HMRC has published updated partial exemption guidance in Manual PE21500.
The main changes are in respect of updated case law, including the Royal Opera House Court of Appeal case dealing with the attribution of input tax.
In that case the CoA considered: the test of direct and immediate link, economic necessity, business/non-business, and chains of transactions.
We know that burying a deceased person is exempt, but exhumation is standard rated and we now know, thanks to the UK Funerals On-line Ltd FTT case, that the service of the repatriation of the body of a deceased person can be viewed as either an exempt supply of funeral services or a zero-rated supply of transport services.
This being the case, zero rating trumps exemption via of The VAT Act 1994, section 30(1).
Dance classes in some EU countries are subject to different VAT rates depending on whether the dance style is considered artistic or entertainment. In the UK, belly dancing and ceroc lessons are standard rated, but ballet is exempt.
Latest from the courts
In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Spani v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 00727 (TC) the issue was whether a claim under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme (the scheme) was valid.
Mr Spani appealed against HMRC’s decision to refuse a claim. It was rejected as the respondents concluded that the property was to be used for business purposes because Planning Permission was for a holiday let rather than residential own use. To claim under the scheme, the relevant the property must be used “otherwise than in the course of furtherance of business” – VAT Act 1994, section 35)
Background
The cottage was constructed in Seaford – within the Souths Down National Park and, in order to obtain planning consent, it was required to be made available for letting on a commercial basis for 140 days a year. The appellant contended that it was his primary residence in the UK and any letting (which was interrupted by covid in any case) was/would be incidental to this primary purpose.
The property was listed on Air BnB in order to satisfy the requirements of the planning consent, but the property had not been actively marketed and no lettings had taken place.
Mr Spani contended that the use of the cottage “falls far short of the HMRC’s position that it was the appellant’s intention to use the property for a wholly commercial purpose”. It was simply the appellant’s home in the UK and that an identical property built outside the National Park would not have the Planning Permission holiday let requirement.
Further, if it was a commercial enterprise, Mr Spani could have could have used another reclaim route, viz: registering for VAT and recovering an element of the input tax incurred.
Decision
The appeal was dismissed – The judge opined that “none of these events subsequent to the grant of the Planning Permission and completion certificate detract from the fact that the property was built to be a holiday let (as stipulated by the planning consent) and was therefore constructed in furtherance of a FHL* business”.
Additionally, the FTT stated that: it is plain that the appellant’s plan to live in the property within the FHL regulations does not (and cannot) alter the property into a dwelling… when there is the express prohibition placed on the property to be a dwelling.
The conclusion was that the property was built in furtherance of a business which prohibited a claim.
Commentary
Yet another case highlighting precise requirements of a claim under the scheme and HMRC’s strict application of the rules. Care must always be taken in such cases and we advise professional advice is sought prior to a submission of a claim.
More on similar cases here and here and Top Ten Tips for the scheme.
Further to my article on insurance and partial exemption, HMRC has published a new definition of what insurance means for VAT as a consequence of the CJEU United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Ltd and another v HMRC [2020] STC 2169 case.
It is set out in para 2.2 of Public Notice 701/36
There is no statutory definition of insurance, although guidance can be gained from previous legal decisions in which the essential nature of insurance has been considered.
The Court of Justice of the European Union , in the case of United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Ltd & Anor v R & C Commrs (Case C235-19) [2020], upheld the definition given in the case of Card Protection Plan Ltd v C & E Commrs (Case C-349/96) [1999] which concluded that:
“…the essentials of an insurance transaction are… that the insurer undertakes, in return for prior payment of a premium, to provide the insured, in the event of materialisation of the risk covered, with the service agreed when the contract was concluded”.
HMRC also accept that certain funeral plan contracts are insurance (and therefore exempt from VAT), even though they are not regulated as such under the FSMA insurance regulatory provisions.
Vehicle breakdown insurance is also seen as insurance even though providers are given a specific exclusion under the FSMA from the requirement to be authorised.
Latest from the courts
In the Impact Contracting Solutions Limited (ICS) Upper Tribunal (UT) case the issue was whether HMRC had the power to cancel the VAT registration where that person has facilitated the VAT fraud of another ie; the scope of the “Ablessio” principle. It also illustrates the impact of EU cases on UK courts.
Background
ICS’s customers were temporary work agencies, and its suppliers were approximately 3,000 mini-umbrella companies (“MUCs”) which supplied labour. HMRC decided to cancel ICS’s VAT registration number with reliance on the principle in the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Valsts ienemumu dienests v Ablessio SIA (C-527/11) (“Ablessio”). HMRC considered that ICS was registered for VAT principally or solely to abuse the VAT system by facilitating VAT fraud, and that, in such circumstances, they were empowered by the principle in Ablessio to cancel the registration. In particular, HMRC considered that the arrangements between ICSL and the MUCs were contrived, with the effect that the MUCs failed properly to account for VAT on their supplies to ICS.
ICS appealed against HMRC’s decision to cancel its registration.
The Issues
Does the principle in Ablessio apply only to a party that has itself fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations, or does it similarly apply to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party?
If the Ablessio principle does apply to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party, is simple facilitation sufficient, or must it additionally be proved that:
(a) the facilitating party was itself dishonest, or
(b) the facilitating party knew that it was facilitating the fraud, and/or
(c) the facilitating party should have known that it was facilitating the fraud?
The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decided that Ablessio applies both to a party that has fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations and to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party. Further that simple facilitation by a party of the VAT fraud of another is not sufficient to apply the Ablessio principle. However, it is not necessary to prove that the facilitating party was itself dishonest. It must, however, be proved that the facilitating party knew or should have known that it was facilitating the VAT fraud of another party.
Decision
The appeal was rejected an the FTT’s decision was upheld. HMRC powers are not contrary to UK VAT legislation.
The application by HMRC of Ablessio is not contra legem or otherwise prohibited by the VAT legislation where it is applied to deregister a taxpayer who has either fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations or facilitated the VAT fraud of another party and at the relevant time has also made taxable supplies unconnected with such fraud or facilitation of fraud and which would result in a liability to be registered.
Ablessio applies to the deregistration by HMRC of a person as well as to a refusal by HMRC to register a person. It also provides for the deregistration of a person who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another, where the person to be deregistered knew or should have known that it was facilitating the VAT fraud of another.
Commentary
This decision was released this month and illustrates the ongoing influence of EU legislation and cases, “despite” Brexit
EU legislation does not, by itself, fall within the scope of retained EU law (see below). However, domestic legislation implementing EU rules forms part of EU-derived domestic legislation and is preserved in domestic law.
The VAT Act 1994 is not affected by Brexit because it is an Act of Parliament and, therefore, remains effective unless it is changed by Parliament.
Overview of the impact of EU legislation
Post-Brexit, the UK could have decided that UK courts should not be bound by EU case law. However, this would have resulted in a situation where the UK courts effectively had to begin with a blank piece of paper in deciding how a piece of retained EU law should be interpreted or applied. This approach would have resulted in considerable uncertainty for business over how retained EU law would operate. In order avoid this, section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provides that:
Going forward
Helpful guidance is provided in the e-Accounting Solutions vs Global Infosys case (not a VAT case).
The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 means that the principle of EU-law conforming construction is a corollary of the supremacy of EU law (which is abolished under Section 3 of the Act) and will therefore no longer apply from 2024.
The principles of statutory construction under English Law require a purposive interpretation of legislation, whether or not EU law principles are engaged. This involves considering the context in which the legislation was made. Depending on the legislation concerned, this process may be guided by “external aids”. External aids referred to in the judgment include Explanatory Notes and Government White Papers, and could also presumably include references to Hansard where seen as appropriate by the courts. To the extent that domestic enactments were made for the purpose of implementing EU law, the EU law position is such an “external aid” and the UK law should be construed accordingly.
Where Parliament used the same language as the Directive, one may assume that it intended to mean the same – accordingly, the CJEU interpretation of Directive-terms informs the interpretation of the UK statute.
However, the statutory language remains paramount – “external aids”, to which EU law instruments are effectively downgraded in UK law from 2024, cannot displace unambiguous statutory language in UK enactments that is inconsistent with EU law.
Hard or soft? Stiff or floppy?
Sssh at the back, this is important…
Whether cakes and biscuits go hard or soft when stale helps to determine whether they are indeed cakes or biscuits (cakes go hard, biscuits go soft). This is the difference between VAT at 20% and zero rating for some products – yes… Jaffa Cakes!.
Whether printed matter is stiff or floppy can also result in either 20% or zero rated treatment. In this case, for single sheet products, eg; leaflets, limp is good and hard can result in the VAT hit.
What did you think I was talking about? Stop making up your own jokes…
Introduction
The tour operators’ margin scheme (TOMS) is a special scheme for businesses that buy in and re-sell travel, accommodation and certain other services as principals or undisclosed agents (ie; that act in their own name). In many cases, it enables VAT to be accounted for on travel supplies without businesses having to register and account for VAT in every country in which the services and goods are enjoyed. It does, however, apply to travel/accommodation services enjoyed within the UK and wholly outside the UK.
Under the scheme:
Who must use the TOMS?
TOMS does not only apply to ‘traditional’ tour operators. It applies to any business which is making the type of supplies set out below even if this is not its main business activity. For example, it must be used by
The CJEC has confirmed that to make the application of the TOMS depend upon whether a trader was formally classified as a travel agent or tour operator would create distortion of competition. Ancillary travel services which constitute ‘a small proportion of the package price compared to accommodation’ would not lead to a hotelier falling within the provisions, but where, in return for a package price, a hotelier habitually offers his customers travel to the hotel from distant pick-up points in addition to accommodation, such services cannot be treated as purely ancillary.
Supplies covered by the TOMS
The TOMS must be used by a person acting as a principal or undisclosed agent for
‘Margin scheme supplies’ are those supplies which are
by a tour operator in an EU country in which he has established his business or has a fixed establishment.
A ‘traveller’ is a person, including a business or local authority, who receives supplies of transport and/or accommodation, other than for the purpose of re-supply.
Examples
If meeting the above conditions, the following are always treated as margin scheme supplies.
Other supplies meeting the above conditions may be treated as margin scheme supplies but only if provided as part of a package with one or more of the supplies listed above. These include
This scheme is complex and specialist advice should always be sought before advising clients.
Whether a service is “related to land” is important because there are distinct rules for this type of supply compared to the General Rule. The place of supply (POS) of land related services is where the land is located, regardless of where the supplier or recipient belong.
The rule applies only to services which relate directly to a specific site of land. This means a service where the land is a central and essential part of the service or where the service is intended to legally or physically alter a property.
It does not apply if a supply of services has only an indirect connection with land, or if the land related service is only an incidental component of a more comprehensive supply of services.
What is land?
For the purpose of determining the POS, land (also called immoveable property in legislation) means:
What services directly relate to land?
HMRC provide the following examples:
The following HMRC examples are not deemed to be land related services:
These examples are mainly derived from case law and the department’s understanding of the legislation and they are not exhaustive.
The Reverse Charge
If an overseas supplier provides land related services in GB, the POS is GB and the reverse charge applies if the recipient is GB VAT registered.
If a GB supplier provides services directly related to land where the land is located outside GB, the POS is not GB. This means that there is a supply in another country. VAT rules in different countries vary (even across the EU) – some countries use the reverse charge mechanism, but others require the GB supplier to VAT register in the country of the POS (where the land is physically located).