Category Archives: Start Up

VAT: Avoiding a Default Surcharge. Reasonable Excuse – Update

By   14 March 2022
1

I have looked at the Default Surcharge regime in detail here but as statistics show more business to be in default (which is probably accurately attributable, inter alia, to the pandemic) I consider how a penalty may be mitigated, by the provision of a “Reasonable Excuse”. HMRC has updated its internal guidance on Reasonable Excuse this month.

Specifically: HMRC state that “…where a person has not been able to meet an obligation on time due to the impact of COVID-19, HMRC will usually accept that they will have a reasonable excuse.”

What is a Default Surcharge?

The Default Surcharge is a civil penalty issued by HMRC to encourage businesses to submit their VAT returns and pay the tax due on time.

A default occurs if HMRC has not received your return and all the VAT due by the due date. The relevant date is the date that cleared funds reach HMRC’s bank account. If the due date is not a working day, payment must be received on the last preceding working day.

More on late returns here and on late payments here.

New rules forthcoming

It is noted that there is a new regime for penalties, details here although these changes have been delayed until 1 January 2023

Reasonable Excuse

If a business has a reasonable excuse for failing to pay on time, and it remedies this failure without unreasonable delay after the excuse ends, it will not be liable to a surcharge. The onus is on a business to satisfy HMRC that it has a Reasonable Excuse.

Definition

There’s no statutory definition of Reasonable Excuse and it will depend on the particular circumstances of a case. A Reasonable Excuse is something that prevented the business meeting a tax obligation on time which it took reasonable care to meet. There is a great deal of case law on this particular issue. Please contact us should there be doubt about a Reasonable Excuse.

What may count as a Reasonable Excuse?

HMRC give the following examples:

  • “your partner or another close relative died shortly before the tax return or payment deadline
  • you had an unexpected stay in hospital that prevented you from dealing with your tax affairs
  • you had a serious or life-threatening illness
  • your computer or software failed just before or while you were preparing your online return
  • service issues with HMRC online services
  • a fire, flood or theft prevented you from completing your tax return
  • postal delays that you could not have predicted
  • delays related to a disability (including mental health) you have”

This list is not exhaustive.

What is NOT a reasonable excuse

Statute identifies two specific situations that are not a reasonable excuse:

  • lack of funds to pay any VAT due, or
  • reliance on any other person to perform a task, where there has been a delay or inaccuracy on that person’s part.

There can be exceptions to these two exclusions. For example, an insufficiency of funds may be a reasonable excuse where the insufficiency is a result of events outside the person’s control.

HMRC also states that these situations would not normally be accepted, on their own, as a reasonable excuse:

  • pressure of work
  • lack of information
  • lack of a reminder from HMRC

Facts

HMRC will establish what facts the business believes gave rise to a Reasonable Excuse. The facts may include:

  • the taxpayer’s beliefs
  • the taxpayer’s own experiences and relevant attributes
  • the situation of the taxpayer at any relevant time
  • acts carried out by the taxpayer or someone else
  • acts that the taxpayer or someone else should have carried out but did not.

Case Law

Although not a VAT issue, in the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Christine Perrin [2018] UKUT 156 [TC], the judge provided guidance on how the Tribunal should approach a Reasonable Excuse defence. There are four steps:

  1. establish what facts the taxpayer asserts give rise to a reasonable excuse
  2. decide which of those facts are proven
  3. if those proven facts amount to an objectively reasonable excuse for the default
  4. having decided when any reasonable excuse ceased, decide whether the taxpayer remedied the failure without unreasonable delay after that time

Appeal

If HMRC refuse to accept an advance of a Reasonable Excuse and the Default Surcharge is maintained, there are two potential remedies:

If a business disagrees with a decision that it is liable to a surcharge or how the amount of surcharge has been calculated, it is possible to:

  • ask HMRC to review your case (A Statutory Review)
  • have your case heard by the Tax Tribunal

If you ask for a review of a case, a business will be required to write to HMRC within 30 days of the date the Surcharge Liability Notice Extension (SLNE) was sent. The letter should give the reasons why a business disagrees with the decision.

We are able to assist with all disputes with HMRC and have an enviable record of succeeding in having Default Surcharges removed.

VAT Grouping: Latest from HMRC

By   4 March 2022
1

HMRC has updated its VAT Notice 700/2 on VAT Group registrations. This is as a result of the unacceptable delays in dealing with applications to set up or amend VAT groups. The update adds Section 2.17 which is reproduced below:

Details on VAT groups here and here.

2.17 What to do while you wait for a response to your application

If you are waiting for a response to your VAT grouping application, you should treat the application as provisionally accepted on the day it is received by HMRC and account for VAT accordingly. For more information on accounting for VAT in a VAT group see section 5. The date of receipt should be treated as, if submitted online the date it was submitted, or if it was posted the date it should be received by HMRC through the ordinary course of post.

If you have not been issued with a group VAT registration number, you cannot charge or show VAT on your invoices until it has been assigned. However, you’ll still have to pay VAT to HMRC for this period. You should increase your prices to allow for this and tell your customers why. Once you’ve got your VAT number you can then reissue the invoice showing the VAT. Further guidance on this can be found in Who should register for VAT (VAT Notice 700/1) section 5.1.

If you had a VAT registration number prior to your grouping application you should not submit returns under this number, and should follow this guidance.

While you are waiting to receive your VAT grouping registration number, you may receive:

  • an automated assessment letter
  • letters asking for payment of any automated assessments
  • notification of a default surcharge because you have not filed your tax return

If you do, you will not be required to take any action in response to any of these notices because HMRC will automatically cancel them once your application is fully processed. HMRC will not take recovery action for any debts which come about as a result of you following this guidance, though other VAT debts may still subject to recovery actions.




VAT: Late payment and repayment interest rates

By   21 February 2022
0

The current late payment and repayment interest rates applied to the main taxes and duties that HMRC currently charges and pays interest on are:

  • Late payment interest rate — 3.0% from 21 February 2022
  • Repayment interest rate — 0.5% from 29 September 2009

Interest rates for all other taxes here.

Details of default surcharge here.

VAT: Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme registered businesses list

By   16 February 2022
1

HMRC has issued updated guidance for businesses which need to check whether an entity which stores goods in the UK on its behalf is registered with the Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme (FHDDS).

The published list is alphabetical order by company name.

The list should be used if you are a business that is not established in the EU to see if the business that stores your goods in the UK is registered with the FHDDS.

If your business is outsourcing or considering outsourcing its fulfilment operations, then the fulfilment house you are using or intending to use of must be legally accredited by HMRC to do so.

Businesses that must be registered

Businesses are required to be registered if it stores any goods where all of the following apply:

  • the goods were imported from a country outside the EU
  • the goods are owned by, or stored on behalf of, someone established outside the EU
  • the goods are being offered for sale and have not been sold in the UK before

It is illegal to operate outside of the scheme and any fulfilment company found doing so will be prevented operating a fulfilment business and may be subject to a £10,000 penalty and a criminal conviction.

VAT: Is dog grooming taught in schools? The Dogs Delight case

By   15 February 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the Julie Lalou t/a Dogs Delight First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether the teaching of dog grooming qualified as private tuition and was therefore exempt.

Background

The Appellant operated a business providing dog grooming and dog grooming courses. The appeal was concerned only with the supplies of dog grooming tuition as it was accepted that dog grooming in itself is taxable.

Technical

The sole issue in dispute in this appeal was whether the supplies fall within the private tuition exemption as for provided by The Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, item 2 “The supply of private tuition, in a subject ordinarily taught in a school or university, by an individual teacher acting independently of an employer”.

HMRC’s view was that “to be eligible for exemption dog grooming would need to be a course that is ‘ordinarily’ taught in schools and universities which it is not…”

The appellant wrote to HMRC giving a list of seven “local Colleges and Universities where the Level 3 Dog Grooming Diploma is ordinarily taught”. The appellant went on to state “There are many more within the UK” which were said to represent around 30% of English colleges. Further it was stated that the business was a City & Guilds approved centre and that the courses were not recreational.

Decision

It was accepted that the courses that the appellant taught involved her making supplies of tuition in that she transferred to her students skills and knowledge.

But, unsurprisingly, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant had failed to demonstrate that dog grooming is taught at a wide number of schools and universities

The court also determined that the appellant needed to provide some evidence of whether dog grooming was taught at schools and universities in the EU (again, something she had failed to do).

Commentary

The exemption for private tuition is fraught with complexities and the amount of case law on the subject is significant, which indicates the difficulties in analysing the VAT position.  An example here. It is important to establish what is being provided and that research is carried out to consider the degree of ubiquity of the subject in education. A general guide to education here. The phrase “ordinarily taught” is rather nebulous and it would be prudent to obtain as much evidence as possible that a subject is s commonly or ordinarily taught in schools and universities if a supply is treated as exempt.

VAT: Car boot sale pitches are exempt – The Rufforth Park case

By   14 February 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the Rufforth Park Limited (RPL) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether pitches for car boot and auto jumble sales were subject to VAT or were they a simple licence to occupy land and exempt?

Background

The appellant has been running car boot sales at Rufforth Park for the more than forty years. When RPL began the car boot sales, the VAT office was asked to confirm that it did not need to charge VAT on the fees for the pitches. It was told that it should charge VAT, and did so. After a number of years, RPL demonstrated to the VAT office that other businesses in a similar position were not charging VAT. HMRC then agreed and the VAT the company had paid was refunded with interest. The company has not charged VAT on the pitch fees since. After a routine inspection HMRC formed the view that there were a number of services that, together, formed a standard rated supply and assessed for VAT on that basis. RPL appealed against this decision.

Technical

HMRC concluded that the fees for the pitches should be standard rated because the supply of the pitches was provided with other goods and services which constituted a single overarching supply of a service, not merely the right to occupy land. The reasons were:

  • Forty years of running car boot sales had built up a reputation which is a tangible benefit to stallholders. The reputation of regular events is part of the supply the stall holder receives.
  • Advertising to bring buyers to the site for the benefit of stall holders is part of the supply.
  • The amenities on site enable buyers better to enjoy their time at the car boot sale and are part of the supply.
  • The sellers benefit from the amenities as well as the activities undertaken by RPL to attract buyers to the site to buy items from the sellers. Those activities include:
  1. advertising
  2. on site café
  3. toilets
  4. parking
  5. capital improvements to the site to make it more attractive to buyers
  6. provision of some pitches under cover
  7. cleaning the site after the events
  8. RPL had real and significant responsibilities to the sellers (although HMRC did not specify what they were)

This was said to show there was more to the supply than the exempt passive supply of land for a stall to sell items.

The appellant submitted that the supply in this case is a single supply of a pitch rental and one must look at all the circumstances in order to establish its nature. Regard must be had to the commercial and economic realities. The renting of a pitch in a car boot sale in the present case was a relatively passive activity linked to the passage of time and not generating any significant added value and so is VAT free.

Decision

The court found that that the nature of the supply provided in return for the pitch fees is a licence to occupy land within The VAT Act, Schedule 9, Group 1, Item 1 and accordingly the fees were exempt. The appeal was allowed.

Commentary

Yet another case demonstrating the uncertainty in this area. Superficially, there is little difference in the facts of this case to those in the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Zombory-Moldovan (trading as Craft Carnival) which found that supplies of pitches at craft fairs were standard rated. However, the court found that this case could be distinguished on its facts. Which may be summarised as:

  • there was no formal contract between RPL and its sellers
  • it was not possible to book in advance
  • there was no selection of sellers. Anyone who arrived and paid would get a space, allocated by RPL
  • the advertising on the company’s website, local TV, and Facebook provided only basic information to both buyers and sellers about times and prices
  • RPL had no obligation to put on the car boot sales or the auto jumbles. Sellers have no right to attend. If there was no sale, they would have no recompense.
  • no tables, chairs or electricity were provided, even for an extra fee
  • there was no provision of security
  • the toilet and refreshment facilities were basic
  • the Appellant had carried out such maintenance as is required but had not attempted to enhance the facilities
  • whilst the car boot sales and auto jumbles might be efficiently run, they are simple events involving only the Appellant’s land and its employees and not requiring any particular organisational or management skills. Well run is not the same thing as “expertly organised and expertly run”.

It is important when considering these two decisions to establish precisely what is being supplied, as small differences in facts can affect the VAT treatment. The more “basic” the supply, the more likely that exemption will apply, but it is a question of small degrees of difference.

VAT: Latest on early termination and compensation payments

By   8 February 2022
1

HMRC has published a new Revenue and Customs Brief 2(2022) which replaces Revenue and Customs Brief 12 (2020): VAT early termination fees and compensation payments.

It introduces a revised policy on early termination payments and compensation fees. Following representations from industry the Brief issued in September 2020 was suspended in January 2021. HMRC has reviewed the policy in the light of those representations and is adopting a revised policy which will take effect from 1 April 2022. The new policy will result in fewer early termination payments being subject to VAT than in the 2020 guidance.

The new Brief also advises businesses that adopted the treatment outlined in Brief 12 (2020) on what action they should now take.

Background

Whether a payment is for a VAT supply depends on whether anything is being done in return for a consideration. Where a party agrees to do something in return for a fee there is a supply. How that fee is described does not affect whether there is a supply for VAT. What matters is whether something is done and if there is a direct link between what is done and the payment received, and reciprocity between the supplier and the customer (see VATSC05100).

Previous HMRC guidance stated that when customers are charged to withdraw from agreements to receive goods or services, these charges were not generally for a supply and were outside the scope of VAT.

Following the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgments in Meo (C-295/17) and most recently in Vodafone Portugal (C-43/19), it is evident that some of these charges are additional consideration for the supply of goods or services. Most early termination fees and some cancellation fees are therefore liable for VAT if the goods or services for which the fees have been paid are liable for VAT, even if they are described as compensation or damages.

The main impact of the revised policy is that fees charged when customers terminate a contract early will be regarded as further consideration for the contracted supply. For example, if a customer is charged a fee for exiting a mobile phone contract early, or if they terminate a car hire contract early, it will be liable for VAT.

The new guidance can be found at VATSC05910, VATSC05920 and VATSC05930.

VAT: Bad Debt Relief. The Regency Factors case

By   7 February 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the Regency Factors plc Court Of Appeal (CoA) case the issue was the validity of the appellant’s claim for Bad Debt Relief (BDR) on amounts it had not received after the issue of an invoice.

Technical

BDR is a mechanism which 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). The specific relief for unpaid VAT is via the BDR scheme.

A guide to BDR here.

Commentary on the Upper Tribunal (UT) hearing in this case here.

Background

In the CoA case the issue was whether the appellant met the conditions in The VAT General Regulations 1995, Reg 168 for claiming BDR via The VAT Act 1994, section 36.

Regency provided a factoring service to its clients for which it is paid a fee. VAT invoices for those fees were issued to clients when the invoices which are being factored are assigned to Regency for collection.

Regency appealed against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) which dismissed Regency’s appeal against VAT assessments made by HMRC to withdraw BDR which Regency had claimed in its VAT returns.

The UT held that the BDR claim was not valid because

  • there was no bad debt; and
  • Regency had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the making of a claim. 

Regency appealed against the decision of the UT on the second point.

Decision

The CoA decided that as Regency’s record keeping was insufficient to support a BDR claim. Specifically, although it did keep the records required by Regulation 168 (2), it did not keep a single VAT BDR account which is required by Regulation 168 (3). The ruling commented that this requirement was a legitimate feature of the scheme as it enables an inspector to check the claim easily. It is not acceptable for a claimant to simply have a pile of unsorted documents which may, or may not, evidence a valid claim.

The court also said that it was possible for HMRC to allow a discretionary claim (clearly, they did not use that discretion in this case) and that the legal requirement was not a barrier to Regency making a proper BDR claim. The appeal was dismissed.

“In short, Regency had the opportunity to prove its claim for bad debt relief in the FTT… but it failed to do so. It is not entitled to a second opportunity”.

Commentary

As always with VAT, accurate record-keeping is essential. As the tax is transaction based, it is vital to keep comprehensive evidence of those transactions and associated payments. Failure to do so may result in:

  • assessments and penalties
  • give HMRC the opportunity to refuse otherwise legitimate input tax recovery
  • refuse other VAT claims (in this case BDR).
  • confusion and uncertainty which often creates costs in time and other resources, and extended relations with HMRC, which is in no business’ interest.

If Regency had taken “one step further” with its record keeping, BDR would have been paid by HMRC.

Is room hire subject to VAT? – The Errol Willy Salons case

By   24 January 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Errol Willy Salons Ltd (2022) TC 08370 the issue was whether the rent of two rooms were an exempt right over land, or the standard rated supply of facilities.

Background

Room hire is usually exempt from VAT unless it is subject to an option to tax. However, it can be subsumed into a different rated another supply if something more than a “bare” room is provided. In such cases, it would follow the VAT treatment of the composite supply.

The Issue

In the Errol Willy Salons case, HMRC formed the view that what was being supplied was facilities (the room occupation being a minor part of the supply) and therefore subject to VAT. In its opinion the economic and social reality was that the beauticians were provided with a licence to trade from the premises. The appellant occupied the ground floor – operating a hairdressing business. The rooms over the saloon were rented to third party beauticians. The occupants furnished the rooms themselves, provided their own equipment, set their own pricing and opening hours. They did have use of certain services and facilities; a receptionist and toilets, but it was understood that the services were rarely used. Unsurprisingly, the appellant disagreed and contended that the other services were incidental or subsidiary to the exempt supply of the room rental.

The decision

The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the assessment. It found that “non-rent” services provided to the beauticians were limited in nature and not essential to the beauticians’ businesses Consequently, the arrangements amounted to a supply of property (a licence to occupy the rooms) rather than a supply of taxable facilities and was therefore exempt.

Commentary

This is the latest in a long line of issues on composite/separate supplies and room hire/facilities disputes, especially in relation to weddings. It is important to establish precisely what is being provided to establish the correct VAT treatment and advice should be ought if there is any doubt about the VAT liability.

The CIOT has long advocated that it is not the case that every package of supplies involving room hire and other things must be a composite supply of something other than an exempt letting of land.

NB: This case is different to hairdresser chair rentals which remain standard rated.