Category Archives: VAT commentary

VAT: Input tax attribution to business and non-business activities

By   15 September 2022
0

HMRC has issued new guidance on the amount of input tax claimable when an element is attributable to non-business (NB) activities.

If an entity is involved in both business and NB activities, eg; a charity which provides free advice and also has a shop which sells donated goods, it is unable to recover all of the VAT it incurs.  VAT attributable to NB activities is not input tax and cannot be reclaimed.  Therefore it is necessary to calculate the quantum of VAT attributable to business and NB activities. That VAT which cannot be attributed is called overhead VAT and must be apportioned between business and NB activities.  There are many varied ways of doing this as the VAT legislation does not specify any particular method.  Therefore it is important to consider all of the available alternatives. Examples of these are; income, expenditure, time, floorspace, transaction count etc (similar to those methods available for partial exemption calculations).

The new guidance is mainly as a result of the Sveda ECJ case.

The definition of business and NB here.

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

Further reading

The following articles consider case law and other relevant business/NB issues:

Wakefield College

Longbridge

Babylon Farm

A Shoot

Y4 Express

Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft

Healthwatch Hampshire CIC 

Pertempts Limited

Northumbria Healthcare

Incoterms: What are they, and how can they be of use for VAT?

By   12 September 2022
0

VAT – Cross border sales of goods

Incoterms stands for International Commercial Terms.

These are published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and describe agreed commercial terms. These rules set out the responsibilities of buyers and sellers for the supply of goods under a contract. They are very commonly used in cross-border commercial transactions in order that both sides in a transaction are aware of the contractual position. They help businesses avoid costly misunderstandings by clarifying the tasks, costs and risks involved in the delivery of goods from sellers to buyers. The latest terms were published in 2010 and came into effect in 2011.

The use of Incoterms for assistance for VAT purposes

One of the most difficult areas of providing VAT advice is obtaining sufficient detailed information to advise accurately and comprehensively.  Quite often advisers are given what a client believes to be the arrangements for a transaction. This may differ from the actual facts, or the understanding of the other party in the transaction.

Pragmatically, this uncertainty about the details may be increased if; a number of different people within an organisation are involved, it is a new or one-off type of transaction, there are language difficulties, or communication and documentation is less than ideal. In such cases, incoterms will provide invaluable information which gives clarity and certainty and usually give a sound basis on which to advise. This enables the adviser to establish the place of supply (POS) and therefore what VAT treatment needs to be applied.

So what is this set of pre-defined international contract terms?

They are 11 pre-defined terms which are subdivided into two categories:

Group 1 – Incoterms that apply to any mode of transport are:

EXW – Ex Works (named place)

The seller makes the goods available at their premises. This term places the maximum obligation on the buyer and minimum obligations on the seller. EXW means that a buyer incurs the risks for bringing the goods to their final destination. The buyer arranges the pickup of the freight from the supplier’s designated ship site, owns the in-transit freight, and is responsible for clearing the goods through Customs. The buyer is also responsible for completing all the export documentation.

Most jurisdictions require companies to provide proof of export for VAT purposes. In an EXW shipment, the buyer is under no obligation to provide such proof, or indeed to even export the goods. It is therefore of utmost importance that these matters are discussed with the buyer before the contract is agreed.

FCA – Free Carrier (named place of delivery)

The seller delivers the goods, cleared for export, at a named place. This can be to a carrier nominated by the buyer, or to another party nominated by the buyer.

It should be noted that the chosen place of delivery has an impact on the obligations of loading and unloading the goods at that place. If delivery occurs at the seller’s premises, the seller is responsible for loading the goods on to the buyer’s carrier. However, if delivery occurs at any other place, the seller is deemed to have delivered the goods once their transport has arrived at the named place; the buyer is responsible for both unloading the goods and loading them onto their own carrier.

CPT – Carriage Paid To (named place of destination)

The seller pays for the carriage of the goods up to the named place of destination. Risk transfers to buyer upon handing goods over to the first carrier at the place of shipment in the country of Export. The Shipper is responsible for origin costs including export clearance and freight costs for carriage to named place (usually a destination port or airport). The shipper is not responsible for delivery to the final destination (generally the buyer’s facilities), or for buying insurance. If the buyer does require the seller to obtain insurance, the Incoterm CIP should be considered.

CIP – Carriage and Insurance Paid to (named place of destination)

This term is broadly similar to the above CPT term, with the exception that the seller is required to obtain insurance for the goods while in transit. CIP requires the seller to insure the goods for 110% of their value.

DAT – Delivered At Terminal (named terminal at port or place of destination)

This term means that the seller covers all the costs of transport (export fees, carriage, unloading from main carrier at destination port and destination port charges) and assumes all risk until destination port or terminal. The terminal can be a Port, Airport, or inland freight interchange. Import duty/VAT/customs costs are to be borne by the buyer.

DAP – Delivered At Place (named place of destination)

The seller is responsible for arranging carriage and for delivering the goods, ready for unloading from the arriving conveyance, at the named place. Duties are not paid by the seller under this term. The seller bears all risks involved in bringing the goods to the named place.

DDP – Delivered Duty Paid (named place of destination)

The seller is responsible for delivering the goods to the named place in the country of the buyer, and pays all costs in bringing the goods to the destination including import duties and VAT. The seller is not responsible for unloading. This term places the maximum obligations on the seller and minimum obligations on the buyer. With the delivery at the named place of destination all the risks and responsibilities are transferred to the buyer and it is considered that the seller has completed his obligations.

Group 2 – Incoterms that apply to sea and inland waterway transport only:

FAS – Free Alongside Ship (named port of shipment)

The seller delivers when the goods are placed alongside the buyer’s vessel at the named port of shipment. This means that the buyer has to bear all costs and risks of loss of or damage to the goods from that moment. The FAS term requires the seller to clear the goods for export. However, if the parties wish the buyer to clear the goods for export, this should be made clear by adding explicit wording to this effect in the contract of sale. This term can be used only for sea or inland waterway transport.

FOB – Free On Board (named port of shipment)

FOB means that the seller pays for delivery of goods to the vessel including loading. The seller must also arrange for export clearance. The buyer pays cost of marine freight transport, insurance, unloading and transport cost from the arrival port to destination. The buyer arranges for the vessel, and the shipper must load the goods onto the named vessel at the named port of shipment. Risk passes from the seller to the buyer when the goods are loaded aboard the vessel.

CFR – Cost and Freight (named port of destination)

The seller pays for the carriage of the goods up to the named port of destination. Risk transfers to buyer when the goods have been loaded on board the ship in the country of export. The shipper is responsible for origin costs including export clearance and freight costs for carriage to named port. The shipper is not responsible for delivery to the final destination from the port (generally the buyer’s facilities), or for buying insurance. CFR should only be used for non-containerised sea freight, for all other modes of transport it should be replaced with CPT.

CIF – Cost, Insurance and Freight (named port of destination)

This term is broadly similar to the above CFR term, with the exception that the seller is required to obtain insurance for the goods while in transit to the named port of destination. CIF requires the seller to insure the goods for 110% of their. CIF should only be used for non-containerised sea freight; for all other modes of transport it should be replaced with CIP.

Allocations of costs to buyer/seller via incoterms

Once the Incoterm has been established, the VAT treatment is usually immediately apparent.

Summary Chart

Incoterms Chart

VAT: Which entity receives a supply? The Star Services case

By   8 September 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the Star Services Oxford Limited (Star) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was the identity of the entity receiving the supply, whether it held a valid tax invoice, and whether input tax could be claimed.

Background

The appellant claimed input tax incurred on rental payments to Oxford City Council. This was disallowed by HMRC on the grounds that the rental agreement was with Mr Latifi (a sole proprietor in a property rental business) and not the company which was VAT registered.

After the rental agreement was signed the business was incorporated and carried on a bed and breakfast activities from the premises, along with two separate sub-lets to third parties. One party paid rent to Star and one directly to Mr Latifi.

Contentions

HMRC argued that:

  • Mr Latifi and the Appellant are separate legal entities, both of whom are required to register for VAT separately if carrying on taxable business activities
  • the assessment was correct as the company was not entitled to an input tax credit as it was not the person who had incurred the liability
  • the Appellant did not hold a valid VAT invoice, which entitles it to deduct the input tax

Star contended:

  • there was a technical error in the lease agreement
  • the assessment was excessive
  • subsequent to the assessment, the lease was registered to the Appellant
  • the lease was acquired in Mr Latifi’s name because the Appellant did not exist at the time that the lease agreement was entered into. At the relevant time there was an innocent omission to transfer the lease from Mr Latifi’s name to the Appellant’s name, and the delay was caused by forgetfulness
  • a company may, under The VAT Act 1994 s. 24(6)(c) and if permitted by Regulations, claim input tax on the pre-incorporation supplies received for its business
  • the Appellant has accounted for the VAT (therefore there was no loss of tax)
  • the fact that Mr Latifi is beneficial owner of both “the company” (by virtue of controlling shares and directorship) and “the property” must have an impact on the decision to assess

Decision

The appeal was dismissed.

The Appellant was not entitled to claim input tax on the invoices and HMRC were correct to disallow input tax. It did not receive the supply and it did not hold a VAT invoice.

It was decided that the legal relationship was between Oxford City Council and Mr Latifi. This is because the lease agreement was between these parties and not the Appellant.

It was found that the rent from one sub-tenant was paid to Mr Latifi directly and is not accounted for by the Appellant and that the reassigned lease has no bearing on the property rental activities undertaken by Mr Latifi prior to the reassignment.

The rules on pre-incorporation supplies* do not apply in this case because Mr Latifi, as sole proprietor, and the Appellant, are separate legal entities, requiring separate VAT registration.

Interestingly, a recent case was relied on: In Tower Bridge GP Ltd the Court of Appeal ruled that absent a valid VAT invoice showing the supplier’s VAT number and the customer’s name, the right to deduct input tax on that invoice could not be exercised.

Summary

An unfortunate oversight was sufficient for HMRC to refuse the input tax claim. This case does have a whiff of unfairness about it, but by applying the letter of the law the outcome is unarguable. The contentions here are similar to those in the Aitmatov Academy case.

Another case of taking care with claims.

* A business may, generally, claim the VAT incurred on services it has purchased for its taxable business purposes during the six months prior to VAT registration .

The VAT Act 1994, s 24(6) (c) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Reg 111.

VAT: Education and Health & Welfare – new HMRC guidance

By   23 August 2022
0

The subject of education often gives rise to complex VAT issues – as the number of Tribunal cases illustrates.

Background

A number of schools provide early or pre-school education (before compulsory education). All children aged four should be able to access an early education place and some early education and childcare services offer free part-time early or pre-school education to three year olds. This is paid for at the discretion of Local Authorities. Places for children under three in voluntary or private pre-school settings are paid for mainly by parents.

Update

In light of, inter alia, the Yarburgh Children’s Trust, Wakefield College , Longbridge and St Paul’s Community Project, HMRC has updated to reflect changes to it’s policy in respect of charities supplying; crèche, pre-school education, nursery, after-school clubs and playgroup facilities.

Business test

HMRC’s past position was that if a charity supplied nursery and crèche facilities for a consideration that was fixed at a level designed to only cover its costs, this was not a business activity for VAT purposes. Now the two-part test derived from the Wakefield College Court of Appeal case will be applied:

  • Test One

The activity results in a supply of goods or services for consideration. This requires a legal relationship between the supplier and the recipient. The initial question is whether the supply is made for a consideration. An activity that does not involve the making of supplies for consideration is not a business activity.

  • Test Two

The supply is made for the purpose of obtaining income therefrom (remuneration)

General

The provision of pre-school education (without charge) is non-business; breakfast clubs and after-school child-minding/homework clubs remain non-business in the Local Authority sector even when a charge is made. This is on condition that the school offers the service strictly to its own pupils and that the fee charged is designed to no more than cover overhead costs.

Law

VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6 – Education

VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, Item 9 – Health and Welfare

VAT & Customs Duty: Goodbye CHIEF, hello CDS

By   23 August 2022
0

Businesses who import into the UK currently use Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) to declare goods.

There is also a separate scheme running concurrently, known as Customs Declaration Service (CDS).

From 1 October 2022 CHIEF will cease and importers must use CDS.

Exports

CHIEF is also currently used for exports and this will continue to a later date of: 31 March 2023.

Action

This change will significantly affect all businesses which import goods. Although it is likely that import agents will handle the majority of issues, an importer will be required to:

Failure to comply with these requirements will result in a business being unable to import goods.

VAT: Making Tax Digital (MTD) Reminder

By   23 August 2022
0

HMRC has issued a reminder that:

  • from 1 November 2022, taxpayers will no longer be able to use their existing VAT online account to file their monthly or quarterly VAT returns
  • taxpayers that file annual VAT returns will still be able to use their VAT online account until 15 May 2023
  • by law, VAT-registered businesses must now sign up to MTD and use MTD-compatible software to keep their VAT records and file their VAT returns
  • there are penalties for businesses that do not sign up for MTD and file their VAT returns through MTD-compatible software,
  • even if taxpayers already use MTD-compatible software to keep records and file their VAT returns online, they must sign up to MTD before they file their next return
  • businesses may be able to get a discount on software through the UK Government’s Help to Grow: Digital scheme, which offers 50% off compatible digital accounting software

VAT: Business or non-business? The Towards Zero Foundation case

By   16 August 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the The Towards Zero Foundation First Tier Tribunal case the issue was whether part of the appellant’s activities could be “stripped out”, classified as non-business, and therefore result in a loss of input tax.

This case follows a long succession of recent cases on the distinction between business (economic activity) and non-business. I have considered these in other articles:

Northumbria Healthcare

Wakefield College (referred to at this Tribunal)

Longbridge

Babylon Farm

A Shoot

Y4 Express

Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft

Healthwatch Hampshire CIC 

Pertempts Limited

and new HMRC guidance on the subject.

VAT attributable to non-business activities is not input tax and cannot be reclaimed. However, if the non-business activity is part of wider business activities then it may be recovered as input tax.

Background

The Appellant is a charity. Its primary objective is to achieve zero road traffic fatalities principally through the operation of New Car Assessment Programmes (NCAP) – testing car safety.

When it received money as consideration for carrying out the testing, it was agreed by all parties that that this represented economic activity.

As part of this activity, the charity purchased new cars (so called “mystery shopping” exercises) and carried out tests at its own expense. In this start-up phase for an NCAP it is necessary to test vehicles without manufacturer support as the independence of the testing programme is critical in order to establish consumer credibility.

The results of the tests (usually giving rise to substandard or unsatisfactory outcomes) are published and the Appellant generates publicity of the results through social media, news coverage, trade press etc. These results inform and influence customer buying behaviour which in turn drives manufacturers to improve the safety features.

As the market sophistication increases the NCAP star ratings for vehicles are used by the manufacturers in promotion of its vehicles.

The aim of the Appellant is for each jurisdictional NCAP to ultimately become self-funding through manufacturer testing fees.

Contentions

HMRC argued that when the appellant carried out tests on purchased vehicles this should be recognised as a specific activity which could not be a business as it generated no income – the tests should be considered in isolation. Consequently, the input tax which was recovered was blocked and an assessment was issued to disallow the claim.

The Foundation contended that it published the results of those tests, and this resulted in the commercial need for manufacturers to improve safety standards by way of commissions for further research. This research was funded by the car makers and was therefore economic activity. The “free” testing needed to be undertaken so as to create a market for manufacturer funded testing – the initial testing was just one element of the overall taxable supply. Consequently, all residual input tax incurred is attributed to its taxable business activities and fully recoverable.

Decision

The FTT found that it was clear that manufacturers would not proactively seek to have vehicles tested without an initial unfavourable baseline assessment. If the free testing had been a genuinely independent activity HMRC would be correct, but the evidence did not support this analysis. It found that the provision of free testing was an inherent and integral part of the appellant’s business activity.

This being the case there was no reason to attribute any VAT to non-business activities, and the input tax weas fully claimable.

Commentary

Another reminder, if one were needed, of the importance of correctly establishing whether the activities of a body (usually charities, but not exclusively) are business or non-business. The consequences will affect both the quantum of output tax and claiming VAT on expenditure. More on the topic here.

The decision was as anticipated, but this case illustrates HMRC’s willingness to challenge (often unsuccessfully) VAT treatment in similar situations.

VAT: No invoice – no claim. The Tower Bridge GP Ltd case

By   9 August 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal (CoA) case of Tower Bridge GP Ltd the issue was whether the appellant could claim input tax in a situation where it did not (and does not) hold a valid tax invoice.

Background

Tower Bridge was the representative member of a VAT group which contained Cantor Fitzgerald Europe Ltd (CFE). CFE traded in carbon credits. These carbon credit transactions were connected to VAT fraud.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that CFE neither knew, nor should have known, that the transactions it entered into before 15 June 2009 were connected to VAT fraud but that it should have known that its transactions were connected to fraud from 15 June 2009. The appeal relates only to transactions entered into before that date.

CFE purchased carbon credits from Stratex Alliance Limited (“Stratex”) The carbon credits supplied to CFE were to be used by the business for the purpose of its own onward taxable transactions (in carbon credits). The total of VAT involved was £5,605,119.74.

The Stratex invoices were not valid VAT invoices. They did not show a VAT registration number for Stratex, nor did they name CFE as the customer. Although Stratex was a taxable person, it transpired that Stratex was not registered for VAT (and therefore could not include a valid VAT number on its invoices) and that it fraudulently defaulted on its obligation to account to HMRC for the sums charged as output tax on these invoices.

Subsequent investigations by HMRC resulted in Stratex not being able to be traced.

Contentions

The appellant contended that it is entitled to make the deduction either as of right, or because HMRC unlawfully refused to use its discretion to allow the claim by accepting alternative evidence.

HMRC denied Tower Bridge the recovery of the input tax on the Stratex invoices on the basis that the invoices did not meet the formal legal requirements to be valid VAT invoices. HMRC also refused to exercise their discretion to allow recovery of the input tax on the basis that:

  • Stratex was not registered for VAT
  • the transactions were connected to fraud
  • CFE failed to conduct reasonable due diligence in relation to the transactions

Decision

Dismissing this appeal, the CoA ruled that where an invoice does not contain the information required by legislation (The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 No 2518 Part III, Regulation 14), or contains an error in that information, which is incapable of correction, the right to deduct cannot be exercised. The appellant did not have the ability to make a claim as of right.

The Court then considered whether HMRC ought to have permitted Tower Bridge to make a claim using alternative evidence. It found that the attack on HMRC’s exercise of discretion fails for the reasons contended by HMRC (above). These were perfectly legitimate matters for HMRC to take into account in deciding whether to exercise the first discretion in the taxable person’s favour.

CFE had failed to carry out “the most basic of checks on Stratex”.

So, the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

This was hardly a surprising outcome considering that if an exception were to be made, there would be a loss to the public purse consisting of the input tax, with no corresponding gain to the public purse from the output tax that Stratex ought to have paid, but fraudulently did not.

This case demonstrates the importance of obtaining a proper tax invoice and to carry out checks on its validity. Additionally, there is a need to conduct accurate due diligence on the supply chain. I have summarised the importance of Care with input tax claims which includes a helpful list of checks which must be carried out.

VAT & Customs Duty – Valuation for import purposes

By   5 August 2022
0

Methods of calculating import value

There are six methods for calculating the value of imported goods to assess the amount of Customs Duty and import VAT a business to pay. The same value is also used for trade statistics.

All six methods are outlined below and should be tried in order. If Method 1 does not apply, try Method 2. If that does not apply, try 3 and so on. However, Method 5 can be tried before 4.

Method 1

The transaction value – the price payable to the seller. This is the most common valuation and is used in most cases.

Try Method 2 if there has been no sale of goods.

Method 2

The customs value of identical goods, produced in the same country as the imports.

Try Method 3 if there are no identical goods.

Method 3

The customs value of similar goods, which must be:

  • produced in the same country
  • able to carry out the same tasks and be
  • commercially interchangeable

Try Method 4 if there are no similar goods.

Method 4

The selling price of the goods (or identical or similar goods) in the UK.

Try Method 5 if there are no UK sales of the goods.

Method 5

The production cost of the goods, including the cost of any materials, manufacturing and any other processing used in production.

Try Method 6 if this production cost information is unavailable.

Method 6

Reasonably adapting one of the previous methods to fit unusual circumstances.

Legislation

In the UK valuation is covered by the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 & The Customs (Import Duty) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 and The VAT Act 1994, Section 19.

What to include in the Method 1 calculation

If they are not already included in the seller’s price, the importer must add the costs of:

  • delivery to the EU border
  • most commissions (except buying commission)
  • royalties and licence fees paid by you on the imported goods as a condition of sale
  • containers and packing
  • any proceeds of resale the seller will receive
  • goods and services you provide to the seller for free or at a reduced cost – eg components incorporated in the imported goods, or development and design work carried out outside the EU and necessary for the production of the imports

If you import goods from a processor – ie a business that assembles or otherwise works on one or more sets of existing products to create your new imported products – transaction values can be built up by adding to the processing costs the value of any materials or components you provided to the processor.

What to exclude from your calculation

Items to be left out of the customs value if certain conditions are met include:

  • delivery costs within the EU
  • EU duties or taxes
  • taxes paid in the country of origin or export
  • quantity and trade discounts and those relating to cash and early settlement, that are valid at the time the goods are valued
  • dividend payments to the seller
  • marketing activities related to the imports
  • buying commission
  • export quota and licence costs
  • interest charges
  • rights of reproduction
  • post-importation work, eg construction or assembly
  • management fees

Further details here.