The supplies to which the DRC applies are set out here
The supplies to which the DRC applies are set out here
Under one VAT scheme, zero-rated and exempt supplies are subject to VAT – as are those which are “Outside the scope of UK VAT”.
Which, or course, makes entire sense.
HMRC’s guidance: How to pay a debt to HMRC with a Time to Pay arrangement was updated on 17 February 2025. This covers businesses which owe a debt to the department.
The updates cover:
If a business owes VAT
It can set up a payment plan to spread the cost of its latest VAT bill online without calling HMRC if it:
More information here: set up a payment plan online.
How to contact HMRC to discuss a Time to Pay arrangement
If a business cannot pay its tax bill and needs assistance (ie; the online arrangements above are not applicable) we recommend that it should contact HMRC as soon as possible.
HMRC and the Department for Business and Trade have published their UK e-invoicing consultation paper.
Background to this development here and here.
E-invoicing is the digital exchange of invoice information directly between buyers’ and suppliers’ financial systems, even if these systems are different. The outcome is an invoice which is automatically written into the buyer’s financial system without manual processing.
E-invoicing automates the exchange of invoices between buyers and suppliers. The government says that increased e-invoicing uptake may support economic growth, business productivity, improve business cashflow and reduce errors in tax returns. It has the potential to both support businesses and tax administration.
The consultation aims to understand how e-invoicing aligns with businesses and their customers. Responses from businesses of all sizes – whether they use e-invoicing or not – as well as interest groups, representative bodies, industry bodies and individuals are encouraged.
The purpose of the consultation is to seek input on how the government can support the increased adoption of e-invoicing. The main points are:
This would be a significant change to VAT and all businesses should understand the impact.
More on VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA), including Real-time digital reporting here.
What can be used to make a claim?
It is well known that in order to claim input tax on expenditure a business is required to have a valid tax invoice to support it. But what if there is no VAT invoice? Can HMRC accept any other evidence to support a claim? Well, the answer is yes… sometimes.
HMRC has discretion provided by legislation: VAT Regulations 1995/2518 Reg 29(2). Specifically, the wording most relevant here is “…such other documentary evidence of the charge to VAT as the Commissioners may direct.” Broadly, a business must hold the correct evidence before being able to exercise the right to deduct.
Where claims to deduct VAT are not supported by a valid VAT invoice HMRC staff are required to consider whether there is satisfactory alternative evidence of the taxable supply available to support deduction. HMRC staff should not simply refuse a claim without giving reasonable consideration to such evidence. HMRC has a duty to ensure that taxpayers pay no more tax than is properly due. However, this obligation is balanced against a duty to protect the public revenue.
Full details of tax invoices here.
What HMRC consider
HMRC staff are required to work through the following checklist:
Outcome
If the responses to the above tests are credible, HMRC staff should exercise their discretion to allow the taxpayer to deduct the input tax. Overall, HMRC is required to be satisfied that sufficient evidence is held by the business which demonstrates that VAT has been paid on a taxable supply of goods or services received by that business and which were used by that business for its taxable activities
Challenge HMRC’s decision
A business may only challenge HMRC’s decision not to allow a claim (did not exercise its discretion) if it acted in an unfair or unreasonable way. In these cases, the onus is on the taxpayer to demonstrate that HMRC have been unreasonable in not using the available discretion. This is quite often a difficult thing to do.
Case law
Not surprisingly, there is significant case law on this subject. The most relevant and recent being the Upper Tribunal (UT) cases of James Boyce Scandico Ltdv and Wasteaway Shropshire Limited.
Tips
If possible, always obtain a proper tax invoice from a supplier, and don’t lose it! The level of evidence required when no invoice is held usually depends on the value of the claim. There would be a difference between persuading an inspector that £20 input tax on stationery is recoverable and the claiming of £200,000 VAT on a property purchase is permissible. As always in VAT, if you get it wrong and claim VAT without the appropriate evidence there is likely to be a penalty to pay.
If you, or your clients are in dispute with HMRC on input tax claims, please contact us.
HMRC has updated its notice Updated its Notice 701/19: Fuel and power.
The Notice explains how suppliers and users should treat supplies of fuel and power for VAT purposes and it sets out how to treat a number of other supplies connected with fuel and power.
The update provides more detail of supplies for domestic use.
Supplies of fuel and power for domestic use are eligible for the reduced rate of 5%.
The provider must be certain that the supply is to a dwelling or certain types of residential accommodation. Examples of allowed residential accommodation are:
The following buildings are not considered residential accommodation for the purposes of fuel and power:
Latest from the courts
The recent Xcel Consult Limited First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case serves as a reminder on the tight time limits for appealing against VAT penalties and surcharges.
The VAT Act 1994 Section 83G sets out a statutory time limit for bringing appeals in respect of VAT penalties and surcharges of the kind in question in this case. An appeal is to be made to the tribunal before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date of the document notifying the decision to which the appeal relates.
Section 83G(6) provides that an appeal may be made after the expiry of the statutory period if the Tribunal gives permission. In deciding whether to give permission to allow the late appeal, the three-stage test set out in Maitland is applied. These tests are:
(1) establish the length of the delay and whether it is serious and/or significant
(2) establish the reason or reasons why the delay occurred
(3) evaluate all the circumstances of the case, using a balancing exercise to assess the merits of the reason(s) given for the delay and the prejudice which would be caused to both parties by granting or refusing permission, and in doing so take into account “the particular importance of the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and for statutory time limits to be respected”.
Commentary
Our advice is to always respond within the 30 day limit, as relying on an out of time appeal can be risky. If that is not possible, an appeal should be submitted asap to ensure that test 1) above is not a reason to reject a submission.
HMRC interest rates for late payments are to be revised following the Bank of England interest rate cut.
The Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee announced on 6 February 2025 to reduce the Bank of England base rate to 4.5% from 4.75%.
HMRC interest rates are linked to the Bank of England base rate. As a consequence of the change in the base rate, HMRC interest rates for late payment and repayment will reduce.
These changes will come into effect on:
How HMRC interest rates are set
HMRC interest rates are set in legislation and are linked to the Bank of England base rate.
Late payment interest is currently set at base rate plus 2.5%. Repayment interest is set at base rate minus 1%, with a lower limit – or ‘minimum floor’ – of 0.5%.
The differential between late payment interest and repayment interest is in line with the policy of other tax authorities worldwide and compares favourably with commercial practice for interest charged on loans or overdrafts and interest paid on deposits.
Children’s clothing is zero rated. But where a child has one foot larger than the other, the pair of shoes can be zero-rated if the smaller shoe qualifies as a child’s size (boys 6 1/2 and girls; generally, size 3).
Latest from the courts
In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Sonder Europe Limited (Sonder) the issue was whether apartments leased to Sonder and used to provide short-term accommodation to corporate and leisure travellers were supplies of a designated travel service via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) and whether the bought-in supply was used for the direct benefit of travellers (as required by TOMS).
Background
Sonder leased apartments from landlords on a medium to long-term basis and used them to provide accommodation to travellers on a short-term basis (one night to a month; the average stay being five nights). Sonder furnished some apartments as well as undertaking occasional decorating and maintenance.
The sole issue was whether these supplies are covered by TOMS. TOMS is not optional.
Initially in the FTT it was decided that output tax was due via TOMS. This was an appeal by HMRC against that First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision.
The issue
Whether VAT was accountable using TOMS – on the margin, or on the full amount received from travellers by Sonder.
Legislation
TOMS is authorised by the VAT Act 1994, section 53 and via SI 1987/1806.
Arguments
Sonder contended that the supply was “for the direct benefit of the traveller” as required by the VAT (Tour Operators) Order 1987 and that the accommodation was provided “…without material alteration or further processing”. Consequently, TOMS applied. The FTT decided that Sonder did not materially alter or process the apartments.
HMRC maintained that the FTT decision was based on the physical alternations made rather than the actual characteristics of the supplies. Consequently, these were not supplies covered by the 1987 Order and output tax was due on the total income received for these services.
Decision
The UT upheld HMRC’s appeal and decided that TOMS did not apply n these circumstances The UT found that the FTT’s decision was in error in that it did not have regard to whether the services bought in were supplied to it for the direct benefit of travellers. Furthermore, the short-term leases to occupy property as holiday accommodation were materially altered from interests in land for a period of years supplied by the landlords.
The services received by Sonder from the landlords were not for the direct benefit of the travellers and Sonder’s supplies were not for the benefit of the users without material alteration and further processing. Consequently, there was not a supply of bought-in services, but rather an ‘in-house’ supply which was not covered by TOMS.
To the UT, the position was even clearer in relation to unfurnished apartments. Sonder acquired an interest in land for a term of years in an unfurnished apartment. It furnished the apartment and then supplied a short-term licence to a traveller to occupy as holiday accommodation. What was supplied to the traveller was materially different to what was supplied to Sonder.
Commentary
Another illustration of the complexities of TOMS and the significant impact on a business of getting the rules wrong. The fact that the UT remade the decision demonstrates that different interpretations are possible on similar facts. Moreover, even slight differences in business models can result in different VAT outcomes.