Category Archives: Law

Making Tax Digital for VAT – extra revenue calculated

By   21 March 2022
2

HMRC has published research which evaluates the impact of the introduction of Making Tax Digital (MTD) for VAT.

The report sets out that an additional circa £185 million of tax has been collected, according to its data. This is compared to the original estimate which was that an additional amount of £115 million of VAT would be received by the department.

For businesses above the registration threshold, the estimated additional tax revenue due to MTD is an average of £57 per business. This represents a 0.9% increase from the average amount estimated had the businesses not used MTD. HMRC says that this research provides “strong evidence that Making Tax Digital is achieving its objective of reducing the tax gap by reducing the amount of errors made when filing tax returns”.

MTD background

MTD aims to reduce the tax gap by helping businesses pay the right amount of tax. The tax gap is the difference between the theoretical amount of tax that should be paid and the actual tax receipts. The difference is caused by several reasons including avoidance, evasion, and calculation errors or failure to take reasonable care when filing returns.

MTD is intended to tackle the part of the tax gap which is caused by error and failure to take reasonable care. Businesses are required to keep records in digital form and file their VAT returns using software that directly extracts information from these digital records. This should improve accuracy and remove opportunities to make certain types of mistakes in preparing and submitting tax returns, particularly arithmetical and transposition errors.

Downside

All is not sweetness and light though. HMRC has been slammed by The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee which published a report that said that MTD for VAT cost far more than was predicted in HMRC’s impact assessments. The Committee also criticised HMRC, saying it “inadequately considered the needs and concerns of smaller businesses” and that HMRC has neglected its duty to support small businesses through the implementation of the controversial measures, suggesting it “will make life even more difficult” for them. In addition, the Committee said it “remained unconvinced” of the government’s logic used to justify the speed and rigidity with which the programme was being introduced.

VAT: What is consideration and why is it important?

By   18 March 2022
0

VAT Basics

Consideration – background

There is no definition of consideration in legislation. The meaning was originally taken from contract law, but after the European Court of Justice ruled that the term is to be given the Community meaning and is not to be variously interpreted by Member States the UK adopted that approach.

The expression “consideration” means everything received in return for the supply of goods or the provision of services, including incidental expenses (packing, transport, insurance etc). Consideration is a payment for the supply of goods or services. It is usually a payment in money, but can also be of a “non-monetary” nature, such as goods or services supplied in return.

The phrase “in return for the supply” is interpreted to mean that there must be a direct link between the supply and the consideration.

Therefore, in order that a supply for a consideration can be made, there must be at least two parties and a written or oral agreement between them under which something is done or supplied for the consideration. There is a direct link between the supply and the consideration because the supplier expects something in return for his supply and would not fulfil his obligation unless he thought that payment would be forthcoming.

Profit

It is important to recognise that the concept of consideration and profit are wholly different, and the fact that a business makes no profit on a supply does not mean that there is no consideration for it. Whether payment yields a profit or loss is immaterial and has no bearing on whether or not it is consideration for VAT purposes. 

Importance

If consideration is not recognised, or undervalued, a business can expect HMRC assessments and penalties. Overstating consideration will result in an overpayment of tax.

if there is no consideration, there is no supply.

Consideration hallmarks

  • Consideration is defined widely to bring within the tax everything which the taxable person receives as consideration for the goods or services supplied.
  • The consideration must be capable of being expressed in money.
  • There must be some form of bargain or transaction between the parties.
  • A payment should be related to what the payer receives although the fact that people pay the same amount for varying benefits does not stop it from being consideration.

Consequently, if the provision of goods or services is incapable of being expressed in money, it is not consideration and is outside the scope of VAT.

Indicators of no consideration

  • The absence of any consensual element on the part of the payer.
  • A lack of control by the payer over the services provided.

Valuation of consideration

This may seem obvious, but as the amount of case law demonstrates, this is not always the case. The starting point is:

Monetary consideration

Monetary consideration includes cash and payment by cheque, credit card, bank transfer, contactless payment, deduction from pay, etc. This is set out in The VAT Act 1994, section 19(2).

Non-monetary consideration

Non-monetary consideration includes goods or services supplied as payment, for example in a “barter” (including part exchange) agreement. Services provided include the giving up of a right, refraining from doing something, agreeing to suffer some loss etc in return for the supply. At first sight these may appear to be merely conditions of an agreement, but are in fact consideration for a supply. If the supply is for a consideration not consisting or not wholly consisting of money, its value shall be taken to be such amount in money as, with the addition of the VAT chargeable, is equivalent to the consideration. Where a supply of any goods or services is not the only matter to which a consideration in money relates, the supply is deemed to be for such part of the consideration as is properly attributable to it.

In determining the taxable amount, the only advantages received by a supplier that are relevant are those obtained in return for making the supply should be recognised.  Non-monetary consideration has the value of the alternative monetary payment that would normally have been given for the supply.

What is not consideration

Donations

If a monetary donation is freely given, it is not consideration for any supply and so is outside the scope of VAT. In this situation, the donation has to be unconditional, and the following points dictate whether this is the case.

  • Does the donor receive anything in return for the payment?
  • Are there any conditions attached to the payment?
  • What will the payments be used for?
  • If the donor does not benefit directly, does any third party receive a benefit?
  • Is there a contract and what are the terms and conditions?

Donations must be contrasted to sponsorship.

It is necessary to distinguish between donations and sponsorship payments. Whereas a donation means the donor does not expect anything in return, sponsorship involves the sponsor receiving identifiable benefits. These benefits may include advertising, publicity or use of facilities and any sponsorship payment is within the scope of VAT.

Open Market Value

The VAT Act 1994, section 19 (5) states that “…the open market value of a supply of goods or services shall be taken to be the amount that would fall to be taken as its value …if the supply were for such consideration in money as would be payable by a person standing in no such relationship with any person as would affect that consideration”.

Difficult areas

Commonly, areas which give rise to VAT consideration problems include, but are not limited to:

  • when consideration is provided in return for supplies of differing VAT liabilities
  • Special Valuation Provisions in The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 6
  • supplies to staff or goods for own use
  • discounts and special offers (eg; persons providing selling or introductory services to traders who receive goods for a reduced cash payment, or BOGOF)
  • barter transactions – when each supply has a different value
  • part-exchange
  • apportionment of monetary consideration
  • separate/composite supplies
  • supplies between connected parties
  • direct selling structures
  • gifts, prizes, and reward goods.
  • imports
  • prompt payment discounts
  • deemed supplies
  • non-business use of business assets or of services supplied to a business
  • reverse charges
  • reduced rate accommodation
  • supplies expressed in foreign currencies
  • transfer pricing
  • business gifts/samples
  • caravans sold with contents
  • self supplies
  • club membership benefits
  • correspondence courses
  • opticians and hearing aid dispensers (exempt services vs standard rated goods)
  • rebates/refunds
  • disbursements
  • tour operators (TOMS)
  • partial exemption

Further reading

For purposes of research or interest, the following cases on consideration are worth reading:

Staatssecretaries van Financien v Cooperatieve Aardapplenbewarr-plaats ((1981) ECR 445; (1981) – The Dutch Potato case for ease!

BAZ Bausystem Gmbh v Finanzamt Munchen Fur Korperschaften

Apple & Pear Development Council (APDC), (ECJ (1988) STC 221; (1988)2 CMLR 394)

Tolsma C-16/93 (1994 STC 509)

Naturally Yours Cosmetics Ltd

Empire Stores Ltd



VAT: Avoiding a Default Surcharge. Reasonable Excuse – Update

By   14 March 2022
1

I have looked at the Default Surcharge regime in detail here but as statistics show more business to be in default (which is probably accurately attributable, inter alia, to the pandemic) I consider how a penalty may be mitigated, by the provision of a “Reasonable Excuse”. HMRC has updated its internal guidance on Reasonable Excuse this month.

Specifically: HMRC state that “…where a person has not been able to meet an obligation on time due to the impact of COVID-19, HMRC will usually accept that they will have a reasonable excuse.”

What is a Default Surcharge?

The Default Surcharge is a civil penalty issued by HMRC to encourage businesses to submit their VAT returns and pay the tax due on time.

A default occurs if HMRC has not received your return and all the VAT due by the due date. The relevant date is the date that cleared funds reach HMRC’s bank account. If the due date is not a working day, payment must be received on the last preceding working day.

More on late returns here and on late payments here.

New rules forthcoming

It is noted that there is a new regime for penalties, details here although these changes have been delayed until 1 January 2023

Reasonable Excuse

If a business has a reasonable excuse for failing to pay on time, and it remedies this failure without unreasonable delay after the excuse ends, it will not be liable to a surcharge. The onus is on a business to satisfy HMRC that it has a Reasonable Excuse.

Definition

There’s no statutory definition of Reasonable Excuse and it will depend on the particular circumstances of a case. A Reasonable Excuse is something that prevented the business meeting a tax obligation on time which it took reasonable care to meet. There is a great deal of case law on this particular issue. Please contact us should there be doubt about a Reasonable Excuse.

What may count as a Reasonable Excuse?

HMRC give the following examples:

  • “your partner or another close relative died shortly before the tax return or payment deadline
  • you had an unexpected stay in hospital that prevented you from dealing with your tax affairs
  • you had a serious or life-threatening illness
  • your computer or software failed just before or while you were preparing your online return
  • service issues with HMRC online services
  • a fire, flood or theft prevented you from completing your tax return
  • postal delays that you could not have predicted
  • delays related to a disability (including mental health) you have”

This list is not exhaustive.

What is NOT a reasonable excuse

Statute identifies two specific situations that are not a reasonable excuse:

  • lack of funds to pay any VAT due, or
  • reliance on any other person to perform a task, where there has been a delay or inaccuracy on that person’s part.

There can be exceptions to these two exclusions. For example, an insufficiency of funds may be a reasonable excuse where the insufficiency is a result of events outside the person’s control.

HMRC also states that these situations would not normally be accepted, on their own, as a reasonable excuse:

  • pressure of work
  • lack of information
  • lack of a reminder from HMRC

Facts

HMRC will establish what facts the business believes gave rise to a Reasonable Excuse. The facts may include:

  • the taxpayer’s beliefs
  • the taxpayer’s own experiences and relevant attributes
  • the situation of the taxpayer at any relevant time
  • acts carried out by the taxpayer or someone else
  • acts that the taxpayer or someone else should have carried out but did not.

Case Law

Although not a VAT issue, in the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Christine Perrin [2018] UKUT 156 [TC], the judge provided guidance on how the Tribunal should approach a Reasonable Excuse defence. There are four steps:

  1. establish what facts the taxpayer asserts give rise to a reasonable excuse
  2. decide which of those facts are proven
  3. if those proven facts amount to an objectively reasonable excuse for the default
  4. having decided when any reasonable excuse ceased, decide whether the taxpayer remedied the failure without unreasonable delay after that time

Appeal

If HMRC refuse to accept an advance of a Reasonable Excuse and the Default Surcharge is maintained, there are two potential remedies:

If a business disagrees with a decision that it is liable to a surcharge or how the amount of surcharge has been calculated, it is possible to:

  • ask HMRC to review your case (A Statutory Review)
  • have your case heard by the Tax Tribunal

If you ask for a review of a case, a business will be required to write to HMRC within 30 days of the date the Surcharge Liability Notice Extension (SLNE) was sent. The letter should give the reasons why a business disagrees with the decision.

We are able to assist with all disputes with HMRC and have an enviable record of succeeding in having Default Surcharges removed.

Crime doesn’t pay……..VAT. Is there tax on illegal activities?

By   14 March 2022
0

A number of people have been surprised to find that crime does pay tax, thank you very much. It seems bad enough that the police should chase and catch you, put you in the dock and send you to prison, without finding that your first visitor is HMRC…. Let’s look at some examples:

Dodgy perfume?

Goodwin & Unstead were in business selling counterfeit perfume. They were also up-front about what they were doing. Unstead claimed that “Everything I can carry in my vehicle, everything I trade in and sell, is a complete copy of the real thing. I do not sell goods as the real thing. In fact I sell my goods for a quarter of the original price. I am not out to defraud or con the public. I only appeal to the poseurs in life.”

The real manufacturers might have sued these men for passing off the product of their chemistry experiments in trademarked bottles, but it was HMRC who sent them to jail – for failing to register and pay VAT on their sales. The amount they should have collected was estimated at £750,000, which shows that they must have appealed to a great many poseurs.

If they had paid the VAT, Customs would have had no problem with them. Their customers must have been reasonably satisfied – if your counterfeit perfume smells something like the real thing, why worry?
They tried to get out of jail with an ingenious argument – if the sale of the perfume was illegal, surely there shouldn’t be VAT on it. It wasn’t legitimate business activity, so it wasn’t something that ought to be taxable. The European Court had no time for this. They pointed out that it would give lawbreakers an advantage over lawful businesses; they wouldn’t have to charge VAT. The judges suggested that maybe people would even deliberately break the law so they could get out of tax; in this case, the only thing that made the trade illegal was treading on someone’s trademark rights, and that was something that might happen at any time in legitimate businesses. The judges said that VAT would apply to any trade which competed in a legal marketplace, even if the particular sales broke the law for some reason. Counterfeit perfume is VATable because real perfume is too. Of course, Customs have traditionally had two main roles – looking for drug smugglers, and dealing with VAT-registered traders. They have generally treated both with much the same suspicion, but the ECJ made it clear in this case that the two sets of customers are completely separate.

“Personal” services?

Customers paid the escort £130, of which £30 was paid to the agency. VAT on £130 or VAT on £30?

The first hearing before the Tribunal went something like this (this may be using artistic licence, but the published summary implies it was so):

HMRC: “We think the VAT should be on £130 because the escorts are acting as agents of the escort business.”
Trader: “No, it’s just £30, the £100 belongs to the escort and is nothing to do with me.”
Tribunal chairman: “All right, tell me a bit about how the business operates.”
Customs: “No.”
Tribunal chairman: “What?”
Customs: “You don’t want to know.”
Tribunal chairman: “How can I decide whether the escorts are acting as agent or principals without knowing how the business operates?”
Customs: “Don’t go there, just give us a decision.”
Tribunal chairman: “Trader, you tell me how the business operates.”
Trader: “I agree with him, you don’t want to know.”
The Tribunal seems to have been a bit baffled by this. They were aware that Customs had a great deal more evidence which had been collected during the course of a thorough investigation, and they asked the parties to go away and decide whether they might let the Tribunal see a bit more of it so they could make a judgement rather than a guess.

What about drugs then?

It’s well-known that you are allowed to smoke dope in some establishments in Amsterdam, although the Dutch authorities are thinking about restricting this to Netherlands’ residents. They may find that such a rule contravenes the European Law on freedom of movement – under the EU treaty, you can’t be meaner to foreigners than you are to your own people just because they are foreign. That’s a nice idea, but individuals and governments keep trying it on. Anyway, the Coffeeshop Siberie rented space to drug dealers who would sell cannabis at tables for people to take advantage of the relaxed atmosphere. Presumably they are preparing to examine passports or local utility bills before making the sale, if only the Dutch are to be allowed to get stoned. Anyway, the Dutch authorities asked the coffee shop’s owners for VAT on the rent paid by the dealers, and the owners appealed to the ECJ. This time, surely, it was sufficiently illegal. Although the consumption of drugs was tolerated, it was still against the law, and it must therefore be not VATable.
The judges pointed out that the coffee shop was not actually selling drugs. They were just providing the space for other people to sell drugs. Although selling drugs was completely illegal, and there was no legitimate market in cannabis, renting space was a normal business activity. Renting space to someone who did something illegal with it was in the same category as the dodgy perfume sales in Goodwin & Unstead: it was a bit illegal, but not illegal enough. The VAT was still due.

Counterfeiting?

In a German case, the ECJ ruled that the importation of counterfeit money was outside the scope of VAT. The Advocate-General observed that a line must be drawn between, on the one hand, transactions that lie so clearly outside the sphere of legitimate economic activity that, instead of being taxed, they can only be the subject of criminal prosecution, and, on the other hand, transactions which though unlawful must nonetheless be taxed, if only for ensuring in the name of fiscal neutrality, that the criminal is not treated more favourably than the legitimate trader’.

So, there you have it, if you are of a criminal disposition, and you want to avoid VAT, funny money is the way to go.  Please note, this does not constitute advice…..

VAT: Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme registered businesses list

By   16 February 2022
1

HMRC has issued updated guidance for businesses which need to check whether an entity which stores goods in the UK on its behalf is registered with the Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme (FHDDS).

The published list is alphabetical order by company name.

The list should be used if you are a business that is not established in the EU to see if the business that stores your goods in the UK is registered with the FHDDS.

If your business is outsourcing or considering outsourcing its fulfilment operations, then the fulfilment house you are using or intending to use of must be legally accredited by HMRC to do so.

Businesses that must be registered

Businesses are required to be registered if it stores any goods where all of the following apply:

  • the goods were imported from a country outside the EU
  • the goods are owned by, or stored on behalf of, someone established outside the EU
  • the goods are being offered for sale and have not been sold in the UK before

It is illegal to operate outside of the scheme and any fulfilment company found doing so will be prevented operating a fulfilment business and may be subject to a £10,000 penalty and a criminal conviction.

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

By   15 February 2022
0

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   14 February 2022
0

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:
  1. advertising
  2. on site café
  3. toilets
  4. parking
  5. capital improvements to the site to make it more attractive to buyers
  6. provision of some pitches under cover
  7. cleaning the site after the events
  8. 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: Latest on early termination and compensation payments

By   8 February 2022
1

HMRC has published a new Revenue and Customs Brief 2(2022) which replaces Revenue and Customs Brief 12 (2020): VAT early termination fees and compensation payments.

It introduces a revised policy on early termination payments and compensation fees. Following representations from industry the Brief issued in September 2020 was suspended in January 2021. HMRC has reviewed the policy in the light of those representations and is adopting a revised policy which will take effect from 1 April 2022. The new policy will result in fewer early termination payments being subject to VAT than in the 2020 guidance.

The new Brief also advises businesses that adopted the treatment outlined in Brief 12 (2020) on what action they should now take.

Background

Whether a payment is for a VAT supply depends on whether anything is being done in return for a consideration. Where a party agrees to do something in return for a fee there is a supply. How that fee is described does not affect whether there is a supply for VAT. What matters is whether something is done and if there is a direct link between what is done and the payment received, and reciprocity between the supplier and the customer (see VATSC05100).

Previous HMRC guidance stated that when customers are charged to withdraw from agreements to receive goods or services, these charges were not generally for a supply and were outside the scope of VAT.

Following the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgments in Meo (C-295/17) and most recently in Vodafone Portugal (C-43/19), it is evident that some of these charges are additional consideration for the supply of goods or services. Most early termination fees and some cancellation fees are therefore liable for VAT if the goods or services for which the fees have been paid are liable for VAT, even if they are described as compensation or damages.

The main impact of the revised policy is that fees charged when customers terminate a contract early will be regarded as further consideration for the contracted supply. For example, if a customer is charged a fee for exiting a mobile phone contract early, or if they terminate a car hire contract early, it will be liable for VAT.

The new guidance can be found at VATSC05910, VATSC05920 and VATSC05930.

VAT: Bad Debt Relief. The Regency Factors case

By   7 February 2022
0

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.