Category Archives: Law

VAT: Supply of self-contained apartments covered by TOMS? The Sonder UT case

By Marcus Ward 21 January 2025

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Sonder Europe Limited (Sonder) the issue was whether apartments leased to Sonder and used to provide short-term accommodation to corporate and leisure travellers were supplies of a designated travel service via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) and whether the bought-in supply was used for the direct benefit of travellers (as required by TOMS).

Background

Sonder leased apartments from landlords on a medium to long-term basis and used them to provide accommodation to travellers on a short-term basis (one night to a month; the average stay being five nights). Sonder furnished some apartments as well as undertaking occasional decorating and maintenance.

The sole issue was whether these supplies are covered by TOMS. TOMS is not optional.

Initially in the FTT it was decided that output tax was due via TOMS. This was an appeal by HMRC against that First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision.

The issue

Whether VAT was accountable using TOMS – on the margin, or on the full amount received from travellers by Sonder.

Legislation

TOMS is authorised by the VAT Act 1994, section 53 and via SI 1987/1806.

Arguments

Sonder contended that the supply was “for the direct benefit of the traveller” as required by the VAT (Tour Operators) Order 1987 and that the accommodation was provided “…without material alteration or further processing”. Consequently, TOMS applied. The FTT decided that Sonder did not materially alter or process the apartments.

HMRC maintained that the FTT decision was based on the physical alternations made rather than the actual characteristics of the supplies. Consequently, these were not supplies covered by the 1987 Order and output tax was due on the total income received for these services.

Decision

The UT upheld HMRC’s appeal and decided that TOMS did not apply n these circumstances The UT found that the FTT’s decision was in error in that it did not have regard to whether the services bought in were supplied to it for the direct benefit of travellers. Furthermore, the short-term leases to occupy property as holiday accommodation were materially altered from interests in land for a period of years supplied by the landlords.

The services received by Sonder from the landlords were not for the direct benefit of the travellers and Sonder’s supplies were not for the benefit of the users without material alteration and further processing. Consequently, there was not a supply of bought-in services, but rather an ‘in-house’ supply which was not covered by TOMS.

To the UT, the position was even clearer in relation to unfurnished apartments. Sonder acquired an interest in land for a term of years in an unfurnished apartment. It furnished the apartment and then supplied a short-term licence to a traveller to occupy as holiday accommodation. What was supplied to the traveller was materially different to what was supplied to Sonder.

Commentary

Another illustration of the complexities of TOMS and the significant impact on a business of getting the rules wrong. The fact that the UT remade the decision demonstrates that different interpretations are possible on similar facts. Moreover, even slight differences in business models can result in different VAT outcomes.

VAT: Digital platform reporting

By Marcus Ward 14 January 2025

VAT and digital platforms

Via section 349 of the Finance (No.2) Act 2023, measures were introduced which require certain UK digital platforms to report information to HMRC about the income of sellers of goods and services on their platform. HMRC then exchange this information with the other participating tax authorities for the jurisdictions where the sellers are tax resident.

Under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) rules, digital platforms in participating jurisdictions will be required to provide a copy of the information to the taxpayer to help them comply with their tax obligations.

Now HMRC have recently (last month) issued a new series of guidance , or updated guidance, on digital platform reporting, which are:

Selling goods or services on a digital platform

This Guidance explains the details a business needs to give to digital platforms when selling goods or services in the UK. A section on what information sellers will receive from online platforms has been added.

It covers:

who is a seller
information which must be provided
reporting by platforms
information to be received
selling online and paying tax

Check if you need to carry out digital platform reporting

This guidance provides information on:

what qualifies as a digital platform
who should register
how to register
what needs to be reported
information required for reporting
carrying out due diligence
when to report
penalties

This sets out:

who should register
what you need to do
how to register
after you have registered

Managing digital platform reporting

This provides guidance on:

submitting reports to HMRC
ongoing account management
when to report
how to add or change a platform operator
how to add or change a reporting notification to tell HMRC if you are a reporting or excluded platform operator
how to add or change a reporting notification about the type of due diligence you choose
changing contact details
how to add team members
how to inform HMRC that another platform operator will report for you (assumed reporting)

VAT: Updated HMRC guidance on exemption for healthcare supplies

By Marcus Ward 23 December 2024

HMRC has published new guidance in its internal manual VATHLT2035.

It covers the services of the medical and paramedical professions: Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates.

Regulation for Anaesthesia Associates (AAs) and Physician Associates (PAs) came into effect on 13 December 2024. A full registration is required by December 2026. The exemption will only apply to the AAs and PAs that have joined from the date of registration.

Anaesthesia Associates

AAs are specialised practitioners trained to perform certain medical procedures related to anaesthesia under the supervision of qualified medical personnel. They are not doctors but play a crucial role in the healthcare system by assisting in the administration of anaesthesia and monitoring patients during surgical procedures. AAs are authorised to perform specific procedures they are trained and approved for. They will be regulated by the General Medical Council (GMC). Their services will be exempt from VAT, provided they are carried out for the purpose of medical care.

Physician Associates

PAs are healthcare professionals who support doctors in diagnosing and managing patients. They are trained to perform various medical procedures and provide care under the supervision of doctors. PAs are not doctors but are essential members of the multidisciplinary healthcare team, enhancing the capacity of healthcare services. They are meant to supplement, not replace, the role of doctors. Their services will be exempt from VAT, provided they are carried out for the purpose of medical care.

The exemption is via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7.

VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA)

By Marcus Ward 16 December 2024

EU Member States (MS) recently agreed the much-discussed ViDA package. Since Brexit, this does not directly affect the UK, however, it is an important pointer to the future and where we are all heading, so it will impact the UK in some ways.

The ViDA package (or a version of the finalised package) was first discussed in 2022 and has gone through a tortuous process before all MS agreed it.

What is ViDA?

ViDA aims to tackle what have been identified as three main challenges:

Real-time digital reporting

The new system introduces real-time digital reporting for cross-border trade, based on e-invoicing. It will give MS the information they need to increase the fight against VAT fraud, especially carousel fraud. The VAT Gap – the difference between expected and actual VAT revenue, has been widening across the EU over a number of years.

It is said that the move to e-invoicing will help reduce VAT fraud by up to €11 billion a year and bring down administrative and compliance costs for EU businesses by over €4.1 billion per year over the next ten years. It should ensure that existing national systems converge across the EU, and this should pave the way for EU countries that wish to introduce national digital reporting systems for domestic trade.

VAT: Personal Liability Notices

By Marcus Ward 16 December 2024

A Personal Liability Notice (PLN) can be issued by HMRC to a company’s director(s) to transfer the liability to pay VAT or a VAT penalty from the company to an individual. A PLN can also be issued to a member of an LLP.

When a PLN is issued

An officer or officers of a company may be personally liable to pay all or part of the company penalty where:

a company is liable to a penalty for a deliberate wrongdoing and
the wrongdoing is attributable to the deliberate action of an officer or officers of the company

Additionally, one of the two circumstances below must also apply

the officer gained or attempted to gain personally from the wrongdoing, or
the company is insolvent or likely to become insolvent

Any grounds for suspicion that the company may become insolvent should to be supported by evidence, for example, where there are cash flow problems, insufficient assets to cover liabilities, or evidence of phoenixism.

An officer’s liability to pay a penalty also applies to inaccuracy penalties.

Liable persons

The company officers are known in HMRC guidance as “liable officers”. These include:

elected officers
managers
directors
company secretary
any other person managing or purporting to manage any of the company’s affairs.

LLP officers are members.

A PLN’s power gives HMRC the right to recover all or part of the penalty from the liable officer rather than the company/LLP itself.

Where there is more than one deliberate wrongdoing, each deliberate wrongdoing must be considered separately for the purpose of establishing whether it should be attributed to an officer or officers.

Wrongdoings

There are four types of wrongdoings:

the issue of an invoice showing VAT by an unauthorised person
misuse of a product so that it attracts a higher rate of excise duty
the handling of goods on which payment of excise duty is outstanding
knowingly disposing of, or causing or permitting the disposal of, material at an unauthorised waste site

The wrongdoing must arise from the deliberate action of an officer of the company.

Personal gain

Once HMRC has attributed the deliberate wrongdoing to one or more company officers it must consider whether any of the officers, by fact or implication, have gained or attempted to gain personally from the wrongdoing. It is sufficient to show that each officer has gained or attempted to gain. It will not however always be possible to establish the full extent to which each officer has gained or attempted to gain, in which case HMRC would issue the PLN based on best judgment of the amount they attempted to gain personally, eg:

the officer may accept that there was an actual or attempted personal gain from a deliberate wrongdoing that can be attributed to them, or
it may be clear from business records or the officer’s lifestyle that they gained or attempted to gain personally from the results of the deliberate wrongdoing

Appeals

A liable officer can appeal against

a decision to pursue them for all or part of the penalty assessed on the company, as set out in the PLN, including whether the penalty is attributable to them, and
the amount of the penalty HMRC has allocated to them
They cannot however appeal against a decision that they have gained or attempted to gain personally from the deliberate wrongdoing, or that the company is likely to go into liquidation

PLNs are subject to the same procedures as company penalties.

Legislation

Finance Act 2008, Schedule 41: Penalties: failure to notify and certain VAT and Excise wrongdoing.

New Levy on gambling operators from 2025

By Marcus Ward 2 December 2024

The government has announced the introduction of a statutory levy on gambling operators.

The statutory levy is anticipated to generate £100 million for the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harms and is the first step to strengthening harmful gambling protections.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said that “The Levy will be paid by operators and collected and administered by the Gambling Commission (GC) under the strategic direction of the Government”.

The levy will be charged at a set rate for holders of GC operating licences, depending on the sector and nature of the gambling activity. The rate will range from 1.1% for online operators, to 0.1% of Gross Gambling Yield (GGY).

The relevant regulations will be laid before Parliament shortly, and it is intended that the levy will come into force on 6 April 2025. The government has also confirmed that it will implement online slot stake limits of £5 per spin for adults aged 25 years and older, and £2 for 18 to 24 year olds.

Society lottery operators will pay the levy as a proportion of proceeds retained after good causes and prizes paid out.

The system will be reviewed within five years with the first formal review expected by 2030.

A VAT did you know?

By Marcus Ward 26 November 2024

Children’s clothes are zero-rated. These include; hats, caps, braces, belts, garters and scarves, but not earmuffs – which are standard rated even if they are for children.

VAT: New Annual Accounting Scheme guidance published

By Marcus Ward 25 November 2024

HMRC have issued new guidance on the Annual Accounting Scheme.

A business can use form VAT600AA if it is already registered for VAT and wants to join the Annual Accounting Scheme.

VAT: DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – The Brian Lawton case

By Marcus Ward 25 November 2024

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Brian Lawton the issue was whether a second claim under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme was valid.

Background

Mr Lawton appealed against the refusal of HMRC to pay a claim submitted in respect of the conversion of a barn into a dwelling and subsequent extensions. Unfortunately, the project faced delays and increased costs due to the Covid-19 pandemic. He claimed a refund of VAT in June 2021, which HMRC repaid. The appellant submitted a second planning application for an extension, which was approved, and the work was completed in October 2022. He then made a second VAT claim October 2022 which HMRC refused.

The issue

Whether it was possible to make more than one single VAT refund claim via the scheme when the project was split into two specific phases. Planning permission was granted for two developments, the:

first permission was for the conversion of a barn to a dwelling
second permission was for an extension to existing barn conversion for two bedrooms

– whether the second claim was ineligible for a refund as an extension to an existing dwelling and whether decision to disallow claim for a VAT refund was correct.

Arguments

Lawton contended that it was possible to make two separate claims due to the distinct nature of the projects, and that his first claim had been erroneous since the barn conversion was uninhabitable.

HMRC’s view was that the second claim related to an extension to a dwelling and not the actual conversion and was consequently ineligible.

Decision

Despite the FTT being sympathetic to BL’s predicament in progressing the first application development at the time of the Covid pandemic and the lockdown with the financial and economic challenges these brought about, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal considered that HMRC were entitled to insist that only one claim was made under the scheme in circumstances where there has been no repayment in error or invoices and works carried out before the claim was submitted and left out of account in error or invoices issued late by a contractor.

It considered that the first claim was the only one which could be made and was restricted to the stage of development that Lawton had submitted and was covered by the completion certificate of March 2021, being “the conversion of a barn to a dwelling”.

The court emphasised that completion for VAT purposes must align with original planning permissions and agreed with HMRC’s position that extensions to existing dwellings do not qualify for refunds under the scheme.

Legislation

The VAT Act 1994, Section 35.

Commentary

This case highlights how important both timing and adhering precisely to the rules of the scheme are. The cost of a self-build can be significant and recovering any VAT incurred is important to ensure budgets are met as far as possible.

Further reading

Background to the scheme here, ten top tips here and further information and other cases on the scheme:

VAT: Zero-rated exports. The Procurement International case

By Marcus Ward 7 November 2024

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Procurement International Ltd (PIL) the issue was whether the movement of goods constituted a zero-rated export.

Background

Both parties essentially agreed the facts: The Appellant’s business is that of a reward recognition programme fulfiller. The Appellant had a catalogue of available products, and it maintained a stock of the most ordered items in its warehouse. PIL supplied these goods to customers who run reward recognition programmes on behalf of their customers who, in turn, want to reward to their customers and/or employees (reward recipients – RR). The reward programme operators (RPOs) provide a platform through which those entitled to receive rewards can such rewards. The RPO will then place orders PIL for the goods.

A shipper collected the goods from PIL in the UK and shipped them directly to the RR (wherever located). The shipper provided the services of delivery including relevant customs clearances etc. on behalf of the Appellant. PIL had zero-rated the supply of goods sent to RRs located overseas. All goods delivered to RRs outside the UK are delivered duty paid (DDP) or delivered at place (DAP). As may be seen by Incoterms the Appellant remained at risk in respect of the goods and liable for all carriage costs and is responsible for performing or contracting for the performance of all customs (export and import) obligations. The Appellant was responsible for all fees, duties, tariffs, and taxes. Accordingly, the Appellant is responsible for, and at risk until, the goods are delivered “by placing them at the disposal of the buyer at the agreed point, if any, or at the named place of destination or by procuring that the goods are so delivered”.

Contentions

HMRC argued that in situations where the RPO was UK VAT registered, the appellant was making a supply of goods to the RPO at a time when the goods were physically located in the UK, and consequently there was a standard-rated supply. It issued an assessment to recover the output tax considered to be underdeclared.

PIL contended that there was a supply of delivered goods which were zero-rated when the goods were removed to a location outside the UK. It was responsible (via contracts which were accepted to reflect the reality of the transactions) for arranging the transport of the goods.

Decision

The FTT held that there was a single composite supplies of delivered goods, and these were a zero-rated supply of exported goods by PIL. The supplies were not made on terms that the RPOs collected or arranged for collection of the goods to remove them from the UK. The Tribunal found that the RPOs took title to the goods at the time they were delivered to the RR, and not before such that it was PIL and not the RPOs who was the exporter. This meant that the RPOs would be regarded as making their supplies outside the UK and would be responsible for overseas VAT as the Place Of Supply (POS) would be in the country in which it took title to the goods (but that was not an issue in this case).

The appeal was allowed, and the assessment was withdrawn.

Legislation

Domestic legislation relevant here is The VAT Act 1994:

Section 6(2) which fixes the time of supply of goods involving removal as the time they are removed
Section 7 VATA sets out the basis on which the place of supply is determined. Section 7(2) states that: “if the supply of any goods does not involve their removal from or to the United Kingdom they shall be treated as supplied in the United Kingdom if they are in the United Kingdom and otherwise shall be treated as supplied outside the United Kingdom”.
Section 30(6) VATA provides that a supply of goods is zero-rated where such supply is made in the UK and HMRC are satisfied that the person supplying the goods has exported them
For completeness, VAT Regulations 1995, regulation 129 provides the framework for the zero-rating goods removed from the UK by and on behalf of the purchaser of the goods.

Some paragraphs of VAT Notice 703 have the force of law which applies here, namely the sections on:

direct and indirect exports
conditions which must be met in full for goods to be zero-rated as exports
definition of an exporter
the appointment of a freight forwarder or other party to manage the export transactions and declarations on behalf of the supplier of exporter.
the conditions and time limits for zero rating
a situation in which there are multiple transactions leading to one movement of goods

Commentary

The Incoterms set out in the relevant contracts were vital in demonstrating the responsibilities of the parties and consequently, who actually exported the goods. It is crucial when analysing the VAT treatment of transactions to recognise each party’s responsibilities, and importantly, when (and therefore where) the change in possession of the goods takes place.