Category Archives: Valuation

VAT: Payment handling charges – The Virgin Media case

By   5 February 2020
0

Latest from the courts

In the Virgin Media Ltd First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case a number of issues were considered. These were:

  • whether payment handling charges were exempt via: The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, items (1) and (5)
  • whether the supply was separate from other media services
  • which VAT group member made the supply?
  • whether there was an intra-group supply
  • whether there was an abuse of rights

Background

Virgin Media Limited (VML) provided cable TV, broadband and telephone services (media services) to members of the public. It was the representative member of a VAT Group which also contained Virgin Media Payment Limited (VMPL).

If customers choose not to pay by direct debit, they were required to pay a £5 “handling charge”. The handling charge was paid to VMPL and passed to VML on a daily basis. The issue was; what was the correct VAT treatment of the charge?

Contentions

The appellant argued that the £5 charge was optional for the customer and the collection of it was carried out by VMPL and was exempt as the transfer or receipt of, or any dealing with, money. Further, that, despite being members of the same VAT group, there was nothing in the legislation which forced the VAT group to treat supplies by separate entities within that group as a single supply to a recipient outside the group.

HMRC contended that there was a single taxable supply and thus no exempt services were provided and, in fact, VMPL was not making a supply at all (and therefore not to VML as the group representative member).  In the first alternative, if it were decided that there was a supply, such a supply was an ancillary component of a single taxable supply by VML as representative group member and not by VMPL as per the Card Protection Plan case. In the second alternative, if both decisions above went against HMRC, that the service provided by VMPL fell outside the exemption so that it was taxable in its own right.

Decision

It was found that:

  • there was a single supply made to customers
  • the supply was made by VML as the representative member of the VAT group
  • the £5 handling charge was an integral part of the overall supply
  • if not integral, the handling charge was an ancillary supply such that it took on the VAT treatment of the substantive supply
  • therefore, VMPL does not make any supply to the end users of the overall service
  • if VMPL does make a supply, it is an intra-group supply to VML which s disregarded for VAT purposes
  • VMPL does not have a free-standing fiscal identity for VAT purposes
  • if the FTT is wrong on the above points and VMPL does make a supply of payment handling services to customers, these supplies are taxable and not exempt (per Bookit and NEC) as the supply is simply technical and administrative and does not amount to debt collection
  • the arrangements do not constitute an abusive practice. The essential aim of the transactions are not to secure a tax advantage so HMRC’s argument on abuse fails

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and a reference to the CJEU was considered inappropriate and output tax was due on the full amount received by the group from customers.

Summary

This was a complex case which suffered significant delays. It does help clarify a number of interconnected issues and demonstrates the amount of care required when planning company structures and the VAT analysis of them.

VAT Notice 700/7: Business promotions – updated

By   10 January 2020
0

Further to my articles here, here, and here HMRC have, on 30 December 2019, updated the relevant Notice which covers, inter alia; business gifts, samples and promotional schemes.

The changes are summarised here:

  • Technical content has been updated to take account of developments in both law and policy on vouchers
  • A new section has been added as a result of the changes to the treatment of vouchers issued after 1 January 2019
  • The definition of the meaning of a gift has been amended
  • An explanation of the treatment of the disposal of obsolete stock has been added

This can be a complex area of VAT, especially valuation, and care should be taken when promotion schemes are being considered.

 

VAT: New guidance on Cryptoassets

By   9 January 2020
0

HMRC Guidance

Further to my articles on cryptocurrencies here, here and here HMRC have update their guidance on cryptoassets which was published on 20 December 2019.

Background

VAT is due in the normal way on any goods or services sold in exchange for cryptoasset exchange tokens.

The value of the supply of goods or services on which VAT is due will be the pound sterling value of the exchange tokens at the point the transaction takes place.

Definition

Cryptocurrency (an example being Bitcoin) is a line of computer code that holds monetary value. Cryptocurrency is also known as digital currency and it is a form of money that is created by mathematical computations. In order for a Bitcoin transaction to take place, a verification process is needed, this is provided by millions of computer users called miners and the monitoring is called mining. Transactions are recorded in the blockchain which is public and contains records of each and every transaction that takes place. Cryptocurrency is not tangible, although they may be exchanged for traditional cash. It is a decentralised digital currency without a central bank or single administrator (which initially made it attractive) and can be sent from user to user on the peer-to-peer network without the need for intermediaries.

Cryptoassets

For VAT purposes, bitcoin and similar cryptoassets are to be treated as follows:

  • exchange tokens received by miners for their exchange token mining activities will generally be outside the scope of VAT on the basis that:
    • the activity does not constitute an economic activity for VAT purposes because there is an insufficient link between any services provided and any consideration; and
    • there is no customer for the mining service
  • when exchange tokens are exchanged for goods and services, no VAT will be due on the supply of the token itself
  • charges (in whatever form) made over and above the value of the exchange tokens for arranging any transactions in exchange tokens that meet the conditions outlined in VAT Finance manual (VATFIN7200), will be exempt from VAT under The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, item

The VAT treatments outlined above are provisional pending further developments; in particular, in respect of the regulatory and EU VAT positions.

Bitcoin exchanges

In 2014, HMRC decided that under The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, item 1, the financial services supplied by bitcoin exchanges – exchanging bitcoin for legal tender and vice versa – are exempt from VAT.

This was confirmed in the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in the Swedish case, David Hedqvist (C-264/14). The appellant planned to set up a business which would exchange traditional currency for Bitcoin and vice versa. It was not intended to charge a fee for this service but rather to derive a profit from the spread (the difference between his purchase and sell price).

Questions were referred to the CJEU on whether such exchange transactions constitute a supply for VAT purposes and if so, would they be exempt.

The CJEU referred to the judgment in First National Bank of Chicago (C-172/96) and concluded that the exchange transactions would constitute a supply of services carried out for consideration.

The Court also ruled that the exchange of traditional currencies for non-legal tender such as Bitcoin (and vice versa) are financial transactions and fall within the exemption under VAT Directive Article 135(1) (e).

A supply of any services required to exchange exchange tokens for legal tender (or other exchange tokens) and vice versa, will be exempt from VAT under The VAT Act Schedule 9, Group 5 item 1.

Commentary

As always, the legislation and case law often struggles to keep pace with technology and new business activities. Although the focus of the guidance is more towards direct taxes, it is a helpful summary of HMRC’s interpretation of UK and EU law and decided case law.

VAT: Apportionment and best judgement – The Homsub case

By   3 October 2019
0

Latest from the courts

In the Homsub Ltd case the issue was the apportionment of values when a supply comprises goods at different VAT rates.

Further to the M & S case here is another First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case on the value of food and drink in meal deals. It also considered whether HMRC exercised ‘best judgement’ when it carried out an invigilation exercise to establish the percentage split between supplies subject to VAT and those which were not.

Background

Homsub is a franchisee in respect of Subway products, essentially being hot and cold food, which can be consumed either on or off their premises.

HMRC had concerns that the correct amount of output tax was being declared on sales. Consequently, it carried out an invigilation exercise as follows: The invigilators recorded, in respect of each of the five outlets, each sale made and annotated it with whether it was eat in or take out. A record was also made as to whether the food was hot or cold. Those differences needed to be recorded because of the different VAT treatment in respect of hot food and cold food on the one hand and eat in and take out food on the other. All eat in food is taxable, while some takeaways are zero rated. Further information here.

Contentions

Homsub complained that the methodology adopted by HMRC was flawed as it was not sufficiently refined to give rise to a reasonably reliable overall picture. It was argued that the exercise should have been undertaken by reference to transaction values, rather than the number of transactions. That is – HMRC should have looked at the value of supplies made which did attract VAT as compared to the value of supplies made which did not attract VAT.

The court identified that the true area of concern on the part of the respondents was that Subway sometimes had promotions called “Meal Deals” whereby several products would be bundled together for a single headline price.

Homsub contended that a meal deal offer was available to customers whereby for the all in price of £3 a customer could purchase a sandwich (hot or cold) and a drink (which could be a fizzy drink or hot beverage upon which VAT would be due). If the meal deal involved hot food, then it would be subject to VAT.

HMRC’s issue was that because of the way in which the appellant’s till was set up, it treated £2.99 of each meal deal as attributable to the sandwich (VAT free if cold) and only 1p to the accompanying drink which, if subject to VAT, would mean that the VAT would be one fifth of one penny.

Outcomes

Homsub stated that it is entitled to run its business as it sees fit and to make such commercial decisions as best suit its business. The appellant said that it is entitled to sell loss leaders, as do many major retailers, or to sell stock at less than cost price if that somehow serves the best overall commercial interests of the business.

The court ruled that this was not a true loss leader situation. This was a transaction were goods are packaged together to be sold at a single price. What must be done is to look at the reality of the transaction when apportioning the part of the money paid by the customer between the various components within the package of goods sold. Consequently, Homsub needed to apportion the sales value in a different way. This would not necessarily be on the basis of the relevant retail prices. This is because accurate apportionment is difficult, especially as, as Homsub explained, that labour is by far the largest cost component within the cost of a sandwich and the overall meal deal package, that is; much more staff labour was devoted to preparing sandwiches than serving drinks.

If the case stopped there, there would be additional output tax for Homsub to pay. However…

Methodology and best judgement

The court decided that the assessment methodology adopted by HMRC was significantly flawed and potentially misleading. A simple count of transactions that did attract VAT and those which did not attract VAT might be capable of being appropriate in certain kinds of business, but not in this case. Further, a statistician or forensic accountant would be ‘alarmed to find that the methodology used by HMRC was considered to be either acceptable or such as to give rise to a reasonably reliable result’. In court, the representative of HMRC was forced to agree with this interpretation- which must have caused embarrassment. The court also said that it was not its function to go on to undertake any kind of assessment to ascertain what, if any, additional VAT might be due.

Decision

In the court’s judgement the methodology was flawed to such an extent that it would be wholly unreasonable, and unfair to the appellant, to base a best judgement assessment thereon. The appeal was therefore allowed.

Commentary

Always have assessments of this sort reviewed. There is significant case law on ‘best judgement’ most salient being: Van Boeckel v C&E [1981] and Rahman v HMRC. Additionally, HMRC often make certain assumptions on assessments based on invigilation and mark up exercises. These can be challenged, as can the methodology. As examples, HMRC need to recognise, inter alia;

  • seasonal trade variations
  • discounts
  • customer preferences (in this case, Homsub explained that at some of its shops’ locations a lot of customers were students and preferred to take away rather than eating in)
  • representative periods
  • sales/special offers
  • the times invigilations were carried out (were they representative of all trade?)
  • the number of invigilations and ‘test meals’ – were they sufficient to establish a fair overall picture of the business?
  • own and staff use
  • business promotions
  • loss of goods (destroyed, waste, stolen etc)
  • gross/net
  • gifts to customers
  • alternative methods
  • HMRC staff experience etc

All of these and other situations can affect expected sale values.

I have further set out how HMRC operate in these situations here.

I have a success rate of over 90% in getting these types of assessments reduced or completely withdrawn. Please do not simply accept HMRC’s decision, nor the, increasingly, bullying stance they can adopt. Always challenge!

VAT: Disaggregation – The Caton case

By   12 September 2019
0

Latest from the courts.

In the Charles John Caton First Tier tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether HMRC were correct in deciding that a business was artificially split to avoid VAT registration (so called disaggregation, details here).

Background 

The appellant ran a café known as The Commonwealth for a number of years. Subsequently, his wife opened a restaurant in adjoining premises. HMRC decided that this was a single business and required a backdated VAT registration. This resulted in a retrospective VAT return and associated penalties for late registration.

HMRC pointed to the leases, the liability insurance and the alcohol licence, which are all in Mr Caton’s name, together with the fact he signed a questionnaire stating that he was sole proprietor of the restaurant, and the fact that the washing up area is shared, and say that these show that there was only one business. They also said that the fact that Mrs Caton did not have a bank account and therefore card takings from the restaurant went into Mr Caton’s bank account further bolsters their case.

The appellant proffered the following facts to support the contention that there were two separate businesses: There were separate staff in the restaurant and the café. Those for the cafe were hired by Mr Caton, and are his responsibility, and those for the restaurant were hired by Mrs Caton and are her responsibility. The cooking is done completely separately, by different people using different cooking areas. The menus are completely different, and when the café sells the restaurant ‘specials’ they are rung up on the till with a marker that shows they are restaurant sales. Although the majority of the food is ordered from the same place, there are separate orders (even though these orders are placed at the same time and paid for using Mr Caton’s bank account). Mrs Caton decides on the menu for the restaurant and the prices. She keeps the cash generated from the sales in the cafe, and this is not banked in Mr Caton’s account. Depending on the ratio of cash sales to card sales in any given month, she may need to pay some of it to Mr Caton for the rent, rates etc, but any surplus she keeps.There were two tills, one for the restaurant and one for the cafe.

The Law

The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 1A provides that:

(1)  Paragraph 2 below is for the purpose of preventing the maintenance or creation of any artificial separation of business activities carried on by two or more persons from resulting in an avoidance of VAT.

(2) In determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above whether any separation of business activities is artificial, regard shall be had to the extent to which the different persons carrying on those activities are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links.

VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 2 provides that:

(1)… if the Commissioners make a direction under this paragraph, the persons named in the direction shall be treated as a single taxable person carrying on the activities of a business described in the direction…

Decision

The judge decided that she considered the facts that point to the businesses being run and owned as two separate operations were significantly stronger that facts that point to a joint ownership. And the appeal was allowed.

Commentary

These types of cases are decided on the precise facts. I think that this one must have been a close call. It appears the fact that may have swung it was that the judge commented “We find it extremely surprising, in this case, that HMRC have never met with Mrs Caton or, in correspondence, asked her for any details. Mr Caton and HMRC have both told us that he has consistently maintained from the first meeting the fact that Mrs Caton runs the restaurant. We find it impossible that HMRC could be in possession of facts sufficient to make a reasonable decision on this case without hearing from Mrs Caton.” That approach by HMRC is never going to play well in court. It strikes me that this type of approach is increasing in the department. Whether this is down to lack of training, resources or simple corner cutting to save time I cannot say.

If HMRC issue a direction under VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 2 that two or more businesses should be treated as one, it is always worth having that decision reviewed. This is especially relevant in cases such as this where customers are the final consumers making the VAT sticking tax.

The ABC of VAT – property

By   28 May 2019
0

A glossary

Anyone who has had even the slightest brush with VAT will know that it is a very complex tax. Now, multiply that complexity by the intricacy and occasionally arcane nature of property law and one may see that the outcome will be less than straightforward. I have produced a general guide and an article on residential property VAT Triggerpoints

I hope the following glossary will help with steering through some of the difficulties.

  • Annex– a building which is joined to or is next to a larger main building usually an extension or addition to a building
  • Assign – to transfer the right or interest in a property from one party to another
  • Break clause – a clause allowing either landlord or tenant to give written notice after a particular date or period of the tenancy in order to end the tenancy
  • Beneficial owner – party deemed to make a supply of property rather than the legal owner
  • Blocked input tax – VAT which a developer is unable to recover when constructing a new dwelling. Typically, expenditure on good such as; carpets, fitted furniture, and gas and electrical appliances
  • Building materials– goods ordinarily incorporated into a property which attracts similar VAT treatment to the construction services.
  • Capital Goods Scheme(CGS) – a method of calculating the recovery amount of input tax incurred on property over a ten-year period, Details of the CGS here
  • Certificate – a document issued to a supplier in order to obtain certain zero-rated or reduced-rated building work
  • Change of number of dwellings– usually a conversion from commercial to residential, or a single house into flats (or flats into a single house) at 5% VAT
  • Consideration– a thing done or given in exchange for something else = a supply. Usually quantified in money, but in some cases non-monetary consideration
  • Construction of new dwellings – a zero rated supply
  • Contract – legal document detailing the agreement of terms between the vendor and buyer
  • Contractor – entity responsible for building works
  • Conversion–work on a non-residential building which results in a property designed as a dwelling(s) being created
  • Covenants – rules governing the property in its title deeds or lease. May impact the definition of dwellings
  • Curtilage– either a garden, or an area surrounding a building which is deemed to be part of the property
  • Designed as a dwelling– a property initially designed for residential use, regardless of any subsequent alternative use
  • Dilapidations – items that have been damaged during a tenancy for which the tenant is responsible for the cost of repair or replacement. Usually VAT free
  • DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – a scheme which ‘self-builders’ to recover VAT on a new build dwelling or conversion. Details here
  • Dwelling– a building deemed to be residential
  • Empty house – if, in the ten years before work on a dwelling starts, it has not been lived in, the work may be subject to 5% rather than 20% VAT
  • Exempt– a supply that is VAT free. It usually results in attributable input tax falling to be irrecoverable
  • Facade– a wall (or two walls on a corner plot) which may be retained without affecting the zero rating of a new dwelling construction
  • Grant– a supply of an interest in land
  • Holiday home – the sale or long lease of a holiday home cannot be zero-rated even if it is designed as a dwelling
  • Housing Association – a non-profit organisation which rents residential property to people on low incomes or with particular needs
  • In the course of construction– meaningful works that have occurred in relation to the construction of a building (but prior to its completion)
  • Incorporated goods – goods sold with a new dwelling which are zero rated and to which the input tax block does not apply. See white goods
  • Input tax– VAT incurred on expenditure associated with property
  • Interest in, or right over, land– the right to access to and use of, land. Usually via ownership or lease
  • Lease – legal document governing the occupation by the tenant of a premises for a specific length of time
  • Licence to occupy– a permission to use land that does not amount to a tenancy
  • Live-work units – a property that combines a dwelling and commercial or industrial working space. Usually subject to apportionment
  • Major interest–a supply of a freehold interest or a lease exceeding 21 years
  • Multiple occupancy dwelling – a dwelling which is designed for occupation by persons not forming a single household
  • New building–a commercial building less than three years old the sale of which is mandatorily standard
  • Non-residential– a commercial building which is not used as a dwelling
  • Open market value – likely sale price with a willing seller and buyer, with a reasonable period of marketing and no special factors affecting the property
  • Option to tax (OTT) – act of changing the exempt sale or letting of a commercial into a taxable supply. The purpose is to either; recover input tax or avoid input tax being charged. Details here
  • OTT disapplication– the legal removal of a vendor’s option to tax
  • OTT not applicable – the OTT does not apply to residential buildings (so VAT can never apply to dwellings)
  • OTT revocation– the ability to revoke an option to tax after six months or twenty years
  • Partial exemption– a calculation to attribute input tax to exempt and taxable. Generally, VAT incurred in respect of exempt supplies is irrecoverable
  • Person constructing – a developer, contractor or sub-contractor who constructs a building
  • Premium – upfront payment for a supply of property
  • Relevant Charitable Purpose (RCP)–the use by a charity for non-business purposes or for use as a village hall or similar
  • Relevant Residential Purpose (RRP)– dwelling used for certain defined residential purposes, eg; children’s home, a hospice or student accommodation
  • Reverse surrender– a tenant surrenders an onerous lease to the landlord and makes a payment to surrender
  • Share of freehold – where the freehold of the property is owned by a company and the shareholders are the owners of the property
  • Single household dwelling– a building designed for occupation by a single household
  • Snagging – the correction of building faults. Usually follows the VAT liability of the original work
  • Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) – tax paid by a purchaser of a property. SDLT is increased if the sale of a commercial property is the subject of an option to tax
  • Substantial reconstruction– certain significant works to a listed building
  • Surrender– a tenant surrenders the lease to the landlord in return for payment
  • Taxable supply– a supply subject to VAT at the standard, reduced or zero-rate
  • Use as a dwelling – a building which was designed or adapted for use as someone’s home and is so used
  • Vendor – entity selling a property
  • Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC) – the VAT free sale of the assets of a business as a going concern. This may include a tenanted property
  • Zero-rated– a taxable supply subject to VAT at a rate of 0%

We strongly recommend that advice is obtained if any property transaction is being undertaken.

Details of our land and property services may be found here.

VAT: Treatment of vouchers, gifts and discounts – How business promotions work

By   24 May 2019
0
Business promotions are an area of VAT which continues to prove complex.  This is further exacerbated by changes to the legislation at EU and domestic level and ongoing case law. The main points are; whether there is a supply, and, if so, what is the value of that supply?

I hope that the VAT position is helpfully summarised here. I thought it may be useful if the VAT treatment of various business promotion schemes is summarised in one place.

…I recall a statement from an old mentor of mine; “if you have a marketing department you have a VAT issue!”

Summary

Offer How to charge VAT
Discounts Charged on the discounted price (not the full price)
Gifts Charged on the gift’s full value – there are some exceptions listed below
Multi-buys Charged on the combined price if all the items have the same VAT rate. If not, VAT is ‘apportioned’ as mixed-rate goods
Money-off coupons, vouchers etc No VAT due if given away free at time of a purchase. If not, VAT due on the price charged
Face value vouchers that can be used for more than one type of good or service (multi-purpose) No VAT due, if sold at or below their monetary value
Face value vouchers that can only be used for one type of good or service (single-purpose) VAT due on the value of the voucher when issued
Redeemed face value vouchers Charged on the full value of the transaction at the appropriate rate of the goods provided in return for the voucher

 Exceptions for gifts

There’s no VAT due on gifts given to the same person if their total value in a 12 month period is less than £50.

Free goods and services

A business is not required to account for VAT on things like free samples if they meet certain conditions.

Supplies Condition to meet so no VAT due
Free samples Used for marketing purposes and provided in a quantity that lets potential customers test the product
Free loans of business assets The cost of hiring the asset is included in something else you sell to the customer
Free gifts The total cost of all gifts to the same person is less than £50 in a 12 month period
Free services You don’t get any payment or goods or services in return

Background

Face value vouchers

Recent changes, radically alter the UK rules for face value vouchers (FVV). FVVs are; vouchers, tokens, stamps (physical or electronic) which entitle the holder to certain goods or services up to the value on the face of the vouchers from the supplier of those goods or services.

Examples of FVVs would include vouchers sold by popular group discount websites, vouchers sold by high street retailers, book tokens, stamps and various high street vouchers.

Single or multi-purpose

The most important distinction for FFVs is whether a voucher is a single purpose voucher or multi-purpose voucher. If it is a multi-purpose voucher then little has changed. If it is a single purpose voucher, however, HMRC will now required output tax to be accounted for at the date it is issued.

Single purpose vouchers are vouchers which carry the right to receive only one type of goods or services which are all subject to a single rate of VAT. Multi-purpose vouchers are anything else. The differences can be quite subtle.

For example:

  • a voucher which entitles you to download an e-book from one seller will be a single purpose voucher. A voucher which entitles you to either books (zero rated) or an e-book download (standard rated) from the same seller will be multi-purpose
  • a voucher which entitles you to £10 of food at a restaurant which does not sell takeaways is probably single purpose, whereas if the restaurant has a cold salad bar and you can buy a take away with the voucher (or hot food) then it would be multi-purpose. 

The above means that for single purpose vouchers VAT is due whether the voucher is actually redeemed or not; which seems an unfair result. There is no way to reduce output tax previously accounted for if the voucher is not used.

Please contact us if you, or your clients use this type of business promotion. of course, get it wrong, and there is likely to be a financial penalty!

VAT: Valuation – interest free credit

By   15 October 2018
0

Latest from the courts. The Dixon Carphone plc (Dixon) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case.

It considered the value of a retail sale where interest free credit was offered. Was it the amount paid by the consumer, or the amount actually received by Dixon after the deductions made by the credit supplier?

Background

The transactions which were the subject of this case are as follows:

  • a consumer purchases goods in a Dixon store and pays a deposit to Dixon
  • the balance of the cost of the purchase is funded by a loan, provided by a third-party loan company
  • the customer gives authority to the loan company to pay the money borrowed to Dixon
  • the customer loan is on favourable terms to the consumer as it is an interest free: “Buy Now, Pay Later” arrangement
  • the amount paid by the loan company to Dixon is a lower amount than that authorised by the consumer, following deduction of an amount described as a “Subsidy”.
  • the customer pays no interest on the amount borrowed if the full amount of credit is repaid by the customer within the “Pay Later” offer period.

Contentions

The appellant argued that the general rule, derived from the VAT Directive Article 73, is that the taxable amount is everything received by the supplier as consideration. In more complex cases, with more than one paying party, the consideration should be everything moving from each paying party and received by the supplier. Consequently, in these transactions there is a reduction in what was received by Dixon consequently, the taxable amount on which VAT should be calculated should be the amount received by Dixon from the loan company.

HMRC contended that output tax was due on the full selling price and that the other transactions did not impact the value of the supply.

Decision

As in a similar case which was decided at the CJEU: Primback Ltd C-34/99 ([2001] STC 803, The FTT decided that the loan company was providing the finance to the consumer who used the money to pay Dixon the full retail price of the goods. The loan company’s “Subsidy” did reduce the amount paid by the loan company directly to Dixon on behalf of the consumer, but this transaction did not affect the amount owed by the consumer for the goods.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Practical application

HMRC provide an example of the VAT treatment of interest free credit along the lines as follows:

Goods are sold for £600 on six months interest free credit terms.  As far as the customer is concerned, (s)he merely pays six instalments of £100 to the loan company.

Under separate arrangements between a loan company and the retailer, the loan company makes a deduction from the amount forwarded to the retailer, which accordingly, received only £560, not the full amount of £600. HMRC regard this deduction as third-party consideration, paid by the retailer for the loan made to the customer, and that output tax on £600 is due. Because there is no consideration, in the form of interest, paid by the customer on an interest-free loan, there is no supply for VAT purposes.

Commentary

The value of retail sales has often been an issue in the VAT world, whether it be interest free credit, credit card charges, BOGOF, or “bumping” in the motor industry. Care should be taken when deciding the value of consideration to be used for output tax declarations and advice should be sought if there is any doubt. It appears that the issue of interest free credit has now been killed off, but with ingenious marketing ideas always being created, VAT must be considered at an early stage.