Category Archives: VAT commentary

VAT: Discounts – value of supply. The TalkTalk case

By Marcus Ward 11 January 2023

In the First Tier tribunal (FTT) case of TalkTalk Telecom Limited the issue was the amount of consideration received on which output tax was due. Specifically, whether “prompt payment discounts” which were offered, but not taken up by customers, reduced the value of a supply.

Background

TalkTalk offered most of its retail customers the option of receiving a 15% discount on its services if their monthly bills were paid within 24 hours.

TalkTalk accounted for output tax on the basis that the consideration received was reduced by the discount, whether or not customers had in fact paid within the 24 hours. In other words; whether or not the discount had actually been applied so that customers paid less.

The appellant considered that this approach was consistent with Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 6 Para 4(1), which provides:

“Where goods or services are supplied for a consideration in money and on terms allowing a discount for prompt payment, the consideration shall be taken for the purposes of section 19 as reduced by the discount, whether or not payment is made in accordance with those terms.”

HMRC’s contention was that the offer only reduced the consideration for VAT purposes where customers had actually paid the reduced amount, and that there was no reduction when the discount was not taken up.

Decision

The above legislation only applies to services supplied “on terms allowing a discount for prompt payment”. In deciding whether this was the case in this appeal the FTT analysed the contractual position.

The contracts were governed by terms and conditions (T&Cs) published on TTL’s website. This discount was not referred to in the T&Cs, but on a separate dedicated page within the same website.

The judge decided that the discount contractual term comes into existence at exactly the same moment as the payment and the supply. There was not a contractual term under the T&C’s under which a lower amount was payable if payments were made earlier. On this point, TalkTalk contended that the T&Cs were varied by the subsequent discount option, and, as a result, the services had been “supplied…on terms allowing a discount for prompt payment” as required by Para 4(1), but this argument was rejected.

As per the Virgin Media Upper Tribunal case the Tribunal considered that the position was different between services billed in advance, and services billed in arrears.

Advance payments

The contractual variation did not include an offer for the customer to pay a discounted amount at some point in the future, so Para 4(1) did not apply to services billed in advance.

Payment in arrears

The FTT ruled that customers accepted the discount offer after delivery of the services. The supply had therefore been made on the terms set out in the T&Cs, and the customer was therefore contractually required to pay the full amount. The discount option was an offer by the appellant to accept a lower sum with an earlier payment date to discharge that pre-existing contractual obligation. As a matter of law, this was an offer to accept a post-supply rebate of consideration already due and therefore it could not be a discount.

The appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Another case which highlights both the complexity of the rules on consideration and the importance of contracts. At stake here was VAT of £10,606,226.00 which was deemed to be underpaid during a four-month period only. If in doubt – take advice!

VAT: Increase in interest rates

By Marcus Ward 11 January 2023

As a consequence of the change in the Bank Of England base rate from 3% to 3.5%, HMRC’s interest rates for late payment and repayment will also increase.

These changes will come into effect on:

26 December 2022 for quarterly instalment payments
6 January 2023 for non-quarterly instalments payments

The HMRC publication Information on the interest rates for payments will be updated shortly.

HMRC interest rates are set in legislation and are linked to the Bank of England base rate. Late payment interest is set at base rate plus 2.5%. Repayment interest is set at base rate minus 1%, with a lower limit, or “minimum floor” of 0.5%.

VAT: What are split payments?

By Marcus Ward 9 January 2023

The term “split payment” is increasingly cropping up in conversations and in the media, so I thought it would be a good time to look at the concept.

Split payments, sometimes called real-time extraction, uses 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?

At the end of the year HMRC 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 a number of 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.

VAT: How to remove penalty points under the new system

By Marcus Ward 9 January 2023

HMRC has introduced new penalty and interest rules for late returns and payments from 1 January 2023. Details here.

On 4 January 2023 HMRC published guidance on how to remove these points to avoid a penalty. This is particularly important if a business has reached the penalty point threshold.

The penalty thresholds are:

annual returns – 2 points
quarterly returns – 4 points
monthly returns – 5 points

If a business is at the limit and has the maximum points allowed for its accounting periods, it can remove them by meeting two conditions which are:

to complete a period of compliance, submitting all returns by the deadline
to submit all outstanding returns for the previous 24 months

The guidance sets out how these tests are calculated and applied.

VAT: Selling goods using an online marketplace – new guidance

By Marcus Ward 3 January 2023

HMRC has published new guidance for use when a business sells goods using an online marketplace (an e-commerce site that connects sellers with buyers where transactions are managed by the website owner) or direct to customers in the UK.

It can be used to check when a seller is required to pay UK VAT.

It is important, especially for sellers based outside the UK, to understand the tax consequences when such marketplaces are used. It is not always possible to rely on the platforms to deal with output tax on sales made to UK recipients.

The guidance covers:

selling goods using an online marketplace
selling goods direct to customers in the UK
checks online marketplaces need to do
VAT when goods are returned to the seller

A VAT Did you know?

By Marcus Ward 19 December 2022

Chocolate body paint is zero rated, but a bar of chocolate is standard rated.

VAT: TOGC and deliberate errors – The Apollinaire case

By Marcus Ward 19 December 2022

Latest from the courts

In the First -Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Apollinaire Ltd and Mr Z H Hashmi the issues were:

whether the appellant’s input tax claim was valid
were the director’s actions “deliberate”
was a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) appropriate?

Background

Mr Hashmi (the sole director of Apollinaire) asserted that he sold his business, Snow Whyte Limited to a Mr Singh as a going concern, together with the trading name “Benny Hamish”. The purchase price was never paid. He alleged that Mr Singh traded for approximately one month and then sold stock worth £573,756 to Apollinaire. The appellant submitted an input tax claim for the purchase of the goods. HMRC refused to make the repayment and raised penalties for deliberate errors. HMRC subsequently issued a PLN to Mr Hashmi.

Issues

Initially HMRC stated that Mr Singh may not have existed, that there was no sale of Snow Whyte Ltd by Mr Hashmi to Mr Singh and similarly, no sale back to Mr Hashmi. However, this submission was later amended to argue that Mr Hashmi controlled the movement of the stock at all times and that the issue was whether the transfer of stock from Snow Whyte Limited was a Transfer Of a Going Concern (TOGC), whether or not Mr Singh existed.

Mr Hashmi appealed, contending that the transactions took place as described to HMRC.

Decision

Unsurprisingly, given Mr Hashmi’s previous history of dissolving companies, but continuing to trade under the same name as those companies (listed at para 14 of the decision) and failing to submit returns and payments, the FTT accepted HMRC’s version of events. Further, there was insufficient evidence to support the transactions (if they took place) and the judge fund that the appellant’s evidence was not credible. If the events did take place, there was no input tax to claim as all the tests (where relevant here) for a TOGC (Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995, Regulation 5) were met:

the assets were sold as a business as a going concern
the assets were used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business
there was no break in trading
both entities traded under the same name
both entities operated from the same premises
both entities had the same employees and tills

The appeal was dismissed.

Penalties

The FTT further decided that HMRC’s penalties and PLN [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] were appropriate. The claim for input tax was deliberately overstated and that Mr Hashmi was the controlling mind of both entities and was personally liable as the sole company director of Apollinaire.

HMRC relied on case law: Clynes v Revenue and Customs[2016] UKFTT 369 (TC) which reads as follows:

“On its normal meaning, the use of the term indicates that for there to be a deliberate inaccuracy on a person’s part, the person must have acted consciously, with full intention or set purpose or in a considered way…

…Our view is that, depending on the circumstances, an inaccuracy may also be held to be deliberate where it is found that the person consciously or intentionally chose not to find out the correct position, in particular, where the circumstances are such that the person knew he should do so.”

Commentary

This case is a reverse of the usual TOGC disputes as HMRC sought to establish that there was no taxable supply so no VAT was due. It underlines that:

care should always be taken with applying TOGC treatment (or appreciating the results of failing to recognise a TOGC)
penalties for deliberate errors can be significant and swingeing
directors can, and are, held personally responsible for actions taken by a company

VAT: Museums and galleries – update

By Marcus Ward 13 December 2022

Museums and galleries which offer free admission to the public may be eligible for refunds of VAT under the Museums and Galleries VAT Refund Scheme. Eligible bodies are listed Value Added Tax (Refund of Tax to Museums and Galleries) Order 2001. This list published as an annex to VAT Notice 998. This list has been updated.

HMRC has announced that the scheme has now reopened for eligible museums and galleries. The closing date for this round of applications has been extended to 5pm Wednesday 1 March 2023.

To be considered for inclusion in the scheme museums or galleries must:

be open to the general public for at least 30 hours per week, without exception
offer free entry, without prior appointment
hold collections in a purpose-built building
display details of free entry and opening hours on the museum or gallery website

Background

Museums and galleries offering free access are not regarded as being engaged in any business in relation to this activity. They may, of course, have other activities that in their own right are business activities, for example, catering, sales of books and gifts and exhibitions for which there is a charge.

Via the usual VAT rules, it is not possible to recover the VAT incurred on goods and services purchased to support non-business activities. Thus VAT incurred in connection with the free admission of the public is not normally recoverable.

However, the government will reimburse this otherwise irrecoverable VAT. For this to be the case, the provisions of section 33A of the VAT Act 1994 must apply, and the museum or gallery must be named in an order made by HM Treasury.

Examples of acceptable claims are for VAT incurred on:

items and collections on display
goods and services necessary for their upkeep
upkeep of the part of the building in which they are housed
provision of free information in relation to the items or collections on display, including advertising and other promotional material

Claiming

Application forms may be requested by emailing vat33a@dcms.gov.uk

VAT Domestic Reverse Charge technical guide

By Marcus Ward 12 December 2022

An overview of the Domestic Reverse Charge (DRC) here.

HMRC has published amended guidance on the DRC. The main change involves the supply of scaffolding on zero-rated new build housing. The guidance confirms the change to HMRC’s previous policy and that there will be transitional period up to 1 February 2023 where businesses can use either reverse charge accounting or normal VAT rules.

Updated guidance on agents VAT registering clients

By Marcus Ward 7 December 2022

HMRC has published updated guidance for agents registering business for VAT. Broadly, the new document covers what information agents require, which may be summarised as:

the agent’s Government Gateway user ID and password for either agent services account or HMRC Online services
agent’s name
agent’s phone number
agent’s email address
the client’s name
client’s date of birth
details of client’s turnover and nature of business
client’s bank account details
client’s National Insurance number
a form of ID from the client, eg: passport or driving licence
client’s Corporation Tax Payments, PAYE, Self-Assessment Return, recent payslip or P60

Limited companies

If an agent is registering a limited company client, they must have a Company Registration Number and a Corporation Tax Unique Taxpayer Reference (UTR) to complete the VAT registration process.

Individuals and partnerships

These applications do not need to have a Self-Assessment UTR to register for VAT, but if they do, it must be supplied.

An agent will be asked to verify the entity it is registering, therefore it is prudent to obtain the basic history and background of the applicant’s business before starting the process. Cleary this is good practice generally!