Further to my article on the new changes from next year, HMRC has published information on the rules of origin for trade between the UK and EU.
The Bulletin covers the rules of origin and the forthcoming changes to the requirement for supplier declarations to support proof of origin.
Latest from the courts
Further to my article on the Supreme Court case, Uber went to the High Court seeking to challenge this decision, but the High Court has now upheld it.
This means it is very likely that Uber will be required to charge VAT on its supplies as the court found that taxi firms make contracts directly with their customers because Uber drivers should be treated as workers not contractors. This means that Uber make to supply of taxi services to the fare and not the individual drivers.
The High Court agreed with the Supreme Court and stated that: “… in order to operate lawfully under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 a licensed operator who accepts a booking from a passenger is required to enter as principal into a contractual obligation with the passenger to provide the journey which is the subject of the booking.”
A spokesperson for Uber said: “Every private hire operator in London will be impacted by this decision, and should comply with the verdict in full.”
Although not a VAT case itself, this decision is the latest in a long list of VAT agent/principal cases, the most important being:
It is crucial that businesses review their position if there is any doubt at all whether agent status applies to their business model.
Latest from the courts
In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Greenspace Limited the issue was whether insulated roof panels were “energy-saving materials” per VAT Act 1994, sect 29A, Schedule 7A, group 2, items 1 and 2 and thus liable at the reduced rate of 5%. Or rather at the standard rate of 20% on the basis that they were a supply of a roof itself.
Background
The appellant supplied and installed roof panels for conservatories which comprised a layer of close-cell extruded polystyrene foam (Styrofoam) around 71mm thick. The Styrofoam was covered with a thin aluminium layer and a protective powder coating which are together around 2mm thick. The supplies were made to residential customers and the panels were fitted onto their pre-existing conservatory roofs. The Panels were slotted into place on the existing roof structure and Greenspace did not replace its customers’ existing roof framework when doing this; the struts and glazing bars that supported the previous glass or polycarbonate panels were left in place. Consequently, the Panels were not self-supporting and could only be used if the customer already had an existing conservatory roof structure.
The decision
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided in 2020 that the panels were not “insulation for a roof” but were a new roof in their own right, and that the appellant’s supplies did not therefore qualify for the reduced rate of VAT (unlike insulation that could be separately attached to a roof, the panels actually formed the roof).
The UT dismissed the new appeal and found that the FTT had not been obliged to compare the roof after Greenspace had installed its panels to the original roof. The frame that was retained could not itself be described as a roof, and the provision of the Thermotec panels which made the conservatory weatherproof as well as insulating it could properly be categorised as the provision of a new roof.
One of Greenspace’s grounds of appeal was that the FTT decision was vitiated by the assumption that because the panels took the form of roof coverings, they were necessarily incapable of constituting “insulation for … roofs”. The appellant argued that as this was a flawed assumption (that Greenspace’s supplies “must” be treated as something more than insulation) the decision should be set aside. This contention was rejected by the UT judge.
Commentary
A fine distinction is often required to be made to establish the correct VAT treatment of a supply. In this case a degree of semantics was required to determine whether the panels were energy-saving materials (even when they certainly saved energy). On such small things turned the assessment of £2.6 million here. It always pays to double check VAT treatments rather than making assumptions.
Latest from the courts
Technical: I have considered the importance of the Place of Belonging (POB) here.
The issue
In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Mandarin Consulting Ltd the issue was the POB of the appellant’s clients, and the evidence to support that POB.
Background
Mandarin supplied career coaching and support services to students of Chinese origin. Those services would be outside the scope of VAT if supplied to persons whose usual residence was outside the EU. So, in order to treat its supplies as UK VAT free the appellant need to demonstrate where the recipients of its services lived.
First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision
The FTT decided that the services were outside the scope of VAT if the recipient had a permanent address, or usually resided, at that time, outside the EU. It was agreed that from July 2016 the supplies were made to the students’ parents who almost exclusively lived in China. The dispute was with pre-2016 services which were deemed to be made to the students. HMRC argued that, as the students lived in the UK for the duration of the courses, their “usual residence” was the UK, so VAT applied. Although the FTT dismissed this argument, the appeal failed because the proffered evidence did not establish that the usual place of residence of the students as required by Council Implementing Regulation 282/2011/82, Article 23 (reproduced below).
The UT decision
The UT considered the following issues:
Issue 1 – In deciding whether the requirements of Article 23 had been satisfied should the FTT have had regard to “informal evidence” as well as the documentary evidence provided? What evidence could the appellant rely upon to establish that students had a “permanent address” or “usual residence” outside the Community? Is Mandarin limited to such documentary evidence as it had in its possession prior to the time of supply, or can Mandarin in principle rely on all evidence available to it, whether obtained before or after the time of supply, including witness evidence given in connection with the FTT proceedings?
Issue 2 – Taking into account the answers to the above, had the evidence that Mandarin put forward established a prima facie case that its supplies were to persons with a “permanent address” or “usual residence” outside the Community? If so, was there an evidential burden on HMRC to rebut that prima facie case which HMRC had failed to discharge?
Issue 3 – To the extent that Mandarin had failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 23 of the Implementing Regulation, was that fatal to its claim to treat supplies made to students prior to July 2016 as outside the scope of VAT?
Unfortunately, the appellant obtained “relatively patchy” information in respect of the usual residence of individual students.
The UT found that a business retained the right to argue the place of supply (POS) was outside the EU even if the requirements of Article 23 were not met. Also, that while the POS had to be determined by the relevant circumstances existing at the time of supply, Mandarin was not precluded from relying on information discovered later. Finally, it was decided that Article 23 was not the only means available to demonstrate the appellant’s clients had a usual residence outside the EU.
However, the FTT had failed to consider the informal evidence provided concerning the business and customer base. The UT did consider this but still found that the evidence still did not succeed in demonstrating the POB of clients sufficiently. Consequently, the UT was not satisfied that the POB of the students was outside the EU so the supplies were subject to UK VAT and the appeal was dismissed.
Commentary
Another case demonstrating the importance of obtaining and retaining information on the location of customers. Superficially, it appears that the appellant’s supplies may have been UK VAT free, but a failure to evidence this was its downfall. It would not have taken very much to be covered by Article 23, but…
Legislation
Article 23
“… 23. Where, in accordance with Articles 58 and 59 of the PVD, a supply of services is taxable at the place where the customer is established, or, in the absence of an establishment, where he has his permanent address or usually resides, the supplier shall establish that place based on factual information provided by the customer, and verify that information by normal commercial security measures such as those relating to identity or payment checks.”
Frozen foods are zero-rated, but ice cream, frozen yoghurt, ice lollies and sorbets are subject to standard rate VAT (although they are frozen).
From 1 January 2022 the rules for selling to, and buying from, the EU will change.
HMRC have issued information about these changes.
Broadly, from 1 January 2022, businesses will no longer be able to delay making import customs declarations under the Staged Customs Controls rules that have applied during 2021. Most businesses will have to make declarations and pay relevant tariffs at the point of import. However, see details of Postponed Accounting.
Please also see a publication issued by the Cabinet Office which includes a Policy Paper on The Border Operating Model.
Latest from the courts
In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Mr Mufwankolo the dispute was whether the appellant was able to recover VAT charged by the landlord of the property from which he ran his business – a licenced retail outlet on Tottenham High Road.
Background
The landlord had opted to tax the commercial property and charged VAT on the rent. The appellant was a sole proprietor; however, the lease was in the name of Mr Mufwankolo’s wife, and the rent demands showed her name and not that of the sole proprietor. It was contended by the appellant, but not evidenced, that the lease had originally been in both his and his wife’s names, despite his wife being the sole signatory.
The issues
Could the appellant recover input tax?
It was clear that the business operated from the relevant property and consequently, in normal circumstances, the rent would be a genuine cost component of the business.
The Decision
The FTT found that there was no entitlement to an input tax claim and the appeal was dismissed. The lease was solely in the wife’s name and the business was the applicant as a sole proprietor. (There was an obvious potential for a partnership and an argument that a partnership was originally intended was advanced. The status of registration was challenged in 2003, but, crucially, not pursued).
It was possible for the property to be sub-let by the wife to the husband, however, this did not affect the VAT treatment as matters stood. Additionally, there was no evidence that the appellant actually paid any of the rent, as this was done by the tenant. There were no VAT invoices addressed to the sole proprietor.
Given the facts, there was no supply to the appellant, so there was no input tax to claim, and the issue of acceptable evidence fell away.
It was a certainty that the appeal could not succeed.
Commentary
There were a number of ways that this VAT cost could have easily been avoided had a little thought been given to the VAT arrangements. An oversight that created an avoidable tax hit.
A helpful guide to input tax considerations here: Care with input tax claims.
Legislation
The VAT Act 1994 Section 3 – Taxable person
The VAT Act 1994 Section 4 – Taxable supply
The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (1) – Input tax
The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (6) – Input tax claim evidence
Further to my article on apportionment valuation and case review here and Transfer Pricing valuation I thought it useful to consider HMRC’s internal guidance on its approach to valuation.
Sometimes a single monetary consideration may represent payment for two or more supplies at different VAT rates. In such cases, a business is required to allocate a “fair proportion” of the total payment to each of the supplies. This requirement is set out at in The VAT Act 1994, Section 19(4).
“Where a supply of any goods or services is not the only matter to which a consideration in money relates, the supply shall be deemed to be for such part of the consideration as is properly attributable to it.”
Although this section requires an apportionment of the consideration to be performed, it does not prescribe the methods by which this is to be achieved. The most common methods are based upon the costs incurred in making the supplies or the usual selling prices of the supplies.
Examples of methods that have been found to be of general application are contained in VAT Notice 700 para 8. A business is not obliged to adopt any of these suggested methods, and HMRC may accept alternative proposals provided that they achieve a fair and reasonable result that can be supported by valid calculation.
Some sectors have special methods called margin schemes to determine apportionment of the monetary consideration. Details of these found in their notices and guidance. The schemes include:
Basics
Before it is possible to perform an apportionment calculation, there are four basic questions that need to be addressed to determine whether an apportionment is appropriate and if so, what supplies it relates to.
The issue of whether there is a single or multiple supply has created problems from the outset of the tax. The volume of case law illustrates that each decision is based on the facts of each case and there cannot be a one-size fits all approach to this issue. The most important and recent cases are here:
Metropolitan International Schools
General Healthcare Group Limited
HMRC will stop issuing payable orders to overseas non-established taxpayers (NETP – taxpayers who are registered for UK VAT but do not have a business address here). The system automatically issued a payable order if a NETP was due a repayment.
Background
HMRC has received notifications and complaints from taxpayers advising that they can no longer cash their payable orders in their country or their bank. The impact of Brexit and COVID19 has seen an increase in banks/countries no longer accepting payable orders. Consequently, HMRC were sending repayments to NETPs with the knowledge they may not be able to cash them.
New Gform
To address this issue HMRC has created a Gform that will enable NETPs to send their bank account information in order that the issue of a payable order can be avoided and a Clearing House Automated Payment System (CHAPS) payment made instead.
Access
HMRC systems do not currently have CHAPS functionality or the ability to store overseas bank information. However, once a NETP has completed the form, which is accessed via the Government Gateway HMRC will set a lock on the taxpayer’s record to prevent the payable order being automatically issued. NETPs will then receive their repayments directly into their bank account without the need to visit their bank to cash a payable order.
Information required
Information requested on the Gform will include:
NB: Not all countries listed are part of the European Union (EU).
| Country | VAT rates |
| Albania | 20% |
| Andorra | 4.5% |
| Austria | 20% Reduced rates 19%, 10%, 13% |
| Belarus | 20% |
| Belgium | 21% Reduced rates of 12%, 6% |
| Bosnia & Herzegovina | 17% |
| Bulgaria | 25% Reduced rates 13%, 5% |
| Croatia | 25% Reduced rates 13%, 5% |
| Cyprus | 19% Reduced rates 9%, 5% |
| Czech Republic | 21% Reduced rates 15%, 10% |
| Denmark | 25% Reduced rate 0% |
| Estonia | 20% Reduced rate 9% |
| Finland | 24% Reduced rates 14%, 10% |
| France | 20% Reduced rates 10%, 5.5% |
| Germany | 19% Reduced rate 7% |
| Georgia | 18% |
| Greece | 24% Reduced rates 13%, 6% |
| Hungary | 27% Reduced rates 18%, 5% |
| Iceland | 24% Reduced rate 12% |
| Ireland | 23% Reduced rates 13.5%, 9% |
| Italy | 22% Reduced rates 10%, 5% |
| Latvia | 21% Reduced rates 12%, 5% |
| Liechtenstein | 7.7% Reduced rate 2.5% |
| Lithuania | 21% Reduced rates 9%, 5% |
| Luxembourg | 17% Reduced rates 14%, 8% |
| North Macedonia | 18% |
| Malta | 18% Reduced rates 7%, 5% |
| Monaco | 20% Reduced rates 10%, 5.5%, 2.1% |
| Montenegro | 21% |
| Netherlands | 21% Reduced rates 9% |
| Norway | 25% Reduced rates 12%, 6% |
| Poland | 23% Reduced rates of 8%, 5% |
| Portugal | 23% Reduced rates 13%, 6% |
| Romania | 19% Reduced rates of 9%, 5% |
| Russia | 20% |
| Serbia | 20% Reduced rate 10% |
| Slovakia | 20% Reduced rate 10% |
| Slovenia | 22% Reduced rates 9.5%, 5% |
| Spain | 21% Reduced rates 10% |
| Sweden | 25% Reduced rates 12%, 6% |
| Switzerland | 7.7% Reduced rates 3.7%, 2.5% |
| Ukraine | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 20% Reduced rates 12.5%, 5% 0% |