Category Archives: Penalties

Oops! – Top Ten VAT howlers

By   16 December 2016
0
I am often asked what the most frequent VAT errors made by a business are. I usually reply along the lines of “a general poor understanding of VAT, considering the tax too late or just plain missing a VAT issue”.  While this is unquestionably true, a little further thought results in this top ten list of VAT horrors:
  1. Not considering that HMRC may be wrong. There is a general assumption that HMRC know what they are doing. While this is true in most cases, the complexity and fast moving nature of the tax can often catch an inspector out. Added to this is the fact that in most cases inspectors refer to HMRC guidance (which is HMRC’s interpretation of the law) rather to the legislation itself. Reference to the legislation isn’t always straightforward either, as often EC rather than UK domestic legislation is cited to support an analysis. The moral to the story is that tax is complicated for the regulator as well, and no business should feel fearful or reticent about challenging a HMRC decision.
  2. Missing a VAT issue altogether. A lot of errors are as a result of VAT not being considered at all. This is usually in relation to unusual or one-off transactions (particularly land and property or sales of businesses). Not recognising a VAT “triggerpoint” can result in an unexpected VAT bill, penalties and interest, plus a possible reduction of income of 20% or an added 20% in costs. Of course, one of the basic howlers is not registering at the correct time. Beware the late registration penalty, plus even more stringent penalties if HMRC consider that not registering has been done deliberately.
  3.  Not considering alternative structures. If VAT is looked at early enough, there is very often ways to avoid VAT representing a cost. Even if this is not possible, there may be ways of mitigating a VAT hit.
  4.  Assuming that all transactions with overseas customers are VAT free. There is no “one size fits all” treatment for cross border transactions. There are different rules for goods and services and a vast array of different rules for different services. The increase in trading via the internet has only added to the complexity in this area, and with new technology only likely to increase the rate of new types of supply it is crucial to consider the implications of tax; in the UK and elsewhere.
  5.  Leaving VAT planning to the last minute. VAT is time sensitive and it is not usually possible to plan retrospectively. Once an event has occurred it is normally too late to amend any transactions or structures. VAT shouldn’t wag the commercial dog, but failure to deal with it at the right time may be either a deal-breaker or a costly mistake.
  6.  Getting the option to tax wrong. Opting to tax is one area of VAT where a taxpayer has a choice. This affords the possibility of making the wrong choice, for whatever reasons. Not opting to tax when beneficial, or opting when it is detrimental can hugely impact on the profitability of a project. Not many businesses can carry the cost of, say, not being able to recover VAT on the purchase of a property, or not being able to recover input tax on a big refurbishment. Additionally, seeing expected income being reduced by 20% will usually wipe out any profit in a transaction.
  7.  Not realising a business is partly exempt. For a business, exemption is a VAT cost, not a relief. Apart from the complexity of partial exemption, a partly exempt business will not be permitted to reclaim all of the input tax it incurs and this represents an actual cost. In fact, a business which only makes exempt supplies will not be able to VAT register, so all input tax will be lost. There is a lot of planning that may be employed for partly exempt businesses and not taking advantage of this often creates additional VAT costs.
  8.  Relying on the partial exemption standard method to the business’ disadvantage. A partly exempt business has the opportunity to consider many methods to calculate irrecoverable input tax. The default method, the “standard method” often provides an unfair and costly result. I recommend that any partly exempt business obtains a review of its activities from a specialist. I have been able to save significant amounts for clients simply by agreeing an alternative partial exemption method with HMRC.
  9.  Not taking advantage of the available reliefs. There are a range of reliefs available, if one knows where to look. From Bad Debt Relief, Zero Rating (VAT nirvana!) and certain de minimis limits to charity reliefs and the Flat Rate Scheme, there are a number of easements and simplifications which could save a business money and reduce administrative and time costs.
  10.  Forgetting the impact of the Capital Goods Scheme. The range of costs covered by this scheme has been expanded recently. Broadly, VAT incurred on certain expenditure is required to be adjusted over a five or ten year period. Failure to recognise this could either result in assessments and penalties, or a position whereby input tax has been under-claimed. The CGS also “passes on” when a TOGC occurs, so extra caution is necessary in these cases.

So, you may ask: “How do I make sure that I avoid these VAT pitfalls?” – And you would be right to ask.

Of course, I would recommend that you engage a VAT specialist to help reduce the exposure to VAT costs!

VAT Splitting a business to avoid registration: Disaggregation

By   8 December 2016
0
I have a cunning plan to avoid registering for VAT…….

….I’ll simply split my business into separate parts which are all under the VAT registration turnover limit – ha!

I’ve heard this said many a time in “bloke in the pub” situations. 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 includes; 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.

Professional Conduct in relation to Tax

By   4 November 2016
0

A note on “aggressive” tax planning

Such tax planning is often viewed as tax avoidance by HMRC. We do not involve ourselves in such activities, and details of our attitude to aggressive planning are set out here and may be summarised as “Marcus Ward Consultancy Ltd does not market, advise on, or advocate aggressive schemes…“

However, it is worth highlighting a recent announcement made jointly by several professional bodies.  The main bodies are; Chartered Institute of Taxation, Association of Taxation Technicians, Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, and Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.  They have issued a revised version of Professional and Ethical standards for tax advisers. The salient new standard is that Members

i) must not create, encourage or promote tax planning arrangements or structures that set out to achieve results that are contrary to the clear intention of Parliament in enacting relevant legislation, and/or

ii) are highly artificial or highly contrived and seek to exploit shortcomings within the relevant legislation.

Breaching this new requirement may result in disciplinary action. The new guidance has been endorsed by HMRC here and full details from our Institute here

You may rest assured that we already refuse to advocate these schemes and are pleased to see the introduction of these new standards.

Please contact us if you have any questions on this matter.

VAT – Cash businesses: Investigations

By   25 October 2016
0

HMRC’s methods of establishing underdeclarations

HMRC have always taken interest in cash businesses as they see them as a revenue risk.  We have heard, anecdotally, that there is an ongoing campaign to target cash businesses which HMRC suspect are under-declaring takings. Such businesses are usually retail and commonly restaurants and take aways (which I shall use as an example in this article).  A retail business is obliged to keep certain records.  For sales, this is a record of daily gross takings (DGT) and this is the area I will focus on as it is where “suppression” of income generally occurs.  In a very crude example, the owner, or a member of staff does not ring up a sale and the payment is pocketed.  There are more sophisticated ways in which suppression occurs, but this is the most common.

Even in this day and age where most payments are made by credit or debit cards, there is still significant scope for declarations to be inaccurate.

The methods

There are a number of ways in which HMRC can determine the accuracy of VAT declarations.  These may be from the usual bank and accounts reconciliations, mark up exercises, to, say, counting take-away containers to build up a picture of the turnover.  The following are also ways in which HMRC test the credibility of declarations:

  • Compliance checks

These usually take place in the evenings when a restaurant is open for business (or soon after it closes). Officers gain entrance, question staff, examine records for that and previous days, and remove certain records. From this information they can build up a picture of trading.  These visits are usually unannounced.

  • Invigilation exercise

HMRC observe how the business operates and check that all sales of food and drinks are rung into the till. This is usually with the agreement of the business.

  • Test meals

HMRC staff will purchase a test meal and at a later time check to see if it has been recorded correctly.  It may be that this method will be repeated at a suspect restaurant by different HMRC staff, perhaps in the same evening.  If any of the sales are not recorded correctly, it may be insufficient in itself to create an assessment, but it will confirm suspicions of suppression and lead to further action.

  • Observation

While posing as customers, HMRC will also count the number of covers, the amount of take aways, the number of staff, how orders are taken and paid for, and how payments are made.

  • Surveillance

Members of HMRC staff park outside a restaurant (usually in an unmarked van) and watch the activities of the restaurant.  They count the number of people dining and the numbers of people exiting with take aways. This observation may also record the number of deliveries and other relevant information that they are able to obtain from what they can see.  This exercise may be carried out over a number of days/nights or even weeks.

  • Purchases

In more complex suppression, the value of purchases may also be suppressed in order to present a more credible picture to an inspector.  This may be more common if the purchases are zero rated food (on which the business would not claim input tax). HMRC may attempt to build up a picture of sales by the volume of actual purchases made.  They often check the restaurant’s suppliers’ records to get a full picture of trade.

Information obtained by one of the above methods may, on its own, be insufficient to raise an assessment, but combined with information obtained in different ways will more often than not result in one (should the exercises demonstrate an under-declaration of course).

Taxpayer’s rights

Attendance

HMRC do not have the right to attend a taxpayer’s premises at any time.  The law says that inspections may be carried out “at any reasonable time”. This means that that if a business owner is busy, or the time is outside normal office hours, or there is not access to all of the relevant information, or the request is unreasonable for any other reason, the business owner (or his adviser) may request that an inspector leaves and makes an appointment at a future reasonable time.  This is sometimes easier to do in theory than in practice, but a taxpayer’s rights are set out in The Finance Act 2009, Schedule 36, part II.

A business has no right to refuse a “regular” inspection but these are arranged for an agreed time in any case.

Records

The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 11 states that the requirement to produce records is limited to being provided at such time as HMRC “may reasonably require”. So, again, if HMRC are making demands that a business feels are unreasonable, it is within its rights to refuse to allow access and to make a mutually agreed and acceptable appointment to allow access to premises and records.  This may lead to a discussion, but HMRC do not have unfettered rights to access premises or records.

Best judgement

Regardless of how HMRC have gathered information, any assessment must be made to the best of their judgement and must be “an honest and genuine attempt to make a reasoned assessment of the VAT payable”.   If the business is able to demonstrate that this was not the case, the assessment must be removed.  Broadly, this will entail demonstrating that things that ought to have been considered were ignored, or that things that have been included should not have been.  Generally, the most common ways to challenge an assessment based on the above exercises are; that the period considered was not representative, or not long enough to be representative, or that the tests carried out were insufficient to demonstrate a consistent pattern of trading. There are usually specific facts in each case that may be used to challenge the validity and quantum of an assessment.

Action

Of course, it is hoped that no business which makes accurate declarations is troubled by such investigations.  However, if a business feels that HMRC is being unreasonable with its demands it should seek professional advice before agreeing to permit HMRC access.

Matters change however, if HMRC have a Search Warrant or a Writ of Assistance in which case HMRC are able to compel a business to allow entry or inspection.

As always, we advise that any assessment is, at the very least, reviewed by a business’ adviser.

Latest from the courts: Excise Duty – against which party may an assessment be raised?

By   19 October 2016
0

A little “light” relief from VAT.  Indirect taxes extend to Customs and Excise Duties (as well as IPT and various other “lower profile” taxes) and we are able to assist with all of these.

In an interesting Excise Duty case; B & M Retail Limited (B & M) the Upper Tribunal were asked whether an assessment for Customs Duty due on wine and beer could be issued to an entity “down the chain” to an entity which was holding goods at a given time.

Background

HMRC detained the relevant the goods under The Customs & Excise Management Act 1979 (“CEMA”) Section 139 on the grounds that, in their judgment, on the balance of probabilities, Excise Duty had not been paid on the goods. Under B & M’s terms and conditions of business its suppliers were required to warrant that the sale of alcohol to B & M was on a “Excise Duty paid” basis.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decided that despite an HMRC investigation resulting in the fact that they were not satisfied that duty had been paid on the goods, B & M was not responsible for the duty (and subsequent penalties) as the goods had passed through other various entities before they reached the appellant.  The decision was based on the fact that the duty point must have arisen before the goods reached B & M and consequently, the duty was payable by someone further up the supply chain and not simply by the entity which was holding the Excise Duty goods at the Excise Duty point.

Decision

However, the Upper Tribunal disagreed with the FTT and overturned the verdict.  The Upper Tribunal stated that “… the recognition by HMRC that one or more other Excise Duty points must, in principle, have been triggered before B & M received the relevant goods did not preclude HMRC from assessing B & M for excise duty …”.  The Upper Tribunal did, however, remit the case to the First Tier Tribunal to review the evidence to ensure that the assessment is in time and that, as a matter of fact, the Excise Duty due on the beer and wine remains unpaid.

Conclusion

It would appear that this decision currently gives HMRC the right to raise an assessment for duty and penalties anywhere along the supply chain when an entity is holding the goods, even though a “previous” entity may have been responsible for the payment. This is not * * polite cough * * small beer as the amount in question was £5,875,143 of duty and a penalty of £1,175,028.  This is helpful to HMRC as, in this instant case, it would appear that entities further up the supply chain were either not registered, or became deregistered, making it more difficult for HMRC to recover the Duty due.

It is important for every importer to be clear about the Excise Duty position and to carry out detailed due diligence on the relevant shipment.  It is now not possible to escape an assessment by demonstrating that a third party is responsible for the payment of the duty.

Latest from the courts: missing goods subject to VAT

By   13 October 2016
0
In the CJEU case of Maya Marinova the issue was whether goods which could not be located in the Bulgarian appellant’s warehouse were subject to VAT on the grounds they had been disposed of.

Background

The appellant purchased certain goods, and subsequently, at an inspection, was unable to either;

  • produce the goods , or;
  • demonstrate how they were disposed of.

The Bulgarian authorities had confirmed that the goods had been purchased from a supplier, but the purchases did not appear in the business’ purchase records. They assessed for VAT on the missing goods assuming that they had been purchased and sold off record and the output tax had not been accounted for. They employed a mark-up exercise based on similar goods sold in the appellant’s shop.

The case proceeded directly to the court without an AG’s opinion.  The matter was; whether the decision to assess offended the principle of fiscal neutrality if it were supported by national legislation (which it was here).  It was decided that in these circumstances, such action was not precluded and the assessment was basically sound.  It was stated that “… tax authorities may presume that the taxable person subsequently sold those goods to third parties and determine the taxable amount of the sale of those goods according to the factual information at hand …”.  As usual, the case was passed back to the referring court to consider whether the Bulgarian domestic legislation goes further than is necessary to ensure the correct collection of tax and to prevent evasion.

Commentary

Although the issues in this case arose from specific facts, this is not an uncommon scenario for a business.  It was hardly a surprising outcome.  In a similar position in the UK, HMRC is also very likely to form the view that if the goods are no longer on hand, then they must have been disposed of, unless evidence to the contrary is provided by a taxpayer.

Of course, there may be a genuine reason why the goods are no longer in stock, but no output tax has been declared on them.  These reasons are considered in guidance published by HMRC here and the rules mainly consider goods which have been lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed.

There are specific ways of dealing with VAT in these situations, and in fact, whether output tax is due at all.  Failure to comply with this guidance may result in an assessment being issued.   The general point is VAT is only due after a tax point has been created.  A crude example is that if goods are shoplifted from a store, there is no output tax due.  However, if the goods were sold and recorded via a till, and the money which went into the till was stolen, output tax is still due on the supply of those goods (as found in the case of G Benton [1975] VATTR 138).

As always with VAT, it is crucial to keep accurate and up to date records to evidence supplies (as well as recording the movement of stock and any discrepancies in these circumstances).  Although an inspector will need to demonstrate “best judgement” in issuing an assessment in respect of missing goods, it is obviously prudent to be able to demonstrate why the anticipated output tax has not been declared and therefore be prepared for such enquiries.

In this instant case, it was not discovered why the goods were not located in the warehouse.  It could be that there was a miscommunication between parts of the business, a simple underdeclaration of sales, staff theft, or any other hazards of business.  Even for non-tax reasons it is vital that a business’ systems are sufficiently robust to identify such occurrences and procedures are put into place to deal with them.

If you or your clients have received an assessment of this sort, it is usually worthwhile obtaining a review of the position.

VAT – Intended penalty for participating in fraud

By   3 October 2016
0

Consultation

A consultation was proposed in the 2016 Budget on the introduction of a new penalty for businesses that participate in VAT fraud. Now HMRC has announced that views are sought on; whether there is a case for a new penalty, its structure and to whom it should apply.  The intended changes will require amendment to Schedule 24 of the Finance Act 2007.  The main target of these proposed new measures is MTIC (Missing Trader Intra-Community) fraud.

Full details of the consultation paper here

Penalty principles

It may be worth reviewing HMRC’s view on the principles of applying a penalty, which they state are;

  • The penalty regime should be designed from the customer perspective, primarily to encourage compliance and prevent non-compliance. Penalties are not to be applied with the objective of raising revenues.
  • Penalties should be proportionate to the offence and may take into account past behaviour.
  • Penalties must be applied fairly, ensuring that compliant customers are (and are seen to be) in a better position than the non-compliant.
  • Penalties must provide a credible threat. If there is a penalty, we must have the operational capability and capacity to raise it accurately, and if we raise it, we must be able to collect it in a cost-efficient manner.
  • Customers should see a consistent and standardised approach. Variations will be those necessary to take into account customer behaviours and particular taxes.

Consultation Process

It may be an appropriate time to look at what the consultation process is and how it works.  This may helpfully be summarised (by HMRC) as:

There are 5 stages to tax policy development:

  • Stage 1 Setting out objectives and identifying options.
  • Stage 2 Determining the best option and developing a framework for implementation including detailed policy design.
  • Stage 3 Drafting legislation to effect the proposed change.
  • Stage 4 Implementing and monitoring the change.
  • Stage 5 Reviewing and evaluating the change.

The closing date for comments on this consultation is 11 November 2016.

Comment

Putting to one side the minor irritation of taxpayers being called customers (a bête noire of mine I’m afraid) it is difficult to argue with the above principles and any attempt to prevent or deter VAT fraud is to be welcomed, as long as it does not impact on innocent parties and HMRC apply any such penalty in an even-handed manner. As a taxpayer in a personal and business capacity, I welcome any measures that may result in my tax bill being increased to cover revenue lost to fraud!

Action

Of course, please respond to HMRC should you feel that you should make your views known.  The consultation is open to businesses, individuals, legal firms, accountants, and other interested parties.

We occasionally come across situations where innocent parties have been inadvertently been caught up in fraudulent supply chains. Please contact us for advice on planning that may be put in place to avoid this position and how we can assist if HMRC are making enquiries. As always in VAT, it always pays to be proactive to ensure that processes and structures in place are robust and are demonstrably so.

Bad Debt Relief (BDR) – Avoiding the VAT burden

By   20 September 2016
0
VAT Basics

Anything which can relieve the burden of VAT is to be welcomed. BDR is a useful tool if a business is aware of it and understand when it may be claimed.

It is at the very least frustrating when a client does not pay, and in some cases this situation can lead to the end of a business. At least the VAT charged to the client should not become a cost to a supplier.  The BDR mechanism 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).

There is specific relief however:

Conditions for claiming BDR

The supplier must have supplied goods or services for a consideration in money, and must have accounted for and paid VAT on the supply. All or part of the consideration must have been written off as a bad debt by making the appropriate entry in the business’ records (this does not have to be a “formal” procedure). At least six months (but not more than three years and six months) must have elapsed since the later of the date of supply or the due date for payment.

Records required

Various records and evidence must be kept (for four years from the date of claim), in particular to identify:

• The time and nature of the supply, the purchaser, and the consideration
• The amount of VAT chargeable on the supply
• The accounting period when this VAT was accounted for and paid to HMRC
• Any payment received for the supply
• Entries in the refund for bad debts account
• The accounting period in which the claim is made.

Procedure for claiming BDR

The claim is made by including the amount of the refund in Box 4 of the VAT Return for the period in which the debt becomes over six months old.

Repayment of refund

Repayment of VAT refunded is required where payment is subsequently received or where the above conditions have not been complied with.

Refund of input tax to debtor

Businesses are required to monitor the time they take to pay their suppliers, and repay input tax claimed if they have not paid the supplier within six months. Subsequent payment of all or part of the debt will allow a corresponding reclaim of input tax. This is an easy assessment for HMRC to make at inspections, so businesses should make reviewing this matter this a regular exercise.

Finally, there is tax point planning available to defer a tax point until payment is received for providers of continuous supplies of services. Please see here

VAT – The “business” of shooting; a tale

By   15 July 2016
0

Sometimes one is involved in a dispute which goes to the core of the tax.  This is a case which highlights basic VAT principles, HMRC’s approach to an issue and the lengths to which a taxpayer has to go to defend his position.

Are you sitting comfortably?

A day out in the countryside; striding across beautiful landscape, amongst friends, enjoying each other’s’ company and a bit of sport – can this really be the subject of such intense debate with HMRC? Well, unfortunately this seems to be the case when it comes to the operation of a day’s shooting. In the eyes of the taxman, whether or not a profit or a surplus is achieved, shooting, conducted in the course of furtherance of a business is subject to VAT.

This is not usually an issue which shooting syndicates find themselves having to address; they are not concerned with the ins and outs of what constitutes a business for the purposes of the VAT legislation. However, HMRC was pursuing this issue in earnest and they have a team devoted solely to attacking shoots.

Who is HMRC targeting?

HMRC seem to be focusing on syndicate run shoots which are not registered for VAT but who HMRC believe are operating on business principles. If an organisation is operating as a business then it may be liable to register for VAT if certain income thresholds are exceeded. The shoot will then have to charge output VAT on the supplies it makes.  In my case there would have been a significant assessment plus penalties and interest which could double the past VAT bill.

How is HMRC attacking the issue?

HMRC is looking closely at the specific activities of syndicate shoots in order to build an argument demonstrating that the organisation of the shoot is run on “sound business principles”.  The reason that there is room for debate on this matter is that what constitutes a business is not explicitly defined anywhere in the VAT legislation either in UK or EC law. Rather, the issue has been defined in case law.

The defining case was Lord Fisher, which co-incidentally also concerned a shoot. This case is relied upon throughout the VAT world to give guidance on what constitutes a business – and not just in respect of shoots but for all types of activity.

Anyway, back to this syndicate…

I was involved in a battle lasting four years which concerned a local shoot run for over five decades by a group of friends and which was provided only for the benefit of the syndicate members. The shoot was not open to the common commercial market place or members of the public and the shoot did not advertise. HMRC spent a great deal of time trying to understand the finer details of the running of this shoot and concluded that it was a business

We advised The Shoot to appeal to the VAT Tribunal against HMRC’s decision to levy VAT on its activities.

They key to the syndicate’s defence was to demonstrate that no true business would operate commercially in the way that The Shoot does.  If it did, it would be completely unprofitable and would soon be out of business. To demonstrate this effectively, every aspect of the shoot was examined in detail and compared and contrasted with the way a commercial shoot operates. This involved everything from the lunch arrangements, CVs of the gamekeepers and how beautiful the land is, right through to whether chicks or poults are purchased and whether local deer were sold to the highest bidder. However, the most important factor was the demonstration that the syndicate does not have a profit built in to the cost structure and the amounts that the syndicate members contribute. The syndicate is run on a cost sharing basis and is not “an activity likely to be carried out by a private undertaking on a market, organised within a professional framework and generally performed in the interest of generating a profit.”

It all sounds so simple to those familiar with the industry but unfortunately from a VAT ‘business’ perspective it has been a long, stressful and costly argument for the appellant to make.  A few days before the case was to be heard at the Tribunal, HMRC withdrew their assessment and conceded the case.

HMRC had seen the many witness statements filed by the members of the syndicate waxing lyrical about how this was an age-old hobby run by a few friends and in no way could it be considered a commercial business. They had seen the expert witness report written by a specialist in the field. The distinctions made between commercial and syndicate shooting were made very clear. They had also seen the powerful argument which concluded that the shoot “cannot seriously be suggested to amount to a ‘business’ for the purpose of the VAT code”.

What this means?

Of course this victory over HMRC was a fantastic result for the members of the The Shoot, but from a practical point of view quite frustrating in that the case was not heard; denying other entities the benefit of the predicted victory.  Alas, it was one case that HMRC could not afford to lose.

It is therefore likely that HMRC will continue to target other shoots where they think they can ‘win’ or at least not be challenged.

Have you been affected? – What should you do next?

If this makes for frighteningly familiar reading and you or your local syndicate shoot are, or have been, under HMRC investigation then it is vital that you should take professional advice.  As we orchestrated the defence for The Shoot we are the leading advisers in such matters.

 For completeness, the six tests derived from the Lord Fisher case (and others) are: 
  1. Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
  2. Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
  3. Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
  4. Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
  5. Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
  6. Are the taxable supplies that are being made of a kind which, subject to differences of detail, are commonly made by those who seek to profit from them?
 The recent case of Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft is also helpful in looking at what a business is details here

New approach to VAT inspections by HMRC

By   16 May 2016
0

A VAT quickie.

We understand that HMRC are about to introduce new plans to change the way some VAT inspections are carried out.

The intention is that when a business is selected to an inspection, rather than arranging and visiting the business in the traditional way, initial contact will be made with the responsible person. At this point a short telephone questionnaire will take place.  If this option is taken then it is possible that HMRC will reconsider the need for a full inspection.  This appears to be along the lines of some pre-credibility processes.  It is a pilot exercise and will be entirely voluntary for the taxpayer.

If this approach enables HMRC to focus on evasion and high risk business while reducing the burden for the majority of businesses who always try to be accurate with VAT declarations it is to be welcomed.  We shall see how the pilot goes and whether this is rolled out to more businesses.  HMRC expects that this will be a benefit for both them and taxpayers and it is to be hoped that this is the case.

We have no knowledge currently how “brief” the questionnaire will be and how much information and preparation will be required.  However, it is likely that they will focus on industry specific questions rather than on processes and controls.  

If contacted by HMRC our usual advice is to contact us to ensure everything is as it should be.  This may avoid penalties and ensure any enquires are concluded smoothly.