Category Archives: Latest from the Courts

VAT – Latest from the courts: A round up of partial exemption

By   20 June 2016
0

The partial exemption calculation

The calculation is required to quantify the amount of input tax a partly exempt business is able to claim. A partly exempt business is one which makes a mixture of taxable and non-taxable (eg; exempt) supplies. Input tax attributable to exempt activities is not recoverable.

With certain businesses HMRC accept that the usual “partial exemption standard method” based on taxable turnover versus exempt turnover is either impractical, distortive, or inappropriate. In such cases the business submits an application for a partial exemption special method (PESM). This may be based on many various factors such as; floorspace, staff numbers, transaction counts, management accounting etc (or any combination). If HMRC accept that the proposal is fair and reasonable, a formal agreement will be entered into by both parties.

The question in this case was when a PESM is agreed with HMRC is there a requirement to round up figures to a whole percentage point?

According to the CJEU decision in Kreissparkasse Wiedenbrück the answer is no. It was decided that, via EC legislation, in cases where there is a PESM agreement in place there was no obligation to round up.

The view was that as a significant amount of PESMs are “sophisticated” (compared to the partial exemption standard method) they achieve a more accurate allocation of input tax between taxable and exempt activities and rounding would counter this accuracy.

Full case here

Please contact us if your business is partly exempt and you either have a PESM in place, are in the process of agreeing one, or feel that your input tax recovery is suffering by the use of the standard method.

VAT Latest from the courts – what is a business?

By   8 June 2016
0

In the CJEU case of * * takes a deep breath * * Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft the court considered whether these Not For Profit companies were making taxable supplies (economic activity). This then dictated whether input tax incurred by them was recoverable.

As a starting point, it may be helpful to look at what the words “economic activity”, “business”, “taxable supplies” and “taxable person” mean:  The term “business” is only used in UK legislation, The Principal VAT Directive refers to “economic activity” rather than business and since UK domestic legislation must conform to the Directive both terms must be seen as having the same meaning.  Since the very first days of VAT there have been disagreements over what constitutes a “business”. I have only recently ended a dispute over this definition for a (as it turns out) very happy client.  In the UK the tests were set out as long ago as 1981 and may be summarised as follows:

Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made (bearing in mind that exempt supplies can also be business)?
Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
Is the activity predominately concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
Are the taxable supplies that are being made of a kind which, subject to differences of detail, are commonly made by those who seek to profit from them?

If there is no business, an entity cannot be making taxable supplies.

In EC Legislation,  Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112 provides: that “a ‘Taxable person’ shall mean any person who, independently, carries out in any place any economic activity, whatever the purpose or results of that activity.”

The case

The case involved the Not For Profit companies constructing and operating a water disposal system. When complete, it was intended to charge a “modest” fee to users of the system.  The companies engaged in economic activities that were not intended to make a profit and only engaged in a commercial activity on an ancillary basis.

The majority of the funding for the work was provided by State (Hungarian) and EC aid.  The Hungarian authority formed the view that, because a nominal fee was charged this did not amount to an economic activity and so there was no right to deduct input tax incurred on the costs of getting the system operational.  The CJEU went straight to judgement and decided that the construction and operation of the system could rightly be regarded as an economic activity and found for the taxpayer. It also provided a very helpful and clear summary in respect of “business” by commenting that “… the fact that the price paid for an economic transaction is higher or lower than the cost price, and, therefore, higher or lower than the open market value, is irrelevant for the purpose of establishing whether it was a transaction effected for consideration …”.

NB: The one area that the CJEU did refer back to the National Court however, was whether the transaction at issue in the case was a wholly artificial arrangement which did not reflect economic reality and was set up with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage.

It is interesting to compare this finding with the UK case law above, especially the points concerning “a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made” and “sound and recognised business principles”. I strongly suspect that what constitutes a business will continue to occupy advisers and HMRC and throw up disputes until the end of time (and/or the end of VAT….).

Full case here

VAT – Latest from the courts. More on separate and composite supplies and land exemption

By   17 May 2016
0

TC05078 Blue Chip Hotels Ltd

This is a FTT case which considered the VAT analysis of a supply in two ways. The appellant was an hotel which offered a wedding “package”. The package comprised; a room which was licensed for civil wedding ceremonies, the hire of other rooms, catering, accommodation, car parking and the use of the grounds for photographs.  The only activity carried out in the “wedding room” was the wedding ceremony itself.  The hotel treated the hire of the wedding room as exempt and added VAT to the remainder of the package.

The two technical points were:

  1.  Was the supply of the wedding room a separate supply to the rest of the wedding package as advanced by the taxpayer, or was it one element of the overall package to which standard rating applied?, and;
  2. If an independent supply, was it an exempt supply of land under VAT Act, Schedule 9, Group 1 as argued by the appellant?

Somewhat to the puzzlement of the Tribunal, HMRC had accepted that if the wedding room was supplied without any other element of the wedding package it could be treated as an exempt supply of land.

On the first point the Tribunal decided that the hire of the wedding room should be treated as a separate supply for VAT purposes. However, this was only relevant if the taxpayer could demonstrate that the provision of the wedding room was a supply of land.

On the second point, the issue was whether what the hotel supplied was more than the mere hire of the wedding room as a passive letting of land. The tribunal was of the view that an additional service was being provided, this being the service of a legal wedding ceremony which could be carried out only because of the licensed nature of the wedding room.  That is; what was being paid for was the right to participate in a particular event, only part of which entailed the provision of the physical space in which that event occurred.

The Tribunal concluded that the supply of the wedding room could not be treated as an exempt supply of land via VAT Act, Schedule 9, Group 1, the provision of licensed premises in which a civil wedding could legally be carried out went beyond the passive letting of land and was outside the scope of the exemption.

This seems to go against the decision in Drumtochty Castle Ltd (TC2111) inter alia, where the Tribunal found that in similar circumstances to those in this instant case that what was being offered was a single package such that exemption could not be applied to certain elements. Although it may simply demonstrate that even subtle differences in the facts can result in a different VAT outcome.  As previously observed in a number of these types of cases, it is crucial to analyse precisely what is being provided, even in cases where the VAT treatment has remained unchanged for a number of years.  Case law develops at a very fast rate and legislation changes regularly, both of which can affect the tax position.

VAT – Spot The Ball – Latest from the courts

By   9 May 2016
0

Is Spot The Ball a game? And if it is, is it a game of chance? (And therefore exempt from VAT).

In the case of IFX Investment Company Ltd & ORS the main issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) were wrong to hold that the appellants’ “Spot The Ball” competitions was exempt under the gaming exemption in Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9 Group 4. To fall within the gaming exemption, Spot The Ball must be a “game of chance” within the meaning of the Gaming Act 1968. The dispute was over the word “game” and the words “of chance”.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) considered whether the FtT decision in favour of the appellant that the supply was exempt or whether HMRC’s successful appeal to the Upper-tier Tribunal (UtT) should stand.

The court heard form the promoters that while there was an element of skill in determining roughly where the panel that decided where the ball should be would actually place it, the precise placement of the cross was essentially a matter of chance.  HMRC insisted that the competitors were not “playing a game” as they advanced the argument that a “game” required interaction between the players. and therefore Spot The Ball could not be considered playing a game of chance such that the supply is standard rated.

The UtT  deemed that Spot The Ball is “played” in “solitary isolation” and does not involve any interaction between competitors. The only contract is between the operator and the individual competitor. Additionally the act of placing a cross on the coupon was not “playing”

The CoA disagreed with the UtT’s decision and concluded that the FtT made a finding that Spot The Ball was a game of chance and there was no reason to disturb this decision. The FtT was correct to hold that there is no inter-player interaction rule. Previous case law clearly contemplates that there can be a game without the contestants being in communication with each other. Consequently, it restored the FtT’s decision and the supplies are exempt.

This case has brought home to me two (non-VAT) things; 1) That Spot The Ball is still around, and that 2) I always thought that one had to actually put a cross where the ball actually was, rather than where a judging panel thought the ball was likely to be.  One lives and learns. I’m also constantly surprised that “the pools” still exist in these days of lotteries and lotto and other promotions.

Case here

VAT – Latest from the courts; use and enjoyment provisions

By   25 April 2016
0

Telefonica Europe Plc and Telefonica UK Limited 

The VAT Use and Enjoyment provisions set out an additional layer of rules which establish the place of supply of certain services. They apply to; telecommunications and broadcasting services; electronically supplied services (for business customers); hired goods; and hired means of transport. Broadly, effective use and enjoyment takes place where a recipient actually consumes the services, regardless of any contractual arrangements, payment, or beneficial interest. The intention of this provision is to correct instances of distortion which remain as a result of considering only where the provider and the customer belong. HMRC give the example of supplies such as telecommunications services which are actually consumed outside the EC, to be subject to UK VAT. Of course, the converse is that it would be distortive for there to be no EC VAT on such services where they are consumed in the UK.

In the Upper Tribunal case of Telefonica Europe Plc and Telefonica UK Limited the dispute involved the way in which the appellant calculated the value of its mobile telephone services which were used and enjoyed outside the EC (and thus UK VAT free). Over a number of years Telefonica had an agreement with HMRC whereby the amount of outside the EC supplies was calculated by reference to revenue, ie; comparing call, text and data income relating to non-EC supplies to total income.

HMRC subsequently formed the view that this method of calculation was distortive because higher charges were made to non-EC users than EC consumers.  HMRC proposed a “usage methodology” which used call times, texts sent and volume of data used. As may be expected, this resulted in a lower percentage of supplies that were outside the scope of UK VAT thus increasing HMRC’s VAT take.

The appellant contended that the usage methodology was contrary to EC and UK VAT legislation.  Not surprisingly, the UTT rejected this argument, deciding that Telefonica had not established that HMRC’s proposal was unlawful.

So then the outcome would be expected to be that the usage methodology should be used, but no.  It was decided that the most accurate method would be one based on the time a customer has access to the network outside the EC; which differs from both the usage and revenue methods. 

This type of dispute is quite common and also appears regularly in partial exemption situations. There are nearly always alternative ways to view apportionment calculations and it pays to obtain professional advice; not only to ensure that a fair result is achieved, but as assistance with negotiations (which may avoid having to go to Tribunal).  

VAT Latest from the courts: Stocks Fly Fishery – single or multiple supply?

By   19 April 2016
0

As many will know, there is a significant amount of case law concerning what may be treated as a composite supply at one VAT rate, and what are separate supplies at different VAT rates.  The latest in this series is the First Tier Tribunal case of Stocks Fly Fishery

The appellant is a trout fishery  in the Forest of Bowland. They argued that they supplied standard rated fishing and a distinct zero rated supply of fish for human consumption.

They provided two types of daily ticket which was required to fish the reservoir. The first was a sporting ticket, which entitled an angler to fish, but any fish caught must be returned to the water. The second was a take ticket which also enabled a person to fish but any fish caught (up to a certain number) may be taken away for food.  A take ticket was more expensive than a sporting ticket. The more fish that were taken away, the more expensive the take ticket was.  The taxpayer formed the opinion that it made two supplies; one of fishing which was agreed to be standard rated, and one of food for human consumption (the trout) which was zero rated. The value of the zero rated element was said to be the difference between the sporting ticket price and that of the take ticket.

The issue was whether the ability to take away the fish for food was a separate supply, or ancillary to the substantive supply of fishing.

The appellant cited  Hughes v Pendragon Sabre Ltd (t/a Porsche Centre Bolton) while HMRC relied on Chalk Springs Fisheries (1987) (LON/86/706) Roger Cambrai Haynes (1988) (LON/87/624) and Card Protection Plan Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

As an observation, the chairman in the Chalk Springs Fisheries case stated “…No trout is, in my view, supplied to him at all. Instead the fisherman must go out and catch them, if he can.”  This was obviously quite unhelpful to the appellant. Additionally, the chairman was obliged to follow the well-known Card Protection Plan case which sets out guidance on matters such as this.

Decision

The FTT decided that the essential feature of the transaction was fishing and the dominant motive of anglers going to the fishery was to fish, regardless of which type of ticket was purchased. Therefore, the right to fish had to be regarded as constituting the principal service and the right to kill and keep the trout fish, if caught, should be regarded as ancillary to that principal purpose. Therefore there was a single standard rated supply of fishing.

It is always worth reviewing whether supplies made by a business can, and ought, to be treated separately, or as a single bundle. The existence of such a massive amount of case law on this subject indicates that this issue will continue to run and run.

Please contact us should this matter raise any concerns or present a possible opportunity.

VAT – Latest from the courts: Frank A Smart & Son Limited

By   4 April 2016
0

Recovery of input tax incurred on the purchase of Single Farm Payment Entitlement (SFPE) units.

HMRC often reject claims for input tax as they consider that they relate to non-business activities, or more nebulously the costs are not reflected in the prices of supplies made by the claimant (the so called “cost component” approach).  This very helpful Upper Tribunal (UT) case provides insight into the logic applied by HMRC in reaching a decision to disallow a claim for VAT incurred.

This was a company which farmed land and also paid VAT on the purchase of SFPE units.  These units entitled the company to receive benefits via the EC Single Farm Payment Scheme.  HMRC contended that the receipt of the SFPE payments was non-business, or in the alternative, they were not a cost component of any taxable supply made by the farming company.

The UT refused HMRC’s appeal against the initial FT-T decision in favour of the appellant.  It found that there was sufficient evidence that the purchase of the SFPE units (and the income which resulted in the acquisition of them) was not a separate activity to the farming supplies so the non-business argument did not apply.  Further, the Chairman stated that “…it is unnecessary for the company to prove that the cost in question was actually built into the price charged for the supply”. Therefore the cost component contention put forward by HMRC also failed.

The Chairman’s comments appear to go against HMRC’s published guidance on “direct and immediate link with the taxable person’s business”, particularly in respect of holding companies.

If you are aware of any situation where HMRC have disallowed claims for input tax for either non-business or non-cost component reasons please contact us as this case may be of benefit.

Full decision here

VAT Latest from the courts – importance of invoicing requirements

By   16 March 2016
0

In the recent case of Gradon Construction Ltd the validity of invoices was considered and whether input tax could be recovered in respect of them.

HMRC disallowed a claim for input tax on the basis that the supplier had retrospectively deregistered on a date prior to the date shown on the invoices.  The Tribunal decided that this was not a reason to disallow the claim.  However, it decided that the claim should be disallowed on the grounds that the invoices did not contain a description sufficient to identify the goods or services supplied, nor did they provide the quantity of the goods or the extent of the services as required by legislation.  Consequently, the documents did not meet the requirements of a valid tax invoice with the result that the recipient could not recover the amount on the documents which purported to be VAT.  HMRC has the discretion to accept alternative evidence in lieu of an invoice, but in this case the Tribunal decided that HMRC acted reasonably in not accepting any other documentation, so the recipient of the supply could not recover the input tax.

This case again highlights the crucial importance of primary documentation when it comes to VAT.  A full guide to invoices here

Information on input tax that it is not possible to claim here https://www.marcusward.co/what-vat-cant-you-claim-2/

It is crucial that a business’ invoices meet all the requirements, and that a procedure is in place to check the validity of invoices received in order to determine whether the input tax is claimable, or whether the invoice issuer should be contacted so that a valid tax invoice may be obtained.

Latest from the courts – More on VAT on food and drink

By   14 March 2016
0

OK, so most people are aware of the Jaffa Cake case and the appeals relating to smoothies and the VAT oddities that are thrown up by chocolate foods and fruit drinks.  The latest in what many view to be a ridiculous situation is the Nestlé UK Limited case concerning Nesquik powder.

Nestlé appealed against HMRC’s decision not to repay over £4 million in VAT accounted for on the sale of strawberry and banana flavoured Nesquik powder.  Nestlé formed the view that the powder which is used to flavour milk, should be zero rated in the same way that the chocolate flavoured powder and ready to drink milk based drinks it produces are.

The First Tier Tribunal found in favour of HMRC and decided that the fruit flavoured powders were a “powder for the preparation of beverages” covered by the exception from zero-rating for such products and that they were not covered by the items overriding the exceptions to zero-rating, so they remained standard-rated; hence no retrospective claim for overdeclared output tax.

So, there is differing VAT treatment depending on what flavour the Nesquik powders are, and between ready to drink products and ones where the customer has to mix them his/herself.

Fortunately, VAT is completely logical and there are simply no traps for the unwary!  My own view is that the legislation regarding food and drink is so convoluted and complex that it needs a complete rewriting.  I appreciate that case law has caused the current situation, and this has not been helped by political tinkering (pasty tax anyone?) but clarity is long overdue.  I strongly suggest that this is not the last food based case, and of course we have had them going back to the inception of VAT.  Now, this chocolate hot cross bun……

VAT – Latest from the courts – Holding companies management charges. Norseman Gold plc

By   15 February 2016
0

The Norseman Gold plc case considered whether a holding company could recover input tax incurred on certain costs.  This is turn depended on whether the holding company was making taxable supplies. Specifically; management charges to non VAT-grouped subsidiary companies.

The Upper Tribunal has recently released its decision. It upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision which confirmed that, although the management services in this case could have been considered as economic activities for VAT purposes, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Norseman was making, or intended to make, taxable supplies when the input tax was reclaimed. The UT found that “…vague and general intention that payment would be made …” for management services was insufficient to show a connection between the VAT incurred and taxable supplies.  Consequently, HMRC’s assessments to recover the relevant input tax were upheld.

Importance

This case emphasises the importance of holding companies having appropriate processes and ensuring that proper documentation is in place to evidence, not only the intention to make taxable supplies of management charges, but that those charges were actually made to subsidiaries.  It is also important to ensure that actual management of the subsidiaries take place, and a record of this management is retained.  Simply making a charge to subsidiaries is insufficient if no services are actually supplied as this will not constitute an economic activity.

Often significant costs can be incurred by a holding company in cases such as acquisitions and restructuring.  It is important that these costs are incurred by, and invoiced to the appropriate entity in order for the VAT on them to be recovered.  Consideration must be given to how the input tax is recovered before it is incurred and the appropriate structure put in place.

Please contact me should you require further information on this point or would like to discuss the matter further.