Category Archives: Latest from the Courts

VAT – What is a caravan? Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 27 January 2017

Motorhomes versus caravans…

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Oak Tree Motorhomes Limited the simple issue was whether motorhomes may be considered to fall within the definition of a “caravan” and thus benefit from certain zero rating provisions. Oak Tree sold certain vehicles commonly called ‘motor homes’, ‘motor caravans’ and ‘campervans’

The VAT Act 1994, Section 30(2) provides that supplies of goods of a description specified in Schedule 8 are zero-rated. At the relevant time this was VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 9, item 1 which described the following goods: “Caravans exceeding the limits of size for the time being permitted for the use on roads of a trailer drawn by a motor vehicle having an unladen weight of less than 2,030 kilogrammes.” Oak Tree contended that the sales of their vehicles were covered by this item and thus should have been zero rated rather than standard rated.

So what is a caravan?

The term is not defined in the VAT legislation, but HMRC base its interpretation on the definitions in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravans Sites Act 1968 as set out in Public Notice 701/20 para 2.1. In that Notice HMRC state that:

“A caravan is a structure that:

is designed or adapted for human habitation
when assembled, is physically capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed or by being transported on a motor vehicle so designed or adapted), and
is no more than:
20 metres long (exclusive of any drawbar)
8 metres wide, or
05 metres high (measured internally from the floor at the lowest level to the ceiling at the highest level)”

(Note: No reference is made to engine here).

The Decision

It was accepted by HMRC that the vehicles were large enough to qualify as caravans, so the matter turned on the interpretation of a “caravan” and whether the fact that the relevant vehicles incorporated an engine disbarred them. The UT did not appear to waste much time in agreeing with the First Tier Tribunal that a motorhome was not a caravan. This was so even though accommodation in a motorhome and a qualifying caravan might be almost identical. The UT considered that the First Tier Tribunal’s interpretation of “caravan” by reference to the Oxford English Dictionary was appropriate. An important definition being one which refers to a caravan as generally “…able to be towed”. It was also decided that an engine represented “…an obvious and significant distinction” between a caravan and a motorhome. It is also interesting that despite HMRC’s Notice referring to the Caravan Act 1960, the UT considered that this should not be used in determining whether a vehicle should be regarded as a caravan

Commentary

This was almost a foregone conclusion, but the appellant obviously thought it was worth another bite at the cherry as the claim was worth over £1.1 million (and an ongoing saving). There are lots of areas involving caravans that throw up VAT oddities, including, but not limited to; pitches, skirts, contents, holiday homes and compound/multiple supplies here

It may also mean that HMRC will have to consider redrafting Notice 701/20

If a business is involved in any transactions involving caravans it would be prudent to consider whether all of the available reliefs are being taken advantage of, and whether VATable supplies have been correctly identified.

VAT Self-billing and latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 6 January 2017

Self-billing: where the customer issues the invoice (and how this can go wrong).

A recent case Court of Appeal case: GB Housley here has highlighted the inherent dangers of using the self-billing system. Self-billing is a very useful mechanism for a lot of businesses, especially in respect of activities like royalties and scrap purchases where the supplier may not know (or know immediately) the value of the supply. Before we look at the case, it may be useful to recap the rules for self-billing.

Self-billing is an arrangement between a supplier and a customer. Both customer and supplier must be VAT registered. The customer prepares the supplier’s invoice and forwards a copy to the supplier with the payment. There is no requirement to notify HMRC or get approval for using the arrangement.

If you are the customer

You issue the documentation and you are able to reclaim as input tax the VAT shown on the self-billing invoice.

In order to set up self-billing arrangements with your supplier you are required to:

enter into an agreement with each supplier
review agreements with suppliers at regular intervals
keep records of each of the suppliers who let you self-bill them
make sure invoices contain the required information and are correctly issued

If a supplier stops being registered for VAT then you can continue to self-bill them, but you can’t issue them with VAT invoices. Your self-billing arrangement with that supplier is no longer covered by the VAT regulations.

Self-billing agreements

You can only operate a self-billing arrangement if your supplier agrees to put one in place. If you don’t have an agreement with your supplier your self-billed invoices won’t be valid, and you won’t be able to reclaim the input tax shown on them.

Both parties need to sign a formal self-billing agreement. This is a legally binding document. The agreement must contain:

your supplier’s agreement that you, as the self-biller, can issue invoices on your supplier’s behalf
your supplier’s confirmation that they won’t issue VAT invoices for goods or services covered by the agreement
an expiry date – usually for 12 months’ time but it could be the date that any business contract you have with your supplier ends
your supplier’s agreement that they’ll let you know if they stop being registered for VAT
details of any third party you intend to outsource the self-billing process to

Reviewing self-billing agreements

Self-billing agreements usually last for 12 months. At the end of this you will need to review the agreement to make sure you can prove to HMRC that your supplier agrees to accept the self-billing invoices you issue on their behalf. It’s very important that you don’t self-bill a supplier when you don’t have their written agreement to do so.

Record keeping

If you are a self-biller you’ll need to keep certain records. These are:

copies of the agreements you make with your suppliers
the names, addresses and VAT registration numbers of the suppliers who have agreed that you can self-bill them

If you don’t keep the required records, then the self-billed invoices you issue won’t be proper VAT invoices.

All self-billed invoices must include the statement “The VAT shown is your output tax due to HMRC”.

It is important that a business does not add VAT to self-billed invoices that it issues to suppliers who are not VAT-registered.

A business will only be able to reclaim input tax shown on self-billed invoices if it meets all the record keeping requirements.

If you are a VAT registered supplier

If one of your customers wants to set up a self-billing arrangement with you, they’ll ask you to agree to this in writing. If you agree, they will give you a self-billing agreement to sign.

For VAT purposes you will be required to do all of the following:

sign and keep a copy of the self-billing agreement
agree not to issue any sales invoices to your customer for any transaction during the period of the agreement
agree to accept the self-billing invoices that your customer issues
tell your customer at once if you change your VAT registration number, deregister from VAT, or transfer your business as a going concern

The VAT figure on the self-billed invoice your customer sends you is your output tax. You are accountable to HMRC for output tax on the supplies you make to your customer, so you should check that your customer is applying the correct rate of VAT on the invoices they send you. If there has been a VAT rate change, you will need to check that the correct rate has been used.

The Case

The issues were whether the lack of formalised self-billing agreements disqualified the use of self-billing, and if that was the case, whether alternative evidence should have been accepted to support a claim for input tax. The CoA discharged HMRC’s assessment which was issued to GB Housley – a scrap metal merchant.

The assessment was based on input tax claims made on the basis of the self-billed documents. It was ruled that although the self-billing was used in error, HMRC should have considered alternative evidence and used its discretion on whether to allow the claims on transactions which took place. For this reason, as it is unclear whether HMRC would have assessed if they had considered other information, the assessment should be removed.

A timely warning to ensure that all of the conditions of self-billing arrangements are met, and that this is clearly demonstrable. Ongoing monitoring is crucial for businesses operating self-billing as an overlooked change can affect the VAT treatment.

In this case, it looks like the applicant was rather fortunate, but this outcome cannot be relied on if self-billing is applied incorrectly.

We are able to advise on such agreements, arrangements and accounting.

Crime doesn’t pay……..VAT. Is there tax on illegal activities?

By Marcus Ward 4 January 2017

A gentle introduction to VAT for the new year. A number of people have been surprised to find that crime does pay tax, thank you very much. It seems bad enough that the police should chase and catch you, put you in the dock and send you to prison, without finding that your first visitor is HMRC….

Dodgy perfume?

Goodwin & Unstead were in business selling counterfeit perfume. They were also up-front about what they were doing. Unstead claimed that “Everything I can carry in my vehicle, everything I trade in and sell, is a complete copy of the real thing. I do not sell goods as the real thing. In fact I sell my goods for a quarter of the original price. I am not out to defraud or con the public. I only appeal to the poseurs in life.”

The real manufacturers might have sued these men for passing off the product of their chemistry experiments in trademarked bottles, but it was HMRC who sent them to jail – for failing to register and pay VAT on their sales. The amount they should have collected was estimated at £750,000, which shows that they must have appealed to a great many poseurs.
.
If they had paid the VAT, Customs would have had no problem with them. Their customers must have been reasonably satisfied – if your counterfeit perfume smells something like the real thing, why worry?
They tried to get out of jail with an ingenious argument – if the sale of the perfume was illegal, surely there shouldn’t be VAT on it. It wasn’t legitimate business activity, so it wasn’t something that ought to be taxable. The European Court had no time for this. They pointed out that it would give lawbreakers an advantage over lawful businesses; they wouldn’t have to charge VAT. The judges suggested that maybe people would even deliberately break the law so they could get out of tax; in this case, the only thing that made the trade illegal was treading on someone’s trademark rights, and that was something that might happen at any time in legitimate businesses. The judges said that VAT would apply to any trade which competed in a legal marketplace, even if the particular sales broke the law for some reason. Counterfeit perfume is VATable because real perfume is too. Of course, Customs have traditionally had two main roles – looking for drug smugglers, and dealing with VAT-registered traders. They have generally treated both with much the same suspicion, but the ECJ made it clear in this case that the two sets of customers are completely separate.

“Personal” services?

Customers paid the escort £130, of which £30 was paid to the agency. VAT on £130 or VAT on £30?

The first hearing before the Tribunal went something like this (this may be using artistic licence, but the published summary implies it was so):

HMRC: “We think the VAT should be on £130 because the escorts are acting as agents of the escort business.”
Trader: “No, it’s just £30, the £100 belongs to the escort and is nothing to do with me.”
Tribunal chairman: “All right, tell me a bit about how the business operates.”
Customs: “No.”
Tribunal chairman: “What?”
Customs: “You don’t want to know.”
Tribunal chairman: “How can I decide whether the escorts are acting as agent or principals without knowing how the business operates?”
Customs: “Don’t go there, just give us a decision.”
Tribunal chairman: “Trader, you tell me how the business operates.”
Trader: “I agree with him, you don’t want to know.”
The Tribunal seems to have been a bit baffled by this. They were aware that Customs had a great deal more evidence which had been collected during the course of a thorough investigation, and they asked the parties to go away and decide whether they might let the Tribunal see a bit more of it so they could make a judgement rather than a guess.

What about drugs then?

It’s well-known that you are allowed to smoke dope in some establishments in Amsterdam, although the Dutch authorities are thinking about restricting this to Netherlands’ residents. They may find that such a rule contravenes the European Law on freedom of movement – under the EU treaty, you can’t be meaner to foreigners than you are to your own people just because they are foreign. That’s a nice idea, but individuals and governments keep trying it on. Anyway, the Coffeeshop Siberie rented space to drug dealers who would sell cannabis at tables for people to take advantage of the relaxed atmosphere. Presumably they are preparing to examine passports or local utility bills before making the sale, if only the Dutch are to be allowed to get stoned. Anyway, the Dutch authorities asked the coffee shop’s owners for VAT on the rent paid by the dealers, and the owners appealed to the ECJ. This time, surely, it was sufficiently illegal. Although the consumption of drugs was tolerated, it was still against the law, and it must therefore be not VATable.
The judges pointed out that the coffee shop was not actually selling drugs. They were just providing the space for other people to sell drugs. Although selling drugs was completely illegal, and there was no legitimate market in cannabis, renting space was a normal business activity. Renting space to someone who did something illegal with it was in the same category as the dodgy perfume sales in Goodwin & Unstead: it was a bit illegal, but not illegal enough. The VAT was still due.

Counterfeiting?

In a German case, the ECJ ruled that the importation of counterfeit money was outside the scope of VAT. The Advocate-General observed that a line must be drawn between, on the one hand, transactions that lie so clearly outside the sphere of legitimate economic activity that, instead of being taxed, they can only be the subject of criminal prosecution, and, on the other hand, transactions which though unlawful must nonetheless be taxed, if only for ensuring in the name of fiscal neutrality, that the criminal is not treated more favourably than the legitimate trader’.

So, there you have it, if you are of a criminal disposition, and you want to avoid VAT, funny money is the way to go. Please note, this does not constitute advice…..!

VAT: Latest from the courts – Pole Tax?

By Marcus Ward 20 December 2016

(Pardon the dreadful pun).

The Court of Appeal case of Wilton Park Ltd and Secrets Ltd

Background

The appellant operated an “exotic dancing” club which featured table and lap dancing. It received commission from self-employed dancers which was treated as exempt from VAT. This was on the basis that the commissions were charged on redemption of vouchers (known as Secrets Money) such that it represented the services of dealing with security for money. Customers were able to purchase Secrets Money with the addition of a 20% commission. The vouchers were used to pay individual dancers who subsequently needed to exchange the vouchers for cash. The taxpayer charged a 20% fee for such a conversion.

The issue

The issue was whether face-value vouchers issued by appellant companies constituted “…any security for money” within the VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, item 1. HMRC argued that the redemption of the vouchers was part of a taxable supply of performance facilitation services by the taxpayer and thus standard rated.

Decision

Not surprisingly, the CoA dismissed the appeal, agreeing with both the FTT and UT in holding that the provision of the club’s facilities formed part of the consideration for the commission an consequently was not an exempt supply.

Commentary

This appears a rather desperate appeal, and there still remains the possibility that the taxpayer could take the matter to the Supreme Court. It illustrates that simply putting in a mechanism which adds a degree of complexity does not affect the overriding VAT analysis. What was provided and what was paid for here seems reasonably apparent and it is quite a leap to consider the structure was simply exchanging vouchers for cash. It also occurs that this would be a very straightforward way for other businesses to avoid paying VAT if the appellant had been successful.

For more on this subject (should that be your thing…….) a read of the Spearmint Rhino case not only explores the structure/relationship between dancers and club owners but is also rather good entertainment and provides an amusing yet illustrative overview of the agent/principal issue (and is not salacious in the least…..).

VAT – Input tax on buy out costs and VAT grouping

By Marcus Ward 23 November 2016

Latest from the courts

May input tax incurred by a VAT group be attributed to the activities of a single member of that group?

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Heating and Plumbing Supplies Ltd, the issue was whether input tax incurred on professional costs of a management buyout were recoverable.

Background

A company was formed with the intention of buying the shares of a trading company. The purchasing company and the trading company were then VAT grouped and the professional costs were invoiced to, and paid for, by the VAT group (the tax point being created after the date that the VAT group was formed). HMRC disallowed the claim for the relevant input tax on the grounds that the purchasing company itself did not make any taxable supplies (it did not engage in an economic activity). While this may have been correct, the appellant contended that in these circumstances, the VAT group must be considered as a single taxable person and that the activities of the group as a whole that should be considered. The input tax was an overhead of the group, and because the group itself only made taxable supplies (via the representative member) the input tax was recoverable in full by the representative member

Decision

Following recent case law in Skandia America at the Court of Justice, the judge here decided in favour of the appellant. It was ruled that HMRC may not look at the purchasing company in isolation but rather, the group must be considered as a whole. The FTT stated that “when a VAT group is formed the identities of the individual members of the group disappear…” meaning that a VAT group is a single taxable entity, the VAT status of the individual members being irrelevant in this situation. This confirms our long held view on the status of VAT groups and provides welcome clarification on the matter.

Relevance

This case highlights that HMRC’s policy of looking at the activities of a group member individually is inappropriate. This is so even if the grouping structure provides input tax recovery which would not have been available had the companies been VAT registered independently.

Typically in these circumstances, HMRC will either challenge the decision, or amend its guidance to reflect this ruling. We await news on how HMRC will react.

Action

If a business has either been denied input tax on buy out or similar acquisition costs, or made a decision not to recover this VAT, it would be prudent to lodge a claim with HMRC (plus interest).

We are able to assist with such a claim.

www.marcusward.co

VAT Latest from the courts – Application of Capital Goods Scheme

By Marcus Ward 10 November 2016

Should the costs of a phased development be aggregated, and if so, do the anti-avoidance provisions apply?

In the case of Water Property Limited (WPL) the First Tier Tribunal was asked to consider the application of; the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) and the anti-avoidance provisions set out in the VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10, para 12.

A helpful guide to the CGS is here

Background

WPL purchased land and buildings formerly used as a public house, subject to planning permission to convert the ground floor into a children’s day care nursery and the upper floor into residential flats. The planning permission was subsequently granted. WPL paid £210,000 plus £37,500 VAT on the acquisition of the ex-pub in March 2013. The children’s nursery business was kept separate from the property development business to enable the children’s nursery business to be sold at a date in the future and for the leasehold reversion to be retained as an investment by WPL. The value of the building contract for the nursery was £209,812.34 including VAT. The value of the contract for the residential flats was £161,546.42 including VAT. The consideration for the acquisition and each phase of development was below £250,000 (the threshold at which land and buildings become CGS items) but combined, they exceeded the £250,000 limit. WPL exercised an option to tax on the property and entered into a lease with Smile Childcare Limited (SCL). SCL was established to carry on a business of the provision of nursery care for infant children. It was jointly owned by Mr and Mrs Waters. Mrs Waters as the operator of the children’s nursery.

WPL recovered input tax on costs incurred in respect of the nursery, but not the flats. It was accepted by the appellant that SCL and WPL were “connected” within the meaning of VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10, para 13 and that the activity of carrying on the business of a nursery was an exempt activity.

Issue

HMRC formed the view that the option to tax should be disapplied by virtue of the anti-avoidance legislation meaning that no input tax was recoverable. This is because the property was, or was intended to become, a CGS item and the ‘exempt land test’ is met. This test is met if, at the time the grant is made, the grantor, or a person connected with the grantor expects the land to be used for an exempt purpose.

So the issue was whether the land constituted a CGS item. That is, whether the value of the two elements forming the phased development should be aggregated.

Decision

The FTT allowed the taxpayer’s appeal against HMRC’s decision. It was decided that the acquisition and development costs were financed through different means; there were separate contracts for each phase; there was no overlap in the works* and HMRC had not identified any evasion, avoidance or abuse and considered that the costs did not need to be aggregated. In addition, it was concluded that WPL had relied on HMRC guidance in determining that there was no requirement to aggregate the cost of the phased development provided that there was no overlap in time.

As a consequence, as each part of the development fell below the £250,000 limit, there were no CGS items. Therefore the fact that the parties were connected was irrelevant and the anti-avoidance provisions did not apply such that the option to tax could not be disapplied meaning that the recovery of the input tax was appropriate. The Chairman also commented that the appellant had a legitimate expectation to rely on the guidance provided by HMRC (in this case the provision of a copy of Public Notice 706/2).

Commentary

There is often uncertainty on the VAT position of land and property developments of this kind, and the interaction with the CGS is rarely straightforward. This is not helped by HMRC’s interpretation of the rules.

Action

If any business or advisers with clients which have been;

forced to use the CGS as a result of aggregation
subject to the application of the anti-avoidance provisions
assessed despite relying on HMRC’s published guidance

they should seek advice and review their position. We can advise in such circumstances.

* As per PN 706/2 Para 4.12 as follows

“What if the refurbishment is in phases?

If you do this you will need to decide whether the work should be treated as a whole for CGS [capital goods scheme] purposes or whether there is more than one refurbishment. If you think that each phase is really a separate refurbishment then they should be treated separately for CGS purposes. Normally there is more than one refurbishment when:

· There are separate contracts for each phase of work, or;

· A contract where each phase is a separate option which can be selected, and;

· Each phase of work is completed before work on the next phase starts…”

VAT Latest from the courts – exemption for sporting facilities by an eligible body

By Marcus Ward 8 November 2016

St Andrew’s College, Bradfield

This Upper Tribunal case demonstrates the importance of getting the structure right. Full case here

Overview

Exemption exists for an eligible body making certain supplies of sporting services.

Background

St Andrew’s College is a boarding school and a registered charity. It is the representative member of a VAT group which also included two subsidiary companies. The companies provided facilities for playing sport and the group intended to treat these as exempt supplies. HMRC challenged the intended treatment on the basis that the subsidiaries did not qualify as eligible bodies via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 10 (exemption related to sport, sports competitions and physical education). It was agreed that all of the other criteria were met, so the case turned on the definition of an eligible body. It was common ground that the College, as an educational charity, was itself an eligible body. Even though, as the representative member of the VAT group, the College was treated as making all supplies actually made by the subsidiaries, that did not mean that the supplies were exempt.

Decision

In order to be regarded as an eligible body the subsidiaries were required to be a non-profit making body. What was relevant here was whether the subsidiaries (themselves) had specific restrictions on their ability to distribute any profit that they made. The UT formed the view that there was no specific restriction and that although profits were only covenanted up to the College this was insufficient to meet the test in Group 10 Note (2A). It was also found that the deeds of covenant did not, of themselves, establish that the subsidiaries could make distributions only to non-profit making bodies.

Consequently, the subsidiaries failed to qualify for exemption and that the First Tier Tribunal correctly found that output tax was due on the income from provision of sporting facilities.

Commentary

This case highlights the importance of putting in place a correct structure and to ensure that it reflects the intention of the supplier. One may see that in this scenario it would have been relatively simple to arrange matters to accurately reflect the aims of the group. Care would have been required in drafting documentation etc as matters stood, or rearranging the supply chain.

It should also be noted that there are specific anti-avoidance provisions in place for certain suppliers of sporting services (although not in issue here). Advice should be taken at an early stage in planning to ensure that if exemption is desired, that it is achieved if possible.

VAT Latest from the courts – more on agent or principal

By Marcus Ward 2 November 2016

Whether a business acts as agent or principal in respect of hotel accommodation

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Hotels4U.com Limited (H4U) further consideration was given to the relationship of parties in travel/accommodation services. This follows on from the recent Supreme Court case of Secret Hotels 2 Ltd which we considered here

Background

H4U entered into contracts with suppliers of hotel rooms and displayed details of the hotels on its website. Travellers and travel agents are able to book online, pay a deposit and receive a voucher which enabled them to occupy the relevant accommodation when presented to the hotel.

The FTT was required to decide whether H4U was acting as agent or principal in respect of these supplies made to travellers and travel agents. If acting as principal, output tax would be due via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS). If acting as agent, the place of supply (POS) would be outside the UK and no UK VAT would be due. We are aware that many of our clients are in a similar position so this decision will be important to them.

Decision

H4U contended that that its position was indistinguishable from the Secret Hotels 2 Ltd case such that it should be regarded as an agent. The FTT upheld this contention for most of the relevant transactions (based on contracts which contained sufficient evidence to enable the Tribunal to reach a decision in UK law) so H4U could be seen as acting as agent. H4U also argued that HMRC’s intention to seek a reference to the CJEU in respect of the interpretation of the EU Principal VAT Directive Article 306 on the meaning of “acting solely as an intermediary”’ (whether that is different from an agent in English law) was an attempt to re-argue the matter before the CJEU and should be resisted. The FTT stated that it was only considering the position under UK law.

Commentary

We understand that there are a number of similar ongoing appeals and this decision may be of benefit to them. It also underlines the fact that documentation, and how each party acts, is important in determining the relationship. No one piece of evidence on its own may be decisive but goes to form part of the overall picture. As always in agent/principal cases, it is crucial that the documentation accurately represents the actual transaction. Contracts can play a big part, as can the Terms & Conditions and wording on websites and advertisements. Broadly, as a starting point, it must be clear to the customer that an agent is acting on behalf of a named principal; without this information, HMRC will likely form the view that there is no agency arrangement and that the “intermediary” party is acting as an undisclosed agent (for all intents and purposes acting as principal). This means that any supply would be seen to be made to, and by the agent, such that (in this case) output tax would be due using TOMS.

Action

We shall have to wait and see whether HMRC is successful in making a reference on the possible distinction between the meaning of agent in UK and EC law.

In the meantime, any businesses which are involved in agency/principal relationships, not just in the travel field, may benefit from taking advice on whether their arrangements are affected by these two cases and whether there may be value in putting planning in place.

Latest from the courts: Excise Duty – against which party may an assessment be raised?

By Marcus Ward 19 October 2016

A little “light” relief from VAT. Indirect taxes extend to Customs and Excise Duties (as well as IPT and various other “lower profile” taxes) and we are able to assist with all of these.

In an interesting Excise Duty case; B & M Retail Limited (B & M) the Upper Tribunal were asked whether an assessment for Customs Duty due on wine and beer could be issued to an entity “down the chain” to an entity which was holding goods at a given time.

Background

HMRC detained the relevant the goods under The Customs & Excise Management Act 1979 (“CEMA”) Section 139 on the grounds that, in their judgment, on the balance of probabilities, Excise Duty had not been paid on the goods. Under B & M’s terms and conditions of business its suppliers were required to warrant that the sale of alcohol to B & M was on a “Excise Duty paid” basis.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decided that despite an HMRC investigation resulting in the fact that they were not satisfied that duty had been paid on the goods, B & M was not responsible for the duty (and subsequent penalties) as the goods had passed through other various entities before they reached the appellant. The decision was based on the fact that the duty point must have arisen before the goods reached B & M and consequently, the duty was payable by someone further up the supply chain and not simply by the entity which was holding the Excise Duty goods at the Excise Duty point.

Decision

However, the Upper Tribunal disagreed with the FTT and overturned the verdict. The Upper Tribunal stated that “… the recognition by HMRC that one or more other Excise Duty points must, in principle, have been triggered before B & M received the relevant goods did not preclude HMRC from assessing B & M for excise duty …”. The Upper Tribunal did, however, remit the case to the First Tier Tribunal to review the evidence to ensure that the assessment is in time and that, as a matter of fact, the Excise Duty due on the beer and wine remains unpaid.

Conclusion

It would appear that this decision currently gives HMRC the right to raise an assessment for duty and penalties anywhere along the supply chain when an entity is holding the goods, even though a “previous” entity may have been responsible for the payment. This is not * * polite cough * * small beer as the amount in question was £5,875,143 of duty and a penalty of £1,175,028. This is helpful to HMRC as, in this instant case, it would appear that entities further up the supply chain were either not registered, or became deregistered, making it more difficult for HMRC to recover the Duty due.

It is important for every importer to be clear about the Excise Duty position and to carry out detailed due diligence on the relevant shipment. It is now not possible to escape an assessment by demonstrating that a third party is responsible for the payment of the duty.

VAT – Latest from the courts: Craft fair pitches standard rated

By Marcus Ward 17 October 2016

The Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Zombory-Moldovan (trading as Craft Carnival)

Background

In the past, the rent of stall at craft fairs have generally been treated as an exempt right over land. In fact, in this instant case, the First Tier Tribunal agreed with the appellant that supplies made to stallholders to sell their goods were the equivalent to a right to occupy land and therefore exempt from VAT.

However, in this decision, the UT overturned this analysis and found that the supply was standard rated.

Decision

The reasons given were that what Craft Carnival supplied went beyond the mere use of a plot of land for a specific period and amounted to the use of a pitch at an event in order to “offer certain goods for sale”. The test in the previous “Temco” case on this point stated that an exempt supply amounts to a “relatively passive activity linked simply to the passage of time and not generating any significant added value”. Craft Carnivals had “very real and significant responsibilities beyond the bare provision of an appropriately-sized plot”. This, being a single supply (it was decided) meant that the entire charge was subject to VAT at the standard rate.

The appellant’s website stated that “In addition to the erection of marquees, which are hired for the duration of a fair, Mrs Zombory-Moldovan arranges for the provision 45 of other necessary temporary facilities including portable toilets, electrical generators and security fencing. She also employs between five and seven members of staff to act as ticket sellers and car park 3 marshals. Before the fair takes place Mrs Zombory-Moldovan would have issued a press release and advertised the event in local newspapers and on Craft Carnival’s website and booked a children’s entertainer, such as a magician, to encourage families to attend.”

Impact

Any business or charity which provides similar supplies must review their VAT responsibilities in light of this decision immediately. This case is likely have far-reaching implications for both organisers and those businesses which sell goods in fairs and similar events. This may encompass; trade fairs, exhibitions and even, possibly, high end car-boot sales type events. We await HMRC’s response to their victory in this case and how wide-ranging they consider the decision to be.

Please contact us if this decision affects your or your client’s businesses.