Generally, supplies of insurance and insurance broking are exempt from VAT. However, it is important to look at exactly what is being provided as there is no “blanket” exemption.
The latest First Tier Tribunal case of Riskstop Consulting Limited illustrates the precise tests that must be applied and met in order for exemption to apply.
HMRC has appealed to the Upper Tribunal against the First-Tier Tribunal’s decision in the Associated Newspapers matter. The FTT decided that Associated Newspapers could recover input tax incurred on vouchers given away in its sales promotion schemes.
A previous decision by the FTT that no output tax is due on the vouchers when given away as part of a sales promotion is subject to an appeal and both cases will be heard together this week.
This is likely to have a significant impact on the VAT treatment of vouchers and sales promotion schemes and will be watched with interest by many businesses. The outcome may also affect staff incentive schemes where vouchers are provided.
The interaction between vouchers and VAT has had a turbulent past and the matter is complex. I hope that we obtain some clarity from the courts before too long.
The Upper Tribunal has decided In the University Of Cambridge case that costs incurred on running its endowment fund relate to the university’s overall economic activity in general and consequently it is possible to recover an element of it. The full judgement here
This will impact on all charities and similar bodies which have non-business activities that support their business activities.
Please contact us if your charity is in a similar position because if past input tax claims have been restricted as a result of HMRC’s interpretation (which is highly likely) it is possible to make a claim which covers the last four years’ VAT costs.
If your business have ever submitted a retrospective claim to HMRC on the basis of UK law being incompatible with EC legislation, it is possible to claim compound interest.
Full judgement here: https://emeia.ey-vx.com/730/28558/landing-pages/littlewoods-coa-judgment-21-may-2015.pdf
Please contact us if you require any further information or assistance.
Upper Tribunal versus High Court
In the recent case of Meena Seddon Settlement which involved Inheritance Tax, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) was required to decide whether the Upper Tribunal is bound by decisions made in the High Court. The FTT decision will doubtless affect VAT cases in the future.
It decided to follow a precedent set by the Upper Tribunal over an earlier decision by the High Court.
The taxpayer contended that the matter should be decided on the basis of a previous High Court decision. HMRC argued on the basis of a later Upper Tribunal decision. In normal circumstances, a later decision should take precedence over the earlier if both decisions have the same authority and have fully considered the previous judgments. However, if the taxpayer was correct to say that the Upper Tribunal was bound by precedents set by the High Court, the later decision could be disregarded as being wrong in law.
The FTT decided that it was the intention of Parliament that the Upper Tribunal was not bound to follow High Court precedents. This was notwithstanding the fact that a High Court could have a supervisory role over the Upper Tribunal in cases of judicial review. Therefore, it determined the case on the authority of the later Upper Tribunal decision in favour of HMRC.
In Colaingrove Limited the Upper Tribunal (UT) this week was required to decide whether the supply of electricity to a mobile home was an independent supply, or just one element of part of an overall supply of holiday accommodation.
This is a notoriously difficult area of VAT as the recent case of WM Morrison Supermarket Limited (“Morrisons”) demonstrates. In this case disposable barbecues (standard rated) were sold with charcoal (reduced rated when sold independently) and the UT decided that it was not possible to carve out the reduced rated element form the overall supply so the whole supply was standard rated.
In Colaingrove a flat-rate charge was made to holidaymakers who paid it as part of the hire charge for self-catering accommodation in mobile homes. The appellant argued that the electricity charge was separately identifiable and quantifiable and should consequently be treated as a reduced rated (5% rather than 20%) independent supply.
The logic in Morrisons was applied in this case and the UT ruled that the charge for the electricity should properly be included in the price of the standard rated holiday accommodation. The charge should not be split out, so the entire charge for the accommodation was standard rated, including the specified sum charged for the electricity.
The judge acknowledged that this case was not an easy one to decide and that the arguments advanced on behalf of the taxpayer were both powerful and attractive. It would seem likely that an appeal to the Court of Appeal will be made.
This case further illustrates that care must be taken when analysing the VAT treatment of supplies. There is significant case law on this matter, but there still remains a certain overlap and sometimes conflicting opinions. The precise facts of the matter are very important when determining whether supplies are compound or multiple for VAT purposes.
Overview
Whether there is a compound or multiple supply is determined by the tests set out in the Card Protection Plan case, namely; firstly, whether there is a principal element of the supply to which all other parts are ancillary and, secondly, whether, in the eyes of the customer, the ancillary element provides a means of better enjoying the principal element. If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then there is a single supply.
Books are zero rated for VAT purposes, but only (currently) if they are of the traditional dead tree variety. The zero rating does not extend to e-books which are standard rated for VAT. There has been a long standing argument between EC Member States (and between other interested parties) that similar content should not be taxed at different rates solely depending on the method of delivery. This argument is about to be tested in the courts. The UK is not permitted by the EC to extend its current zero rating for printed matter, however, it is expected that the contention in this case will be that the inclusion of new products will not extend the zero rating, but rather the development of technology has created a supply that should be covered by the existing zero rating legislation.
If it is accepted by the courts that all types of book should attract the same rate of VAT, it may mean that the rate will be equalised upwards. So, by the end of the year we could be looking at VAT of 5% being added to books, newspapers and other printed matter which was hitherto VAT free – A “tax on learning” as previous protests had it when there was a threat to tax free books.
UPDATE
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has today ruled that France and Luxembourg must raise their reduced VAT rates on sales of e-book. This will conclude ongoing disputes (see above) between EC countries over whether e-books may be treated similarly to printed books at the nil or reduced rates. The UK and Germany were the main protagonists in challenging those Member States where e-books have been treated the same as printed versions.
Initially, Luxembourg and France began reclassifying e-books at the same rate as printed books – 3% and 5.5% in 2012. Subsequently, Italy and Malta joined them at the start of 2015, reducing the rates to 4% and 5%.
These rates where challenged by the UK and Germany who asked the EC to impose rules to ensure that e-books could not take advantage of the printed book rates. Today, the ECJ published its ruling, stating that since e-books do not have the same physical characteristics as printed books and therefore cannot benefit from the printed book reduced VAT rules.
This decision does seem to go against common sense,but the ECJ’s hands were somewhat tied by the VAT rules which were introduced before e-books existed.
In the recent case of VDP Dental Laboratory NV & ors (C-144/13) the ECJ has decided that a Dutch exemption for a supply which is ultra vires in respect of EC VAT legislation does not give a right to input tax deduction via EC legislation. The exemption precludes input VAT recovery, but has the effect of exempting imports and acquisitions into The Netherlands. The ECJ held that a taxable person who is not obliged to charge VAT on the supply of goods because national law (in contravention of Community law) provides for exemption, cannot however, rely on Community law to claim input tax deduction of VAT incurred on purchases incurred in respect of that supply. What this means though is that the exemption in Dutch domestic legislation means that the taxpayer will not be taxed on importations or acquisitions, irrespective of the VAT treatment in the Member State of an EU supplier.
Broadly, this means that a business cannot take advantage of domestic legislation and/or EC law in circumstances where it may benefit.
A discussion document is seeking views by 11 May about potential improvements to how HMRC applies penalties for failing to pay what is owed or to meet deadlines for returns or registration.
As HMRC designs a tax system for the modern, digital world, it wants to ensure that its approach to penalties also keeps up to date with both technology and behavioural science. HMRC is considering whether and how it should differentiate between those who deliberately and persistently fail to meet administrative deadlines or to pay what they should on time, and those who make occasional and genuine errors for which other responses might be more appropriate.
HMRC is looking for feedback from individuals and businesses. The purpose of the discussion is to seek views on the policy design and any suitable possible alternatives, before consulting later on a specific proposal for reform.
I look at the main points below and identify where changes to the penalty system are most likely to be made.
The document may be accessed here:
Summary
In terms of Indirect Tax there are two main areas which HMRC is focussing on:
VAT default surcharge – HMRC highlights two issues with the current VAT default surcharge regime. The first is the concern that while the absence of penalty for the initial offence in a 12 month period gives business the chance to get processes right, some customers simply ignore this warning.
The second concern is the issue of proportionality which fails to distinguish between payments that are one or two days late or many months late.
Excise regulatory penalties – This also considers proportionality, noting that regulatory failures can lead to very large penalties, because the penalty is fixed as a percentage of the duty. The size of such penalties might be viewed as disproportionate.
The existing, long-standing default surcharge regime has always had issues with the principle of proportionality. The regime has been challenged in the Courts – notably in the Trinity Mirror Plc case (soon to be heard at the UT) where the earlier FTT allowed the appeal against a default surcharge on the grounds of proportionality.
If you would like assistance in making a representation please contact me.
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…..!