Category Archives: Planning

VAT: Wakefield College – Court of Appeal case

By   1 June 2018
0

Latest from the courts

Further to my article on the Wakefield College case here the Court of Appeal (CA) has dismissed the college’s appeal that certain of its activities were non-business.

Background 

The detailed background was set out in the above linked article, but to recap: In order for certain building works supplied to the appellant to be zero rated the resultant building has to be used for a “relevant charitable purpose” – that is; not for business purposes. This is the case even if there is a small amount of business activity in the building (as long as these can be shown to be insignificant; which is taken to be less than 5% of the activities in the whole building).

The issue

The issue here was whether the education provided by the college could be deemed non-business because, although the majority was grant funded, students were also required to make a contribution to their education. This is dependent upon whether the provision of courses by the college to students paying subsidised fees was, an economic activity carried on by it for the purposes of article 9 of the VAT Directive and consequently, a “business” within Note (6)  of Group 5 in Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994.

The 1994 Act provides, at group 5 of schedule 8, for the zero-rating of various supplies made in the course of construction of certain buildings including:

“The supply in the course of construction of

(a) a building … intended solely for use for … a relevant charitable purpose…

of any services related to the construction other than the services of an architect, surveyor or any person acting as a consultant or in a supervisory capacity”.

Note (6) to group 5 provides:

“Use for a relevant charitable purpose means use by a charity… –

(a) otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a business.”

Decision

The CA found that the fact that the students paid for education (an exempt supply) meant that it was a business activity as consideration flowed in both directions. The proportion of the costs paid by the student amounted to between 25% and 30% of the total cost and could therefore not be deemed insignificant.

Commentary

It is worth reconsidering comments made by the judge in his summing up in the Upper Tribunal hearing.

 “We cannot leave this appeal without expressing some disquiet that it should have reached us at all. It is common ground that the College is a charity, and that the bulk of its income is derived from public funds. Because that public funding does not cover all of its costs it is compelled to seek income from other sources; but its doing so does not alter the fact that it remains a charity providing education for young people. If, by careful management or good fortune, it can earn its further income in one way rather than another, or can keep the extent of the income earned in particular ways below an arbitrary threshold, it can escape a tax burden on the construction of a building intended for its charitable purpose, but if it is unable to do so, even to a trivial extent, it is compelled to suffer not some but all of that tax burden. We think it unlikely that Parliament intended such a capricious system. We consider it unlikely, too, that Parliament would consider it a sensible use of public money for the parties to litigate this dispute twice before the FTT and now twice before this tribunal. We do not blame the parties; the College is obliged to maximise the resources available to it for the pursuit of its charitable activities, just as HMRC are obliged to collect tax which is due. Rather, we think the legislation should be reconsidered. It cannot be impossible to relieve 16 charities of an unintended tax burden while at the same time protecting commercial organisations from unfair competition and preventing abuse”.

So, although the result may be seen as “unfair” on the college, the strict letter of the VAT legislation does not provide the courts with any alternative but to impose a VAT charge on the construction works – a charge which the college will have to bear as it is unable to recover it as input tax due to the partial exemption rules.

This illustrates the complexity with both the concept of business/non-business and property and construction issues. When the two technical areas collide, as in this case, matters can get very complicated and proper advice is vital. This is especially important with charities as they benefit from very few VAT reliefs and it is important to ensure that those available are correctly taken advantage of.

VAT – Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) What is it? How does it work?

By   14 May 2018
0

ADR and VAT

What is ADR?

ADR is the involvement of a third party (a facilitator) to help resolve disputes between HMRC and taxpayers.  It is mainly used by SMEs and individuals for VAT purposes, although it is not limited to these entities.  Its aim is to reduce costs for both parties (the taxpayer and HMRC) when disputes occur and to reduce the number of cases that reach statutory review and/or Tribunal.

The process

Practically, a typical process is; HMRC officials and the facilitator meet with the taxpayer and adviser in a room, and agree on what the disputes are.  They then retire to two separate, private rooms, and the facilitator goes between the two parties and mediates on a resolution.

ADR is a free service and the only costs the taxpayer will incur are fees from their advisers on preparation and any representation they require on the day.

Features of ADR

  • Without prejudice discussions – Anything said or documents produced during the ADR process cannot be used in future proceedings without the express consent of both parties subject to the obligations placed on the parties by the operation of English law
  • Evidence is that ADR can work for both VAT and Direct Taxes disputes both before and after an appealable decision or assessment has been made. However, ADR for VAT disputes is more suited to post appealable decision and assessments
  • Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a Code of Conduct – a MOU is created to commit taxpayers/agents to the requirements of the ADR process
  • The average time for all completed ADR cases is 61 days. This figure is from application to resolution.  The average elapsed time for VAT it is 53 days
  • The average age of VAT disputes is eight months
  • An ADR Panel has been created to accept or reject applications for ADR. It screens all applications and not just those where ADR was thought to be inappropriate.
  • Customer / Agent Questionnaire Summary – Findings from customers and agents included:
    • An appreciation of the personal interaction that the ADR process allowed
    • Facilitators were even handed and impartial in all cases and kept the taxpayer well informed
    • ADR was particularly well suited to resolution of long standing disputes.

Is Tribunal preferable?

Taking a case to Tribunal is often an expensive, complicated and time consuming option, but used to be the only option open to a taxpayer to challenge a decision made to HMRC.  From personal experience, the number of cases from which HMRC withdraw “on the steps of the court” illustrate a weakness in their legal procedures and possibly a lack of confidence in presenting their cases. This is very frustrating for our clients as they have already incurred costs and invested time when HMRC could have pulled out a lot earlier.  Of course, our clients cannot apply for costs.  The sheer number of cases going through the Tribunal process means that there are often very long and frustrating delays getting an appeal heard.

 A true alternative?

Therefore, should we welcome ADR as a watered down version of a Tribunal hearing?  Or is it actually something else entirely?

HMRC say that “ADR provides an excellent opportunity for Local Compliance to handle disputes in a modern and collaborative way.  It is not intended to replace statutory internal review which is an already established process aimed at resolving disputes without a tribunal hearing. Review looks at legal challenges to decisions whereas ADR is more suitable for disputes where there might be more than one tenable legal outcome”.

Results so far

After an initial two-year pilot which shaped the final programme, and was guided by a Working Together group that included CIOT, AAT, ICAEW and legal representatives HMRC concluded that “ADR has shown that many disputes, where an impasse has been reached, can be resolved quickly without having to go to tribunal.” And “ADR is a fair and even-handed way of resolving tax disputes between HMRC and its customers and helps save time and costs for everyone.”  Ignoring the dreadful use of the word “customers”… what has the profession made of the scheme?

Hui Ling McCarthy – Barrister has reported “HMRC’s ADR studies have produced extremely encouraging and positive results – owing in large part to HMRC’s willingness to engage with taxpayers, advisers and the professional bodies and vice versa. Taxpayers involved in a dispute with HMRC would be well-advised to take advantage of ADR wherever appropriate”.

Outcome

So what was the outcome of the two year scheme?  The headline is that 58% of cases were successfully resolved, 8% were partially resolved and 34% were unresolved.

Of the fully resolved facilitations

  • 33% were resolved by educating the taxpayer/agent about the correct tax position.
  • 24% were resolved due to the facilitator obtaining further evidence.
  • 23% were resolved by educating the HMRC decision maker about the correct tax position.
  • 20% were resolved through facilitators restoring communication between both parties.

Conclusion

These figures are encouraging and the conclusion that; well planned, constructive meetings, with the intervention of an HMRC facilitator, do increase the chances of dispute resolution, appear to be well founded.

Further, the fact that the project team saw no evidence of any demand from HMRC, taxpayers or their agents for access to external mediators and that there is also conclusive evidence from taxpayers that HMRC facilitators have acted in a fair and even-handed manner add to the feeling that ADR is a useful new tool.

Commentary

The comments from HMRC on ADR is (probably understandable) positive.  However, reactions from the profession and taxpayers who have gone through the process are equally generous on ADR as a mechanism for settling disputes.

My view is that any alternative to a Tribunal hearing is welcome and even if ADR works half as well as reports conclude then it should certainly be explored.  It should definitely be considered as an alternative to simply accepting a decision from HMRC with which a taxpayer disagrees.

VAT Inspections – How do HMRC choose who to visit?

By   13 April 2018
0

Big Brother is watching you…

It always used to be the case that “Control Visits” aka VAT inspections were decided by a business’s

  • turnover
  • VAT complexity
  • business complexity
  • structure
  • compliance history
  • previous errors

The more ticks a business gets the more inspections it will receive. Consequently, a business with a high turnover (a “Large Trader”) with many international branches providing complicated financial services worldwide which has failed to file returns by the due date and has received assessments in the past will be inspected almost constantly. Tick only a few of the boxes and a sole trader with a low turnover building business will still generate HMRC interest if it has received assessments in the past or is constantly late with its returns.

These visits are in addition to what is known as “pre-credibility” inspections (pre-creds). Pre-creds take place in cases where a business has submitted a repayment claim.  HMRC will check whether the claim is valid before they release the repayment.  These may be done via telephone, email, or in person, and may lead to a full blown inspection.

In addition, there was always a random element with inspections generated arbitrarily. The usual cycles were: six monthly, annually, three yearly, five yearly, or less frequently. On occasions, the next inspection would depend on the previous inspector’s report (they may, for instance, have recommended another inspection after a future event has occurred).

The Connect System

Although elements of the above “tests” may still apply, many inspections now are based on intelligence obtained from many sources. The main resource is a data system which HMRC call “Connect”. This system feeds from many bases and forms the basis of many decisions made by HMRC.  Instead of HMRC relying on information provided by businesses on VAT returns, Connect draws on statistics from myriad government and corporate sources to create a profile of each VAT registered business. If this data varies from that submitted on returns it is more likely that that business will be inspected. As an example: HMRC obtains anonymised information on all Visa and MasterCard transactions, enabling it to identify areas of likely VAT underpayments which it can then target further.  Other sources of information are: Online marketplaces – websites such as eBay and Gumtree can be accessed to identify regular traders who may not be VAT registered.

The Connect system can also examine public social media account information, such as; Twitter, Facebook and Instagram using sophisticated mechanisms along with being able to access individual’s digital information such as web browsing and emails.

It is understood that less than 10% of all inspections are now random.

The £100 million plus Connect project is, and will be, increasingly important as HMRC is losing significant resources; particularly well trained and experienced inspectors.  With many local VAT offices closing there is also a concern on the ground that a lot of “local knowledge” of businesses has been lost.

Big Brother really is watching you…. And if you are on the receiving end of an inspection, there is a circa 90% chance that there is a reason for it!

For information on how to survive a VAT inspection, please see here

I always suggest that if notification of an impending inspection is received a pre-visit review is undertaken to identify and deal with any issues before HMRC arrive and levy penalties and interest.

VAT – What is Reasonable Care?

By   12 April 2018
0

What is reasonable care and why is it so important for VAT?

HMRC state that “Everyone has a responsibility to take reasonable care over their tax affairs. This means doing everything you can to make sure the tax returns and other documents you send to HMRC are accurate.”

If a taxpayer does not take reasonable care HMRC will charge penalties for inaccuracies.

Penalties for inaccuracies 

HMRC will charge a penalty if a business submits a return or other document with an inaccuracy that was either as a result of not taking reasonable care, or deliberate, and it results in one of the following:

  • an understatement of a person’s liability to VAT
  • a false or inflated claim to repayment of VAT

The penalty amount will depend on the reasons for the inaccuracy and the amount of tax due (or repayable) as a result of correcting the inaccuracy.

How HMRC determine what reasonable care is

HMRC will take a taxpayer’s individual circumstances into account when considering whether they have taken reasonable care. Therefore, there is a difference between what is expected from a small sole trader and a multi-national company with an in-house tax team.

The law defines ‘careless’ as a failure to take reasonable care. The Courts are agreed that reasonable care can best be defined as the behaviour which is that of a prudent and reasonable person in the position of the person in question.

There is no issue of whether or not a business knew about the inaccuracy when the return was submitted. If it did, that would be deliberate and a different penalty regime would apply, see here  It is a question of HMRC examining what the business did, or failed to do, and asking whether a prudent and reasonable person would have done that or failed to do that in those circumstances.

Repeated inaccuracies

HMRC consider that repeated inaccuracies may form part of a pattern of behaviour which suggests a lack of care by a business in developing adequate systems for the recording of transactions or preparing VAT returns.

How to make sure you take reasonable care

HMRC expects a business to keep VAT records that allow you to submit accurate VAT returns and other documents to them. Details of record keeping here

They also expect a business to ask HMRC or a tax adviser if it isn’t sure about anything. If a business took reasonable care to get things right but its return was still inaccurate, HMRC should not charge you a penalty. However, If a business did take reasonable care, it will need to demonstrate to HMRC how it did this when they talk to you about penalties.

Reasonable care if you use tax avoidance arrangements*

If a business has used tax avoidance arrangements that HMRC later defeat, they will presume that the business has not taken reasonable care for any inaccuracy in its VAT return or other documents that relate to the use of those arrangements. If the business used a tax adviser with the appropriate expertise, HMRC would normally consider this as having taken reasonable care (unless it’s classed as disqualified advice)

Where a return is sent to HMRC containing an inaccuracy arising from the use of avoidance arrangements the behaviour will always be presumed to be careless unless:

  • The inaccuracy was deliberate on the person’s part, or
  • The person satisfies HMRC or a Tribunal that they took reasonable care to avoid the inaccuracy

* Meaning of avoidance arrangements

Arrangements include any agreement, understanding, scheme, transaction or series of transactions (whether or not legally enforceable). So, whilst an arrangement could contain any combination of these things, a single agreement could also amount to an arrangement.  Arrangements are `avoidance arrangements’ if, having regard to all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to conclude that the obtaining of a tax advantage was the main purpose, or one of the main purposes of the arrangements.

NB: We at Marcus Ward Consultancy do not promote or advise on tax avoidance arrangements and we will not work with any business which seeks such advice.

Using a tax adviser

If a business uses a tax adviser, it remains that business’ responsibility to make sure it gives the adviser accurate and complete information. If it does not, and it sends HMRC a return that is inaccurate, it could be charged penalties and interest.

None of us are perfect

Finally, it is worth repeating a comment found in HMRC’s internal guidance “People do make mistakes. We do not expect perfection. We are simply seeking to establish whether the person has taken the care and attention that could be expected from a reasonable person taking reasonable care in similar circumstances…” 

VAT: Latest from the courts – option to tax, TOGC and deposits

By   26 March 2018
0

Timing is everything

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Clark Hill Ltd (CHL) illustrates the detailed VAT considerations required when selling property. Not only are certain actions important, but so is timing.  If a business is one day late taking certain actions, a VAT free sale may turn into one that costs 20% more than anticipated. That is a large amount to fund and will obviously negatively affect cashflow and increase SDLT for the buyer, and may result in penalties for the seller.

The case considered three notoriously difficult areas of VAT, namely: the option to tax, transfers of going concerns and deposits.

Background

CHL owned four commercial properties which had opted to tax. CHL sold the freehold of these properties with the benefit of the existing leases. As a starting point VAT would be due on the sale because of the option.  However, the point at issue here was whether the conditions in Article 5 of the Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 were met so that the sale could be treated as a transfer of a business as a going concern (TOGC) and could therefore be treated as neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services for VAT purposes, ie; VAT free. The point applied to two of the four sales. The vendor initially charged VAT, but the purchasers considered that the TOGC provisions applied. CHL must have agreed and consequently did not charge VAT. HMRC disagreed with this approach and raised an assessment for output tax on the value of the sale.

TOGC

In order that a sale may qualify as a TOGC one of the conditions is that; the assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part. It is accepted that in a property business transfer, if the vendor has opted to tax, the purchaser must also have opted by the “relevant date”.  If there is no option in place at that time HMRC do not regard it as “the same kind of business” and TOGC treatment does not apply.

Relevant date

If the purchaser opts to tax, but, say, one day after the relevant date, there can be no TOGC. The relevant date in these circumstances is the tax point. Details of tax points here

Basically put, a deposit can, in some circumstances, create a tax point. In this case, the purchaser had paid a deposit and, at some point before completion of the transfer of the property, the deposit had been received by the seller or the seller’s agent. The seller notified HMRC of the option to tax after a deposit had been received (in two of the relevant sales). The issue here then was whether a deposit created a tax point, or “relevant date” for the purposes of establishing whether the purchaser’s option to tax was in place by that date.

Decision

The judge decided that in respect of the two properties where the option to tax was not notified until after a deposit had been paid there could not be a TOGC (for completeness, for various other reasons, the other two sales could be treated as TOGCs) and VAT was due on the sale values. It was decided that the receipt of deposits in these cases created a relevant date.

Commentary

There is a distinction between opting to tax and notifying that option to HMRC which does not appear to have been argued here (there may be reasons for that). However, this case is a timely reminder that VAT must be considered on property transactions AND at the appropriate time. TOGC is an unique situation whereby the seller is reliant on the purchaser’s actions in order to apply the correct VAT treatment. This must be covered off in contracts, but even if it is, it could create significant complications and difficulties in obtaining the extra payment. It is also a reminder that VAT issues can arise when deposits are paid (in general) and/or in advance of an invoice being issued.

We recommend that VAT advice is always taken on property transactions ad at an early stage. Not only can situations similar to those in this case arise, but late consideration of VAT can often delay sales and can even cause such transactions to be aborted.

Imports – The jargon explained

By   1 March 2018
0

The minefield of importing

VAT is only one consideration when importing goods.

Further to my article on proposed changes to imports and exports I have been asked what some terms used in the import of goods mean. So below is, what I hope, a helpful explanation of UK import terms.

We are happy to assist with any general queries and we provide a comprehensive Customs Duty service via our associates with specialised, in-depth knowledge of this complex area.

We recommend regular reviews of a business’ import procedures. This may highlight deficiencies but also provide opportunities to save money or improve cashflow.

Term Description
Anti-Dumping Duty A customs duty on imports providing a protection against the dumping of goods in the EU at prices substantially lower than the normal value
ATA carnet An international customs document for temporary importation and exportation regulated under the terms of the ATA or Istanbul Convention
C 88 (SAD) The UK version of the Single Administrative Document (SAD) for making import, export and transfer declarations
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CDS Customs Declaration Service to be launched from August 2018. Replaces CHIEF
CFSP (Customs Freight Simplified Procedures) Simplified procedure for the importation of third country goods including the simplified declaration procedure and local clearance procedure
CHIEF (Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight). The Customs entry processing computer system. Soon to be replaced
CIE Customs input of entries to CHIEF
Community Member States of the European Union
Community Transit A customs procedure that allows non EU goods on which duty has not been paid to move from one point in the EU to another
Countervailing duty A customs duty on goods which have received government subsidies in the originating or exporting country
CPC (Customs Procedure Code) A 7-digit code used on C88 (SAD) declarations to identify the type of procedure for which the goods are being entered and from which they came. Details of CPCs can be found in The Tariff
Customs charges customs duties
import VAT
specific customs duty (previously CAP charges)
Anti-Dumping Duty
Countervailing Duty
excise duties
Customs duty An indirect tax that provides protection for Community industry. Raised on imported goods, it does not include excise duty or VAT
Customs warehouse A system or place authorised by customs for the storage of non-Community goods under duty and/or VAT suspension
EU European Union
EU Country Member country of the European Union
Euro (€) European currency unit
Excise duty A duty chargeable, in addition to any customs duty that may be due, on certain goods listed in The Tariff, volume 1 part 12 paragraph 12.1
Free Circulation Goods imported from outside the EU are in free circulation within the EU when:

all import formalities have been complied with

all import duties, levies and equivalent charges payable have been paid and have not been fully or partly refunded

goods that originate in the EU are also in free circulation
Free Zone A designated area into which non-EU goods may be moved and remain without payment of customs duty and/or VAT otherwise due at importation
INF6 (C1245) Information sheet 6 is a document used when TA goods travel between EU Countries. It provides details of the goods at the time of their first entry to TA in the EU. It does not replace the C88 (SAD)
IP (Inward Processing ) A customs procedure providing relief from import duty on goods imported to the EU or removed from a customs warehouse, for process and export outside the EU
Member State Member country of the European Union
PCC (Processing under Customs Control) A system of import duty relief for goods imported or transferred from another customs regime for processing into products on which less or no duty is payable
Person established in the EU In the case of a natural person, any person who is normally resident there.

In the case of a legal person or an association of persons, any person that has, in the EU:

its registered office
its central headquarters
or
a permanent business establishment
Person established outside the EU In the case of a natural person, any person who is not normally resident there.

In the case of a legal person or an association of persons, any person that has, outside the EU

its registered office
its central headquarters
or
a permanent business establishment
Pre-entry Notification to customs of your intention to export the goods by the submission of an entry
Preference Arrangements which allow reduced or nil rates of customs duties to be claimed on eligible goods imported from certain non-EU countries
SAD (Single administrative document) Document used throughout the EU for making import/export declarations – the UK version is Form C88
TA goods Temporary Admission goods
Tariff The Tariff consists of 3 volumes

Volume 1
contains essential background information for importers and exporters, contact addresses for organisations such as Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Forestry Commission. It also contains an explanation of Excise duty, Tariff Quotas and many similar topics

Volume 2
contains the 16,000 or so Commodity Codes set-out on a Chapter by Chapter basis. It lists duty rates and other directions such as import licensing and preferential duty rates

Volume 3
contains a box-by-box completion guide for C88 (SAD) entries, the complete list of Customs Procedure Codes (CPCs), Country / Currency Codes, lists of UK ports and airports both alphabetically and by their legacy Entry Processing Unit (EPU) numbers, and further general information about importing or exporting.

The Tariff is available on an annual subscription and is also available at some larger libraries. You can buy the Tariff in printed and CD ROM formats or subscribe to the new e-service from the Stationary Service referred to in paragraph 1.5
Third country Any country that is outside the Customs Territory of the EU

It is likely that some of these terms will change in the future and with the uncertainty of Brexit who knows what changes will be required.

Digitisation of the VAT Retail Export Scheme – Update

By   23 February 2018
0

What is the VAT Retail Export Scheme (VAT RES)?

The VAT RES allows:

  • overseas visitors (generally, persons who live outside the EC) to receive a refund of VAT paid on goods exported to destinations outside the EC
  • retailers to zero-rate goods sold to entitled customers when they have the necessary evidence of export and have refunded the VAT to the customer

Such treatment is subject to a number of conditions:

  • the customer must be entitled to use the scheme
  • the goods must be eligible to be purchased under the scheme*
  • the customer must make the purchase in person and complete the form at the retailer’s premises in full
  • the goods must be exported from the ECby the last day of the third month following that in which the goods were purchased
  • the customer must send the retailer or the refund company evidence of export stamped by Customs on an official version of Form VAT 407, an approved version of Form VAT 407 or an officially approved invoice
  • the retailer or the refund company must not zero-rate the supply until the VAT has been refunded to the customer

Typically, a retailer will charge UK VAT to an overseas visitor until the visitor has returned the appropriate documentation which has been suitably stamped at the port of departure from the UK.

* Certain goods are excluded from VAT RES. These include; motor vehicles for personal export, boats sold to visitors who intend to sail them to a destination outside the EC, goods over £600 in value exported for business purposes, goods exported as freight or unaccompanied baggage, unmounted gemstones, bullion, goods consumed in the UK and goods purchased by mail order including those purchased over the Internet. (This list is not exhaustive).

Full details of VAT RES scheme here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-704-vat-retail-exports/vat-notice-704-vat-retail-exports

VAT RES is a voluntary scheme and retailers do not have to operate it. Those who do must ensure that all the conditions set out in the above notice are met. In certain areas (such as the West End of London) businesses which offer VAT RES have a commercial/price advantage over those shops which do not.

So what is new?

HMRC has recently (this month) provided an update on their project to digitise the VAT RES system, to improve the efficiency for both retailers and travellers, and also to help reduce fraud. Details here

https://www.att.org.uk/sites/default/files/180213%20VAT%20Retail%20Export%20Scheme.pdf

We are able to advise further on this matter if required.

VAT: Latest from the courts – Hastings Insurance Place Of Supply

By   22 February 2018
0

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Hastings Insurance the issue was where was the place of supply (POS) of services?

The POS rules determine under which VAT regime the supply is treated, whether the associated input tax may be recovered and how the services are reported. Consequently, determining the POS for any supply is vitally important because getting it wrong may not only mean that tax is overpaid in one country, but it is not declared in the appropriate country so that penalties and interest are levied. Getting it wrong also means that the input tax position is likely to be incorrect; meaning that VAT can be over or underclaimed.  The rules for the POS of services are notoriously complicated and even subtle differences in a business’ situation can produce a different VAT outcome.

Background

Hastings is an insurance services company operating in the UK.  The appeal relates to whether the appellant was able to recover input tax it incurred in the UK which was attributable to supplies of; broking, underwriting support and claims handling services made to a Gibraltar based insurance underwriter (Advantage) which supplied motor insurance to UK customers through Hastings. In order to obtain credit for the relevant input tax, the supply to Advantage must have a POS outside the EU, eg: the recipient had a place of belonging in Gibraltar and not the UK. HMRC argued that Advantage belonged in the UK so that the input tax could not have been properly recoverable.  Consequently, the issue was where Advantage “belonged” for VAT purposes.

The POS rules set out where a person “belongs”.

A taxable person belongs:

  • where it has a business establishment, or;
  • if different, where it has a fixed establishment, or;
  • if it has both a business establishment and a fixed establishment (or several such establishments), where the establishment is located which is most directly concerned with the supply

Further details on this point are explained here

Contentions

It was not disputed that Advantage had a business establishment in Gibraltar. The question was whether it also had a fixed establishment in the UK and, if so, whether the supplies of services were made to that fixed establishment rather than to its business establishment in Gibraltar. HMRC contended that Advantage had a fixed establishment in the UK which was “more directly concerned with the supply of insurance” such that the POS was the UK. This was on the basis that Advantage had human and technical resources in the UK which were actually used to provide its services to UK customers. Hastings obviously argued to the contrary; that Advantage had no UK fixed establishment and that services were supplied to, and by, Advantage in Gibraltar.

Technical

It may be helpful to look briefly at CJEU case law which considered what an establishment other than a business establishment is. It is: “characterised by a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources”, where looking at the location of the recipient of the supply, “to enable it to receive and use the services supplied to it for its own needs” or, where looking at the location of the supplier, “to enable it to provide the services which it supplies”. 

Decision

The FTT concluded that the input tax in dispute is recoverable because it was attributable to supplies made to Advantage on the basis that it belonged outside the EU (as interpreted in accordance with the relevant EU rules and case law). After a long and exhaustive analysis of the facts the summary was;

  • The appellant’s human and technical resources, through which it provided the services to Advantage, did not comprise a fixed establishment of Advantage in the UK, whether for the purposes of determining where Advantage made supplies of insurance or where the appellant made the supplies of its services.
  • Even if, contrary to the FTT’s view, those resources comprised a fixed establishment in the UK, there is no reason to depart from the location of Advantage’s business establishment in Gibraltar as the place of belonging/supply in the circumstances of this case.

Summary

If this case affects you or your clients it will be rewarding to consider the details of the arrangements which are helpfully set out fully in the decision. This was, in my opinion, a borderline case which could have been decided differently quiet easily.  A significant amount of the evidence produced was deemed inadmissible; which is an interesting adjunct to the main issue in itself. Whether HMRC take this matter further remains to be seen.  It is always worthwhile reviewing a business’ POS in depth and we are able to assist with this.

VAT: Timeshare is exempt

By   19 February 2018
0

Latest from the courts

The Fortyseven Park Street Ltd (FPSL) Upper Tribunal case.

Brief technical overview

In general terms the provision of a “timeshare” in the UK is standard rated for VAT. This is because HMRC regard supplies of this type to be similar to hotels, inns, boarding houses and are treated as “serviced flats” (other than those for permanent residential use). The appellant sought to argue that what it provided was not “similar” to a hotel or boarding house.

Background

The issue in the FPSL case was whether “Fractional Interests” (akin to timeshares) in a property amount to an exempt supply of that property. The Fractional Interests entitled FPSL’s clients up to 21 days a year in block of apartments in Mayfair.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) determined that here were three main issues:

  • The FTT decided that the supplies of the Fractional Interests fell within the exemption from VAT provided for the leasing or letting of immovable property.
  • However, the FTT further found that the land exemption was excluded because the grant of the Fractional Interests was the provision of accommodation in a similar establishment to an hotel.
  • The therefore FTT dismissed FPSL’s argument that under the principle of fiscal neutrality the supplies of the Fractional Interests should be treated in the same way (exempt) as more traditional timeshare interests.

Decision

The UT decided that the relevant interests provided amounted to an exempt supply of the property. This was on the basis that the judges concluded that the grant of the Fractional Interest was the grant of a right to occupy a residence and to exclude others from enjoying such a right, and was thus within the concept of the “letting of immovable property”.  It was also found that the supply was a passive activity and not outside the land exemption by reason of FPSL having added significant value to the service despite providing; certain additional facilities, services (eg; concierge) and benefits to clients – this was not, it was decided, a situation where the appellant had actively exploited the asset to add value to the supply (which may have made it taxable). The UT also ruled that as the concierge was provided by a third party, it could not be combined to form a single supply made by FPSL thus emphasising the fact that this was a more passive activity.

It was noted that there was a distinction in this case from supplies of boutique hotels (which are standard rated hotel accommodation) because residents were contracting for the supply of a long-term right to occupy an apartment and not a series of short-term stays and that the high amount paid for the Fractional Interest brought with it certain financial obligations which are not found in the hotel industry.

Commentary

This is an interesting case and the decision somewhat surprising.  There is a subtle distinction between what was provided here and serviced flats or hotel accommodation, but the UT found it sufficient to apply exempt treatment. If you, or your clients may be affected by this decision, please contact us.

VAT Error Disclosure under £10,000 – Draft Letter To HMRC

By   12 February 2018
0

Error Correction – belt and braces

If an error is discovered on a past VAT return it is only usually necessary to report it to HMRC (on form VAT652) if it is £10,000 (net of all errors) or more of VAT.

However, because of the current penalty regime it is important to ensure that any adjustment qualifies as an unprompted disclosure. Consequently, we recommend that a letter similar to that below is sent to HMRC in cases where errors below £10,000 have been adjusted on a current return.

“RE: Letter of disclosure; error on return for period XXXX

 We disclose, (on behalf of our above named client), that the VAT return for the period XX/XX contained an inaccuracy.

 Reason, eg; Due to a processing error, three sales invoicing totalling……

 This resulted in the net VAT due for the period being understated by £XX

 As the error is within the limits for correction on the next VAT return, this error has been corrected on the return for the period in which the error was discovered, namely the period XX/XX.  No further action to correct the error is therefore necessary.

 Please treat this letter as an unprompted disclosure of an inaccuracy.  Alternatively, please advise me of any further details that you may require in order that that this letter may be treated as such.”

It is accepted that this course of action may prompt enquiries, but it is our view that that is preferable to having a potential ticking time bomb.

Please contact us should you have any queries on error disclosure.