Category Archives: Technical

VAT: New HMRC Tax Agents Handbook

By Marcus Ward 11 November 2024

On 1 November 2024 HMRC published a new handbook for agents acting on behalf of their clients in tax matters.

The handbook contains information to help tax agents and advisers; find guidance, use HMRC’s services and contact HMRC.

HMRC is trialling this manual as an alternative to the collection of linked guidance on the tax agents and advisers: detailed information page. It covers:

About agents and HMRC – An overview
Appeals and penalties – How appeals, tribunals and penalties work.
Compliance checks – Information about processes, factsheets and guidelines for compliance.
Contacting HMRC – How to check service levels, forums, contact HMRC and raise complaints or issues.
Guidance help – Tips for navigating guidance and using search, email alerts, feedback and archives.
News and support – How you can keep up-to-date with latest news and information from HMRC.
Services and registering – Links to services, how to register and what to do if your agent business changes

Tax agents have the right to represent their clients in appeals and penalty proceedings, ensuring that their clients’ interests are effectively advocated.

VAT: Zero-rated exports. The Procurement International case

By Marcus Ward 7 November 2024

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Procurement International Ltd (PIL) the issue was whether the movement of goods constituted a zero-rated export.

Background

Both parties essentially agreed the facts: The Appellant’s business is that of a reward recognition programme fulfiller. The Appellant had a catalogue of available products, and it maintained a stock of the most ordered items in its warehouse. PIL supplied these goods to customers who run reward recognition programmes on behalf of their customers who, in turn, want to reward to their customers and/or employees (reward recipients – RR). The reward programme operators (RPOs) provide a platform through which those entitled to receive rewards can such rewards. The RPO will then place orders PIL for the goods.

A shipper collected the goods from PIL in the UK and shipped them directly to the RR (wherever located). The shipper provided the services of delivery including relevant customs clearances etc. on behalf of the Appellant. PIL had zero-rated the supply of goods sent to RRs located overseas. All goods delivered to RRs outside the UK are delivered duty paid (DDP) or delivered at place (DAP). As may be seen by Incoterms the Appellant remained at risk in respect of the goods and liable for all carriage costs and is responsible for performing or contracting for the performance of all customs (export and import) obligations. The Appellant was responsible for all fees, duties, tariffs, and taxes. Accordingly, the Appellant is responsible for, and at risk until, the goods are delivered “by placing them at the disposal of the buyer at the agreed point, if any, or at the named place of destination or by procuring that the goods are so delivered”.

Contentions

HMRC argued that in situations where the RPO was UK VAT registered, the appellant was making a supply of goods to the RPO at a time when the goods were physically located in the UK, and consequently there was a standard-rated supply. It issued an assessment to recover the output tax considered to be underdeclared.

PIL contended that there was a supply of delivered goods which were zero-rated when the goods were removed to a location outside the UK. It was responsible (via contracts which were accepted to reflect the reality of the transactions) for arranging the transport of the goods.

Decision

The FTT held that there was a single composite supplies of delivered goods, and these were a zero-rated supply of exported goods by PIL. The supplies were not made on terms that the RPOs collected or arranged for collection of the goods to remove them from the UK. The Tribunal found that the RPOs took title to the goods at the time they were delivered to the RR, and not before such that it was PIL and not the RPOs who was the exporter. This meant that the RPOs would be regarded as making their supplies outside the UK and would be responsible for overseas VAT as the Place Of Supply (POS) would be in the country in which it took title to the goods (but that was not an issue in this case).

The appeal was allowed, and the assessment was withdrawn.

Legislation

Domestic legislation relevant here is The VAT Act 1994:

Section 6(2) which fixes the time of supply of goods involving removal as the time they are removed
Section 7 VATA sets out the basis on which the place of supply is determined. Section 7(2) states that: “if the supply of any goods does not involve their removal from or to the United Kingdom they shall be treated as supplied in the United Kingdom if they are in the United Kingdom and otherwise shall be treated as supplied outside the United Kingdom”.
Section 30(6) VATA provides that a supply of goods is zero-rated where such supply is made in the UK and HMRC are satisfied that the person supplying the goods has exported them
For completeness, VAT Regulations 1995, regulation 129 provides the framework for the zero-rating goods removed from the UK by and on behalf of the purchaser of the goods.

Some paragraphs of VAT Notice 703 have the force of law which applies here, namely the sections on:

direct and indirect exports
conditions which must be met in full for goods to be zero-rated as exports
definition of an exporter
the appointment of a freight forwarder or other party to manage the export transactions and declarations on behalf of the supplier of exporter.
the conditions and time limits for zero rating
a situation in which there are multiple transactions leading to one movement of goods

Commentary

The Incoterms set out in the relevant contracts were vital in demonstrating the responsibilities of the parties and consequently, who actually exported the goods. It is crucial when analysing the VAT treatment of transactions to recognise each party’s responsibilities, and importantly, when (and therefore where) the change in possession of the goods takes place.

VAT Schemes Guide – Alternative ways of accounting for tax

By Marcus Ward 5 November 2024

VAT Basics

There are a number of VAT Schemes which are designed to simplify accounting for the tax. They may save a business money, reduce complexity, avoid the need for certain documentation and reduce the time needed to deal with VAT. Some schemes may be used in combination with others, although I recommend that checks are made first.

It is important to compare the use of each scheme to standard VAT accounting to establish whether a business will benefit. Some schemes are compulsory and there are particular pitfalls for businesses using certain schemes.

I thought that it would be useful to consider the schemes all in one place and look at their features and pros and cons.

These schemes reviewed here are:

Cash Accounting Scheme
Annual Accounting Scheme
Flat Rate Scheme
Margin schemes for second-hand goods
Global Accounting
VAT schemes for retailers

Cash Accounting Scheme

Normally, VAT returns are based on the tax point (usually the VAT invoice date) for sales and purchases. This may mean a business having to pay HMRC the VAT on sales which customers have not yet paid for.

The VAT cash accounting scheme (CAS) instead bases reporting on payment dates, both for purchases and sales. A business will need to ensure its records include payment dates.

A business is only eligible for CAS if its estimated taxable turnover is no more than £1.35m, and can then remain in the scheme as long as it remains below £1.6m.

Advantages

usually beneficial for cash flow especially if its customers are slow to pay
output tax is not payable at all if a business has a bad debt (other bad debt relief here)

Disadvantages

it is generally not beneficial for a repayment business (one which reclaims more VAT than it pays, eg; an exporter or supplier of zero rated goods or services)
it is not usually beneficial if a business purchases significant amounts of goods or services on credit

Annual Accounting Scheme

The Annual Accounting Scheme allows a business to pay VAT on account, in either nine monthly or three quarterly payments. These instalments are based on VAT paid in the previous year. It is then required to complete a single, annual VAT return which is used to calculate any balance owed by the business or due from HMRC.

A business is eligible for the scheme if its estimated taxable turnover is no more than £1.35m and is permitted to remain in the scheme as long as it remains below £1.6m.

Advantages

reduces paperwork as only the need to complete one return instead of four (although it does not remove the requirement to keep all the normal VAT records and accounts)
improves management of cash flow

Disadvantages

not suitable for repayment businesses as they would only receive one repayment at the end of the year
if turnover decreases, the interim payments may be higher than under standard accounting

Flat Rate Scheme

The Flat Rate Scheme (FRS) is designed to assist smaller businesses reduce the amount of time and complexity required for VAT accounting. The FRS removes the need to calculate the VAT on every transaction. Instead, a business pays a flat rate percentage of its VAT inclusive turnover. The percentage paid is less than the standard VAT rate because it recognises the fact that no input tax can be claimed on purchases. The flat rate percentage used is dependent on a business’ trade sector.

A business is eligible for this scheme if its estimated taxable turnover in the next year will not exceed £150,000. Once using the scheme, a business is permitted to continue using it until its income exceeds £230,000.

If eligible, a business may combine the FRS with the Annual Accounting Scheme, additionally, there is an option to effectively use a cash basis so there is no need to use CAS. Unfortunately, changes to the scheme rules regarding ” limited cost traders” mean that the scheme has become less attractive.

Advantages

depending on trade sector and circumstances, may result in a real VAT saving
simplified record keeping; no requirement to separate gross, VAT and net in accounts
fewer rules; no issues with input tax a business can and cannot recover on purchases
certainty of knowing how much of income is payable to HMRC

Disadvantages

no reclaim of input tax incurred on purchases
limited cost traders impact
if a business buys a significant amount from VAT registered businesses, it is likely to result in more VAT due
likely to be unattractive for businesses making zero-rated or exempt sales because output tax would also apply to this hitherto VAT free income
low turnover limit

Margin Scheme for Second Hand Goods

A business normally accounts for output tax on the full value of its taxable supplies and reclaims input tax on its purchases. However, if a business deals in second-hand goods, works of art, antiques or collectibles it may use a Margin Scheme. This scheme enables a business to account for VAT only on the difference between the purchase and selling price of an item; the margin. It is not possible to reclaim input tax on the purchase of an item and there will be no output tax if no profit is achieved (however, if an item is sold for less than the purchase price, a business cannot offset losses against the profits of other items to reduce the overall VAT liability).

There is a special margin schemes for auctioneers and a variation of the Margin Scheme (Global Accounting) is considered below.

Advantages

usually beneficial if buying from (non-VAT registered) members of the public
purchaser will not see a VAT charge
although no input tax claimable on purchases of scheme items, VAT may be claimed in the usual way on overheads and other fees etc

Disadvantages

record keeping requirements are demanding and closely checked, eg; stock records and invoices which are required for both purchases and sales
cannot be used for items purchased on a VAT invoice
can be complex and create a cost if goods exported
although no VAT due on sales if a loss is made, there is no set-off of the loss

Global Accounting

The problem with the Second Hand Goods Scheme is that full details of each individual item purchased and sold has to be recorded. Global Accounting is an optional, simplified variation of the Second Hand Margin Scheme. It differs from the standard Margin Scheme in that rather than accounting for the margin achieved on the sale of each individual item, output tax is calculated on the margin achieved between the total purchases and total sales in a particular accounting period.

Advantages

simplified version of the Margin Scheme
record keeping requirements reduced
losses made on sales reduce VAT payable
beneficial for businesses which buy and sell bulk volume, low value eligible goods

Disadvantages

cannot be used for; aircraft, boats, caravans, horses or motor vehicles
similar to Margin Scheme disadvantages apart from loss set off

VAT Schemes for Retailers

It is usually difficult for retailers to issue an invoice for each sale made, so various retail schemes have been designed to simplify VAT. The appropriate scheme for a business depends on whether its retail turnover (excluding VAT) is; below £1m, between £1m and £130m and higher.

Smaller businesses may be able to use a retail scheme with CAS and Annual Accounting but it cannot combine a Retail Scheme with the FRS. However, retailers may choose to use the FRS instead of a Retail Scheme.

Using standard VAT accounting, a VAT registered business must record the VAT on each sale. However, via a Retail Scheme, it calculates the value of its total VAT taxable sales for a period, eg; a day, and the proportions of that total that are taxable at different rates of VAT; standard, reduced and zero.

According to the scheme a business uses it then applies the appropriate VAT fraction to that sales figure to calculate the output tax due. A business may only use the Retail Scheme for retail sales and must use the standard accounting procedures for other supplies. A business must still issue a VAT invoice to any customer who requests one. It is a requirement of any scheme choice that HMRC must consider it fair and reasonable.

A business can join a retail scheme at the beginning of any VAT period and HMRC does not need to be notified.

Examples of Retail Schemes

Apportionment
Direct calculation
The point of sale scheme

The required calculations vary for each scheme.

NB: There are special arrangements for caterers, retail pharmacists and florists.

Advantages

no requirement to issue an invoice for each sale
most schemes are relatively simple to administer once set up. Technology assists in a helpful way with EPOS systems
simplifies record keeping

Disadvantages

it is usual for each line sold to need to be coded correctly for VAT liability
smaller businesses without state of the art technology may be at a disadvantage
time and resources required to set up and maintain systems
in some cases the calculation depends on staff “pressing the right button”
often complex calculations and record keeping
very precise and complicated rules
lack of understanding by a number of inspectors
complexity increases the risk of misdeclaration

Overall

As may be seen, there are a lot of choices for a business to consider, especially a start-up. Choosing a scheme which is inappropriate may result in VAT overpayment and a lot of unneeded record keeping and administration. There are real savings to be made by using a beneficial scheme, both in terms of VAT payable and staff time. There are also some schemes which are compulsory, like the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS).

We are happy to review a business’ circumstances and calculate what schemes would produce the best outcome.

Please contact us if you require further information.

VAT Groups – updated guidance on penalties

By Marcus Ward 5 November 2024

VAT penalties for late submissions

HMRC has updated its Internal Guidance VGROUPS01530 on penalties for late submissions,

Penalties for late submissions are calculated on the basis of points.

For VAT groups the representative member has a single liability for these points covering the whole group. If the representative member changes, the existing liability is transferred to the new representative member. A new member joining the group will not affect the points total of the group, even if the member joining had points before. If a business leaves the group and registers for VAT separately they will start with zero points, even if the group that they left had a penalty point balance.

For divisions, each one is liable for its own separate points and penalties. Each division will have its own maximum points total.

VAT: Deductions from, and sacrifice of; salary

By Marcus Ward 4 November 2024

This has been a difficult area historically, but as a result of the CJEU Astra Zeneca case, there is more certainty, although it was not beneficial for businesses. We look at the distinction between deductions from salary and salary sacrifice below, along with the VAT treatment of specific examples.

Current position

Generally, if deductions are made from salary for goods or services provided by an employer to their employees, these are liable to VAT. The remuneration an employee forgoes is consideration for the taxable benefits provided and output VAT will be due from, and input VAT recoverable, by the employer. Please see below for some specific circumstances.

Historical position

Deduction from salary – where an amount is deducted from an employee’s pay in return for a supply of goods or services by the employer. Output tax is due on the amount deducted from the employee’s salary and is input tax recoverable.
Salary sacrifice – for VAT purposes “salary sacrifice” describes an arrangement where an employee opts to receive optional benefits provided by the employer and forgoes part of their salary in return. Employees who choose to take a benefit have their employment contracts amended to reflect the new arrangements. No output tax was due as it was not deemed to be a taxable supply.

We have come across businesses who erroneously still apply the past rules – which changed on 1 January 2012.

Valuation

In most cases the value of the benefit for VAT purposes will be the same as the salary deducted or foregone. Where the true value is not reflected, for example where benefits are supplied below what it cost to acquire them, the value should be based on the cost to the employer.

Specific staff benefits

Cycle to work scheme

Under this scheme employers purchase bicycles and safety equipment and provide them to employees. Where this is under a salary sacrifice arrangement employers must account for output tax based on the value of the salary foregone by the employee in exchange for the hire or loan of a bicycle.

Childcare and childcare vouchers

Businesses that put arrangements in place whereby their employees forego part of their salary and allocate that salary to pay for childcare provided by a third party are not making a supply of childcare. Any related costs incurred by the business, such as payroll and administration, are general overheads of the business.

Face Value Vouchers

Where vouchers, such as those available from high street retailers, are provided under a salary sacrifice arrangement, input tax may be claimed and output tax is due on the consideration paid by the employee.

Food and catering provided by employers

Employers may provide their staff with free or subsidised meals, snacks, or drinks. Where employees pay for the meal the normal VAT treatment will apply. If employees make no payment, VAT is not due, provided the benefit is available to all staff. Where employees pay for meals under a salary sacrifice arrangement, employers must account for VAT on the value of the supplies unless they are zero-rated. An employer may claim the input tax incurred on related purchases, subject to the normal rules.

Cars

Most businesses are prevented from recovering VAT in full on the purchase and leasing of company cars. The input tax block on cars, generally: 100% on purchases, and 50% on leasing, means that employers do not account for output tax when cars are made available to employees. Where an employer suffers no input tax restriction, output tax is due.

A VAT did you know?

By Marcus Ward 25 October 2024

If you buy a flapjack* from a vending machine in the corridor at work it is VAT free. However, if you buy the same product from a machine in the staff canteen it will be standard rated.

* Of course, zero rating only applies to a “traditional” flapjack and not cereal or energy/sports nutrition bars…

HMRC internal manual: VAT Assessments and Error Correction update

By Marcus Ward 21 October 2024

HMRC’s manual VAT Assessments and Error Correction was updated on 15 October 2024.

This internal guidance is for HMRC inspectors (but is equally useful for advisers) covers assessments and error correction. The amendments apply mainly to General assessment procedures: Importance of avoiding delay.

The manual covers:

It also refers to for the most up-to-date guidance on reasonable excuse CH160000.as a defence against penalties and interest.

VAT: Split payments and e-invoicing

By Marcus Ward 15 October 2024

The recent announcement of an e-invoicing consultation means that businesses should consider the impacts of the intended introduction now.

When this is published (potentially in the Budget on 30 October) it is be anticipated it will cover the intended effective date, how it will affect types of taxpayer, eg; B2B and B2C, how it will be implemented, and its range.

This raises further questions “down the line”, so here we look a step further and consider “split payments” as there has been a lot of conversation and media coverage on this subject.

What are split payments (sometimes known as “real-time extraction”)?

Split payments use card payment technology to collect VAT on online sales and transfer it directly to HMRC rather than the seller collecting it from the buyer along with the payment for the supply, and then declaring it to HMRC on a return in the usual way.

Clearly, HMRC is very keen to introduce such a system, but there are significant hurdles, the biggest being the complexity for online sellers, payment processors, input tax systems, agents, advisers and HMRC itself.

Where are we on split payments?

HMRC has previously published a Prior Information Notice (PIN) and associated Request for Information (RFI), seeking views on the outline requirements and proposed procurement process split payments. This should, inter alia, assist HMRC in:

identifying where it is intended that the purchased goods or services are to be delivered and/or consumed
the possibility to apply a split only above or below a certain value threshold
the feasibility for the splitting mechanism to calculate a composite VAT total across a mixed basket of goods and/ or services, each potentially with a different rate of VAT.

This builds on previous information gathering/consultations/discussions carried out some years ago.

Background

The expansion of the online shopping market has brought unprecedented levels of transactions. The results of digitalisation have also brought challenges for tax systems. Jurisdictions all over the world are currently grappling with the question of how to prevent large VAT losses, which can arise from cross-border online sales. This happens when consumers buy goods from outside their jurisdiction from sellers who, through fraud or ignorance, do not comply with their tax obligations. It is costing the UK tax authorities an estimated £1 billion to £1.5 billion (figures for 2015-16) a year. The UK government believes that intercepting VAT through intermediaries in the payment cycle, split payment potentially offers a powerful means of enforcing VAT compliance on sellers who are outside the UK’s jurisdiction.

Fraud

The fraud carried out by online sellers is not particularly sophisticated but is difficult to combat. Simply, sellers either use a fake VAT number to collect VAT without declaring it, or even more basically, collect the VAT and disappear.

Proposed spilt payment methods

The way in which payments are split represent difficult technical VAT issues, particularly when sales are at different VAT rates. The three proposals are:

Standard rate split. This assumes that all sales are liable to the standard rate VAT and does not recognise any input tax deduction. Extraction of 20% of tax, regardless of the actual liability (potentially, 5%, or zero) appears unfair and would be very difficult to impose. Cashflow would be negatively affected too.
Flat Rate Scheme (FRS). This is a proposal by HMRC to insist that online sellers overseas to use the FRS using a specific new rate for this purpose. The FRS threshold of £150,000 pa could be increased for overseas businesses, but this would potentially give overseas sellers an advantage over UK businesses, so politically, if nothing else, would prove to be a hard sell.
Net effective rate. This would mean an overseas business calculating its own exact net effective rate, based on its outputs and inputs from the previous year’s transactions (similar to TOMS).
Composite rate. A composite VAT total across a mixed range of goods or services, each potentially with a different rate of VAT. The mechanism for carrying this calculation out is unclear.

There may be more proposals forthcoming, but none of the above proposals appear reasonable and the complexity they would bring would seem to rule them out as matters stand – although this has not previously stopped HMRC introducing certain measures and the obvious benefits to the authorities cannot be ignored.

Overall

The technology for split payments currently exists and is being used in some Latin American countries (and Poland). The concept is part of a larger movement towards real-time taxation and MTD. Our view is that split payments are coming, but we do not know in which form or when.

This article is based on one first published by MWCL on 9 January 2023.

VAT Business/Non-Business HMRC Internal Manual updated

By Marcus Ward 14 October 2024

HMRC internal guidance manual has been updated on 9 October 2024.

This is likely to affect; charities and similar bodies, NFP, clubs, associations, philanthropic organisations, galleries and museums, “hobby” activities, amongst other persons.

Business or Non-Business (N-B) is very important in VAT as it determines, inter alia, whether a supplier is

liable to register
liable to account for output tax
able to recover (all, some, or no) input tax

The definition of business and N-B here.

Legislation: The I Act 1994 Section 24(5).

Further reading

I have written about this issue many times, as it is a fundamental issue in the tax.

The following articles consider case law and other relevant business/N-B issues:

Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. And Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft

Healthwatch Hampshire CIC

Pertempts Limited

Northumbria Healthcare

What the Guidance Manual covers:

an overview of the meaning of business for VAT purposes
general principles
meaning of N-B
- the term ‘business activity’ (economic activity)
- the concept of ‘business’ for VAT purposes
- the meaning of business
- the purpose of activity
- N-B activities
- persons with both business and N-B activities
- outside the scope income
- N-B activities which result in payment
determination procedures to establish whether an activity is business N-B
the relevant UK law and caselaw (per above amongst other cases)
the general approach for inspectors on business/N-B
factors to consider when determining if an activity is business or not
the link between supplies and consideration
methods of apportionment of input tax and approval of apportionment methods
formal procedures and work systems
clubs and associations
specific issues
legal history
HMRC policy background

This is the main reference material for HMRC inspectors and other employees, so it is very helpful for advisers to understand HMRC’s likely approach to a potential VAT issue.

VAT: Second-hand goods scheme and best judgement – The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited case

By Marcus Ward 7 October 2024

Latest from the courts

The second-hands of time.

In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether the second-hand goods margin scheme (margin scheme) was applicable and whether HMRC’s assessments for £5,474,249 (later reduced to £5,004,595) of underdeclared of output tax were issued in best judgement.

Background

The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited (A&M) sold second-hand wristwatches with the majority of the sales properly accounted for via the margin scheme. However, from information obtained from Italian tax authorities in respect of supply chain fraud, HMRC issued the assessments on the basis that supplies of certain goods did not meet the conditions of the margin scheme so that output tax was due on the full value of the watches rather than the difference between the purchase and sale values. HMRC decided to penalise A&M because the errors were deliberate and prompted and subsequently to issue a PLN on the basis that such conduct was attributable to the director. A&M is a “High Value Dealer” for anti-money laundering purposes.

Contentions

Appellant

The appellant claimed that HMRC did not use best judgement on the grounds that:

the inspector did not impartially consider the evidence
HMRC lacked sufficient evidence to raise an assessment thereby failing to meet the Van Boeckel test
the calculated amounts were no more than unreasonable and random guesses
the inspector did not approach the investigation with an open mind to such an extent that it could not be said that the assessments and penalties were the product of the reasonable behaviours of HMRC
put in terms of the case law: HMRC had acted in a way which no reasonable body of commissioners could have acted or, put another way, had been vindictive, dishonest or capricious

so the assessments and penalties were invalid.

Whilst accepting that a best judgment challenge is a high bar A&M contended that the conduct and mindset of HMRC’s investigating and assessing officer was so unreasonable that it vitiated the whole assessment.

Respondent

HMRC contended that the assessments were based on best judgement and that its focus was not on the supply chain fraud claims (as claimed by A&M). Additionally, a previous inspection in 2014 had raised prior concerns which provided adequate grounds for the assessments. Moreover, A&M was aware of the terms of operation of the second-hand margin scheme and considered that A&M had wilfully misused the scheme in several regards. The scheme had been incorrectly used for goods purchased by way of intracommunity supplies – which had been imported with the appellant claiming input tax on the imports and then including them in the margin scheme. A&M wilfully failed to carry out due diligence on its suppliers.

Best Judgement

It may be helpful if we consider what the words “best judgement” mean. This was best described by Woolf J in Van Boeckel v CEC [1981] STC 290

“What the words ‘best of their judgement’ envisage, in my view, is that the commissioners will fairly consider all material before them and, on that material, come to a decision which is one which is reasonable and not arbitrary as to the amount of tax which is due. As long as there is some material on which the commissioners can reasonably act, then they are not required to carry out investigations which may or may not result in further material being placed before them.”

Technical

The second-hand margin scheme is provided for under The VAT Act 1994, Section 50A, The Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 and certain paragraphs of VAT Notice 718 which have force of law.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. It was found that A&M deliberately rendered inaccurate VAT returns. The director of the company was aware both of how the margin scheme worked and that the terms of the scheme had to be complied with if a supply was to be taxed under the it. A&M was found to have acted deliberately in misusing the scheme by including ineligible supplies. A&M had been lax in the completion of its stock book, and it had not met the record-keeping requirements necessary to use the scheme for the relevant transactions. Additionally, some of its EU suppliers were not registered for VAT, a fact A&M did not take steps to discover, and so related purchases could not qualify for the scheme. Also, it was likely that some of the purchases were of new watches which made them ineligible for the margin scheme.

Re, evidence; the FTT found much of the A&M director’s evidence to have been self-serving and, in parts, evasive and that it did not consider that the integrity of HMRC could be impugned. The court determined that; the inspector was diligent and thorough, HMRC had legitimate concerns regarding A&M’s use of the margin scheme generally and specifically and there was a wider concern that the company was a participant in fraudulent supply chains. The FTT considered that the investigation was proportionately carried out considering these concerns and the assessments raised in exercise of best judgment.

Penalties and PLN

The case further considered penalties: whether the appellant’s conduct was deliberate (yes – appeal dismissed). Whether the Personal Liability Notice (PLN) [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] was appropriate for the conduct attributed to the director – whether his conduct led to penalty (yes – appeal dismissed).

Commentary

This case is a long read, but worthwhile for comments on; the margin scheme use, HMRC’s inspection methods, best judgement, evidence and MTIC amongst other matters.