Category Archives: Tribunal

VAT: Latest from the courts – Pole Tax?

By Marcus Ward 20 December 2016

(Pardon the dreadful pun).

The Court of Appeal case of Wilton Park Ltd and Secrets Ltd

Background

The appellant operated an “exotic dancing” club which featured table and lap dancing. It received commission from self-employed dancers which was treated as exempt from VAT. This was on the basis that the commissions were charged on redemption of vouchers (known as Secrets Money) such that it represented the services of dealing with security for money. Customers were able to purchase Secrets Money with the addition of a 20% commission. The vouchers were used to pay individual dancers who subsequently needed to exchange the vouchers for cash. The taxpayer charged a 20% fee for such a conversion.

The issue

The issue was whether face-value vouchers issued by appellant companies constituted “…any security for money” within the VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, item 1. HMRC argued that the redemption of the vouchers was part of a taxable supply of performance facilitation services by the taxpayer and thus standard rated.

Decision

Not surprisingly, the CoA dismissed the appeal, agreeing with both the FTT and UT in holding that the provision of the club’s facilities formed part of the consideration for the commission an consequently was not an exempt supply.

Commentary

This appears a rather desperate appeal, and there still remains the possibility that the taxpayer could take the matter to the Supreme Court. It illustrates that simply putting in a mechanism which adds a degree of complexity does not affect the overriding VAT analysis. What was provided and what was paid for here seems reasonably apparent and it is quite a leap to consider the structure was simply exchanging vouchers for cash. It also occurs that this would be a very straightforward way for other businesses to avoid paying VAT if the appellant had been successful.

For more on this subject (should that be your thing…….) a read of the Spearmint Rhino case not only explores the structure/relationship between dancers and club owners but is also rather good entertainment and provides an amusing yet illustrative overview of the agent/principal issue (and is not salacious in the least…..).

VAT – Input tax on buy out costs and VAT grouping

By Marcus Ward 23 November 2016

Latest from the courts

May input tax incurred by a VAT group be attributed to the activities of a single member of that group?

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Heating and Plumbing Supplies Ltd, the issue was whether input tax incurred on professional costs of a management buyout were recoverable.

Background

A company was formed with the intention of buying the shares of a trading company. The purchasing company and the trading company were then VAT grouped and the professional costs were invoiced to, and paid for, by the VAT group (the tax point being created after the date that the VAT group was formed). HMRC disallowed the claim for the relevant input tax on the grounds that the purchasing company itself did not make any taxable supplies (it did not engage in an economic activity). While this may have been correct, the appellant contended that in these circumstances, the VAT group must be considered as a single taxable person and that the activities of the group as a whole that should be considered. The input tax was an overhead of the group, and because the group itself only made taxable supplies (via the representative member) the input tax was recoverable in full by the representative member

Decision

Following recent case law in Skandia America at the Court of Justice, the judge here decided in favour of the appellant. It was ruled that HMRC may not look at the purchasing company in isolation but rather, the group must be considered as a whole. The FTT stated that “when a VAT group is formed the identities of the individual members of the group disappear…” meaning that a VAT group is a single taxable entity, the VAT status of the individual members being irrelevant in this situation. This confirms our long held view on the status of VAT groups and provides welcome clarification on the matter.

Relevance

This case highlights that HMRC’s policy of looking at the activities of a group member individually is inappropriate. This is so even if the grouping structure provides input tax recovery which would not have been available had the companies been VAT registered independently.

Typically in these circumstances, HMRC will either challenge the decision, or amend its guidance to reflect this ruling. We await news on how HMRC will react.

Action

If a business has either been denied input tax on buy out or similar acquisition costs, or made a decision not to recover this VAT, it would be prudent to lodge a claim with HMRC (plus interest).

We are able to assist with such a claim.

www.marcusward.co

VAT Latest from the courts – Application of Capital Goods Scheme

By Marcus Ward 10 November 2016

Should the costs of a phased development be aggregated, and if so, do the anti-avoidance provisions apply?

In the case of Water Property Limited (WPL) the First Tier Tribunal was asked to consider the application of; the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) and the anti-avoidance provisions set out in the VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10, para 12.

A helpful guide to the CGS is here

Background

WPL purchased land and buildings formerly used as a public house, subject to planning permission to convert the ground floor into a children’s day care nursery and the upper floor into residential flats. The planning permission was subsequently granted. WPL paid £210,000 plus £37,500 VAT on the acquisition of the ex-pub in March 2013. The children’s nursery business was kept separate from the property development business to enable the children’s nursery business to be sold at a date in the future and for the leasehold reversion to be retained as an investment by WPL. The value of the building contract for the nursery was £209,812.34 including VAT. The value of the contract for the residential flats was £161,546.42 including VAT. The consideration for the acquisition and each phase of development was below £250,000 (the threshold at which land and buildings become CGS items) but combined, they exceeded the £250,000 limit. WPL exercised an option to tax on the property and entered into a lease with Smile Childcare Limited (SCL). SCL was established to carry on a business of the provision of nursery care for infant children. It was jointly owned by Mr and Mrs Waters. Mrs Waters as the operator of the children’s nursery.

WPL recovered input tax on costs incurred in respect of the nursery, but not the flats. It was accepted by the appellant that SCL and WPL were “connected” within the meaning of VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10, para 13 and that the activity of carrying on the business of a nursery was an exempt activity.

Issue

HMRC formed the view that the option to tax should be disapplied by virtue of the anti-avoidance legislation meaning that no input tax was recoverable. This is because the property was, or was intended to become, a CGS item and the ‘exempt land test’ is met. This test is met if, at the time the grant is made, the grantor, or a person connected with the grantor expects the land to be used for an exempt purpose.

So the issue was whether the land constituted a CGS item. That is, whether the value of the two elements forming the phased development should be aggregated.

Decision

The FTT allowed the taxpayer’s appeal against HMRC’s decision. It was decided that the acquisition and development costs were financed through different means; there were separate contracts for each phase; there was no overlap in the works* and HMRC had not identified any evasion, avoidance or abuse and considered that the costs did not need to be aggregated. In addition, it was concluded that WPL had relied on HMRC guidance in determining that there was no requirement to aggregate the cost of the phased development provided that there was no overlap in time.

As a consequence, as each part of the development fell below the £250,000 limit, there were no CGS items. Therefore the fact that the parties were connected was irrelevant and the anti-avoidance provisions did not apply such that the option to tax could not be disapplied meaning that the recovery of the input tax was appropriate. The Chairman also commented that the appellant had a legitimate expectation to rely on the guidance provided by HMRC (in this case the provision of a copy of Public Notice 706/2).

Commentary

There is often uncertainty on the VAT position of land and property developments of this kind, and the interaction with the CGS is rarely straightforward. This is not helped by HMRC’s interpretation of the rules.

Action

If any business or advisers with clients which have been;

forced to use the CGS as a result of aggregation
subject to the application of the anti-avoidance provisions
assessed despite relying on HMRC’s published guidance

they should seek advice and review their position. We can advise in such circumstances.

* As per PN 706/2 Para 4.12 as follows

“What if the refurbishment is in phases?

If you do this you will need to decide whether the work should be treated as a whole for CGS [capital goods scheme] purposes or whether there is more than one refurbishment. If you think that each phase is really a separate refurbishment then they should be treated separately for CGS purposes. Normally there is more than one refurbishment when:

· There are separate contracts for each phase of work, or;

· A contract where each phase is a separate option which can be selected, and;

· Each phase of work is completed before work on the next phase starts…”

VAT Latest from the courts – exemption for sporting facilities by an eligible body

By Marcus Ward 8 November 2016

St Andrew’s College, Bradfield

This Upper Tribunal case demonstrates the importance of getting the structure right. Full case here

Overview

Exemption exists for an eligible body making certain supplies of sporting services.

Background

St Andrew’s College is a boarding school and a registered charity. It is the representative member of a VAT group which also included two subsidiary companies. The companies provided facilities for playing sport and the group intended to treat these as exempt supplies. HMRC challenged the intended treatment on the basis that the subsidiaries did not qualify as eligible bodies via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 10 (exemption related to sport, sports competitions and physical education). It was agreed that all of the other criteria were met, so the case turned on the definition of an eligible body. It was common ground that the College, as an educational charity, was itself an eligible body. Even though, as the representative member of the VAT group, the College was treated as making all supplies actually made by the subsidiaries, that did not mean that the supplies were exempt.

Decision

In order to be regarded as an eligible body the subsidiaries were required to be a non-profit making body. What was relevant here was whether the subsidiaries (themselves) had specific restrictions on their ability to distribute any profit that they made. The UT formed the view that there was no specific restriction and that although profits were only covenanted up to the College this was insufficient to meet the test in Group 10 Note (2A). It was also found that the deeds of covenant did not, of themselves, establish that the subsidiaries could make distributions only to non-profit making bodies.

Consequently, the subsidiaries failed to qualify for exemption and that the First Tier Tribunal correctly found that output tax was due on the income from provision of sporting facilities.

Commentary

This case highlights the importance of putting in place a correct structure and to ensure that it reflects the intention of the supplier. One may see that in this scenario it would have been relatively simple to arrange matters to accurately reflect the aims of the group. Care would have been required in drafting documentation etc as matters stood, or rearranging the supply chain.

It should also be noted that there are specific anti-avoidance provisions in place for certain suppliers of sporting services (although not in issue here). Advice should be taken at an early stage in planning to ensure that if exemption is desired, that it is achieved if possible.

VAT Latest from the courts – more on agent or principal

By Marcus Ward 2 November 2016

Whether a business acts as agent or principal in respect of hotel accommodation

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Hotels4U.com Limited (H4U) further consideration was given to the relationship of parties in travel/accommodation services. This follows on from the recent Supreme Court case of Secret Hotels 2 Ltd which we considered here

Background

H4U entered into contracts with suppliers of hotel rooms and displayed details of the hotels on its website. Travellers and travel agents are able to book online, pay a deposit and receive a voucher which enabled them to occupy the relevant accommodation when presented to the hotel.

The FTT was required to decide whether H4U was acting as agent or principal in respect of these supplies made to travellers and travel agents. If acting as principal, output tax would be due via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS). If acting as agent, the place of supply (POS) would be outside the UK and no UK VAT would be due. We are aware that many of our clients are in a similar position so this decision will be important to them.

Decision

H4U contended that that its position was indistinguishable from the Secret Hotels 2 Ltd case such that it should be regarded as an agent. The FTT upheld this contention for most of the relevant transactions (based on contracts which contained sufficient evidence to enable the Tribunal to reach a decision in UK law) so H4U could be seen as acting as agent. H4U also argued that HMRC’s intention to seek a reference to the CJEU in respect of the interpretation of the EU Principal VAT Directive Article 306 on the meaning of “acting solely as an intermediary”’ (whether that is different from an agent in English law) was an attempt to re-argue the matter before the CJEU and should be resisted. The FTT stated that it was only considering the position under UK law.

Commentary

We understand that there are a number of similar ongoing appeals and this decision may be of benefit to them. It also underlines the fact that documentation, and how each party acts, is important in determining the relationship. No one piece of evidence on its own may be decisive but goes to form part of the overall picture. As always in agent/principal cases, it is crucial that the documentation accurately represents the actual transaction. Contracts can play a big part, as can the Terms & Conditions and wording on websites and advertisements. Broadly, as a starting point, it must be clear to the customer that an agent is acting on behalf of a named principal; without this information, HMRC will likely form the view that there is no agency arrangement and that the “intermediary” party is acting as an undisclosed agent (for all intents and purposes acting as principal). This means that any supply would be seen to be made to, and by the agent, such that (in this case) output tax would be due using TOMS.

Action

We shall have to wait and see whether HMRC is successful in making a reference on the possible distinction between the meaning of agent in UK and EC law.

In the meantime, any businesses which are involved in agency/principal relationships, not just in the travel field, may benefit from taking advice on whether their arrangements are affected by these two cases and whether there may be value in putting planning in place.

Latest from the courts: Excise Duty – against which party may an assessment be raised?

By Marcus Ward 19 October 2016

A little “light” relief from VAT. Indirect taxes extend to Customs and Excise Duties (as well as IPT and various other “lower profile” taxes) and we are able to assist with all of these.

In an interesting Excise Duty case; B & M Retail Limited (B & M) the Upper Tribunal were asked whether an assessment for Customs Duty due on wine and beer could be issued to an entity “down the chain” to an entity which was holding goods at a given time.

Background

HMRC detained the relevant the goods under The Customs & Excise Management Act 1979 (“CEMA”) Section 139 on the grounds that, in their judgment, on the balance of probabilities, Excise Duty had not been paid on the goods. Under B & M’s terms and conditions of business its suppliers were required to warrant that the sale of alcohol to B & M was on a “Excise Duty paid” basis.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decided that despite an HMRC investigation resulting in the fact that they were not satisfied that duty had been paid on the goods, B & M was not responsible for the duty (and subsequent penalties) as the goods had passed through other various entities before they reached the appellant. The decision was based on the fact that the duty point must have arisen before the goods reached B & M and consequently, the duty was payable by someone further up the supply chain and not simply by the entity which was holding the Excise Duty goods at the Excise Duty point.

Decision

However, the Upper Tribunal disagreed with the FTT and overturned the verdict. The Upper Tribunal stated that “… the recognition by HMRC that one or more other Excise Duty points must, in principle, have been triggered before B & M received the relevant goods did not preclude HMRC from assessing B & M for excise duty …”. The Upper Tribunal did, however, remit the case to the First Tier Tribunal to review the evidence to ensure that the assessment is in time and that, as a matter of fact, the Excise Duty due on the beer and wine remains unpaid.

Conclusion

It would appear that this decision currently gives HMRC the right to raise an assessment for duty and penalties anywhere along the supply chain when an entity is holding the goods, even though a “previous” entity may have been responsible for the payment. This is not * * polite cough * * small beer as the amount in question was £5,875,143 of duty and a penalty of £1,175,028. This is helpful to HMRC as, in this instant case, it would appear that entities further up the supply chain were either not registered, or became deregistered, making it more difficult for HMRC to recover the Duty due.

It is important for every importer to be clear about the Excise Duty position and to carry out detailed due diligence on the relevant shipment. It is now not possible to escape an assessment by demonstrating that a third party is responsible for the payment of the duty.

VAT – Latest from the courts: Craft fair pitches standard rated

By Marcus Ward 17 October 2016

The Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Zombory-Moldovan (trading as Craft Carnival)

Background

In the past, the rent of stall at craft fairs have generally been treated as an exempt right over land. In fact, in this instant case, the First Tier Tribunal agreed with the appellant that supplies made to stallholders to sell their goods were the equivalent to a right to occupy land and therefore exempt from VAT.

However, in this decision, the UT overturned this analysis and found that the supply was standard rated.

Decision

The reasons given were that what Craft Carnival supplied went beyond the mere use of a plot of land for a specific period and amounted to the use of a pitch at an event in order to “offer certain goods for sale”. The test in the previous “Temco” case on this point stated that an exempt supply amounts to a “relatively passive activity linked simply to the passage of time and not generating any significant added value”. Craft Carnivals had “very real and significant responsibilities beyond the bare provision of an appropriately-sized plot”. This, being a single supply (it was decided) meant that the entire charge was subject to VAT at the standard rate.

The appellant’s website stated that “In addition to the erection of marquees, which are hired for the duration of a fair, Mrs Zombory-Moldovan arranges for the provision 45 of other necessary temporary facilities including portable toilets, electrical generators and security fencing. She also employs between five and seven members of staff to act as ticket sellers and car park 3 marshals. Before the fair takes place Mrs Zombory-Moldovan would have issued a press release and advertised the event in local newspapers and on Craft Carnival’s website and booked a children’s entertainer, such as a magician, to encourage families to attend.”

Impact

Any business or charity which provides similar supplies must review their VAT responsibilities in light of this decision immediately. This case is likely have far-reaching implications for both organisers and those businesses which sell goods in fairs and similar events. This may encompass; trade fairs, exhibitions and even, possibly, high end car-boot sales type events. We await HMRC’s response to their victory in this case and how wide-ranging they consider the decision to be.

Please contact us if this decision affects your or your client’s businesses.

Latest from the courts: missing goods subject to VAT

By Marcus Ward 13 October 2016

In the CJEU case of Maya Marinova the issue was whether goods which could not be located in the Bulgarian appellant’s warehouse were subject to VAT on the grounds they had been disposed of.

Background

The appellant purchased certain goods, and subsequently, at an inspection, was unable to either;

produce the goods , or;
demonstrate how they were disposed of.

The Bulgarian authorities had confirmed that the goods had been purchased from a supplier, but the purchases did not appear in the business’ purchase records. They assessed for VAT on the missing goods assuming that they had been purchased and sold off record and the output tax had not been accounted for. They employed a mark-up exercise based on similar goods sold in the appellant’s shop.

The case proceeded directly to the court without an AG’s opinion. The matter was; whether the decision to assess offended the principle of fiscal neutrality if it were supported by national legislation (which it was here). It was decided that in these circumstances, such action was not precluded and the assessment was basically sound. It was stated that “… tax authorities may presume that the taxable person subsequently sold those goods to third parties and determine the taxable amount of the sale of those goods according to the factual information at hand …”. As usual, the case was passed back to the referring court to consider whether the Bulgarian domestic legislation goes further than is necessary to ensure the correct collection of tax and to prevent evasion.

Commentary

Although the issues in this case arose from specific facts, this is not an uncommon scenario for a business. It was hardly a surprising outcome. In a similar position in the UK, HMRC is also very likely to form the view that if the goods are no longer on hand, then they must have been disposed of, unless evidence to the contrary is provided by a taxpayer.

Of course, there may be a genuine reason why the goods are no longer in stock, but no output tax has been declared on them. These reasons are considered in guidance published by HMRC here and the rules mainly consider goods which have been lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed.

There are specific ways of dealing with VAT in these situations, and in fact, whether output tax is due at all. Failure to comply with this guidance may result in an assessment being issued. The general point is VAT is only due after a tax point has been created. A crude example is that if goods are shoplifted from a store, there is no output tax due. However, if the goods were sold and recorded via a till, and the money which went into the till was stolen, output tax is still due on the supply of those goods (as found in the case of G Benton [1975] VATTR 138).

As always with VAT, it is crucial to keep accurate and up to date records to evidence supplies (as well as recording the movement of stock and any discrepancies in these circumstances). Although an inspector will need to demonstrate “best judgement” in issuing an assessment in respect of missing goods, it is obviously prudent to be able to demonstrate why the anticipated output tax has not been declared and therefore be prepared for such enquiries.

In this instant case, it was not discovered why the goods were not located in the warehouse. It could be that there was a miscommunication between parts of the business, a simple underdeclaration of sales, staff theft, or any other hazards of business. Even for non-tax reasons it is vital that a business’ systems are sufficiently robust to identify such occurrences and procedures are put into place to deal with them.

If you or your clients have received an assessment of this sort, it is usually worthwhile obtaining a review of the position.

VAT – Latest from the courts: treatment of web-based introductions

By Marcus Ward 14 September 2016

First Tier Tribunal (FTT) – What intermediary services may be exempted?

Background

The provision of intermediary services (putting those who require a financial product in touch with those who provide them) is exempt from VAT if certain conditions apply. Broadly, the requirement is mainly the need to provide something more than just the introduction, eg; negotiation of credit. If a business acts as a mere conduit or in an advertising capacity its supplies will be standard rated.

The case

In the FTT case of Dollar Financial UK Limited TC05334 (Dollar) the applicant received web-based services from overseas The Reverse Charge was applied to these supplies (details of the Reverse Charge here). Dollar provides “payday loans” which are themselves exempt from VAT. As Dollar was unable to recover all of the VAT on the Reverse Charge it represented a VAT cost to the business. However, if the supplies were exempt there would be no need to apply the Reverse Charge and so the loss would be avoided.

The FTT was required to consider what precisely the suppliers (so called lead generators) provided to Dollar in return for a commission based on the value of the loan. The lead generators operated websites which are mainly comparison sites and which referred potential borrowers to loan providers such as Dollar. HMRC formed the view that these services did not amount to intermediary services and hence were subject to the Reverse Charge.

The FTT ruled that there were differences between the two examples of services received by Dollar. In one example it was decided that despite;

there being no legal relationship between the lead generator and the potential borrower
that the leads were sold to the lender offering the best commission
that the assessment for loan suitability was quick, only involved only a few basic checks, and did not require any judgment or discretion, and
that only 1% of the introductions resulted in offers of loans to borrowers,

the appellant was acting as more than a mere conduit or in an advertising capacity, and was providing exempt introductory services. Consequently, there was no need to apply the Reverse Charge.

In the other example, the Tribunal considered that a single supply of online chat assistance was more akin to an outsourced, principally back-office function which did not amount to intermediary services and was therefore standard rated such that Dollar must apply the Reverse Charge.

Commentary

This case demonstrates the need to identify precisely what is being provided by a business’ suppliers and to review contracts intently. A small change in the circumstances between one supply and another may result in different VAT treatment. This is a comprehensive judgement and it is worth reading in its entirety if a business is involved in these type of transactions. We recommend that advice is sought by those businesses which could be affected by this case; either as supplier or recipient.

Latest from the courts – Recovery of VAT on cars purchase

By Marcus Ward 14 September 2016

Input tax incurred on the purchase of cars

There is a specific blocking order (Value Added Tax (Input Tax) Order 1992) which prohibits the recovery of input tax incurred on the purchase of cars. The block applies if there is any private use of the car whatsoever (even one mile). HMRC’s approach has been that unless a business can demonstrate that there is no private use the input tax is disallowed. Previous case law, notably Elm Milk Limited relied on the terms of the insurance covering the car (whether private use was permitted) and inter alia, the physical security of the car.

The case

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Zone Contractors Limited TC05330 it was held that VAT was reclaimable on six cars purchased for business use. The reason for the decision was that the relevant employment contracts specifically and explicitly prohibited any private use of the vehicles.

HMRC claimed that the business had not demonstrated that the use of the cars was monitored and controlled sufficiently to evidence the fact that there was no private use. However the FTT decided that the employment contracts could be relied on and permitted the claims. What is relevant in this case is that the court decided that no reliance could be placed on insurance documentation preventing recovery on the grounds of the policy including cover for use for social, domestic and pleasure and that HMRC could not rely on such documentation to disallow a claim as they had in the past.

Action

If a business has been denied input tax recovery on cars by HMRC, or has refrained from claiming input tax based on previous case law, it may well be beneficial to review the circumstances in light of this case. We can assist in lodging claims where appropriate. After all, the VAT of £8000 on a £40,000 car is significant; even if only one has been purchased.