Category Archives: Start Up

VAT: More on the Mercedes Benz Financial Services case – PCP

By   1 March 2019
0

Further to my article on the Mercedes Benz Financial Services (MBFS) case on Personal Contract Purchase (PCP), HMRC has published a Briefing Note – Changes to the VAT treatment of PCPs

HMRC has fully implemented the findings in the MBFS CJEU case. In summary, HMRC state that:

“The correct treatment of PCP and similar contracts depends on the level at which the final optional payment is set:

  • if, at the start of the contract, it is set at or above the anticipated market value of the goods at the time the option is to be exercised, the VAT treatment of the contract will follow the MBFS It is a supply of leasing services from the outset and VAT must be accounted for on the full value of each instalment, there is no advance, or credit, so there is no finance
  • if, at the start of the contract, it is set below the anticipated market value, such that a rational customer would buy the asset when they exercise the option, it is a supply of goods, with a separate supply of finance. VAT is due on the supply of goods in full at the outset of the contract, the finance is exempt from VAT”

This treatment must be used by 1 June 2019. Past declarations which have been in error must be adjusted per PN 700/45. Businesses affected by the changes may also need to consider adjustments to input tax claimed, or forgone in respect of partial exemption. A guide to partial exemption here.

Claiming EU VAT refunds after Brexit

By   25 February 2019
0

HMRC has confirmed that in the event of a No Deal Brexit businesses belonging in the UK will no longer be able to make claims for VAT incurred in other EU Member States using the electronic refund system.

Businesses claiming via the EU VAT refund electronic system need to submit a refund claim for 2018 by 5pm on 29 March 2019. If claims are submitted after that date HMRC will be unable to send the claim to the relevant EU Member State.

If a business incurs VAT in an EU Member State in 2019 it should not use the EU VAT refund system to make a claim as it is likely to be rejected by that Member State.

After 29 March, a business must claim VAT refunds from EU Member States directly by using the existing process for businesses based outside the EU (similar to the previous EC Eighth Directive claims for those with a good memory and in line with current the EC Thirteenth Directive). This includes outstanding claims that relate to 2018 expenses, and claims relating to 2019.

It is important to understand the process for each EU Member State as it can vary. For example:

  • the deadline for making your claim may be different
  • you may need to supply a certificate of Taxable Status to support a claim
  • you may need to appoint a tax representative in the EU Member State of refund

Check the EU’s Europa website for country specific information on VAT.

This is yet another reason (should one be needed) that a No Deal Brexit will create significant burdens on businesses. It will mean that up to 27 separate claims, in the language of the Member State in which the claim is made, rather than a single application. Good luck everybody!

VAT: Place of supply of “erotic services”

By   19 February 2019
0

Latest from the courts

Readers of a nervous disposition may want to look away now.

In the case of Geelen C-568/17 (in French) the advocate General (AG) was asked for an opinion on the supply of what was coyly called webcam sessions.

Background

The defendant in the main proceedings, Mr Geelen, was a VAT registered person in The Netherlands. He provided the services of the organisation and provision of interactive erotic sessions broadcast live over the Internet. The models were located in the Philippines and Mr Geelen provided them with the necessary hardware and software to transmit the sessions over the Internet. Customers contacted the models via a website after creating an account for this purpose. The sessions were broadcast live and were interactive, which meant that customers had the opportunity to communicate with the models and give them instructions. The services provided by the defendant were intended for the Dutch market. I set out the arrangements here, as I am sure that none of my readers will be aware of such things * polite cough *

This is interesting as an example of technology overtaking legislation which was enacted before such services could even be contemplated (well, by the people drafting the VAT legislation anyway).

The issue 

The issue was where was the place of supply of these services. If they were in The Netherlands, then Dutch VAT would apply, but if they were deemed to be outside the EU, no EU VAT would be payable. The tax authorities considered that such services were subject to VAT in The Netherlands and issued a tax assessment notice.

Technical

Generally, the rule is that for B2C services the place of supply (POS) is where the supplier belongs. However, there is an exception for cultural, artistic, and entertainment activities. These are taxed where performed (outside the EU in this case if the exception is applicable).

Opinion

It was the AG’s opinion that, in the first place, there was no doubt that the services in question were entertaining…

However, he opined that the only way to provide cultural activities, entertainment, education, etc. was either to bring service users together at the actual place of service delivery, or to provide a service at the location of the users.

The technological development that has taken place since the relevant legislation was drafted has enabled services in which beneficiaries participate remotely, sometimes even actively, in a cultural, entertainment or other event, without necessarily doing so in real time. In a cultural reference: The “unity of action, time and place”, to refer to the categories of classical theatre, was thus upset.

In the AG’s opinion, these services were not intended to be covered by the exception. Consequently, these were not services “supplied where performed” and the general B2C rules applied, so the POS was The Netherlands and Dutch VAT was applicable.  It was concluded that performance does not take place where the models are based, or where the consumer was located, but where Mr Geelen brought together all elements of the supply.

Summary

The legislation must be interpreted as meaning that the services of organising and providing live interactive webcam sex do not constitute services for entertainment purposes within the meaning of the relevant provisions.

VAT: Preparing for a No Deal Brexit. A checklist

By   13 February 2019
0

A guide for Customs, Excise and VAT for exporters

This is a brief overview of certain issues that an exporter needs to consider if, as seems increasingly likely, there is a No Deal Brexit. There are a number of helpful links to assist. This could be an enormous change. HMRC estimate the number of customs declarations will rise from 55m to 255m annually and the EU requires eight copies of each customs declaration.

UK businesses need to plan for Customs and VAT processes, which will be checked at the EU border. They should check with the EU or Member State the rules and processes which need to apply to their goods.

Distance selling arrangements will no longer apply to UK businesses and UK businesses will be able to zero rate sales of goods to EU consumers. Current EU rules would mean that EU Member States will treat goods entering the EU from the UK in the same way as goods entering from other non-EU countries, with associated import VAT and customs duties due when the goods arrive into the EU.

Checklist

  • Get an EORI number
  • Check if you can use transitional simplified procedures
  • Apply the correct customs procedure code
  • Identify the UK tariff codes for all your products by searching trade tariffs on gov.uk. A tariff code allows you to:
    • complete declarations and other documentation
    • check if there is duty or VAT to pay and any potential duty reliefs
  • If you use a UK roll on roll off location you will need to declare your goods before they board the ferry or train
  • Pay Customs Duty on goods
  • Research the destinations you want to export to. This background information, along with the commodity code of the goods will enable you to establish if goods will incur import duty in the destination country
  • Check if you need a licence to import or export your goods
  • Obtain software or an agent to make declarations
  • Identify what documentary requirements apply for your products when exported to EU countries by searching the EU Commission Market Access Database. (When choosing a market, you cannot currently select the UK so, assuming the UK would have no tariff preferences under a no-deal scenario, select a country such as the US or China, where no preferential arrangements exist, to establish a comparable level of duty your product would face)
  • Check for updates. Check the EU Brexit Preparedness portal, to understand the potential outcomes for your sector
  • Check the origin of all products when exported to, or imported from EU countries. Identify the UK/EU/non-EU content (including all components and raw materials) and whether your goods may qualify as being of UK or EU origin. Access further information on rules of origin
  • Customs delay – If working in time sensitive sectors, consider how your EU customers may be affected by customs delays. These may include; just-in-time practices, timed deliveries and potential penalties and short shelf-life goods
  • Identify EU customers and suppliers who are cost-sensitive and who might be reluctant to pay more for goods with the addition of import duties, customs clearance costs, higher freight costs, or currency fluctuations.
  • Identify exports to countries which have Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with the EU. Are they dependent on duty preferences or other FTA provisions? Consider the implications, particularly where main competition is with other EU businesses
  • Access details of which countries have FTA with the EU
  • Identify purchases from other countries which have FTA or Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) agreements with the EU.
  • Identify sales to EU customers who incorporate those goods into their products, for re-export to countries with FTAs. Check whether supplier declarations are provided
  • Cash flow – Consider protecting against foreign exchange fluctuations within your business
  • Map and audit supply chains. Even if a company is ready for Brexit, it will be disrupted if a supplier is not prepared and cannot meet its contracts
  • Check international contracts and renegotiate if required. Some intra-EU contracts will not include incoterms, the legal provisions for importing and exporting that define who is responsible for shipping goods across borders
  • Develop a contingency plan – There is no guarantee that border procedures will operate smoothly immediately after Brexit, and businesses may need a contingency plan in case systems fail
  • Stay up to date by registering for HMRC’s EU Exit update service www.gov.uk/hmrc/business-support, select ‘business help and education emails’, add your email address, select ‘Submit’, select ‘Add subscription’, choose ‘EU Exit’ then ‘Submit’
  • Customs checks – Establish what level of risk of physical or documentary examination might apply for your goods imported from, or exported to EU countries
  • For goods being exported to the EU which are not “wholly obtained” in the UK, and which have undergone processing in another third country as part of their production, it is important to understand the supply chain of components going into the product.  Goods with components coming from non-UK countries will mean that that product is not able to benefit from any continued zero-tariff trade with the EU unless arrangements are put in place between the EU and UK

I hope that this is helpful. Please contact us if you have any queries.

VAT: Yet more cases on food

By   11 February 2019
0

Latest from the courts

Like London buses, few cases on the VAT liability of food, then a veritable deluge (although I am unsure whether there can be a deluge of buses…).

Following Eat Ltd and my summary, two further food cases have been heard at First Tier Tribunal (FTT). These are on the subjects of juicing and brownies.

Juice

In The Core (Swindon) the issue was whether fruit and vegetable juices sold as meal replacements were beverages and therefore standard rated or whether they were not beverages and therefore zero-rated as food.

Background

The appellant provides “juice cleanse programmes” (JCPs) which consist of fresh drinkable products made from juicing raw fruits and vegetables and are intended to replace normal meals. The relevant test was how the product was objectively “held out for sale” by the supplier.

What needed to be considered was:

  1. How is the product marketed?
  2. Why it is consumed by the customer?
  3. What is the use to which it is put?

Case law

 Similar products were considered in Fluff, Ltd. Roger Skinner and Bioconcepts where the above tests were set out.

Decision

Judging the JCPs by reference to the above tests the Tribunal found that the purchasers of the JCPs purchase them as meal replacements. Customers do not purchase them as beverages (they drink water in addition to consuming the products). They do not therefore purchase them in order to increase their bodily fluid, or to slake their thirst, or to fortify themselves or to give pleasure. The products are deliberately made palatable, in order not to deter consumers from drinking them, and they are not unpleasant to drink, but they are not consumed for pleasure. Customers purchase and consume them as a meal replacement, not as a beverage. As a consequence, they were zero rated food.

Brownies

In Pulsin’ Ltd the issue was whether a raw choc brownies was a cake (zero rated) or a biscuit (standard rated). So, shades of the infamous Jaffa Cake case.

Background

The products in question were individually wrapped bars produced by cold compression of predominantly: dates, cashews, cacao, various syrups, concentrated grape juice and brown rice bran. All ingredients used are intended to be as natural, unprocessed, hypoallergenic and as nutritionally beneficial as possible.

Case law

The cases set out above were also referred to in this case, along with Kinnerton which I considered here although the judge dismissed HMRC’s contention that the decision in that case was helpful in this.

Decision

The judge formed the view that the products do show enough characteristics of cakes to be so categorised. Therefore, all variants of the raw choc brownies were properly classified as cakes and are therefore eligible to be zero rated.

Commentary

What was interesting here was the judge’s comments on the current position regarding food and VAT.

“It is the Tribunal’s view that the current state of the law on the taxation of food items is not fit for purpose and will necessarily present apparently anomalous results as tastes and attitudes to eating change. The Tribunal fundamentally disagrees with HMRC’s guidance that the borderline between cake and confectionary presents few problems. The lines set and perceived by HMRC in the application of this out of date provision (as recognised by them in their anguished consideration of flapjacks and cereal bars) drives anomalous outcomes….”

And so say all of us…

The zero rating of food is complicated as the provision under VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1 provide for a wide general description (qualifying for zero rating) subject to excepted items (which must therefore be standard rated) with exclusions and overriding items to those exceptions (which then requalify to be zero rated).

VAT: Zero rated food – a summary

By   8 February 2019
0

Food – What’s hot and what’s not?

Further to my article on the recent Eat case I have had a number of queries on what “hot” food can be zero rated. So, as a brief overview of the current position a quick look at types of food:

Pasties, sausage rolls, pies or other pastries

  • If they are hot and straight from the oven: Although the pasty is hot, it is not being kept warm, so therefore there is no VAT
  • Left to cool to room temperature: The pasty is not being kept warm, so no VAT is chargeable.
  • Kept hot in a cabinet, on a hot plate or under a heat lamp: The pasty is being kept warm so VAT is due

Sandwiches

  • Cold food is zero-rated for tax purposes so no VAT.
  • Heated for a customer – standard rated per the Eat case.

Bread

  • Freshly baked, cooling or cold – the bread is not kept warm, even though it may be straight from the oven, so would be VAT free.

Rotisserie chicken

  • If hot from the spit; VAT on takeaway food intended to be served hot is VATable.
  • Kept hot in a cabinet, on a hot plate or under a heat lamp – As the food is kept hot and served hot, VAT is applicable.
  • Left to cool to room temperature – If the chicken is cooked then left to cool, such as in bags in a supermarket, it will be VAT free.

Takeaways

  • such as fish and chips: VAT remains on all takeaway food served hot.

Catering

  • All supplies of catering is subject to VAT regardless of what food and drink is being provided. This includes all restaurants and cafés.

This is a general guide and, as case law shows, there will always be products on the “borderline”.

VAT: What’s hot and what’s not?

By   4 February 2019
0

Latest from the courts

In the seemingly never-ending series of cases on hot/cold food comes the latest instalment in the Eat Limited (Eat) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case.

Issue

Via VAT Act 1994 Schedule 8, Group 1, the sale of certain food is zero rated. However, there is an exception for supplies in the course of catering. Anything coming within the definition of catering reverts to the general rule and is taxable at the standard rate.

The definition of catering includes “any supply of hot food for consumption off those premises…” Note 3 (b).

So, the issue here was whether grilled ciabatta rolls and breakfast muffins which were heated by Eat were hot… or not. HMRC decided that the relevant sales were the standard rated sale of hot food and disallowed a retrospective claim by Eat that they should have been correctly zero rated.

The issue here was whether the products had been heated for the purpose of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above ambient air temperature. In considering the purpose of the heating, the Tribunal needed to ascertain the common intention of Eat and the customer.

Background

Eat sells a range of hot and cold food and drink products through its outlets in the UK. The food and drink can either be consumed at the outlet or be taken away for consumption elsewhere.

The breakfast muffins are filled bread rolls. The rolls are supplied to the appellant by a bakery in a condition that enables Eat to finish baking the rolls at their outlets. The specification requires the rolls to be “pale and 90% baked”. The muffin is assembled at a central kitchen from various ingredients, bagged, and then distributed to Eat’s retail outlets. The ciabatta rolls are also supplied to Eat part-baked and a similar process applied. If a customer purchases a breakfast muffin or a ciabatta roll, the product is “finished-off” in the outlet’s grill.

For zero rating to apply, Eat had to prove that its intention and that of its customers, was that the breakfast muffins and grilled ciabatta rolls were not supplied to customers in order to be eaten “hot”.

The products are treated as “hot” if:

  • They have been heated for the purposes of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above the ambient air temperature; and
  • They are above that temperature at the time they are provided to the customer.

It was not disputed that the products were above ambient air temperature at the time they were provided to customers,

Case law

There has been considerable litigation on the meaning of hot food. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Sub One Limited (t/a Subway) (in liquidation) v 30 HMRC [2014] EWCA Civ 773 reviews the meaning of the legislation, and in particular whether the “purpose” test in the legislation should be construed objectively or purposively.

Submissions

Eat contended that the common intention of the parties was that the supply of the products was to be finished as being “fresh” rather than partially complete. Any residual heat in the products was merely incidental to that common intention.

HMRC submitted that it was part of the deal between Eat and its customers that the products should be sold hot (and obviously so).  Further, that no customer seeks to enter into a bargain in a takeaway restaurant containing a term that the food he or she is to purchase is “to be finished as fresh rather than partially complete”. The customer either wants hot food or does not. Either the supplier proposes to supply hot food, or it does not. It was also noted that in Eat’s advertising (at the point of sale and on its website) that the products were described as “hot”

Decision

The judge decided that this was a “hopeless appeal” and that it was the common intention of Eat and its customers that the products were heated for the purpose of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above ambient air temperature. Further, that they were wrapped in foil-backed sheets that keep them warm. This showed an intention on the part of Eat that the products should be consumed whilst they were hot. So, they were hot and standard rated.

Commentary

Only in the world of VAT can something too hot to touch be treated as cold (as certain foods are). However, in this case common sense prevailed and not unsurprisingly, food which was sold hot was treated as hot food! There is a lesson here however. In such cases, the outcome depends on the precise facts of the relevant transactions and that it is unhelpful to make assumptions.

Now, about that proposed pasty tax…

VAT: New reverse charge for the construction industry

By   4 February 2019
0

Further to my article which sets out the basis of these changes, I look further at the measures which will be introduced on 1 October 2019. Time is running out for businesses in the building and construction sector to understand the impact of the new rules and to make arrangements to implement the required changes. These will include:

  • cashflow implications
  • accounting procedures
  • processes
  • tax compliance
  • documentation
  • systems

Background

HMRC will introduce the Reverse Charge (RC) to combat Missing Trader Fraud (MTF). The rules avoid suppliers charging and being paid VAT but failing to declare or pay this over to the government. HMRC has identified the building trade as an area where there has been considerable tax leakage in the past. The UK has introduced similar measures in response to criminal threats for mobile telephones, emissions allowances, gas, electricity and electronic communications. A domestic reverse charge only applies to supplies between UK taxable persons therefore unless the customer is registered or liable to be registered for VAT it will not apply.

The RC will make supplies of standard or reduced rated construction services between construction or building businesses subject to the domestic RC, which means that the recipient of the supply will be liable to account for VAT due, instead of the supplier. Consequently, the customer in the construction industry receiving the supply of construction services will be required to pay the VAT directly to HMRC rather than paying it to the supplier. It will be able to reclaim this VAT subject to the normal VAT rules. The RC will apply throughout the supply chain up to the point where the customer receiving the supply is no longer a business that makes supplies of construction services (a so-called end user, see below).

The supplies to which the RC will apply are set out here

Further information on the RC in general, including invoicing requirements are to be found in VAT Notice 735

Technical

As a general rule, it is the supplier of goods or services who is required to account for VAT on those supplies. However, the VAT Act 1994, section 55A requires the recipient, not the supplier, to account for and pay tax on the supply of any goods and services which are of a description specified in an order made by the Treasury for that purpose.

The final version of the draft legislation has now been published. In addition HMRC have issued guidance notes which include a helpful flowchart.

Mixed supplies

If there is a RC element in a supply, then the whole supply will be subject to the RC. This is to make it simpler for both supplier and customer and to avoid the need to apportion the supply.

End user

End users will usually be recipients who use the building or construction services for themselves, rather than sell the services on as part of their business of providing building or construction services.

VAT Returns

Suppliers

Suppliers applying the RC do not enter a figure for output tax in box 1 of the VAT Return, but should enter the value of such sales in box 6.

Customers

Customers must enter the output tax on purchases to which the RC applies in box 1 of the VAT Return, but must not enter the value of such purchases in box 6. They may reclaim the input tax on the RC purchases in box 4 of the VAT Return and include the value of the purchases in box 7, in the normal way.

Implementation

HMRC state that it understands the difficulties businesses may have in implementing the domestic RC and say it will apply a light touch in dealing with related errors that occur in the first six months after introduction.

 Action

It is prudent to check whether you, or your clients’ businesses will be affected by these changes. If so, plans need to be put in place; whether as a supplier or recipient, to ensure that VAT is not charged incorrectly (supplier) and the RC is applied correctly (recipient). It is likely that output tax incorrectly shown on an invoice will be due to HMRC but will not be recoverable by the recipient and the omission of levying the RC will lead to penalties. It will also be helpful for smaller construction providers affected by the RC to examine the impact on their cashflow.

Please contact us if you have any queries or require further information.

VAT: Changes to the treatment of forfeited deposits

By   1 February 2019
0

HMRC have announced via its Policy Paper Customs Brief 13 (2018) that the VAT treatment of forfeit, or “no-show” deposits will change from 1 March 2019.

The changes affect businesses that receive payments for services and part payments for goods and the customer does not:

  • use the service
  • collect the goods

Typically, this could be a hotel which reserves a room for a deposit which is retained if the customer is a no-show.

Current treatment

Prior to 1 March 2019, charges for unfulfilled supplies and the retention of customer deposits are treated as outside the scope of VAT (and consequently VAT free). This is on the basis that either no supply had been made or, in the alternative, the retention of the deposit represents compensation for a loss, or the costs necessarily incurred.

Practically, this means that output tax is payable on the initial deposit, but this is adjusted if subsequently there is a no-show or goods are not collected.

New treatment

From 1 March 2019, HMRC’s new policy will be that output tax is due on all retained payments for unused services and uncollected goods. Where businesses become aware that a customer has decided not to take up goods or services after paying, the transaction will remain subject to VAT. No adjustments or refunds of VAT will be allowed for those retained payments.

This means that when a non-repayable deposit is taken, VAT will always be due on the payment, regardless of subsequent events. However, if a deposit is returned, there will be no VAT due on it.

The rationale for the new treatment, according to HMRC is that; “because when a customer makes or commits to make a payment, it is for a supply. It cannot be reclassified as a payment to compensate the supplier for a loss once it is known the customer will not use the goods or services”

Who is affected?

Clearly, any business that takes non-refundable deposits will be hit by the new rules. These will be mainly; hotel and accommodation providers, hirers of goods, transport suppliers, the entertainment sector and bespoke goods. (And apparently, in Bulgaria; the production and marketing of bread and pastries according to the Firin OOD case).

Technical

HMRC base their decision on this matter on CJEU decisions in Air France-KLM and Firin OOD) and claim that is treatment is unavoidable.

Please find more details of deposits and advance payments in general here

Please contact me should you have any queries.

 

VAT: Latest on holding companies and input tax recovery

By   21 January 2019
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of W Resources plc (WRP) the enduring matter of input tax recovery by a holding company was considered. This follows similar considerations in the cases of Norseman and BAA and HMRC’s updated guidance on the matter. This case considered whether a holding company could recover input tax incurred on certain costs.  This is turn depended on whether the holding company intended to make taxable supplies. Specifically; the intention to recharge professional expenses incurred to two non VAT-grouped subsidiary companies contingent on those companies receiving income at a future time.

Background

WRP acquired two subsidiary companies. The subsidiary company’s business the exploration and exploitation of tungsten in the EU. WRP contended that it incurred the relevant input tax

  • to enable the subsidiaries to raise funds to carry out their exploration activities
  • to exercise financial control over the subsidiaries
  • to obtain geological expertise, project management and supervision and day to day management and supervision for the subsidiaries so that they could carry on their exploration and exploitation activities

HMRC denied the claim of input tax on the basis that the WRP was not carrying on an economic activity or making supplies for a consideration (such that it should not be VAT registered).

It was common ground that, if it was decided that all of the supplies which were made by the WRP to the subsidiary companies (following their acquisition by the appellant) were supplies made for a consideration and in the course of carrying on an “economic activity”, then the input tax which was incurred during the preparatory phase should be recoverable.

So, the issue was – were the intended recharges so uncertain such that there could be no direct link to an economic activity?

Decision 

The appeal was dismissed.

Although the judge distinguished Norseman (above) where there was only a vague intention to make charges to subsidiary companies and here the position was different because there was a fixed intention that WRP would be able to invoice in due course for its supplies of services at an amount quantified by reference to the value of the services received but only if the relevant subsidiary began to generate revenues, the fact that it was uncertain whether the subsidiaries would generate income was to sufficient to break the link between supply and consideration. The fact that the intended charges were contingent was fatal to the appeal.

Commentary

The judge appears to have come to the decision reluctantly and entertained the thought that “the contrary is certainly arguable”. This case demonstrates, yet again, the difficulties in determining future intentions of a business. Such intentions dictate whether a business may VAT register and/or recover input tax. It is often difficult to evidence intentions and HMRC seem intent to challenge input tax recovery in such circumstances and will be buoyed by this result.

This case again emphasises the importance of holding companies having appropriate processes and ensuring that proper documentation is in place to evidence, not only the intention to make taxable supplies of management charges, but that those charges were actually made to subsidiaries.

Often significant costs can be incurred by a holding company in cases such as acquisitions and restructuring.  It is important that these costs are incurred by, and invoiced to, the appropriate entity in order for the VAT on them to be recovered.  Consideration should be given to how the input tax is recovered before it is incurred, and the appropriate structure put in place if possible.

Further information and advice on inter-company charges may be found here