Latest from the courts
HMRC has published an update on taxpayers’ appeals. This is a round up of the status of recent cases.
It is helpful for businesses which operate in similar areas, or have tax issues with HMRC and for a general overview on how the courts are approaching certain matters.
The cases which HMRC lose often provide opportunities for retrospective claims for other businesses.
VAT on Staff Expenses – what is claimable?
Although the VAT rules normally prevent a business reclaiming input tax on supplies that are not made directly to it, there are certain circumstances when the rules are relaxed. Although rather a dry and basic area, experience insists that it creates many issues at inspections and is “low hanging fruit” for which HMRC may levy penalties. Some business decide not to recover VAT on such costs to avoid problems, but certain claims are permissible and may be worth significant sums if they have a number of employees.
Subsistence Expenses
For instance, the VAT element of subsistence expenses paid to your employees may be treated as input tax. In order to qualify for this concession, employees must be reimbursed for their actual expenditure and not merely receive round sum allowances. These costs include hotels and meals.
VAT invoices (which may be made out to the employee) must also be obtained. The rule of thumb is that the employee must be more than five miles away from their place of employment and spend over five hours there (the so-called 5 mile/5 hour rule). A business cannot reclaim input tax if it pays an employees a flat rate for expenses.
Reimbursement for Road Fuel
The VAT legislation permits a business to treat as its own supply road fuel which is purchased by a non-taxable person whom it then pay for the actual cost of the fuel (usually through an expenses claim). This would therefore allow a business to recover input tax when it reimburses its employees for the cost of road fuel used in carrying out their employment duties.
A business is able to reclaim all the input tax on fuel if a vehicle is used only for business. There are three ways of claiming VAT if a business uses a vehicle for both business and private purposes.
If a business chooses not to reclaim VAT on fuel for one vehicle it cannot reclaim VAT on any fuel for vehicles used in the business.
Mileage Allowances
The legislation also enables you to reclaim the VAT element (or a reasonable approximation) of mileage allowances paid to employees.
Business entertainment
For details of this complex area please see here
Goods
Certain goods which are to be used in a business, eg; office supplies, the business may reclaim the input tax on purchases made by employees or directors. In all cases you’ll need a VAT invoice. Details required on a VAT invoice here
Mobile telephones
An element of mobile phone costs may be recovered. The VAT on the business use of the phone may be recovered, eg; if half of the mobile phone calls are private 50% of the VAT on the purchase price and the service plan can be recovered.
Work from home
If a person works from home an element of the costs may be recovered. As an example: if an office takes up 20% of the floor space in a house. A business may reclaim 20% of the VAT on utility bills.
Apportionment
A business must keep all records to support a claim and show how it arrived at the business proportion of a purchase of goods or services and it must also have valid VAT invoices.
HMRC has issued new guidance on the amount of input tax claimable when an element is attributable to non-business (NB) activities.
If an entity is involved in both business and NB activities, eg; a charity which provides free advice and also has a shop which sells donated goods, it is unable to recover all of the VAT it incurs. VAT attributable to NB activities is not input tax and cannot be reclaimed. Therefore it is necessary to calculate the quantum of VAT attributable to business and NB activities. That VAT which cannot be attributed is called overhead VAT and must be apportioned between business and NB activities. There are many varied ways of doing this as the VAT legislation does not specify any particular method. Therefore it is important to consider all of the available alternatives. Examples of these are; income, expenditure, time, floorspace, transaction count etc (similar to those methods available for partial exemption calculations).
The new guidance is mainly as a result of the Sveda ECJ case.
The definition of business and NB here.
Legislation: The VAT Act 1994 Section 24(5).
Further reading
The following articles consider case law and other relevant business/NB issues:
Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft
Latest from the courts
In the Star Services Oxford Limited (Star) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was the identity of the entity receiving the supply, whether it held a valid tax invoice, and whether input tax could be claimed.
Background
The appellant claimed input tax incurred on rental payments to Oxford City Council. This was disallowed by HMRC on the grounds that the rental agreement was with Mr Latifi (a sole proprietor in a property rental business) and not the company which was VAT registered.
After the rental agreement was signed the business was incorporated and carried on a bed and breakfast activities from the premises, along with two separate sub-lets to third parties. One party paid rent to Star and one directly to Mr Latifi.
Contentions
HMRC argued that:
Star contended:
Decision
The appeal was dismissed.
The Appellant was not entitled to claim input tax on the invoices and HMRC were correct to disallow input tax. It did not receive the supply and it did not hold a VAT invoice.
It was decided that the legal relationship was between Oxford City Council and Mr Latifi. This is because the lease agreement was between these parties and not the Appellant.
It was found that the rent from one sub-tenant was paid to Mr Latifi directly and is not accounted for by the Appellant and that the reassigned lease has no bearing on the property rental activities undertaken by Mr Latifi prior to the reassignment.
The rules on pre-incorporation supplies* do not apply in this case because Mr Latifi, as sole proprietor, and the Appellant, are separate legal entities, requiring separate VAT registration.
Interestingly, a recent case was relied on: In Tower Bridge GP Ltd the Court of Appeal ruled that absent a valid VAT invoice showing the supplier’s VAT number and the customer’s name, the right to deduct input tax on that invoice could not be exercised.
Summary
An unfortunate oversight was sufficient for HMRC to refuse the input tax claim. This case does have a whiff of unfairness about it, but by applying the letter of the law the outcome is unarguable. The contentions here are similar to those in the Aitmatov Academy case.
Another case of taking care with claims.
* A business may, generally, claim the VAT incurred on services it has purchased for its taxable business purposes during the six months prior to VAT registration .
The VAT Act 1994, s 24(6) (c) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Reg 111.
HMRC has launched a new online service for the correction of errors made on previous VAT returns. Previously, a business must have emailed a correction to form to: inbox.btcnevaterrorcorrection@hmrc.gov.uk (it is still possible to use this method of reporting). The Form VAT652 – “Tell HMRC about any errors in your VAT Return” is used for any corrections of £10,000 (net of all errors) or more of VAT.
The subject of education often gives rise to complex VAT issues – as the number of Tribunal cases illustrates.
Background
A number of schools provide early or pre-school education (before compulsory education). All children aged four should be able to access an early education place and some early education and childcare services offer free part-time early or pre-school education to three year olds. This is paid for at the discretion of Local Authorities. Places for children under three in voluntary or private pre-school settings are paid for mainly by parents.
Update
In light of, inter alia, the Yarburgh Children’s Trust, Wakefield College , Longbridge and St Paul’s Community Project, HMRC has updated to reflect changes to it’s policy in respect of charities supplying; crèche, pre-school education, nursery, after-school clubs and playgroup facilities.
Business test
HMRC’s past position was that if a charity supplied nursery and crèche facilities for a consideration that was fixed at a level designed to only cover its costs, this was not a business activity for VAT purposes. Now the two-part test derived from the Wakefield College Court of Appeal case will be applied:
The activity results in a supply of goods or services for consideration. This requires a legal relationship between the supplier and the recipient. The initial question is whether the supply is made for a consideration. An activity that does not involve the making of supplies for consideration is not a business activity.
The supply is made for the purpose of obtaining income therefrom (remuneration)
General
The provision of pre-school education (without charge) is non-business; breakfast clubs and after-school child-minding/homework clubs remain non-business in the Local Authority sector even when a charge is made. This is on condition that the school offers the service strictly to its own pupils and that the fee charged is designed to no more than cover overhead costs.
Law
VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6 – Education
VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, Item 9 – Health and Welfare
Businesses who import into the UK currently use Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) to declare goods.
There is also a separate scheme running concurrently, known as Customs Declaration Service (CDS).
From 1 October 2022 CHIEF will cease and importers must use CDS.
Exports
CHIEF is also currently used for exports and this will continue to a later date of: 31 March 2023.
Action
This change will significantly affect all businesses which import goods. Although it is likely that import agents will handle the majority of issues, an importer will be required to:
Failure to comply with these requirements will result in a business being unable to import goods.
HMRC has issued a reminder that:
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:
Wakefield College (referred to at this Tribunal)
Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft
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.
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:
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.