Via Revenue & Customs Brief 11 (2022) HMRC now accepts that face masks should properly be considered to be items of clothing.
This means that face masks designed and marketed as suitable for young children (under the age of 14) qualify for zero rating.(VAT Act 1994 Schedule 8 Group 16).
VAT Notice 714 – Young children’s clothing and footwear has been updated.
Businesses which have been treating these sales as standard rated will be due a refund, subject to the unjust enrichment rules.
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 – Cross border sales of goods
Incoterms stands for International Commercial Terms.
These are published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and describe agreed commercial terms. These rules set out the responsibilities of buyers and sellers for the supply of goods under a contract. They are very commonly used in cross-border commercial transactions in order that both sides in a transaction are aware of the contractual position. They help businesses avoid costly misunderstandings by clarifying the tasks, costs and risks involved in the delivery of goods from sellers to buyers. The latest terms were published in 2010 and came into effect in 2011.
The use of Incoterms for assistance for VAT purposes
One of the most difficult areas of providing VAT advice is obtaining sufficient detailed information to advise accurately and comprehensively. Quite often advisers are given what a client believes to be the arrangements for a transaction. This may differ from the actual facts, or the understanding of the other party in the transaction.
Pragmatically, this uncertainty about the details may be increased if; a number of different people within an organisation are involved, it is a new or one-off type of transaction, there are language difficulties, or communication and documentation is less than ideal. In such cases, incoterms will provide invaluable information which gives clarity and certainty and usually give a sound basis on which to advise. This enables the adviser to establish the place of supply (POS) and therefore what VAT treatment needs to be applied.
So what is this set of pre-defined international contract terms?
They are 11 pre-defined terms which are subdivided into two categories:
Group 1 – Incoterms that apply to any mode of transport are:
EXW – Ex Works (named place)
The seller makes the goods available at their premises. This term places the maximum obligation on the buyer and minimum obligations on the seller. EXW means that a buyer incurs the risks for bringing the goods to their final destination. The buyer arranges the pickup of the freight from the supplier’s designated ship site, owns the in-transit freight, and is responsible for clearing the goods through Customs. The buyer is also responsible for completing all the export documentation.
Most jurisdictions require companies to provide proof of export for VAT purposes. In an EXW shipment, the buyer is under no obligation to provide such proof, or indeed to even export the goods. It is therefore of utmost importance that these matters are discussed with the buyer before the contract is agreed.
FCA – Free Carrier (named place of delivery)
The seller delivers the goods, cleared for export, at a named place. This can be to a carrier nominated by the buyer, or to another party nominated by the buyer.
It should be noted that the chosen place of delivery has an impact on the obligations of loading and unloading the goods at that place. If delivery occurs at the seller’s premises, the seller is responsible for loading the goods on to the buyer’s carrier. However, if delivery occurs at any other place, the seller is deemed to have delivered the goods once their transport has arrived at the named place; the buyer is responsible for both unloading the goods and loading them onto their own carrier.
CPT – Carriage Paid To (named place of destination)
The seller pays for the carriage of the goods up to the named place of destination. Risk transfers to buyer upon handing goods over to the first carrier at the place of shipment in the country of Export. The Shipper is responsible for origin costs including export clearance and freight costs for carriage to named place (usually a destination port or airport). The shipper is not responsible for delivery to the final destination (generally the buyer’s facilities), or for buying insurance. If the buyer does require the seller to obtain insurance, the Incoterm CIP should be considered.
CIP – Carriage and Insurance Paid to (named place of destination)
This term is broadly similar to the above CPT term, with the exception that the seller is required to obtain insurance for the goods while in transit. CIP requires the seller to insure the goods for 110% of their value.
DAT – Delivered At Terminal (named terminal at port or place of destination)
This term means that the seller covers all the costs of transport (export fees, carriage, unloading from main carrier at destination port and destination port charges) and assumes all risk until destination port or terminal. The terminal can be a Port, Airport, or inland freight interchange. Import duty/VAT/customs costs are to be borne by the buyer.
DAP – Delivered At Place (named place of destination)
The seller is responsible for arranging carriage and for delivering the goods, ready for unloading from the arriving conveyance, at the named place. Duties are not paid by the seller under this term. The seller bears all risks involved in bringing the goods to the named place.
DDP – Delivered Duty Paid (named place of destination)
The seller is responsible for delivering the goods to the named place in the country of the buyer, and pays all costs in bringing the goods to the destination including import duties and VAT. The seller is not responsible for unloading. This term places the maximum obligations on the seller and minimum obligations on the buyer. With the delivery at the named place of destination all the risks and responsibilities are transferred to the buyer and it is considered that the seller has completed his obligations.
Group 2 – Incoterms that apply to sea and inland waterway transport only:
FAS – Free Alongside Ship (named port of shipment)
The seller delivers when the goods are placed alongside the buyer’s vessel at the named port of shipment. This means that the buyer has to bear all costs and risks of loss of or damage to the goods from that moment. The FAS term requires the seller to clear the goods for export. However, if the parties wish the buyer to clear the goods for export, this should be made clear by adding explicit wording to this effect in the contract of sale. This term can be used only for sea or inland waterway transport.
FOB – Free On Board (named port of shipment)
FOB means that the seller pays for delivery of goods to the vessel including loading. The seller must also arrange for export clearance. The buyer pays cost of marine freight transport, insurance, unloading and transport cost from the arrival port to destination. The buyer arranges for the vessel, and the shipper must load the goods onto the named vessel at the named port of shipment. Risk passes from the seller to the buyer when the goods are loaded aboard the vessel.
CFR – Cost and Freight (named port of destination)
The seller pays for the carriage of the goods up to the named port of destination. Risk transfers to buyer when the goods have been loaded on board the ship in the country of export. The shipper is responsible for origin costs including export clearance and freight costs for carriage to named port. The shipper is not responsible for delivery to the final destination from the port (generally the buyer’s facilities), or for buying insurance. CFR should only be used for non-containerised sea freight, for all other modes of transport it should be replaced with CPT.
CIF – Cost, Insurance and Freight (named port of destination)
This term is broadly similar to the above CFR term, with the exception that the seller is required to obtain insurance for the goods while in transit to the named port of destination. CIF requires the seller to insure the goods for 110% of their. CIF should only be used for non-containerised sea freight; for all other modes of transport it should be replaced with CIP.
Allocations of costs to buyer/seller via incoterms
Once the Incoterm has been established, the VAT treatment is usually immediately apparent.
Summary Chart
You pay VAT on the first 28 days of a stay at a hotel, but from the 29th the accommodation is VAT free.
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
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.
VAT – Recovery of input tax incurred on entertainment – Flowchart
One of the most common questions asked on “day-to-day” VAT is whether input tax incurred on entertainment is claimable. The answer to this seemingly straightforward question has become increasingly complex as a result of; HMRC policy, EU involvement and case law.
Different rules apply to entertaining; clients, contacts, staff, partners and directors depending on the circumstances. It seems reasonable to treat entertaining costs as a valid business expense. After all, a business, amongst other things, aims to increase sales and reduce costs as a result of these meetings. However, HMRC sees things differently and there is a general block on business entertainment. It seems like HMRC does not like watching people enjoying themselves at the government’s expense!
If, like me, you think in pictures, then a flowchart may be useful for deciding whether to claim entertainment VAT. It covers all scenarios, but if you have a unique set of circumstances or require assistance with some of the definitions, please contact me.
VAT -Business Entertainment Flowchart
Download here: VAT Business Entertainment Input tax recovery flowchart
Peanuts in shells are zero rated, salted peanuts are standard rated.