Category Archives: Latest from the Courts

VAT: Latest from the courts – Brockenhurst College

By Marcus Ward 19 May 2017

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has released its decision in Brockenhurst College here

Unusually, it has gone against the Advocate General (AG) Kokott’s opinion (here) and concurs with previous decisions reached by the UK courts. This is good news for the taxpayer and other providers of educational services. The decision has been referred back to the Court of Appeal (CoA) for it to consider points such as the distortion of competition and the fulfilment of a separate function, however, it is likely that this will not affect the decision by the CJEU and HMRC’s appeal will be dismissed.

Background

The case considered two types of supply made by Brockenhurst College:

The supplies made from its restaurant, used for training chefs, restaurant managers and hospitality students. The claim was made on the basis that these were exempt supplies of education and not standard rated supplies of catering
Tickets for concerts and other live performances put on by students as part of their educational courses. These were similarly claimed to be exempt.

Students were enrolled in performing arts and catering and hospitality courses. As part of their course of study they were required to run a restaurant and stage live performances. Persons not enrolled on the relevant courses would pay for and attend these events. The services were usually supplied to a limited public including; parents, siblings, friends etc, and were supplied at a reduced cost as part of the practical element of the students’ education. The appellant argued that the experience was invaluable to their studies and should be regarded as ‘closely related’ to the principal supply of education. HMRC considered that the services in question were supplied to third parties in return for payment. Consequently, the services, whilst of benefit and practical experience to the students were separate VATable supplies made to third parties and the supplies cannot, therefore, be closely related to the supply of education to the student.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) concluded that the supplies in question were exempt as being closely linked to education because:

the College was an eligible body and so its principal supplies were exempt supplies of education
the supplies were integral and essential to those principal exempt supplies
the supplies were made at less than their cost
the supplies were not advertised to the general public. Instead, there was a database of local groups and individuals who might wish to attend the restaurant or performances
the supplies were not intended to create an additional source of income for the College

HMRC disagreed with the conclusion on the basis that the supplies were outside the education exemption because the students were not the beneficiaries of the supplies in question, but only benefitted from making them. HMRC appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT).

The UT rejected HMRC’s argument and agreed with the FTT. It held that the supplies were closely related to the exempt supplies of education because they enabled the students to enjoy better education. The requirement in the domestic law for the supplies to be for the direct use of the student was met because they were of direct benefit to him.

HMRC subsequently appealed to the CoA which referred it to the CJEU.

The AG’s opinion was that closely related transactions are to be regarded as independent supplies to the principal supply, but do not include the supply of restaurant or training services supplied to third parties who are not themselves receiving the principal supply of training. The third parties pay for their own consumption (of either the catering or performance) and do not pay for the provision of education. It is very rare that the CJEU makes a decision that goes against the AG’s opinion.

CJEU Decision

The CJEU ruled that activities consisting of students of a higher education establishment supplying, for consideration and as part of their education, restaurant and entertainment services to third parties, may be regarded as supplies closely related to the principal supply of education and accordingly be exempt from VAT – provided that those services are essential to the students’ education and that their basic purpose is not to obtain additional income for that establishment by carrying out transactions which are in direct competition with those of commercial enterprises liable for VAT, which it is for the national court to determine.

Action

We understand that there are a number of cases stood behind Brockenhurst. Any other colleges, FE, universities or other eligible bodies carrying out similar activities to Brockenhurst need to consider their tax position. It is possible that retrospective claims may be made, depending on specific circumstances. Treating such supplies as exempt may also impact on a body’s partial exemption position and could create business/non-business implications. This may also impact on activities like hairdressing, motor maintenance and beauty treatments which colleges provide on a similar basis to the activities in this instant case.

We are happy to discuss the implications of this case with you.

VAT: Hardship applications

By Marcus Ward 15 May 2017

The recent case of Elbrook (Cash & Carry) Ltd here brings into focus the concept of “hardship”. In this case Elbrook successfully appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) against HMRC decision that the appellant should seek additional finance to pay the VAT said to be due rather than allow the case to be heard without that payment on the grounds of hardship.

So what is the process and what is “hardship”?

Background

If a taxpayer wishes to appeal to the Tribunal against a decision made by HMRC he must pay any disputed VAT before the case can be heard. The reason for this is understandable, without this rule taxpayers could make an appeal merely to delay the payment of tax and it is a difficult test to satisfy. However, if the applicant is able to demonstrate that payment of the VAT would cause financial hardship the rule may be waived by HMRC. This decision is an appealable matter. (NB: There is no requirement to pay interest or penalties before appealing but interest will continue to accumulate on an assessment). If a business believes that paying the amount it wishes to appeal against would cause it hardship it can ask HMRC not to collect the payment due until the appeal has been considered by the tribunal. It will need to:

write to the officer who made the original decision
explain how paying this amount before the appeal hearing would cause the business hardship

Depending on the size of the business, the explanation should include detailed evidence of its financial position and the impact of paying the disputed tax. I have seen many applications fail as a result of incomplete evidence, or general statements that are not evidenced by documentation. It pays to put a comprehensive application together and have this reviewed by an adviser before it is submitted.

HMRC will write and tell you whether or not they agree with delaying the payment. If they do not, the business can go to Tribunal

The law

The rules where applicable are set out in the VAT Act 1994, section 84(3)

“Where the appeal is against a decision… it shall not be entertained unless—

“(a) the amount which the Commissioners have determined to be payable as VAT has been paid or deposited; or

(b) on being satisfied that the appellant would otherwise suffer hardship the Commissioners agree or the tribunal decides that it should be entertained notwithstanding that that amount has not been so paid or deposited.”

Section 84(3) is intended to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the desire to prevent abuse of the appeal mechanism by employing it to delay payment of the disputed tax, and on the other to provide relief from the stricture of an appellant having to pay or deposit the disputed sum as the price for entering the appeal process, where to do so would cause hardship.

Hardship

Unhelpfully, this term is not defined in the legislation, nor in HMRC guidance. Consequently, we must look at case law. The following comments in the “original” Elbrook case – (2016) UKFTT 0191 (citing various previous cases, mainly “ToTel 1 and 2”) assist in understanding a hardship appeal:

Decisions on hardship should not stifle meritorious appeals
The test is one of capacity to pay without financial hardship, not just capacity to pay
The time at which the question is to be asked is the time of the hearing. This may be qualified if the appellant has put themselves in a current position of hardship deliberately (eg; by extraction of funds otherwise readily available from a company by way of dividend), or if there is significant delay on the part of the appellant
The question should be capable of decision promptly from readily available material
The enquiry should be directed to the ability of an appellant to pay from resources which are immediately or readily available (a business is not expected to seek funding outside its normal sources, nor sell assets)
The test is all or nothing. The ability to pay part of the VAT without hardship does not matter
If the Tribunal has fixed a cut off point for the admission of material, it is not an error of law for the Tribunal to ignore any later furnished evidence
The absence of contemporaneous accounting information is a justification for the Tribunal to conclude that it can place little if any weight on the appellant’s assertion that it is unable to afford to pay

The onus of proof in such cases is on the taxpayer to demonstrate hardship and without persuasive evidence such applications are unlikely to succeed.

Action

If your business, or your client’s business is the subject of a disputed decision, it should review its financial position and consider appealing against the decision even if paying the disputed amount would cause hardship. A business should not be put off appealing just because it would suffer hardship. We are able to assist in any review required.

VAT – Input tax recovery by holding companies

By Marcus Ward 10 May 2017

HMRC has published updated guidance on the recovery of input tax incurred by holding companies.

The guidance may be found here

It is important for holding companies and/or their advisers to read and understand the changes to the VAT recovery rules as costs are often significant. The changes are a result of various UK and CJEU case law which, in general, considered; the definition of economic activity, the direct and immediate link to taxable supplies made by a holding company, the contractual and payment arrangements and the use of the input tax.

Key Points

The guidance considers:

When a shareholding is used as part of an economic activity
Is the Holding Company the recipient of the supply?
Is the Holding Company undertaking economic activity for VAT purposes?
Shareholding acquired as a direct, continuous and necessary extension
Intention to make taxable supplies
Contingent consideration for management services
The effect of a holding company joining a VAT Group
Stewardship costs
Mixed economic and non-economic activities

Generally

In order to recover the relevant input tax, it must be incurred by a taxable person in the course of an economic activity and have a direct and immediate link to taxable supplies made by that person. This has been a long settled definition and the guidance seeks to apply these tests to holding companies. This means that, in order to receive a supply, a holding company must;

Contract for it
Use it
Be invoiced for it
Pay for it

Specifically

The publication considers previously disputed situations such as:

Services provided on contingent terms are not an economic activity because the necessary reciprocity between the obligations of the holding company and of the subsidiary is absent
How input tax incurred by holding companies which make taxable supplies to some subsidiaries and not to others and those that make taxable supplies and exempt loans should be dealt with
If a shareholding is acquired as a direct, continuous and necessary extension of a taxable economic activity of the holding company the input tax incurred on acquisition costs may be deducted even if management charges are not made
A holding company joining a VAT group cannot change a non-economic activity into an economic one or create an automatic link between holding company costs and the taxable outputs of other group members (For VAT to be deductible, the holding company must provide management services to the companies acquired in the VAT group, or earn interest from loans granted to them, and these must support taxable supplies made by the VAT group)
If a member of a VAT group incurs costs for non-economic (“business”) activity, the supplies are treated as being used by the representative member for non-economic purposes
Stewardship costs (group audit, legal, brand defence, bid defence etc) are costs for the purposes of the VAT group as a whole rather than for the purposes of the holding company activities

Action

The previous input tax position of holding companies should be reviewed in light of the above guidance and adjustments made as necessary. In some cases, the guidance may provide additional opportunities to reclaim input tax which was previously thought to be barred, and conversely, it is possible that VAT claimed as a result of the understanding of the position at the time may need to be repaid.

We can assist in reviewing the input tax position of holding companies and advising on structures for future intended acquisitions. The four year cap applies to such adjustments of input tax, so the clock is ticking for past transactions.

Image: company stamps

VAT Update on Associated Newspapers case – treatment of vouchers

By Marcus Ward 24 April 2017

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.

VAT Legal impact of The Great Repeal Bill and Article 50

By Marcus Ward 3 April 2017

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:

It will repeal the ECA and return power to UK institutions.
The Bill will convert EU law as it stands at the moment of exit into UK law before we leave the EU. This allows businesses to continue operating knowing the rules have not changed significantly overnight, and provides fairness to individuals, whose rights and obligations will not be subject to sudden change. It also ensures that it will be up to the UK Parliament (and, where appropriate, the devolved legislatures) to amend, repeal or improve any piece of EU law (once it has been brought into UK law) at the appropriate time once we have left the EU.
The Bill will create powers to make secondary legislation. This will enable corrections to be made to the laws that would otherwise no longer operate appropriately once we have left the EU, so that our legal system continues to function correctly outside the EU, and will also enable domestic law once we have left the EU to reflect the content of any withdrawal agreement under Article 50.

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

VAT Latest from the courts – Employment businesses

By Marcus Ward 21 March 2017

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 Latest from the courts – Allocation of payments

By Marcus Ward 13 March 2017

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.

VAT Latest from the courts – Evidence for zero rated exports

By Marcus Ward 10 March 2017

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:

Authenticated sea-waybills
Authenticated air-waybills
PIM/PIEX International consignment notes
Master air-waybills or bills of lading
Certificates of shipment containing the full details of the consignment and how it left the EC, or
International Consignment Note/Lettre de Voiture International (CMR) fully completed by the consignor, the haulier and the receiving consignee, or Freight Transport Association own account transport documents fully completed and signed by the receiving customer

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:

customer’s order
sales contract
inter-company correspondence
copy of export sales invoice
advice note
consignment note
packing list
insurance and freight charges documentation
evidence of payment, and/or
evidence of the receipt of the goods abroad.

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?

The evidence you obtain as proof of export, whether official or commercial, or supporting must clearly identify:
the supplier
the consignor (where different from the supplier)
the customer
the goods
an accurate value
the export destination, and
the mode of transport and route of the export movement

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:

kept for six years, and
made readily available to any visiting VAT Officer to substantiate the zero-rating of your exports

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:

The supply is to a recipient in the EU
Where the supplier does not arrange shipment of the goods
Where an overseas customer arranges his own export
Merchandise in baggage (MIB)
Groupage or consolidation transactions
Postal exports
Exports by courier and fast parcel services
Exports by rail
Exports through packers
Exports through auctioneers
Exports from Customs, Excise and/or Fiscal warehouses
Supplies to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Exports to the Channel Islands

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.

VAT – Claiming input tax on fuel. A warning

By Marcus Ward 27 February 2017

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.

VAT Latest from the courts – White Goods claims by housebuilders

By Marcus Ward 27 February 2017

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:

The articles are incorporated into the buildings (or its site)
the articles are “ordinarily” incorporated by builders into that type of building
other than kitchen furniture, the articles are not finished or prefabricated furniture, or materials for the construction of fitted furniture
with certain exceptions, the articles are not gas or electrical appliances
the articles are not carpets or carpeting material

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