Category Archives: Tribunal

Crime doesn’t pay……..VAT? Is there tax on illegal activities?

By   26 January 2015
0

A number of people have been surprised to find that crime does pay tax, thank you very much. It seems bad enough that the police should chase and catch you, put you in the dock and send you to prison, without finding that your first visitor is HMRC….

Dodgy perfume?

Goodwin & Unstead were in business selling counterfeit perfume. They were also up-front about what they were doing. Unstead claimed that “Everything I can carry in my vehicle, everything I trade in and sell, is a complete copy of the real thing. I do not sell goods as the real thing. In fact I sell my goods for a quarter of the original price. I am not out to defraud or con the public. I only appeal to the poseurs in life.”

The real manufacturers might have sued these men for passing off the product of their chemistry experiments in trademarked bottles, but it was HMRC who sent them to jail – for failing to register and pay VAT on their sales. The amount they should have collected was estimated at £750,000, which shows that they must have appealed to a great many poseurs.
.
If they had paid the VAT, Customs would have had no problem with them. Their customers must have been reasonably satisfied – if your counterfeit perfume smells something like the real thing, why worry?
They tried to get out of jail with an ingenious argument – if the sale of the perfume was illegal, surely there shouldn’t be VAT on it. It wasn’t legitimate business activity, so it wasn’t something that ought to be taxable. The European Court had no time for this. They pointed out that it would give lawbreakers an advantage over lawful businesses; they wouldn’t have to charge VAT. The judges suggested that maybe people would even deliberately break the law so they could get out of tax; in this case, the only thing that made the trade illegal was treading on someone’s trademark rights, and that was something that might happen at any time in legitimate businesses. The judges said that VAT would apply to any trade which competed in a legal marketplace, even if the particular sales broke the law for some reason. Counterfeit perfume is VATable because real perfume is too. Of course, Customs have traditionally had two main roles – looking for drug smugglers, and dealing with VAT-registered traders. They have generally treated both with much the same suspicion, but the ECJ made it clear in this case that the two sets of customers are completely separate.

“Personal” services?

Customers paid the escort £130, of which £30 was paid to the agency. VAT on £130 or VAT on £30?

The first hearing before the Tribunal went something like this (this may be using artistic licence, but the published summary implies it was so):

HMRC: “We think the VAT should be on £130 because the escorts are acting as agents of the escort business.”
Trader: “No, it’s just £30, the £100 belongs to the escort and is nothing to do with me.”
Tribunal chairman: “All right, tell me a bit about how the business operates.”
Customs: “No.”
Tribunal chairman: “What?”
Customs: “You don’t want to know.”
Tribunal chairman: “How can I decide whether the escorts are acting as agent or principals without knowing how the business operates?”
Customs: “Don’t go there, just give us a decision.”
Tribunal chairman: “Trader, you tell me how the business operates.”
Trader: “I agree with him, you don’t want to know.”
The Tribunal seems to have been a bit baffled by this. They were aware that Customs had a great deal more evidence which had been collected during the course of a thorough investigation, and they asked the parties to go away and decide whether they might let the Tribunal see a bit more of it so they could make a judgement rather than a guess.

What about drugs then?

It’s well-known that you are allowed to smoke dope in some establishments in Amsterdam, although the Dutch authorities are thinking about restricting this to Netherlands’ residents. They may find that such a rule contravenes the European Law on freedom of movement – under the EU treaty, you can’t be meaner to foreigners than you are to your own people just because they are foreign. That’s a nice idea, but individuals and governments keep trying it on. Anyway, the Coffeeshop Siberie rented space to drug dealers who would sell cannabis at tables for people to take advantage of the relaxed atmosphere. Presumably they are preparing to examine passports or local utility bills before making the sale, if only the Dutch are to be allowed to get stoned. Anyway, the Dutch authorities asked the coffee shop’s owners for VAT on the rent paid by the dealers, and the owners appealed to the ECJ. This time, surely, it was sufficiently illegal. Although the consumption of drugs was tolerated, it was still against the law, and it must therefore be not VATable.
The judges pointed out that the coffee shop was not actually selling drugs. They were just providing the space for other people to sell drugs. Although selling drugs was completely illegal, and there was no legitimate market in cannabis, renting space was a normal business activity. Renting space to someone who did something illegal with it was in the same category as the dodgy perfume sales in Goodwin & Unstead: it was a bit illegal, but not illegal enough. The VAT was still due.

Counterfeiting?
In a German case, the ECJ ruled that the importation of counterfeit money was outside the scope of VAT. The Advocate-General observed that a line must be drawn between, on the one hand, transactions that lie so clearly outside the sphere of legitimate economic activity that, instead of being taxed, they can only be the subject of criminal prosecution, and, on the other hand, transactions which though unlawful must nonetheless be taxed, if only for ensuring in the name of fiscal neutrality, that the criminal is not treated more favourably than the legitimate trader’.

So, there you have it, if you are of a criminal disposition, and you want to avoid VAT, funny money is the way to go.  Please note, this does not constitute advice…..!

Follower Notices – a new HMRC weapon with a potentially dire impact on taxpayers

By   17 July 2014
0

From Royal Assent of Finance Bill 2014 (expected within the next week) HMRC has a new weapon which challenges a taxpayer’s basic right to have its case heard by a Court.

This is by the introduction of “Follower Notices”. The new power allows HMRC to order one taxpayer to settle their dispute when, in HMRC’s view, a decision in another case is relevant to the issues in the first taxpayer’s case.  Since taxpayer’s circumstances are unlikely to be identical to another’s, the question of which decisions are relevant involves difficult decisions on issues of interpretation and questions of fact. These are points that ought to be considered by the Court, not unilaterally by one of the parties to the litigation.

A Follower Notice gives the taxpayer 90 days to concede its dispute and pay HMRC’s estimate of the tax due. The taxpayer has only limited rights to challenge the notice, and even then any such challenge is considered by HMRC and not the Court.

If the taxpayer does not concede following HMRC’s issue of a Follower Notice, additional penalties are levied. These penalties not only significantly increase the amount which the taxpayer has at stake in the dispute but must be challenged separately.

It is clear that the changes intend to reduce the backlog of similar disputes. However, these new rules are completely one-sided and has created an environment for yet further litigation and acrimony.

Please contact Marcus if you would like to discuss this further.

Taxpayer loses in “TNT” claims lead case.

By   9 July 2014
0

In the recent FTT case of Zipvit the court considered retrospective claims by businesses in cases where Royal Mail (and Parcelforce) had treated individually negotiated supplies of postage etc as exempt. In the previous ECJ case of TNT it was ruled that these services should have been standard rated. The claims (said to be over £1billion in total stood behind Zipvit) were made on the basis that recipients of these services could reclaim the VAT as input tax that should properly have been charged by the Royal Mail.
The three salient points where:

1. Where the supplies taxable? – On this point the court agreed with the taxpayer, the UK legislation must be read with the same restrictions as in the relevant EC Directive.
2. Was VAT due from, or paid by, the appellant? – Curiously, the judge did not agree with either party and stated that both had been labouring under a misapprehension. No further submissions were requested however, and on this point the appeal failed.
3. Lack of VAT invoice – Although HMRC have the discretion to accept alternative evidence to support an input tax claim, it was not obliged to. The FTT supported HMRC’s refusal and noted that there would, in any event, be a windfall for the applicant. The appeal was dismissed.

The judge commented that it was likely that this case would be appealed to a higher court.
If you have an appeal stood behind Zipvit, or have previously received exempt supplies from Royal Mail or Parcelforce in respect of individually negotiated contracts – please contact us for further information.

Court of Appeal judgement on Subway hot food case

By   11 June 2014
0

The CoA has just released its judgement in the Subway hot food case.  It concerns the liability of toasted sandwiches (known as Subs) with a hot filling; meatball marinara.

This is a lead case for a large number of claims submitted on the basis that VAT has been over declared on certain supplies of hot takeaway food, that are (it was argued) essentially the same as supplies that have obtained zero rating. The Court has dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal.

If you have any “hot food” claims lodged – please contact us for further information.

Are e-books books?

By   21 May 2014
0

Books are zero rated for VAT purposes, but only (currently) if they are of the traditional dead tree variety. The zero rating does not extend to e-books which are standard rated for VAT. There has been a long standing argument that similar content should not be taxed at different rates solely depending on the method of delivery. This argument is about to be tested in the courts. The UK is not permitted by the EC to extend its current zero rating for printed matter, however, it is expected that the contention in this case will be that the inclusion of new products will not extend the zero rating, but rather the development of technology has created a supply that should be covered by the existing zero rating legislation.

If it is accepted by the courts that all types of book should attract the same rate of VAT, it may mean that the rate will be equalised upwards. So, by the end of the year we could be looking at VAT of 5% being added to books, newspapers and other printed matter which was hitherto VAT free – A “tax on learning” as previous protests had it when there was a threat to tax free books.