Category Archives: Law

VAT and BIK – Double cab pick-ups

By Marcus Ward 15 February 2024

VAT and BIK – Double cab pick-ups

The changes to benefit-in-kind tax purposes from 1 July 2024 means that double cab pick-up trucks will no longer be classified as vans but as cars. This brings them into line with the VAT treatment of these vehicles, so here we look at the VAT rules:

HMRC and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) have agreed how the one tonne payload test will be applied in practice to double cab pick-ups.

Cars are treated quite differently for VAT purposes from commercial vehicles:

most ordinary business cars are subject to a block on input tax recovery which is a proxy for taxing the private use of the car
the private use of commercial vehicles is taxed either by means of an input tax apportionment or a periodic output charge on actual private use
a business that converts a commercial vehicle into a car becomes liable to an output tax charge on a “self-supply” of the vehicle to itself para 14 Notice 700/57.

SMMT members will take steps to make dealers aware of the ex-works payloads of their double cab models.

Vehicles are not treated as cars for VAT purposes if they have a payload of one tonne or more. Payload is the difference between a vehicle’s maximum gross weight and its kerbside weight. In practice the change mainly affects those vehicles generally described as double cab pick-ups.

Given the different treatment of cars and commercial vehicles it is important for manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and business customers to know the payload of any double cab vehicle which is bought.

It is especially important to be aware that by adding accessories to the ex-works model they may, by lowering the payload of the vehicle, convert it into a car. This would make the vehicle liable to the self-supply charge. Such conversions are most likely to occur with double cabs that have an ex-works payload of 1000 to 1050 kg.

Accessories fitted by dealers or customers

HMRC will, with one exception, ignore as de minimis the addition of accessories. The exception is the addition of a hard top consisting of metal, fibreglass or similar material, with or without windows. In practice this means that a manufacturer, dealer or customer can fit any accessory to the vehicle, other than a hard top, and still rely upon its payload as being the ex-works payload. HMRC will accord all hardtops a generic weight of 45kgs.

In order to provide simplicity and certainty, HMRC and the SMMT have agreed to simplify the treatment of these vehicles. Full details of the agreement can be found at para 23 Notice 700/57 – Administrative agreements entered into with trade bodies.

Please see the recent The Three Shires Trailers case on input tax recovery and the self-supply of cars/commercial vehicles.

UPDATE!

Double-cab pickups go back to being vans, not cars for BIK (only). A week after the new guidance that classified double-cab pickups as cars rather than vans, the HMG has now reversed this decision on 19 February 2024.

VAT: Evidence for exports. The H Ripley case

By Marcus Ward 13 February 2024

Latest from the courts

In the H Ripley & Co Limited First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether the appellant had satisfactory evidence to support the zero rating of the export of goods (scrap metal).

Background

HMRC denied zero rating on the basis that the appellant did not provide satisfactory evidence to support the fact that the scrap metal was removed from the UK.

The requirements are set out in VAT Notice 725 para 5 and acceptable documentary evidence may include:

the customer’s order – including customer’s name and delivery address
inter-company correspondence
copy sales invoice
advice note
packing list
commercial transport documents from the carrier responsible for removing the goods from the UK, for example an International Consignment Note (CMR) fully completed by the consignor, the haulier and signed by receiving consignee
details of insurance or freight charges
bank statements as evidence of payment
receipted copy of the consignment note as evidence of receipt of goods abroad
a signed CMR document or note
a bill of lading
an airfreight invoice
an invoice from the carrier of the goods
official documents issued by a public authority, such as a notary, confirming the arrival of the goods
any other documents relevant to the removal of the goods in question which you would normally get in the course of business

or a combination of the above.

HMRC advised the appellant that it had received an information request from the Belgian tax authorities in respect of certain transactions and consequently, HMRC required information on the company’s documents in connection with the supplies. On receipt of the information HMRC concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support zero-rating so the sales were treated as standard rated and the appellant’s repayment claim was reduced to reflect this.

In these circumstances the burden of proof is on the appellant to show that it has satisfied the conditions set out in Notice 725 to zero-rate its supplies and provide documentation to show that the goods were removed from the UK.

Decision

The court noted that it was not HMRC’s position that supplementary evidence could not be provided post the required three-months period but that it was entitled to decline the additional evidence when it was provided some 18 to 30 months after the three-month period. It was clear that the evidence of removal must be obtained within three months and not that the valid evidence is brought into existence within the three-month time limit and obtained at some future date.

Notice 725 sets out the conditions which attach to the entitlement to zero-rate supplies. The FTT considered it to be clear from paragraph 4.3 and 4.4 (which have the force of law) that the onus is on the exporter company claiming zero-rating to gather sufficient evidence of removal within three months of the date of the supply. If it does not do so, it is not entitled to zero-rate the supplies.

Specifically, the court considered:

Sales Invoices – did not provide clear evidence that the goods were removed from the UK. Despite the invoices confirming the sale of scrap metal to a Belgium registered company it did not follow that the address of the purchaser is the same address as the destination that the goods were sent to.
Bank Statements – simply provided proof of payment they did not confirm who received the goods nor where the goods were delivered.
Weighbridge Tickets – merely confirm a consignment of scrap metal was sold to a Belgium based company and the goods were collected by a UK registered vehicle.
CMRs – none of the CMRs were fully completed by the haulier and signed by the receiving consignee.
P&O Boarding Cards –a taxpayer must have in its possession valid evidence of export within three months from the time of supply. The boarding cards were not provided to HMRC until 30 May 2018, some 18 to 30 months after the disputed consignments took place. It was not disproportionate for HMRC to state that the time limit for obtaining valid evidence of removal was three months and that the substantive requirements of Notice 725 had not been met. In any event, the court did not accept that the boarding cards evidence the exports of the scrap metal; none of the reference numbers on the boarding card match those used in any of the other documents and none of the lead names on the boarding cards match any of the other names in any other document. The boarding cards do not have any identifying features such that they may be matched with any of the disputed consignments.
E-mails and WhatsApp messages –none of the messages evidence that the loads were exported. At best they evidence a request from the buyer to a carrier to collect goods from the supplier’s yard and the WhatsApp messages were silent on whether the loads were exported from the UK.

The appeal was dismissed, and the assessments were upheld because none of the documents either individually or taken as a whole, were sufficient evidence to support zero-rating.

Commentary

Yet another case illustrating the importance of insuring correct documentation is held. It is not sufficient that goods leave the UK, but the detailed evidence requirements must always be met.

VAT: Input tax claim on Land Rovers. The Three Shires Trailers case

By Marcus Ward 9 February 2024

Latest from the courts

In the Three Shires Trailers Limited First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issues were whether an input tax claim on the purchase of two Land Rover Discoveries was appropriate when they were converted from commercial vehicles to cars, or was a self-supply triggered?

Background

The vehicles were commercial vehicles when purchased and input tax was recovered. Subsequently, they were converted by the addition of three fold up seats with seat belts behind the driver seat and removing materials which had blacked out the rear windows which reclassified them as cars. This would have subjected them to an input tax block if purchased in that state.

The purpose of buying the vehicles was for the transport of trailers to customers, the collection of trailers from suppliers and to enable personnel of the appellant to attend trade fairs all over the country.

Technical

“A Motor Car” is defined as:

“any motor vehicle of a kind used on public roads which has three or more wheels and either:

(a) is constructed or adapted solely or mainly for the carriage of passengers; or

(b) has to the rear of the driver’s seat roofed accommodation which is fitted with side windows or which is constructed or adapted for the fitting of side windows…”

Issues

The appellant stated that the vehicles were used only for business purposes. Employees were not permitted to use the vehicles for private purposes and did not do so. The vehicles were kept at the business’s premises. He also explained that the vehicles were not converted to cars, if they were cars, they were qualifying cars and if they were non-qualifying cars, the use was only temporary, and they were converted back to commercial vehicles.

Initially, HMRC disallowed the claim because the vehicles became cars and subject to the input tax block.

Subsequently, HMRC’s case was that the vehicles had been converted from commercial vehicles to non-qualifying cars which triggers an irreversible self-supply under Article 5 of the Value Added Tax (Cars) Order 1992 so output tax equalling the claimed input tax was due.

Decision

The FTT decided that, at the time when the vehicles were acquired, they were indisputably commercial vehicles and the appellant was entitled to deduct the input tax on them.

The judge found that, after conversion, the vehicles were intended for use, and were used, only for business purposes. The appellant did not intend that the vehicles should be used for private purposes and so far as he was aware, there was no private use. The vehicles were therefore qualifying motor vehicles eligible for input VAT recovery. No output tax was due on a self-supply.

The appeal was allowed.

Commentary

Another case on the recovery of input tax on car purchases and the difference between commercial vehicles and cars. It is notoriously difficult to persuade HMRC that there is no private use of cars, but it is possible.

VAT: Buildings and construction update

By Marcus Ward 1 February 2024

HMRC has amended Notice 708 which covers:

when building work can be zero-rated or reduced-rated at 5%
when building materials can be zero-rated or reduced-rated at 5%
when the sale, or long lease in a building is zero-rated
where you can find out more about the VAT domestic reverse charge for building and construction services
when developers are blocked from deducting input tax on goods that are not building materials
when a builder or developer needs to have a certificate from their customer, confirming that the building concerned is intended to be used for a purpose that attracts the zero or reduced rate
when a customer can issue that certificate to a builder or developer
what happens when a certificated building is no longer used for the purpose that attracted the zero rate, the use for that purpose decreases or the building is disposed of
the special time of supply rules for builders
when a business, on using its own labour to carry out building work on a building or civil engineering structure that it occupies or uses, must account for a self-supply charge

Sections 18.1 and 18.2 of the Notice and the certificates in those sections have been updated to show they have force of law under The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5, Note 12.

Extension of VAT energy-saving materials relief

By Marcus Ward 22 January 2024

HMRC have published a new Policy Paper on the extension of energy-saving materials (ESMs).

Installations of ESMs in residential accommodation currently benefit from a temporary VAT zero rate until 31 March 2027, after which they revert to the reduced rate of VAT at 5%.

This measure extends the relief to installations of ESMs in buildings used solely for relevant charitable purposes, such as village halls or similar recreational facilities for a local community.

It also expands the scope of the relief to the following technologies:

electrical batteries that store electricity generated by certain ESMs and from the National Grid
water-source heat pumps
diverters that enable excess electricity from certain ESMs to be used within a building in which it is generated rather than exported to the grid

It also adds certain preparatory groundworks that are necessary for the installation of ground- and water-source heat pumps.

The changes apply from 1 February 2024

The policy objective is to incentivise the installation of ESMs across the UK to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions.

The measures are implemented by The Value Added Tax (Installation of Energy-Saving Materials) Order 2024.

VAT: Are freemasons’ aims philanthropic? The United Grand Lodge UT case

By Marcus Ward 10 January 2024

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) the issue was whether subscriptions paid by members of the freemasons are exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 9, section 31, item 1(e) “Subscriptions to trade unions, professional and other public interest bodies” which exempts membership subscriptions paid to a non-profit making organisation which has objects which are of a political, religious, patriotic, philosophical, philanthropic or civic nature. UGLE submitted claims on the basis that its subscription income was exempt (and not standard rated as declared on previous returns) and HMRC declined to make the repayments.

Background

UGLE is an unincorporated association. It has approximately 175,000 members who, in turn, are members of some 6,500 local Lodges.

An organisation which has more than one main aim can still come within the exemption if those aims are all listed and described in the legislation. The fact that the organisation has other aims which are not set out in law does not mean that its services to members are not exempt provided that those other aims are not main aims. If, however, the organisation has a number of aims, all equally important, some of which are covered by the exemption, and some of which are not, then the services supplied by the organisation to its members are wholly outside the exemption.

In the first hearing the First-Tier Tribunal concluded that the services supplied by UGLE were not exempt from VAT. It also held that UGLE does not have a civic aim. The FTT held that if an organisation had more than one aim, its eligibility for the relief would depend on its main (or primary) aim, and if it had multiple main aims, it would only qualify for the relief if all its main aims fell within the listed exemptions. If it had a number of aims which were all equally important (ie; if it had no main aim), then all those aims would have to fall within the list to enable the organisation to qualify for exemption.

The FTT Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The judge decided that the supplies made by UGLE in return for subscription payments were properly standard rated.

It was common ground that the motives of the members in joining the organisation are irrelevant.

It was accepted that since 2000 freemasonry has become more outward looking and since then has become more involved in charitable work among those, and for the benefit of those, who are not freemasons or their dependants. That said, the judge was not satisfied that the charitable works of individual freemasons, such as volunteering to give time to a local charity, were undertaken by them as freemasons rather than simply as public-spirited members of the community.

It was found that UGLE did have aims of a philosophical, philanthropic and civic nature (the promotion of all aspects of the practice of freemasonry and charity was central to UGLE’s activities). However, it was not accepted that these were UGLE’s main or primary aims. At least 48% of payments made by UGLE were to freemasons and their dependants and in the FTT’s judgment such support remained one of the main aims of freemasonry and thus of UGLE. The importance of providing support for freemasons and their dependants who are in need is a central tenet of freemasonry – The duty to help other freemasons is clearly set out in the objects of the four central masonic charities. The evidence showed that the provision of relief to freemasons and their dependants was the more important than donations to good causes unconnected with freemasonry.

Civic aims

There was nothing in the evidence which indicates any civic aim. UGLE cannot be said to be an organisation that has aims pertaining to the citizen and the state. Indeed, freemasons are prohibited from discussing matters of religion and politics in lodges.

Consequently, as one of UGLE’s main aims could not be described as philosophical, philanthropic, or civic, its membership subscriptions were standard rated. Making payments to freemasons was more akin to self-insurance, rather than philanthropic in nature.

UT – Grounds for appeal

There were two specific grounds:

The FTT failed to address or give reasons for rejecting UGLE’s case that it had one main philosophical aim and that its activities in support of the Masonic charities were in service of the philosophy of Freemasonry, in particular the third of the three Grand Principles, Relief, and thus fell within its philosophical aim.
Even if its activities related to UGLE’s charities could be treated as an aim which was not in service of its main philosophical aim, the activities of UGLE in support of the Masonic charities fall within the ordinary meaning of the word ‘philanthropic’. The FTT misdirected itself in law by failing to apply the ordinary meaning of the word and instead adopted a meaning of ‘philanthropic’ which is too narrow.

On the first ground the UT decided that this is not a situation in which the FTT had simply failed to set out every step of its reasoning, rather, the FTT did not give reasons for rejecting an important aspect of the Appellant’ case and found that the FTT therefore erred in law

On the second; The UT accepted that an aim may be considered to be philanthropic if an organisation aims to provide relief to specific categories of persons. However, it considered that there is a qualitative difference between organisations which raise and distribute funds for identified groups of persons and an organisation that raises funds from within the members that constitute that organisation with the aim of essentially re-distributing a large part of the funds back to some of those members and members’ dependents. That cannot be considered to be philanthropic in the sense of benevolence to the world at large, a love of mankind etc.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The UT rejected the contention that the FTT applied too narrow an interpretation of philanthropic. Consequently, UGLE’s membership income was standard rated for VAT purposes.

VAT: Electronic Sales Suppression (ESS)

By Marcus Ward 3 January 2024

HMRC has published new guidance on ESS and information on how to make a disclosure.

What is ESS?

ESS is also known as till fraud or till manipulation. It is where a business manipulates their till systems to hide or reduce the true value or number of sales. This is carried out through the use of ESS tools such as misusing built in till functions or installing software specifically designed to suppress sales. HMRC call this sales suppression and it is done either at, or after, the point of sale (POS). The records then appear to be correct and complete.

Businesses do this to reduce their turnover so that they pay less tax. They also do this to try to appear compliant.

Misusing a till system reduces the recorded turnover of the business and the amount of VAT payable, whilst providing what appears to be an accurate and complete record.

ESS is tax fraud. You are involved with ESS if you have made, supplied, promoted, possess or have access to an ESS tool.

You are also involved in ESS if:

you own an ESS tool
have access to an ESS tool
have tried to access an ESS tool

What is an ESS tool?

An ESS tool is a piece of software, computer code script or hardware. It allows a business to hide or reduce the value of individual transactions on its electronic sales records. This includes using and/or configuring a till, or point of sale system, in a way that suppresses sales.

You do not have to have used an ESS tool to suppress sales or pay less VAT for HMRC to charge a penalty for being involved in ESS, it is fraud regardless.

HMRC powers

Finance Act 2022, Schedule 14 allows HMRC to issue an information notice for ESS. This means HMRC can ask for certain information that only applies to ESS. It allows the issue of a Notice to a ‘relevant person’ for a ‘relevant purpose’.

Who is a ‘relevant person’

A ‘relevant person’ is any person who HMRC think it might be able to charge a penalty for being involved in ESS.

What is a ‘relevant purpose’

A ‘relevant purpose’ is the reason that HMRC is asking for information about ESS and ESS Tools. The law allows HMRC to do this in three types of situations which are to help it:

decide whether a relevant person has made, supplied, promoted, or possesses an ESS tool — HMRC would be able to charge this person a penalty
understand how an ESS tool works
identify any other person who has made, supplied, promoted, or possesses the ESS tool

Disclosure

HMRC is offering an opportunity for those involved in ESS to make a disclosure. Early voluntary disclosure could lead to a reduction in financial penalties. Use the ‘Make a disclosure about misusing your till system’ form to tell HMRC that you have been using your till system to reduce your tax bill.

Further reading and more detailed information on penalties here.

A VAT Did you know?

By Marcus Ward 18 December 2023

Chestnuts roasting by an open fire…

Roasted nuts in shells are zero rated, but if the shell is removed they become standard rated.

Ho, ho ho… VAT and nuts in the same sentence. Merry Christmas everybody.

VAT: Contact lens services – taxable or exempt? The Vision Direct case

By Marcus Ward 8 December 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Vision Dispensing Limited the issue was whether services linked to the online sale of prescription contact lenses were covered by the exemption at The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, group 7, item 1 (b) – the provision of medical care.

Generally speaking, opticians provide two types of supply

exempt medical care; sight tests, measuring and fitting
the standard rated supply of goods; spectacles, contact lenses, accessories etc

Almost always a customer pays a single amount which covers the services as well as the goods, so an apportionment is required. HMRC updated guidance on apportionment here.

Background

The Appellant “VDL” supplies services in connection with the online sale of contact lenses and this appeal was concerned with the question whether those supplies are subject to VAT at the standard rate.

The legislation provides for exemption for medical care by a person registered or enrolled in either of the registers of Ophthalmic Opticians or the register of Dispensing Opticians kept under the Opticians Act 1989. The exemption is also extended to persons who are not registered/enrolled under the Act but are directly supervised by a person who is so registered or enrolled.

VDL is a UK incorporated company and a member of the Vision Direct corporate group. VDL has a sister group company called Vision Direct BV (“VDBV”) which is based in The Netherlands. VDL operates a warehouse facility in the UK. Goods (contact lenses and other optical products) belonging to VDBV were stored in the warehouse and dispatched to purchasers by VDL, using its own workforce. VDL also employed customer assistants, who deal with a range of enquiries from customers. VDBV operates the website visiondirect.co.uk through which prescription contact lenses and other optical goods are supplied to UK customers. Customers purchasing prescription contact lenses or other optical products online enter two contracts; one with VDBV for the supply of contact lenses and one with VDL for the supply of dispensing services. There is also a contract between VDL and VDBV. VDL is not paid a fee by VDBV, its income comprises by the fee paid by customers.

The arguments

HMRC contended that there is little evidence to support that there was advice being provided to customs by VDL and consequently, there were serious questions about whether healthcare services are being supplied. The supplies fall short of a number of regulatory requirements and that the supplies described as dispensing services cannot properly be described as professional clinical advice or therapeutic care. HMRC stated that VDL has never seen a single customer. Clinical advice cannot be delivered in an impersonal or generic way.

HMRC pointed out that:

the website makes it clear that VDL does not provide advice on which customers can depend. Consequently, it cannot rely on the website as evidence of medical care
there is no direct link between the use of the website and payments to VDL. For there to be a supply, there must be a direct link between the supplier and the recipient

VDL contended that its dispensing services are superior to those available on the High Street. Contrary to HMRC’s case, it is able to identify multiple examples of clinical advice and the purpose of its supplies is to assist in the treatment of defective eyesight. All services are directly supervised by those with the appropriate qualifications.

Deliberation

The FTT was required to determine whether VDL’s services constituted medical care and were those services wholly performed or directly supervised by appropriate persons?

It was agreed that the advice does not need to be complex or personalised to be covered by the exemption as long as it contributes to the efficacy of the overall therapeutic process. The material provided on the website was comprehensive and covered the entire process from an eye test, the diagnosis of an eye defect, and then the selection, measuring and fitting of spectacles or lenses to the supply of those spectacles or lenses.

It was concluded by the FTT that the provision of the website was by VDBV as in the T&Cs VDBV operates it and owns the intellectual property rights to its content. Consequently, the provision of the website could not be part of the supply by VDL. VDL supplied the material or reviewed its content for VDBV pursuant to a contract between the two companies.

Decision

The FTT concluded that:

the quality, quantity, and nature of the optical information on the website was such that its provision could amount to medical care, but;
the information on the website is not provided by VDL (but by VDBV)
even if it were provided by VDL, the terms on which it is made available mean that it is not part of any supply made by VDL to customers and must be left out of account when it comes to characterising the supplies VDL does make
what VDL does do is choose the correct lenses and dispatch them. There is no element of medical care in VDL’s supply
there was little evidence as to how the opticians monitored the performance of the staff so that they could satisfy themselves that their performance was of a suitable standard, so it could not be said that there was direct supervision.

As a result, VDL did not provide medical care and in any case, the services were not wholly performed or directly supervised by appropriately qualified individuals so exemption could not apply

The appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Opticians have long produced VAT challenges since the cases of Leightons and Eye-Tech in the 1990s. Any businesses using a similar business model are advised to review the treatment of their supplies in light of this case.

VAT: The Partial Exemption Annual Adjustment

By Marcus Ward 4 December 2023

What is the annual adjustment? Why is it required?

An annual adjustment is a method used by a business to determine how much input tax it may reclaim.

Even though a partly exempt business must undertake a partial exemption calculation each quarter or month, once a year it will have to make an annual adjustment as well.

An annual adjustment is needed because each tax period can be affected by factors such as seasonal variations either in the value supplies made or in the amount of input tax incurred.

The adjustment has two purposes:

to reconsider the use of goods and services over the longer period; and
to re-evaluate exempt input tax under the de minimis rules.

An explanation of the Value Added Tax Partial Exemption rules is available here

Throughout the year

When a business makes exempt supplies it will be carrying out a partial exemption calculation at the end of each VAT period. Some periods it may be within the de minimis limits and, therefore, able to claim back all of its VAT and in others there may be some restriction in the amount of VAT that can be reclaimed. Once a year the business will also have to recalculate the figures to see if it has claimed back too much or too little VAT overall. This is known as the partial exemption annual adjustment. Legally, the quarterly/monthly partial exemption calculations are only provisional, and do not crystallise the final VAT liability. That is done via the annual adjustment.

The first stage in the process of recovering input tax is to directly attribute the costs associated with making taxable and exempt supplies as far as possible. The VAT associated with making taxable supplies can be recovered in the normal way while there is no automatic right of deduction for any VAT attributable to making exempt supplies.

The balance of the input tax cannot normally be directly attributed, and so will be the subject of the partial exemption calculation. This will include general overheads such as heating, lighting and telephone and also items such as building maintenance and refurbishments.

The calculation

Using the partial exemption standard method the calculation is based on the formula:

Total taxable supplies (excluding VAT) / Total taxable (excluding VAT) and exempt supplies x 100 = %

This gives the percentage of non-attributable input VAT that can be recovered. The figure calculated is always rounded up to the nearest whole percentage, so, for example, 49.1 becomes 50%. This percentage is then applied to the non-attributable input VAT to give the actual amount that can be recovered.

Once a year

Depending on a businesses’ VAT return quarters, its partial exemption year ends in either March, April, or May. The business has to recalculate the figures during the VAT period following the end of its partial exemption year and any adjustment goes on the return for that period. So, the adjustment will appear on the returns ending in either June, July, or August. If a business is newly registered for VAT its partial exemption “year” runs from when it is first registered to either March, April or May depending on its quarter ends.

Special methods

The majority of businesses use what is known as “the standard method”. However, use of the standard method is not mandatory and a business can use a “special method” that suits a business’ activities better. Any special method has to be “fair and reasonable” and it has to be agreed with HMRC in advance. When using a special method no rounding of the percentage is permitted and it has to be applied to two decimal places.

Commonly used special methods include those based on staff numbers, floor space, purchases or transaction counts, or a combination of these or other methods.

However, even if a business uses a special method it will still have to undertake an annual adjustment calculation once a year using its agreed special method.

De minimis limits

If a business incurs exempt input tax within certain limits it can be treated as fully taxable and all of its VAT can be recovered. If it exceeds these limits none of its exempt input tax can be recovered. The limits are:

£625 per month on average (£1,875 per quarter or £7,500 per annum) and;
50% of the total input VAT (the VAT on purchases relating to taxable supplies should always be greater than the VAT on exempt supplies to pass this test)

The partial exemption annual adjustments are not errors and so do not have to be disclosed under the voluntary disclosure procedure. They are just another entry for the VAT return to be made in the appropriate VAT period.

Conclusion

If a business fails to carry out its partial exemption annual adjustment it may be losing out on some input VAT that it could have claimed. Conversely, it may also show that it has over-claimed input tax. When an HMRC inspector comes to visit he will check that a business has completed the annual adjustment. If it hasn’t, and this has resulted in an over-claim of input VAT, (s)he will assess for the error, charge interest, and if appropriate, raise a penalty. It is fair to say that partly exempt businesses tend to receive more inspections than fully taxable businesses.