In or out?
If a biscuit is covered, even partially, in chocolate the VAT is 20%, but if the chocolate is inside, say a choc chip cookie or a bourbon, it is VAT free.
Category Archives: VAT Errors
VAT: Personal Liability Notices
A Personal Liability Notice (PLN) can be issued by HMRC to a company’s director(s) to transfer the liability to pay VAT or a VAT penalty from the company to an individual. A PLN can also be issued to a member of an LLP.
When a PLN is issued
An officer or officers of a company may be personally liable to pay all or part of the company penalty where:
- a company is liable to a penalty for a deliberate wrongdoing and
- the wrongdoing is attributable to the deliberate action of an officer or officers of the company
Additionally, one of the two circumstances below must also apply
- the officer gained or attempted to gain personally from the wrongdoing, or
- the company is insolvent or likely to become insolvent
Any grounds for suspicion that the company may become insolvent should to be supported by evidence, for example, where there are cash flow problems, insufficient assets to cover liabilities, or evidence of phoenixism.
An officer’s liability to pay a penalty also applies to inaccuracy penalties.
Liable persons
The company officers are known in HMRC guidance as “liable officers”. These include:
- elected officers
- managers
- directors
- company secretary
- any other person managing or purporting to manage any of the company’s affairs.
LLP officers are members.
A PLN’s power gives HMRC the right to recover all or part of the penalty from the liable officer rather than the company/LLP itself.
Where there is more than one deliberate wrongdoing, each deliberate wrongdoing must be considered separately for the purpose of establishing whether it should be attributed to an officer or officers.
Wrongdoings
There are four types of wrongdoings:
- the issue of an invoice showing VAT by an unauthorised person
- misuse of a product so that it attracts a higher rate of excise duty
- the handling of goods on which payment of excise duty is outstanding
- knowingly disposing of, or causing or permitting the disposal of, material at an unauthorised waste site
The wrongdoing must arise from the deliberate action of an officer of the company.
Personal gain
Once HMRC has attributed the deliberate wrongdoing to one or more company officers it must consider whether any of the officers, by fact or implication, have gained or attempted to gain personally from the wrongdoing. It is sufficient to show that each officer has gained or attempted to gain. It will not however always be possible to establish the full extent to which each officer has gained or attempted to gain, in which case HMRC would issue the PLN based on best judgment of the amount they attempted to gain personally, eg:
- the officer may accept that there was an actual or attempted personal gain from a deliberate wrongdoing that can be attributed to them, or
- it may be clear from business records or the officer’s lifestyle that they gained or attempted to gain personally from the results of the deliberate wrongdoing
Appeals
A liable officer can appeal against
- a decision to pursue them for all or part of the penalty assessed on the company, as set out in the PLN, including whether the penalty is attributable to them, and
- the amount of the penalty HMRC has allocated to them
- They cannot however appeal against a decision that they have gained or attempted to gain personally from the deliberate wrongdoing, or that the company is likely to go into liquidation
PLNs are subject to the same procedures as company penalties.
Legislation
Finance Act 2008, Schedule 41: Penalties: failure to notify and certain VAT and Excise wrongdoing.
A VAT did you know?
Children’s clothes are zero-rated. These include; hats, caps, braces, belts, garters and scarves, but not earmuffs – which are standard rated even if they are for children.
VAT late payment interest rates reduced
HMRC has announced that late payment interest rates to be reduced after the Bank of England lowered the base rate.
The Bank of England base rate will be reduced to 4.75% from 5.0%.
The changes will come into effect on:
- 18 November 2024 for quarterly instalment payments
- 26 November 2024 for non-quarterly instalments payment
The press release is available here.
A VAT did you know?
If you buy a flapjack* from a vending machine in the corridor at work it is VAT free. However, if you buy the same product from a machine in the staff canteen it will be standard rated.
* Of course, zero rating only applies to a “traditional” flapjack and not cereal or energy/sports nutrition bars…
HMRC internal manual: VAT Assessments and Error Correction update
HMRC’s manual VAT Assessments and Error Correction was updated on 15 October 2024.
This internal guidance is for HMRC inspectors (but is equally useful for advisers) covers assessments and error correction. The amendments apply mainly to General assessment procedures: Importance of avoiding delay.
The manual covers:
- Making Tax Digital for Business (MTD) – how to deal with MTD customers
- Powers of assessment
- VAT assessments
- Error correction for VAT
- How to assess and correct
- “VALID” computer printouts
- Demand for VAT
- Remission of tax
It also refers to for the most up-to-date guidance on reasonable excuse CH160000.as a defence against penalties and interest.
More on:
Disclosure of Avoidance Schemes – new rules
New HMRC guidance on error reporting
New online service for error correction
Error Disclosure under £10,000 – Draft Letter To HMRC
VAT: Second-hand goods scheme and best judgement – The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited case
Latest from the courts
The second-hands of time.
In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether the second-hand goods margin scheme (margin scheme) was applicable and whether HMRC’s assessments for £5,474,249 (later reduced to £5,004,595) of underdeclared of output tax were issued in best judgement.
Background
The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited (A&M) sold second-hand wristwatches with the majority of the sales properly accounted for via the margin scheme. However, from information obtained from Italian tax authorities in respect of supply chain fraud, HMRC issued the assessments on the basis that supplies of certain goods did not meet the conditions of the margin scheme so that output tax was due on the full value of the watches rather than the difference between the purchase and sale values. HMRC decided to penalise A&M because the errors were deliberate and prompted and subsequently to issue a PLN on the basis that such conduct was attributable to the director. A&M is a “High Value Dealer” for anti-money laundering purposes.
Contentions
Appellant
The appellant claimed that HMRC did not use best judgement on the grounds that:
- the inspector did not impartially consider the evidence
- HMRC lacked sufficient evidence to raise an assessment thereby failing to meet the Van Boeckel test
- the calculated amounts were no more than unreasonable and random guesses
- the inspector did not approach the investigation with an open mind to such an extent that it could not be said that the assessments and penalties were the product of the reasonable behaviours of HMRC
- put in terms of the case law: HMRC had acted in a way which no reasonable body of commissioners could have acted or, put another way, had been vindictive, dishonest or capricious
so the assessments and penalties were invalid.
Whilst accepting that a best judgment challenge is a high bar A&M contended that the conduct and mindset of HMRC’s investigating and assessing officer was so unreasonable that it vitiated the whole assessment.
Respondent
HMRC contended that the assessments were based on best judgement and that its focus was not on the supply chain fraud claims (as claimed by A&M). Additionally, a previous inspection in 2014 had raised prior concerns which provided adequate grounds for the assessments. Moreover, A&M was aware of the terms of operation of the second-hand margin scheme and considered that A&M had wilfully misused the scheme in several regards. The scheme had been incorrectly used for goods purchased by way of intracommunity supplies – which had been imported with the appellant claiming input tax on the imports and then including them in the margin scheme. A&M wilfully failed to carry out due diligence on its suppliers.
Best Judgement
It may be helpful if we consider what the words “best judgement” mean. This was best described by Woolf J in Van Boeckel v CEC [1981] STC 290
“What the words ‘best of their judgement’ envisage, in my view, is that the commissioners will fairly consider all material before them and, on that material, come to a decision which is one which is reasonable and not arbitrary as to the amount of tax which is due. As long as there is some material on which the commissioners can reasonably act, then they are not required to carry out investigations which may or may not result in further material being placed before them.”
Technical
The second-hand margin scheme is provided for under The VAT Act 1994, Section 50A, The Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 and certain paragraphs of VAT Notice 718 which have force of law.
Decision
The appeal was dismissed. It was found that A&M deliberately rendered inaccurate VAT returns. The director of the company was aware both of how the margin scheme worked and that the terms of the scheme had to be complied with if a supply was to be taxed under the it. A&M was found to have acted deliberately in misusing the scheme by including ineligible supplies. A&M had been lax in the completion of its stock book, and it had not met the record-keeping requirements necessary to use the scheme for the relevant transactions. Additionally, some of its EU suppliers were not registered for VAT, a fact A&M did not take steps to discover, and so related purchases could not qualify for the scheme. Also, it was likely that some of the purchases were of new watches which made them ineligible for the margin scheme.
Re, evidence; the FTT found much of the A&M director’s evidence to have been self-serving and, in parts, evasive and that it did not consider that the integrity of HMRC could be impugned. The court determined that; the inspector was diligent and thorough, HMRC had legitimate concerns regarding A&M’s use of the margin scheme generally and specifically and there was a wider concern that the company was a participant in fraudulent supply chains. The FTT considered that the investigation was proportionately carried out considering these concerns and the assessments raised in exercise of best judgment.
Penalties and PLN
The case further considered penalties: whether the appellant’s conduct was deliberate (yes – appeal dismissed). Whether the Personal Liability Notice (PLN) [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] was appropriate for the conduct attributed to the director – whether his conduct led to penalty (yes – appeal dismissed).
Commentary
This case is a long read, but worthwhile for comments on; the margin scheme use, HMRC’s inspection methods, best judgement, evidence and MTIC amongst other matters.
VAT: Tax point of telecommunications – The Lycamobile case
Latest from the courts
In the Lycamobile UK Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether VAT was chargeable on the supply of a “Plan Bundle” at the time when it was sold and by reference to the whole of the consideration that was paid for it, or whether VAT was instead chargeable only when, and only to the extent that, the allowances in the Plan Bundle were actually used. The time of supply (tax point) was important because not only would it dictate when output tax was due, but more importantly here, if the appeal succeeded, there would be no supply of the element of the bundle which was not used, so no output tax would be due on it.
Background
The Plan Bundles comprised rights to future telecommunication services; telephone calls, text messages and data (together, “Allowances”). There were hundreds of different Plan Bundles sold by the Appellant and the precise composition of those Plan Bundles varied.
Contentions
Lycamobile considered that that the services contained within each Plan Bundle were supplied only as and when the Allowances were used, so that the consideration which was received for each Plan Bundle would be recognised for VAT purposes only to the extent that the Plan Bundle was actually used. In the alternative, these supplies could be considered as multi-purpose vouchers such that output tax was not due when they were issued, but when the service was used. Very briefly, the contention was that it was possible that not all of the use would be standard rated in the UK.
Unsurprisingly, HMRC argued that that those services were supplied when the relevant Plan Bundle was sold (up-front) and output tax was due on the amount paid, regardless of usage.
Decision
The Tribunal placed emphasis on “the legal and economic context” and “the purpose of the customers in paying their consideration”.
It decided that the terms of the Plan Bundle created a legal relationship between Lycamobile and the customer. The Bundle was itself the provision of telecommunication services when sold. The customers were aware that they were entitled to use their Allowances and could decide whether to, or not. As a consequence, consumption was aligned with payment and created a tax point at the time of that payment. There was a direct link between those services and the consideration paid by the customer.
The Tribunal also considered the vouchers point. There were significant changes to the rules for Face Value Vouchers on 1 January 2019 (the supplies spanned this date), but the FTT found that the Plan Bundles were not monetary entitlements for future services under either set of rules, so the tax point rules for vouchers did not apply here.
The appeal was dismissed and HMRC assessments totalling over £51 million were upheld.
Commentary
Not an unexpected result, but an illustration of the importance of; tax points, legal and economic realities, and what customers think they are paying for. All important aspects in analysing what is being provided, and when.
Inter-company charges: Do I add VAT?
Do I charge VAT on a management charge?
An easy yes or no question one would think, however, this being VAT, the answer is; it depends. Typically, management charges represent a charge by a holding company to its subsidiaries of; a share of overhead costs, the provision of actual management/advisory services or office facilities or similar (the list can obviously be quite extensive).
Consideration for a supply
The starting point is; is something (goods or services) supplied in return for the payment? If the answer is no, then no VAT will be due. However, this may impact on the ability to recover input tax in the hands of the entity making the charge. It is often the case that a management charge is used as a mechanism for transferring “value” from one company to another. If it is done in an arbitrary manner with no written agreement in place, and nothing identifiable is provided, and VAT is charged, HMRC may challenge the VAT treatment and any input recovery of the company making the payment.
Composite of separate supply?
This is a complex area of the tax and is perpetually the subject of a considerable amount of case law. This has been so since the early days of VAT and there appears no signs of disputes slowing down. I have written about such cases here here here here and here
“Usually” if a combination of goods or services are supplied it is considered as a single supply and is subject to the standard rate. However, case law insists that sometimes different supplies need to be divided and a different rate of VAT applied to each separate supply. This may be the case for instance, when an exempt supply of non-opted property (eg; a designated office with an exclusive right to occupy) is provided alongside standard rated advice.
Approach
What is important is not how a management charge is calculated, but what the supply actually is (if it is one). The calculation, whether based on a simple pro-rata amount between separate subsidiaries, or via a complex mechanism set out in a written agreement has no impact on the VAT treatment. As always in VAT, the basic question is: what is actually provided?
Can the VAT treatment of a supply change when recharged?
Simply put; yes. For example, if the holding company pays insurance (VAT free) and charges it on as part of a composite supply, then VAT will be added to an original non-VAT bearing cost. It may also occur when staff are employed (no VAT on salaries paid) but the staff are supplied to a subsidiary company and VAT is added (but see below).
Staff
The provision of staff is usually a standard rated supply. However, there are two points to consider. One is joint contracts of employment which I look at below, the other is the actual definition of the provision of staff. Care must be taken when analysing what is being provided. The question here is; are staff being provided, or; is the supply the services that those staff carry out? This is relevant, say, if the services the staff carry out are exempt. There are a number of tests here, but the main issue is; which entity directs and manages the staff?
Directors
There can be different rules for directors compared to staff.
If a holding company provides a subsidiary company with a director to serve as such, the normal rules relating to supplies of staff apply and VAT applies.
However, there are different rules for common directors. An individual may act as a director of a number of companies. There may be an arrangement where a holding company pays the director’s fees and then recover appropriate proportions from subsidiaries. In such circumstances, the individual’s services are supplied by the individual to the companies of which (s)he a director. The services are supplied directly to the relevant businesses by the individual and not from one company to another. Therefore, there is no supply between the companies and so no VAT is due on the share of money recovered from each subsidiary.
Accounting adjustments
Just because no “cash” changes hands, this does not mean there is no supply. Inter-company recharges may involve the netting off of supplies so that no cash settlement is made. However, consideration is passing in both directions, so, prima facie, supplies have been made. This applies when there are accounting adjustments in both parties’ accounts.
Inter-company loans
The making of any advance or the granting of any credit is exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, item 2. This exemption covers most normal types of credit, eg; loans and overdrafts.
Planning
Planning may be required if;
- the subsidiary cannot reclaim all VAT charged to it as input tax
- there are cashflow/timing disadvantages
- there are management or administrative complexities
Specific planning
VAT grouping
If commercially acceptable, the holding company and subsidiary companies may form a VAT group. By doing so any charges made between VAT group members are disregarded and no VAT is chargeable on them.
There are pros and cons in forming a VAT group and a brief overview is provided here
A specific development in case law does mean care must be taken when considering input tax recovery in holdco, details here
Joint contracts of employment
If members of staff are employed via joint contracts or employment no VAT is applicable to any charges made between the two (or more) employers. In addition, where each of a number of associated companies employs its own staff, but one company (the paymaster) pays salaries behalf of the others who then pay their share of the costs to the paymaster the recovery of monies paid out by the paymaster is VAT free as it is treated as a disbursement.
Disbursements
Looking at disbursements is a whole article in itself, and in fact there is a helpful one here
But, briefly, if a charge qualifies as a disbursement, then the costs is passed on “in the same state” so if it is VAT free, the onward charge is also VAT free, as opposed to perhaps changing the VAT liability as set out above. It is important to understand the differences between a disbursement and a recharge as a VAT saving may be obtained.
Overseas
The above considers management charges within the UK. There are different rules for making or receiving management charges to/from overseas businesses. These charges are usually, but not always, VAT free (an example is the renal of opted office space which is land related, so is always standard rated) and it is worth checking the VAT treatment before these are made/received. VAT free services received from overseas may be liable to the reverse charge.
Same legal entity
There is no supply if management charges are made between branches of the same legal entity.
Charities
There may be more planning for charities and NFP entities via cost-sharing arrangements, but this is outside the scope of this article.
Summary
As may be seen, the answer to a simple question may be complex and the answer dependent upon the precise facts of the case. It is unusual to have two scenarios that precisely mirror each other, so each structure needs to be reviewed individually. Inter-company management charges must be recognised, especially if the recipient is partly exempt. Please contact us if you have any queries or would like more information on any of the above.
VAT DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme Top 10 Tips
An in-depth article on the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme here
It is also possible to claim VAT on the construction of a new charity building, for a charitable or relevant residential purpose.
The following are bullet points to bear in mind if you are building your own house, or advising someone who is:
- Understand HMRC definitions early in your planning
Budgeting plays an important part in any building project. Whether VAT you incur may be reclaimed is an important element. In order to establish this, it is essential that your plans meet the definitions for ‘new residential dwelling’ or ‘qualifying conversion’. This will help ensure that your planning application provides the best position for a successful claim. One point to bear in mind, is the requirement for the development to be capable of separate (from an existing property) disposal.
- Do I have to live in the property when complete?
You are permitted to build the property for another relative to live in. The key point is that it will become someone’s home and not sold or rented to a third party. Therefore, you can complete the build and obtain invoices in your name, even if the property is for your elderly mother to live in. However, it is not possible to claim on a granny annexe built in your garden (as above, they are usually not capable of being disposed of independently to the house).
- Contractors
Despite the name of the scheme, you are able to use contractors to undertake the work for you. The only difference here will be the VAT rate on their services will vary depending on the nature of the works and materials provided.
- What can you claim?
A valid claim can be made on any building materials you purchase and use on the build project. Also, services of conversion charged at the reduced rate can be recovered. However, input tax on professional services such as architect’s fees cannot be reclaimed.
- Get the VAT rate right
It is crucial to receive goods and services at the correct rate of VAT. Services provided on a new construction of a new dwelling will qualify for the zero rate, whereas the reduced rate of 5% will apply for qualifying conversions. If your contractor has charged you 20% where the reduced rate should have been applied, HMRC refuse to refund the VAT and will advise you go back to your supplier to get the error corrected. This is sometimes a problem if your contractor has gone ‘bust’ in the meantime or becomes belligerent. Best to agree the correct VAT treatment up front.
- Aid your cash flow
If you wish to purchase goods yourself, it will be beneficial to ask your contractor to buy the goods and combine the value of these with his services of construction. In this way, standard rated goods become zero rated in a new build. If you incur the VAT on goods, you will have to wait until the end of the project to claim it from HMRC.
- Claim on time
The claim form must be submitted within six months of completion of the build, usually this is when the certificate of practical completion is issued, or the building is inhabited. although it can be earlier if the certificate is delayed. More details of when a building is complete here. Recent changes to the scheme here.
- Use the right form
HMRC publish the forms on their website.
Using the correct forms will help avoid delays and errors. Claims can now be made online.
- Send everything Recorded Delivery
You are required to send original invoices with the claim. Therefore, take copies of all documents and send the claim by recorded delivery. Unfortunately, experience insists that documents are lost…
- Seek Advice
If you are in any doubt, please contact me. Mistakes can be costly, and you only get one chance to make the claim. Oh, and don’t forget that this is VAT, so any errors in a claim may be liable to penalties.
More on the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme here, here, here, and here and Tribunal cases on claims here, here, and here