that the agents made a single supply of services to the University and make no supplies to students. This meant that the University must account for VAT on the full value of services received since 2010 under the Reverse Charge (although before 2010 different rules on place of supply applied). Additionally, it was decided the University was not entitled to recover as input tax VAT for which it is required to account by means of a Reverse Charge. There was no direct and immediate link between the commission paid to agents and any taxable output of the University or the economic activities of the University as a whole.
Commentary
It is understood that the way the University recruited students using overseas agents is common amongst most Universities in the UK, so this ruling will have a direct impact on them. It was hardly a surprising decision, but underlines the need for all businesses to consider the impact of the application of the Reverse Charge. Of course, the Reverse Charge will only create an actual VAT cost if a business is partly exempt, or involved in non-business activities. The value of the Reverse Charge also counts towards the VAT registration threshold. This means that if a fully exempt business receives Reverse Charge services from abroad, it may be required to VAT register (depending on value). Generally, this means an increased VAT cost. This situation may also affect a charity or a NFP entity.
The case also highlights the importance of contracts, documentation and website wording (should any more reminders be needed). VAT should always be borne in mind when entering into similar arrangements. It may also be possible to structure arrangements to avoid or mitigate VAT costs if carried out at an appropriate time.
We can assist with any of the above and are happy to discuss this with you.
The Court of Appeal (CA) case: Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) considered the VAT treatment of free vouchers.
Business promotions are an area of VAT which continues to prove complex. This is further exacerbated by changes to the legislation at EC and domestic level and ongoing case law. A background to the issue of vouchers here
And a background to the hearing of this particular case at the Upper Tribunal here
Background
The appeal concerned the VAT consequences (in respect of both input and output tax) of promotional schemes carried out by ANL in order to boost the circulation of the newspapers: Daily Mail and the Mail On Sunday. ANL gave away Marks & Spencer vouchers to people who bought these newspapers for a minimum of three months. The questions where whether attributable (to the provision of the vouchers) input tax was recoverable, and, was there a deemed supply such that output tax was due on the vouchers. One scheme was managed for ANL by The Hut.com Limited. The Hut received a fee for its services which was subject to VAT and which ANL sought to deduct as input tax. The Hut also purchased the retailer vouchers in batches (usually at a discount) and invoiced them to ANL at cost and also subject to VAT. In another scheme, ANL purchased vouchers directly from Marks & Spencer.
Decision
HMRC sought to rely on paragraph 14 of VAT Information Sheet 12/2003, viz: “Where face value vouchers are purchased by businesses for the purpose of giving them away for no consideration (e.g. to employees as ‘perks’ or under a promotion scheme) the VAT incurred is claimable as input tax subject to the normal rules. Output tax is due under the Value Added Tax (Supply of Services) Order 1993. Therefore all vouchers given away for no consideration will be liable to output tax to the extent of the input tax claimed”.
However, the CA agreed with the decisions made at the Upper Tribunal. Although the vouchers were given away (no consideration) input tax was recoverable because there was an overarching business purpose for the expenditure (increasing sales). Additionally, it was decided that the provision of the vouchers was not caught by the deemed supply rules so there was no output tax due when the vouchers were given away to readers. ANL also sought to reclaim input tax on vouchers purchased directly from Marks & Spencer – usually at a discount from their face value, but at a price which purported to include VAT. The CA also agreed with the UT on this point; that no VAT was charged on these retailer vouchers, and consequently, there was no input tax to recover.
Commentary
An interesting case, and one that will reward with a reading in full. It does seem that HMRC’s views on vouchers need revising in light of this decision. As always, if your business, or your clients’ businesses, are involved with vouchers in any way it is important to ensure that the VAT treatment is correct. This is especially relevant in light of; previous case law, recent changes to the rules applicable to the treatment of vouchers (as set out in the link above) as well as this specific case.
Please contact us should you wish to discuss this matter.
A full background of this case may be found here
In summary: It was previously decided that certain supplies made by Royal Mail (RM) to its customers were taxable. This was on the basis of the TNT CJEU case. RM had treated them as exempt. HMRC was out of time to collect output tax, but claims made by recipients of RM’s services made retrospective claims. These claims were predicated on the basis that the amount paid to RM included VAT at the appropriate rate (it was embedded in the charge) and that UK VAT legislation stipulates that the “taxable amount” for any supply, is the amount paid by the customer including any VAT included in the price.
Update
We understand that Zipvit’s appeal against the decision by the Upper Tribunal that the relevant input tax was not recoverable has been listed on the Court Of Appeal’s register and is due to be heard in January 2018.
There are a lot of cases stood behind Zipvit and the amount of VAT involved is significant. If you have an appeal stood behind this case, or act on behalf of a business which has, we recommend that a review of the position is carried out in light of the latest developments. We can assist which such a review if required.