Category Archives: Latest from the Courts

VAT: Business or non-business? The Towards Zero Foundation case

By Marcus Ward 16 August 2022

Latest from the courts

In the The Towards Zero Foundation First Tier Tribunal case the issue was whether part of the appellant’s activities could be “stripped out”, classified as non-business, and therefore result in a loss of input tax.

This case follows a long succession of recent cases on the distinction between business (economic activity) and non-business. I have considered these in other articles:

Northumbria Healthcare

Wakefield College (referred to at this Tribunal)

Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft

Healthwatch Hampshire CIC

Pertempts Limited

and new HMRC guidance on the subject.

VAT attributable to non-business activities is not input tax and cannot be reclaimed. However, if the non-business activity is part of wider business activities then it may be recovered as input tax.

Background

The Appellant is a charity. Its primary objective is to achieve zero road traffic fatalities principally through the operation of New Car Assessment Programmes (NCAP) – testing car safety.

When it received money as consideration for carrying out the testing, it was agreed by all parties that that this represented economic activity.

As part of this activity, the charity purchased new cars (so called “mystery shopping” exercises) and carried out tests at its own expense. In this start-up phase for an NCAP it is necessary to test vehicles without manufacturer support as the independence of the testing programme is critical in order to establish consumer credibility.

The results of the tests (usually giving rise to substandard or unsatisfactory outcomes) are published and the Appellant generates publicity of the results through social media, news coverage, trade press etc. These results inform and influence customer buying behaviour which in turn drives manufacturers to improve the safety features.

As the market sophistication increases the NCAP star ratings for vehicles are used by the manufacturers in promotion of its vehicles.

The aim of the Appellant is for each jurisdictional NCAP to ultimately become self-funding through manufacturer testing fees.

Contentions

HMRC argued that when the appellant carried out tests on purchased vehicles this should be recognised as a specific activity which could not be a business as it generated no income – the tests should be considered in isolation. Consequently, the input tax which was recovered was blocked and an assessment was issued to disallow the claim.

The Foundation contended that it published the results of those tests, and this resulted in the commercial need for manufacturers to improve safety standards by way of commissions for further research. This research was funded by the car makers and was therefore economic activity. The “free” testing needed to be undertaken so as to create a market for manufacturer funded testing – the initial testing was just one element of the overall taxable supply. Consequently, all residual input tax incurred is attributed to its taxable business activities and fully recoverable.

Decision

The FTT found that it was clear that manufacturers would not proactively seek to have vehicles tested without an initial unfavourable baseline assessment. If the free testing had been a genuinely independent activity HMRC would be correct, but the evidence did not support this analysis. It found that the provision of free testing was an inherent and integral part of the appellant’s business activity.

This being the case there was no reason to attribute any VAT to non-business activities, and the input tax weas fully claimable.

Commentary

Another reminder, if one were needed, of the importance of correctly establishing whether the activities of a body (usually charities, but not exclusively) are business or non-business. The consequences will affect both the quantum of output tax and claiming VAT on expenditure. More on the topic here.

The decision was as anticipated, but this case illustrates HMRC’s willingness to challenge (often unsuccessfully) VAT treatment in similar situations.

VAT: No invoice – no claim. The Tower Bridge GP Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 9 August 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal (CoA) case of Tower Bridge GP Ltd the issue was whether the appellant could claim input tax in a situation where it did not (and does not) hold a valid tax invoice.

Background

Tower Bridge was the representative member of a VAT group which contained Cantor Fitzgerald Europe Ltd (CFE). CFE traded in carbon credits. These carbon credit transactions were connected to VAT fraud.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that CFE neither knew, nor should have known, that the transactions it entered into before 15 June 2009 were connected to VAT fraud but that it should have known that its transactions were connected to fraud from 15 June 2009. The appeal relates only to transactions entered into before that date.

CFE purchased carbon credits from Stratex Alliance Limited (“Stratex”) The carbon credits supplied to CFE were to be used by the business for the purpose of its own onward taxable transactions (in carbon credits). The total of VAT involved was £5,605,119.74.

The Stratex invoices were not valid VAT invoices. They did not show a VAT registration number for Stratex, nor did they name CFE as the customer. Although Stratex was a taxable person, it transpired that Stratex was not registered for VAT (and therefore could not include a valid VAT number on its invoices) and that it fraudulently defaulted on its obligation to account to HMRC for the sums charged as output tax on these invoices.

Subsequent investigations by HMRC resulted in Stratex not being able to be traced.

Contentions

The appellant contended that it is entitled to make the deduction either as of right, or because HMRC unlawfully refused to use its discretion to allow the claim by accepting alternative evidence.

HMRC denied Tower Bridge the recovery of the input tax on the Stratex invoices on the basis that the invoices did not meet the formal legal requirements to be valid VAT invoices. HMRC also refused to exercise their discretion to allow recovery of the input tax on the basis that:

Stratex was not registered for VAT
the transactions were connected to fraud
CFE failed to conduct reasonable due diligence in relation to the transactions

Decision

Dismissing this appeal, the CoA ruled that where an invoice does not contain the information required by legislation (The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 No 2518 Part III, Regulation 14), or contains an error in that information, which is incapable of correction, the right to deduct cannot be exercised. The appellant did not have the ability to make a claim as of right.

The Court then considered whether HMRC ought to have permitted Tower Bridge to make a claim using alternative evidence. It found that the attack on HMRC’s exercise of discretion fails for the reasons contended by HMRC (above). These were perfectly legitimate matters for HMRC to take into account in deciding whether to exercise the first discretion in the taxable person’s favour.

CFE had failed to carry out “the most basic of checks on Stratex”.

So, the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

This was hardly a surprising outcome considering that if an exception were to be made, there would be a loss to the public purse consisting of the input tax, with no corresponding gain to the public purse from the output tax that Stratex ought to have paid, but fraudulently did not.

This case demonstrates the importance of obtaining a proper tax invoice and to carry out checks on its validity. Additionally, there is a need to conduct accurate due diligence on the supply chain. I have summarised the importance of Care with input tax claims which includes a helpful list of checks which must be carried out.

VAT: Exempt insurance intermediation. The Staysure case

By Marcus Ward 8 June 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Staysure.Co.UK Limited First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether services of service of generating insurance leads for the appellant fell within the insurance exemption or whether the reverse charge (please see guide below) should be applied.

Background

Staysure is an FCA regulated insurance broker based in the UK which provided travel insurance for people aged 50 or over, home insurance, cover for holiday homes and motor vehicles. It received services from an associated company belonging in Gibraltar.

The services amounted to:

the provision of insurance leads online and offline

placing targeted advertising in the press, television and online

owning and operating the domain and related website: staysure.co.uk

providing insurance quotations via a bespoke quote engine which employed complex algorithms to produce a personalised price for each customer and resulted in an offer which was competitive from the customer’s perspective while also maximising profit for Staysure, the underwriter, and the service provider

reporting on where prospective customers were falling out of the quotation and lead selection process, and in so doing demonstrate opportunities for further product development

If the services were not covered by the relevant exemption, they would be subject to a reverse charge via The Value Added Taxes Act 1994 section 8 by Staysure. As the recipient was not fully taxable, this would create an actual cost when the charge was applied. HMRC considered the service taxable and:

registered Staysure on the strength of the deemed self-supply

assessed for the input tax which was created by the reverse charge.

The assessment was circa £8 million, penalties of over £1 million plus interest. This was on the basis that HMRC concluded that the supply was taxable marketing rather than exempt intermediary services.

Decision

The court decided that the marketing and technology was used to find clients and introduce them to the insurer. The supplier was not supplying advertising, but qualified leads produced by that advertising. The quote engine was not merely technical assistance, but a sophisticated technology which assessed the conditions on which customers might be offered insurance. Consequently, these services were exempt as the supplies of an insurance intermediary (The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 2, item 4) and Staysure was not required to account for UK VAT under the reverse charge.

The appeal was allowed. The services were within the insurance exemption, essentially because they were linked to essential aspects of the work carried out by Staysure, namely the finding of prospective clients and their introduction to the insurer with a view to the conclusion of insurance contracts.

Technical

This is another case on the application of the reverse charge. I looked at a previous case here

However, the judge helpfully summarised the following principles on insurance intermediation after considering previous case law.

whether a person is an insurance broker or an insurance agent depends on what they do. How they choose to describe themselves or their activities is not determinative

it is not necessary for a person to be carrying out all the functions of an insurance agent or broker for the exemption to be satisfied

it is essential that the person has a relationship with both the insurer and the insured party, but this does not need to be a contractual relationship. The requirement that the person has a relationship with the insurer is satisfied where the person is the subcontractor of a broker, which in turn has a relationship with the insurer

where the person is a subcontractor of a broker, the exemption is satisfied:
- where the relationship with the customer is indirect or where the subcontractor is one of a chain of persons bringing together an insurance company and a potential insured, but;
- the subcontractor’s services must be linked to the essential aspects of the work of an insurance broker or agent, namely the finding of prospective clients and their introduction to the insurer with a view to the conclusion of insurance contracts

Commentary

Care should always be taken when outsourcing/offshoring services or in fact, when any business restructuring takes place. The VAT impact of doing so could provide costly. In this case, the distinction between intermediary and marketing services was considered. It went in the taxpayer’s favour, but slightly different arrangements could have created a large VAT hit.

Guide

Reverse charge on services received from overseas

Normally, the supplier of a service is the person who must account to the tax authorities for any VAT due on the supply. However, in certain situations, the position is reversed and it is the customer who must account for any VAT due. This is known as the ‘Reverse Charge’ procedure. Generally, the Reverse Charge must be applied to services which are received by a business in the UK VAT free from overseas.

Accounting for VAT and recovery of input tax.

Where the Reverse Charge procedure applies, the recipient of the services must act as both the supplier and the recipient of the services.

Value of supply

The value of the deemed supply is to be taken to be the consideration in money for which the services were in fact supplied or, where the consideration did not consist or not wholly consist of money, such amount in money as is equivalent to that consideration. The consideration payable to the overseas supplier for the services excludes UK VAT but includes any taxes levied abroad.

Time of supply.

The time of supply of such services is the date the supplies are paid for or, if the consideration is not in money, the last day of the VAT period in which the services are performed.

The outcome

The effect of the provisions is that the Reverse Charge has no net cost to the recipient if he can attribute the input tax to taxable supplies and can therefore reclaim it in full. If he cannot, the effect is to put him in the same position as if had received the supply from a UK supplier rather than from one outside the UK. Thus the charge aims to avoid cross border VAT rate shopping. It is not possible to attribute the input tax created directly to the deemed (taxable) supply.

VAT: The importance of Transfer of a Going Concern rules. The Haymarket case

By Marcus Ward 6 June 2022

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Haymarket Media Group Limited (Haymarket) the issue was whether the sale of Teddington TV Studios qualified as a VAT free Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC).

Background

The site in question was subjected to an Option To Tax (OTT) by the supplier. The sale of the property was with the benefit of planning consent for the development of flats and houses on the site after demolition of the TV studios.

Subject of the appeal

The transferor/vendor had previously let a small building on the site to the purchaser’s advisers and, on this basis, the sale was structured to be a TOGC as a property rental business. HMRC raised an assessment as it considered that neither a property rental business, nor a property development business had been transferred.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The FTT found that, despite the short lived and minor letting, this did not constitute a business. Further, that even if this had been a business, the contract required vacant possession so a business could not have been continued.

The contention that a property development business was being carried on was also rejected. Despite significant costs being incurred by Haymarket in obtaining the planning permission, the intention* was always to sell the site to a developer, rather than the appellant carrying out the development itself (there was no meaningful work being carried out on the site). The fact that planning permission was obtained did not mean that there was an ongoing property development business which could be transferred.

* The importance of “intention” in VAT is considered here and here.

Technical

In order for a transaction to qualify for a VAT free TOGC, ALL of the following conditions must be met:

the assets must be sold as a business, or part of a business, as a going concern
the assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part (HMRC guidance uses the words “intend to use…” which, in some cases may provide additional comfort)
there must be no break in trading
where the seller is a taxable person (VAT registered) the purchaser must be a taxable person already or immediately become, as a result of the transfer, a taxable person
where only part of a business is sold it must be capable of separate operation
there must not be a series of immediately consecutive transfers

In this case, the first, second and third tests was failed leaving the supply to be VAT-able as a result of the OTT.

More on the complex subject of TOGCs including case law here, here, here, and here.

Commentary

TOGCs are often a minefield for taxpayers and their advisers, especially if property is involved. Not only is land law and the relevant VAT legislation complex, but property transactions are usually high value, with a lot of VAT at stake (the VAT in this case was £17 million). Additionally, they are often “one-offs” and frequently outside the usual commercial expertise of people running the business. We strongly advise that comprehensive technical advice is always obtained when TOGC is mooted by one side or the other, particularly when the relevant asset is involved in property letting or development.

VAT: Are preparatory ground works for burial chambers exempt? The Hodge case

By Marcus Ward 23 May 2022

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Hodge and Deery Limited the issue was whether ground works preparatory to installing flexi vault burial chambers exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, group 8, item 2 – “The making of arrangements for or in connection with the disposal of the remains of the dead.”

Background

The vaulting system was installed in graveyards with unstable soil structures which can result in issues with toxins and in subsidence of an existing grave when another grave is dug in the adjacent plot. The burial plots are ready for use and the element above the plots is landscaped (which was undertaken by a third-party).

The appellant’s case

The appellant considered that the installation of the flexible burial vaults should be treated as the advance digging of multiple graves. It should not be regarded differently from the preparation of “normal” graves. The sole purpose of the preparation of a grave is to dispose of the remains of the dead and it should not matter that the undertaker does not prepare the grave himself.

HMRC’s case

HMRC considered that the installation of flexible burial vaults do not fall within the exemption because:

item 2 must be construed to confine the exemption to those supplies directly involved with the disposal of the remains of a particular dead person
item 2 is confined to supplies directly made by the funeral director with care and custody of the deceased. It does not extend to sub-contractors of the funeral director
the appellant had no responsibility for the deceased
although the availability of zero rating in connection with the provision of new housing can be available to sub-contractors involved in the supply of new housing, this exemption cannot extend to sub-contractors in the same way, as the sub-contractors cannot be concerned with the body of the deceased

Decision

The judge considered that the services resulted in the provision of many graves for the disposal of the remains of the dead and that the result of the services satisfied the object of the exemption. The digging of graves is central to the disposal of the remains of the dead, the services are made in connection with the disposal of the remains of the dead and within Item 2.

Commentary

In this case, it did not matter that the services are provided in advance, and nor did it matter that the services are not provided in connection with a specific funeral. It also confirms that the funeral director or undertaker need not provide all the services themselves. It seems obvious that the digging of graves is pivotal to the disposal of the remains of the dead and once it was established that a third party could dig the grave, the appeal was bound to be successful.

VAT: The importance of due diligence. The 50 Five (UK) Limited case

By Marcus Ward 10 May 2022

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of 50 Five (UK) Limited the issue was the VAT rate applicable to energy saving materials. An additional twist was that there was a sale of the business between the tax point of the relevant supplies and HMRC’s assessment.

Background

The appeal was brought in the name of the Appellant in respect of assessments raised by HMRC against the company prior to the date on which it was purchased by the present owners. The present owners were not made aware of the assessment at the time of purchase. It had not been disclosed to them as part of the due diligence which was undertaken.

The Appellant’s business was that of supply and installation of heating and hot water systems. The customers were supplied with fully installed systems. The Appellant did not ask the customers to separately source the parts for such systems and then simply fit them. These supplies were treated as those of energy saving materials and the reduced rate of 5% was applied.

HMRC raised an assessment after taking the view that the supply should have properly been standard rated at 20%.

Decision

The FTT decided that legislation which permits the sale of energy saving materials at the reduced rate of VAT apply only where the supply of those materials is independent of an installation service. In this case, as the Appellant was the provider of the goods, and also the installer, the supply to the end customer was standard rated (a composite supply).

It was noted that this outcome was counter intuitive and the result does indeed seem unfair to the taxpayer, but as there was no reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding, it was struck out. The assessment and interest was now payable by the new owners.

Commentary

An unfortunate outcome for the new owners, but it highlights three VAT issues:

always carry out appropriate due diligence when buying a business. VAT is often an issue and if the buyer had discovered the assessment, it could have either abandoned the purchase, or negotiated on the price
never assume that a lesser rate of VAT applies without carrying out appropriate research or seeking advice
always consider whether a supply is separate or composite. This is a difficult area of the tax as the amount of case law testifies

The only recourse the new owners have now is taking action against the sellers of the business.

VAT: Place of belonging. The Berlin Chemie A Menarini case

By Marcus Ward 13 April 2022

Latest from the courts

The place of belonging of a business or other person is an important tenet of the tax. I have considered this issue at length here and recent case law here.

A recent CJEU case involved a situation where a business had a registered office in one country and, potentially (hence the appeal) a fixed establishment in another.

Background

“Berlin” used a “third party” to receive certain services. Does this entry represent a fixed establishment for Berlin if it has a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure in terms of technical and human resources? If yes, is it is necessary for those human and technical resources to belong to the company receiving the services or whether it is sufficient for that company to have immediate and permanent access to such resources through a related company, of which it is major shareholder?

Technical

The wording of Article 44 of the VAT Directive and Article 11(1) of Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 do not provide any details as to whether human and technical resources must belong to the company that receives the services.

Decision

The CEUJ ruled that, simple control or ownership, of another entity is insufficient to create a fixed establishment for VAT purposes. Consequently, a third party location does not inevitably represent a fixed establishment by dint of control/ownership.

Having made that comment, the court impressed that the decision should be made “in the context of the economic and commercial reality”.

The analysis of the place of belonging should recognise that it is not necessary for the fixed establishment to own the resources, but there should be control over these resources in the same way as an “owner”. A fixed establishment is characterised by a suitable structure which enables a business to receive and use services supplied to them for their own needs and not by the decision power of a certain structure that businesses have put in place.

Commentary

Although an EU case, it could impact UK businesses who make supplies to EU recipients and particularly, if there is a “network” of offices or business locations in various EU Member States. Overseas suppliers to (potentially) UK business with various business premises and structures will need to recognise this ruling in order to establish the place of supply (and hence what country’s VAT and at what rate to apply).

This decision provides some helpful clarity, which may be summarised as: In principle, a subsidiary does not always create a fixed establishment.

VAT: Is dog grooming taught in schools? The Dogs Delight case

By Marcus Ward 15 February 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Julie Lalou t/a Dogs Delight First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether the teaching of dog grooming qualified as private tuition and was therefore exempt.

Background

The Appellant operated a business providing dog grooming and dog grooming courses. The appeal was concerned only with the supplies of dog grooming tuition as it was accepted that dog grooming in itself is taxable.

Technical

The sole issue in dispute in this appeal was whether the supplies fall within the private tuition exemption as for provided by The Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, item 2 “The supply of private tuition, in a subject ordinarily taught in a school or university, by an individual teacher acting independently of an employer”.

HMRC’s view was that “to be eligible for exemption dog grooming would need to be a course that is ‘ordinarily’ taught in schools and universities which it is not…”

The appellant wrote to HMRC giving a list of seven “local Colleges and Universities where the Level 3 Dog Grooming Diploma is ordinarily taught”. The appellant went on to state “There are many more within the UK” which were said to represent around 30% of English colleges. Further it was stated that the business was a City & Guilds approved centre and that the courses were not recreational.

Decision

It was accepted that the courses that the appellant taught involved her making supplies of tuition in that she transferred to her students skills and knowledge.

But, unsurprisingly, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant had failed to demonstrate that dog grooming is taught at a wide number of schools and universities

The court also determined that the appellant needed to provide some evidence of whether dog grooming was taught at schools and universities in the EU (again, something she had failed to do).

Commentary

The exemption for private tuition is fraught with complexities and the amount of case law on the subject is significant, which indicates the difficulties in analysing the VAT position. An example here. It is important to establish what is being provided and that research is carried out to consider the degree of ubiquity of the subject in education. A general guide to education here. The phrase “ordinarily taught” is rather nebulous and it would be prudent to obtain as much evidence as possible that a subject is s commonly or ordinarily taught in schools and universities if a supply is treated as exempt.

VAT: Car boot sale pitches are exempt – The Rufforth Park case

By Marcus Ward 14 February 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Rufforth Park Limited (RPL) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether pitches for car boot and auto jumble sales were subject to VAT or were they a simple licence to occupy land and exempt?

Background

The appellant has been running car boot sales at Rufforth Park for the more than forty years. When RPL began the car boot sales, the VAT office was asked to confirm that it did not need to charge VAT on the fees for the pitches. It was told that it should charge VAT, and did so. After a number of years, RPL demonstrated to the VAT office that other businesses in a similar position were not charging VAT. HMRC then agreed and the VAT the company had paid was refunded with interest. The company has not charged VAT on the pitch fees since. After a routine inspection HMRC formed the view that there were a number of services that, together, formed a standard rated supply and assessed for VAT on that basis. RPL appealed against this decision.

Technical

HMRC concluded that the fees for the pitches should be standard rated because the supply of the pitches was provided with other goods and services which constituted a single overarching supply of a service, not merely the right to occupy land. The reasons were:

Forty years of running car boot sales had built up a reputation which is a tangible benefit to stallholders. The reputation of regular events is part of the supply the stall holder receives.

Advertising to bring buyers to the site for the benefit of stall holders is part of the supply.

The amenities on site enable buyers better to enjoy their time at the car boot sale and are part of the supply.

The sellers benefit from the amenities as well as the activities undertaken by RPL to attract buyers to the site to buy items from the sellers. Those activities include:

advertising
on site café
toilets
parking
capital improvements to the site to make it more attractive to buyers
provision of some pitches under cover
cleaning the site after the events
RPL had real and significant responsibilities to the sellers (although HMRC did not specify what they were)

This was said to show there was more to the supply than the exempt passive supply of land for a stall to sell items.

The appellant submitted that the supply in this case is a single supply of a pitch rental and one must look at all the circumstances in order to establish its nature. Regard must be had to the commercial and economic realities. The renting of a pitch in a car boot sale in the present case was a relatively passive activity linked to the passage of time and not generating any significant added value and so is VAT free.

Decision

The court found that that the nature of the supply provided in return for the pitch fees is a licence to occupy land within The VAT Act, Schedule 9, Group 1, Item 1 and accordingly the fees were exempt. The appeal was allowed.

Commentary

Yet another case demonstrating the uncertainty in this area. Superficially, there is little difference in the facts of this case to those in the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Zombory-Moldovan (trading as Craft Carnival) which found that supplies of pitches at craft fairs were standard rated. However, the court found that this case could be distinguished on its facts. Which may be summarised as:

there was no formal contract between RPL and its sellers
it was not possible to book in advance
there was no selection of sellers. Anyone who arrived and paid would get a space, allocated by RPL
the advertising on the company’s website, local TV, and Facebook provided only basic information to both buyers and sellers about times and prices
RPL had no obligation to put on the car boot sales or the auto jumbles. Sellers have no right to attend. If there was no sale, they would have no recompense.
no tables, chairs or electricity were provided, even for an extra fee
there was no provision of security
the toilet and refreshment facilities were basic
the Appellant had carried out such maintenance as is required but had not attempted to enhance the facilities
whilst the car boot sales and auto jumbles might be efficiently run, they are simple events involving only the Appellant’s land and its employees and not requiring any particular organisational or management skills. Well run is not the same thing as “expertly organised and expertly run”.

It is important when considering these two decisions to establish precisely what is being supplied, as small differences in facts can affect the VAT treatment. The more “basic” the supply, the more likely that exemption will apply, but it is a question of small degrees of difference.

VAT: Bad Debt Relief. The Regency Factors case

By Marcus Ward 7 February 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Regency Factors plc Court Of Appeal (CoA) case the issue was the validity of the appellant’s claim for Bad Debt Relief (BDR) on amounts it had not received after the issue of an invoice.

Technical

BDR is a mechanism which goes some way to protect a business from payment defaulters. Under the normal rules of VAT, a supplier is required to account for output tax, even if the supply has not been paid for (however, the use of cash accounting or certain retail schemes removes the problem of VAT on bad debts from the supplier). The specific relief for unpaid VAT is via the BDR scheme.

A guide to BDR here.

Commentary on the Upper Tribunal (UT) hearing in this case here.

Background

In the CoA case the issue was whether the appellant met the conditions in The VAT General Regulations 1995, Reg 168 for claiming BDR via The VAT Act 1994, section 36.

Regency provided a factoring service to its clients for which it is paid a fee. VAT invoices for those fees were issued to clients when the invoices which are being factored are assigned to Regency for collection.

Regency appealed against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) which dismissed Regency’s appeal against VAT assessments made by HMRC to withdraw BDR which Regency had claimed in its VAT returns.

The UT held that the BDR claim was not valid because

there was no bad debt; and
Regency had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the making of a claim.

Regency appealed against the decision of the UT on the second point.

Decision

The CoA decided that as Regency’s record keeping was insufficient to support a BDR claim. Specifically, although it did keep the records required by Regulation 168 (2), it did not keep a single VAT BDR account which is required by Regulation 168 (3). The ruling commented that this requirement was a legitimate feature of the scheme as it enables an inspector to check the claim easily. It is not acceptable for a claimant to simply have a pile of unsorted documents which may, or may not, evidence a valid claim.

The court also said that it was possible for HMRC to allow a discretionary claim (clearly, they did not use that discretion in this case) and that the legal requirement was not a barrier to Regency making a proper BDR claim. The appeal was dismissed.

“In short, Regency had the opportunity to prove its claim for bad debt relief in the FTT… but it failed to do so. It is not entitled to a second opportunity”.

Commentary

As always with VAT, accurate record-keeping is essential. As the tax is transaction based, it is vital to keep comprehensive evidence of those transactions and associated payments. Failure to do so may result in:

assessments and penalties
give HMRC the opportunity to refuse otherwise legitimate input tax recovery
refuse other VAT claims (in this case BDR).
confusion and uncertainty which often creates costs in time and other resources, and extended relations with HMRC, which is in no business’ interest.

If Regency had taken “one step further” with its record keeping, BDR would have been paid by HMRC.