Category Archives: Law

Is room hire subject to VAT? – The Errol Willy Salons case

By   24 January 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Errol Willy Salons Ltd (2022) TC 08370 the issue was whether the rent of two rooms were an exempt right over land, or the standard rated supply of facilities.

Background

Room hire is usually exempt from VAT unless it is subject to an option to tax. However, it can be subsumed into a different rated another supply if something more than a “bare” room is provided. In such cases, it would follow the VAT treatment of the composite supply.

The Issue

In the Errol Willy Salons case, HMRC formed the view that what was being supplied was facilities (the room occupation being a minor part of the supply) and therefore subject to VAT. In its opinion the economic and social reality was that the beauticians were provided with a licence to trade from the premises. The appellant occupied the ground floor – operating a hairdressing business. The rooms over the saloon were rented to third party beauticians. The occupants furnished the rooms themselves, provided their own equipment, set their own pricing and opening hours. They did have use of certain services and facilities; a receptionist and toilets, but it was understood that the services were rarely used. Unsurprisingly, the appellant disagreed and contended that the other services were incidental or subsidiary to the exempt supply of the room rental.

The decision

The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the assessment. It found that “non-rent” services provided to the beauticians were limited in nature and not essential to the beauticians’ businesses Consequently, the arrangements amounted to a supply of property (a licence to occupy the rooms) rather than a supply of taxable facilities and was therefore exempt.

Commentary

This is the latest in a long line of issues on composite/separate supplies and room hire/facilities disputes, especially in relation to weddings. It is important to establish precisely what is being provided to establish the correct VAT treatment and advice should be ought if there is any doubt about the VAT liability.

The CIOT has long advocated that it is not the case that every package of supplies involving room hire and other things must be a composite supply of something other than an exempt letting of land.

NB: This case is different to hairdresser chair rentals which remain standard rated.

Splitting a business to avoid VAT registration: Disaggregation

By   11 January 2022
0

Earlier this month, I wrote an article on VAT registration.  A query which commonly follows an initial registration query is: can I split my business into separate parts which are all under the VAT registration turnover limit to avoid registering? Prima facie, this seems a straightforward planning point. But is it possible?

You will not be surprised to learn that HMRC don’t like such schemes and there is legislation and case law for them to use to attack such planning known as “disaggregation”. This simply means artificially splitting a business.

What HMRC will consider to be artificial separation:

HMRC will be concerned with separations which are a contrived device set up to circumvent the normal VAT registration rules. Whether any particular separation will be considered artificial will, in most cases, depend upon the specific circumstances. Accordingly, it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of all the types of separations that HMRC will view as artificial. However, the following are examples of when HMRC would at least make further enquiries:

Separate entities supply registered and unregistered customers

  • In this type of separation, the registered entity supplies any registered customers and the unregistered part supplies unregistered customers.

Same equipment/premises used by different entities on a regular basis

  • In this type of situation, a series of entities operates the same equipment and/or premises for a set period in any one-week or month. Generally, the premises and/or equipment is owned by one of the parties who charges rent to the others. This situation may occur in launderettes and take-aways such as fish and chip shops or mobile catering equipment.

Splitting up of what is usually a single supply

  • This type of separation is common in the bed and breakfast trade where one entity supplies the bed and another the breakfast. Another is in the livery trade where one entity supplies the stabling and another, the hay to feed the animals. There are more complex examples, but the similar tests are applied to them too.

Artificially separated businesses which maintain the appearance of a single business

  • A simple example of this type of separation is; pubs in which the bar and catering may be artificially separated. In most cases the customer will consider the food and the drinks as bought from the pub and not from two independent businesses. The relationship between the parties in such circumstances will be important here as truly franchised “shop within a shop” arrangements will not normally be considered artificial.

One person has a controlling influence in a number of entities which all make the same type of supply in diverse locations

  • In this type of separation, a number of outlets which make the same type of supplies are run by separate companies which are under the control of the same person. Although this is not as frequently encountered as some of the other situations, the resulting tax loss may be significant.

The meaning of financial, economic, and organisational links

Again, each case will depend on its specific circumstances. The following examples illustrate the types of factors indicative of the necessary links, although there will be many others:

Financial links

  • financial support given by one part to another part
  • one part would not be financially viable without support from another part
  • common financial interest in the proceeds of the business

Economic links

  • seeking to realise the same economic objective
  • the activities of one part benefit the other part
  • supplying the same circle of customers

Organisational links

  • common management
  • common employees
  • common premises
  • common equipment

HMRC often attack structures which were not designed simply to avoid VAT registration, so care should be taken when any entity VAT registers, or a conscious decision is made not to VAT register. Registration is a good time to have a business’ activities and structure reviewed by an adviser.

As with most aspects of VAT, there are significant and draconian penalties for getting registration wrong, especially if HMRC consider that it has been done deliberately to avoid paying VAT.

VAT Inspections …and how to survive them

By   5 January 2022
0

VAT Inspections

The first point to make is that inspections are usually quite standard and routine and generally there is nothing to worry about.  They are hardly enjoyable occasions, but with planning they can be made to go as smoothly as possible. As an inspector in my previous life, I am in a good position to look at the process from “both sides”.  If you are concerned that the inspection is not routine (for any reason) please contact us immediately.

Background

Typically, the initial meeting will begin with an interview with the business owner (and/or adviser) to go through the basic facts.  The inspector will seek to understand the business and how it operates and will usually assess the answers with specific tests (further tests will be applied to the records).  After the interview the inspector(s) will examine the records and will usually have further queries on these. More often than not they will carry out; bank reconciliations, cash reconciliations, mark-up exercises, and often “references” which are the testing of transactions using information obtained from suppliers and customers.  There are many other exercises that may be carried out depending on the type of business.  Larger businesses have more regular inspections where one part of the business is looked at each meeting.  The largest businesses have more or less perpetual inspections (as one would expect).  The length of the inspection usually depends on:

  • Size of the business
  • Complexity of the business
  • Type of business (HMRC often target; cash businesses, the construction industry, property investment, partially exempt businesses, charities and NFP entities, cross-border transactions and financial services providers amongst others)
  • Compliance history
  • Associated/past businesses
  • Intelligence received
  • Errors found
  • Credibility of the business owner and records

The above measurements will also dictate how often a business is inspected.

More details on certain inspections/investigations here

The initial inspection may be followed by subsequent meetings if required, although HMRC state that they aim is to conclude matters at the time of the first meeting.

The inspection – how to prepare

  • Ensure that both the person who completes the VAT returns and the person who signs the VAT returns will be available for all of the day(s) selected
  • Arrange with your adviser, to be available to you and the inspector on the days of the inspection
  • Thoroughly review your VAT declarations and have ready, if relevant, any disclosures or other declarations you consider you need to make to HMRC at the start of the inspection (this should avoid penalties)
  • Have available all VAT returns and working papers for the last four years or the period since you were registered for VAT including:
    • Annual accounts
    • The VAT account and all related working papers
    • All books and accounts, cashbook, petty cashbook, sales and purchases day books
    • Sales and purchase invoices
    • All supporting documentation, eg; contracts, correspondence, etc.
    • Bank statements
    • VAT certificate and certificate of registration
    • Any other documentation relating to “taxable supplies”
  • Have available the full VAT correspondence files ensuring that they are fully up-to-date
  • Ensure you have full information on any; one-off, unusual or particularly high value transactions

The inspection – during the visit

  • Ask the inspector(s) to identify themselves by name on arrival (they carry identity cards)
  • Be polite, friendly and hospitable as far as possible
  • Make a desk or space available for them to work near to you – in this way you can oversee/overlook what they do
  • Only allow access to the files that form part of your “VAT Records”
  • Enable the VAT inspector, if they ask, to inspect your business premises (and have someone accompany them)
  • Be cautious with your answers to seemingly “innocent” questions and comments. If in doubt ask for time to check, or that the question be put in writing (never guess or provide an answer which you think HMRC want)
  • If something inconsistent is found (or suggested) ask for full details and take note of all of the documentation to which the query relates – this will enable you to provide necessary information to your adviser

The inspection – at the end of the visit

The inspector should:

  • Explain the main work they have done. For example which VAT accounting periods they reviewed
  • Explain any areas of concern they have, discuss them and seek to agree any future action that needs to be taken; and
  • Illustrate as fully as possible the size and reason for any adjustment to the VAT payable, and describe how the adjustment will be made

You should:

  • Obtain a summary of the inspection from HMRC (not always an easy task)
  • Ask the inspector to put all of HMRC’s concerns about your business to you in writing
  • Confirm with the inspector all time limits for providing additional information to HMRC

After the inspection

HMRC will write to you confirming:

  • Any issues identified
  • Further information required
  • Improvements required to record keeping
  • Any corrections required
  • Whether VAT has been over or under paid
  • Any penalties and interest which will be levied
  • Deadlines for payment.

On a final point: Never simply assume that the inspector is correct in his/her decision.  It always pays to seek advice and challenge the decision where possible.  Even if it is clear that an error has been made, mitigation may be possible.

We can provide a pre-inspection review as well as attending inspections if required.  It is quite often the case that many HMRC enquiries may be nipped in the bud at the time of the inspection rather than becoming long drawn out sagas. We can also act as negotiator with HMRC and handle disputes on your behalf.

VAT: Trading with the EU from 1 January 2022

By   14 December 2021
0

Further to my article on the new changes from next year, HMRC has published information on the rules of origin for trade between the UK and EU.

The Bulletin covers the rules of origin and the forthcoming changes to the requirement for supplier declarations to support proof of origin.

Uber to charge VAT

By   7 December 2021
0

Latest from the courts

Further to my article on the Supreme Court case, Uber went to the High Court seeking to challenge this decision, but the High Court has now upheld it.

This means it is very likely that Uber will be required to charge VAT on its supplies as the court found that taxi firms make contracts directly with their customers because Uber drivers should be treated as workers not contractors. This means that Uber make to supply of taxi services to the fare and not the individual drivers.

The High Court agreed with the Supreme Court and stated that: “… in order to operate lawfully under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 a licensed operator who accepts a booking from a passenger is required to enter as principal into a contractual obligation with the passenger to provide the journey which is the subject of the booking.”

A spokesperson for Uber said: “Every private hire operator in London will be impacted by this decision, and should comply with the verdict in full.”

Although not a VAT case itself, this decision is the latest in a long list of VAT agent/principal cases, the most important being:

Secret Hotels 2 Ltd

Hotels4U.com Ltd

Low Cost Holidays Ltd

Adecco

All Answers Limited

It is crucial that businesses review their position if there is any doubt at all whether agent status applies to their business model.

VAT: Roof panels are not insulation. The Greenspace case

By   2 December 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Greenspace Limited the issue was whether insulated roof panels were “energy-saving materials” per VAT Act 1994, sect 29A, Schedule 7A, group 2, items 1 and 2 and thus liable at the reduced rate of 5%. Or rather at the standard rate of 20% on the basis that they were a supply of a roof itself.

Background

The appellant supplied and installed roof panels for conservatories which comprised a layer of close-cell extruded polystyrene foam (Styrofoam) around 71mm thick. The Styrofoam was covered with a thin aluminium layer and a protective powder coating which are together around 2mm thick. The supplies were made to residential customers and the panels were fitted onto their pre-existing conservatory roofs. The Panels were slotted into place on the existing roof structure and Greenspace did not replace its customers’ existing roof framework when doing this; the struts and glazing bars that supported the previous glass or polycarbonate panels were left in place. Consequently, the Panels were not self-supporting and could only be used if the customer already had an existing conservatory roof structure.

The decision

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided in 2020 that the panels were not “insulation for a roof” but were a new roof in their own right, and that the appellant’s supplies did not therefore qualify for the reduced rate of VAT (unlike insulation that could be separately attached to a roof, the panels actually formed the roof).

The UT dismissed the new appeal and found that the FTT had not been obliged to compare the roof after Greenspace had installed its panels to the original roof. The frame that was retained could not itself be described as a roof, and the provision of the Thermotec panels which made the conservatory weatherproof as well as insulating it could properly be categorised as the provision of a new roof.

One of Greenspace’s grounds of appeal was that the FTT decision was vitiated by the assumption that because the panels took the form of roof coverings, they were necessarily incapable of constituting “insulation for … roofs”. The appellant argued that as this was a flawed assumption (that Greenspace’s supplies “must” be treated as something more than insulation) the decision should be set aside. This contention was rejected by the UT judge.

Commentary

A fine distinction is often required to be made to establish the correct VAT treatment of a supply. In this case a degree of semantics was required to determine whether the panels were energy-saving materials (even when they certainly saved energy). On such small things turned the assessment of £2.6 million here. It always pays to double check VAT treatments rather than making assumptions.

VAT: The importance of “belonging”. The Mandarin Consulting case

By   1 December 2021
0

Latest from the courts

Technical: I have considered the importance of the Place of Belonging (POB) here.

The issue

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Mandarin Consulting Ltd the issue was the POB of the appellant’s clients, and the evidence to support that POB.

Background

Mandarin supplied career coaching and support services to students of Chinese origin. Those services would be outside the scope of VAT if supplied to persons whose usual residence was outside the EU. So, in order to treat its supplies as UK VAT free the appellant need to demonstrate where the recipients of its services lived. 

First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision

The FTT decided that the services were outside the scope of VAT if the recipient had a permanent address, or usually resided, at that time, outside the EU. It was agreed that from July 2016 the supplies were made to the students’ parents who almost exclusively lived in China. The dispute was with pre-2016 services which were deemed to be made to the students. HMRC argued that, as the students lived in the UK for the duration of the courses, their “usual residence” was the UK, so VAT applied. Although the FTT dismissed this argument, the appeal failed because the proffered evidence did not establish that the usual place of residence of the students as required by Council Implementing Regulation 282/2011/82, Article 23 (reproduced below).

The UT decision

The UT considered the following issues:

Issue 1 – In deciding whether the requirements of Article 23 had been satisfied should the FTT have had regard to “informal evidence” as well as the documentary evidence provided? What evidence could the appellant rely upon to establish that students had a “permanent address” or “usual residence” outside the Community? Is Mandarin limited to such documentary evidence as it had in its possession prior to the time of supply, or can Mandarin in principle rely on all evidence available to it, whether obtained before or after the time of supply, including witness evidence given in connection with the FTT proceedings?

Issue 2 – Taking into account the answers to the above, had the evidence that Mandarin put forward established a prima facie case that its supplies were to persons with a “permanent address” or “usual residence” outside the Community? If so, was there an evidential burden on HMRC to rebut that prima facie case which HMRC had failed to discharge?

Issue 3 – To the extent that Mandarin had failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 23 of the Implementing Regulation, was that fatal to its claim to treat supplies made to students prior to July 2016 as outside the scope of VAT?

Unfortunately, the appellant obtained “relatively patchy” information in respect of the usual residence of individual students.

The UT found that a business retained the right to argue the place of supply (POS) was outside the EU even if the requirements of Article 23 were not met. Also, that while the POS had to be determined by the relevant circumstances existing at the time of supply, Mandarin was not precluded from relying on information discovered later. Finally, it was decided that Article 23 was not the only means available to demonstrate the appellant’s clients had a usual residence outside the EU.

However, the FTT had failed to consider the informal evidence provided concerning the business and customer base. The UT did consider this but still found that the evidence still did not succeed in demonstrating the POB of clients sufficiently. Consequently, the UT was not satisfied that the POB of the students was outside the EU so the supplies were subject to UK VAT and the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Another case demonstrating the importance of obtaining and retaining information on the location of customers. Superficially, it appears that the appellant’s supplies may have been UK VAT free, but a failure to evidence this was its downfall. It would not have taken very much to be covered by Article 23, but…

Legislation

Article 23

“… 23. Where, in accordance with Articles 58 and 59 of the PVD, a supply of services is taxable at the place where the customer is established, or, in the absence of an establishment, where he has his permanent address or usually resides, the supplier shall establish that place based on factual information provided by the customer, and verify that information by normal commercial security measures such as those relating to identity or payment checks.”

VAT: Input tax recovery. The Mpala Mufwankolo case

By   15 November 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Mr Mufwankolo the dispute was whether the appellant was able to recover VAT charged by the landlord of the property from which he ran his business – a licenced retail outlet on Tottenham High Road.  

Background

The landlord had opted to tax the commercial property and charged VAT on the rent. The appellant was a sole proprietor; however, the lease was in the name of Mr Mufwankolo’s wife, and the rent demands showed her name and not that of the sole proprietor. It was contended by the appellant, but not evidenced, that the lease had originally been in both his and his wife’s names, despite his wife being the sole signatory.

The issues

Could the appellant recover input tax?

  • Did the business receive the supply?
  • Was there appropriate evidence?

It was clear that the business operated from the relevant property and consequently, in normal circumstances, the rent would be a genuine cost component of the business.

The Decision

The FTT found that there was no entitlement to an input tax claim and the appeal was dismissed. The lease was solely in the wife’s name and the business was the applicant as a sole proprietor. (There was an obvious potential for a partnership and an argument that a partnership was originally intended was advanced. The status of registration was challenged in 2003, but, crucially, not pursued).

It was possible for the property to be sub-let by the wife to the husband, however, this did not affect the VAT treatment as matters stood. Additionally, there was no evidence that the appellant actually paid any of the rent, as this was done by the tenant. There were no VAT invoices addressed to the sole proprietor.

Given the facts, there was no supply to the appellant, so there was no input tax to claim, and the issue of acceptable evidence fell away.

It was a certainty that the appeal could not succeed.

Commentary

There were a number of ways that this VAT cost could have easily been avoided had a little thought been given to the VAT arrangements. An oversight that created an avoidable tax hit.

A helpful guide to input tax considerations here: Care with input tax claims.

Legislation

The VAT Act 1994 Section 3 – Taxable person

The VAT Act 1994 Section 4 – Taxable supply

The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (1) – Input tax

The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (6) – Input tax claim evidence

VAT: Valuation

By   15 November 2021
0

Further to my article on apportionment valuation and case review here and Transfer Pricing valuation I thought it useful to consider HMRC’s internal guidance on its approach to valuation.

Sometimes a single monetary consideration may represent payment for two or more supplies at different VAT rates. In such cases, a business is required to allocate a “fair proportion” of the total payment to each of the supplies. This requirement is set out at in The VAT Act 1994, Section 19(4).

“Where a supply of any goods or services is not the only matter to which a consideration in money relates, the supply shall be deemed to be for such part of the consideration as is properly attributable to it.”

Although this section requires an apportionment of the consideration to be performed, it does not prescribe the methods by which this is to be achieved. The most common methods are based upon the costs incurred in making the supplies or the usual selling prices of the supplies.

Examples of methods that have been found to be of general application are contained in VAT Notice 700 para 8. A business is not obliged to adopt any of these suggested methods, and HMRC may accept alternative proposals provided that they achieve a fair and reasonable result that can be supported by valid calculation.

Some sectors have special methods called margin schemes to determine apportionment of the monetary consideration. Details of these found in their notices and guidance. The schemes include:


Basics

Before it is possible to perform an apportionment calculation, there are four basic questions that need to be addressed to determine whether an apportionment is appropriate and if so, what supplies it relates to.

  1. Is there more than one supply?
  2. Is there a single consideration?
  3. Can any part of the payment be treated as outside the scope of VAT?
  4. What are the liabilities of the supplies in question?

The issue of whether there is a single or multiple supply has created problems from the outset of the tax.  The volume of case law illustrates that each decision is based on the facts of each case and there cannot be a one-size fits all approach to this issue. The most important and recent cases are here:

Card Protection Plan Ltd 

Stocks Fly Fishery

Metropolitan International Schools

The Ice Rink Company Ltd 

General Healthcare Group Limited