Category Archives: VAT Errors

VAT: Supply of self-contained apartments covered by TOMS? The Sonder UT case

By Marcus Ward 21 January 2025

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Sonder Europe Limited (Sonder) the issue was whether apartments leased to Sonder and used to provide short-term accommodation to corporate and leisure travellers were supplies of a designated travel service via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) and whether the bought-in supply was used for the direct benefit of travellers (as required by TOMS).

Background

Sonder leased apartments from landlords on a medium to long-term basis and used them to provide accommodation to travellers on a short-term basis (one night to a month; the average stay being five nights). Sonder furnished some apartments as well as undertaking occasional decorating and maintenance.

The sole issue was whether these supplies are covered by TOMS. TOMS is not optional.

Initially in the FTT it was decided that output tax was due via TOMS. This was an appeal by HMRC against that First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision.

The issue

Whether VAT was accountable using TOMS – on the margin, or on the full amount received from travellers by Sonder.

Legislation

TOMS is authorised by the VAT Act 1994, section 53 and via SI 1987/1806.

Arguments

Sonder contended that the supply was “for the direct benefit of the traveller” as required by the VAT (Tour Operators) Order 1987 and that the accommodation was provided “…without material alteration or further processing”. Consequently, TOMS applied. The FTT decided that Sonder did not materially alter or process the apartments.

HMRC maintained that the FTT decision was based on the physical alternations made rather than the actual characteristics of the supplies. Consequently, these were not supplies covered by the 1987 Order and output tax was due on the total income received for these services.

Decision

The UT upheld HMRC’s appeal and decided that TOMS did not apply n these circumstances The UT found that the FTT’s decision was in error in that it did not have regard to whether the services bought in were supplied to it for the direct benefit of travellers. Furthermore, the short-term leases to occupy property as holiday accommodation were materially altered from interests in land for a period of years supplied by the landlords.

The services received by Sonder from the landlords were not for the direct benefit of the travellers and Sonder’s supplies were not for the benefit of the users without material alteration and further processing. Consequently, there was not a supply of bought-in services, but rather an ‘in-house’ supply which was not covered by TOMS.

To the UT, the position was even clearer in relation to unfurnished apartments. Sonder acquired an interest in land for a term of years in an unfurnished apartment. It furnished the apartment and then supplied a short-term licence to a traveller to occupy as holiday accommodation. What was supplied to the traveller was materially different to what was supplied to Sonder.

Commentary

Another illustration of the complexities of TOMS and the significant impact on a business of getting the rules wrong. The fact that the UT remade the decision demonstrates that different interpretations are possible on similar facts. Moreover, even slight differences in business models can result in different VAT outcomes.

VAT: Property – The Option To Tax Guide

By Marcus Ward 8 January 2025

VAT Bsics

Opting To Tax commercial property

Opting to tax provides a unique situation in the VAT world. It is the only example of where a supplier can choose to add VAT to a supply….. or not.

What is an option to tax (OTT)?

The sale or letting of a property is, in most cases, exempt (VAT free) by default. However, it is possible to apply the OTT to commercial property. This has the result of turning an exempt supply into a taxable supply at the standard rate. It should be noted that an OTT made in respect of a residential property is disregarded and consequently, the supply of residential properties is always exempt (unless it is the first time sale of a new build – in which case it is zero-rated).

Why opt?

Why would a supplier then deliberately choose to add VAT on a supply?

The only purpose of OTT is to enable the optor to recover or avoid input tax incurred in relation to the relevant land or property. The OTT is a decision solely for the property owner or landlord and the purchaser or tenant is not able to affect the OTT unless specific clauses are included in the lease or purchase contracts. Care should be taken to ensure that existing contracts permit the OTT to be taken. Despite a lot of misleading commentary and confusion, it is worth bearing in mind that the recovery or avoidance of input tax is the sole reason to OTT.

Once made the OTT is usually irrevocable for a 20-year period (although there are circumstances where it may be revisited within six months of it being taken – see below). There are specific rules for circumstances where the optor has previously made exempt supplies of the relevant land or property. In these cases, HMRC’s permission must usually be obtained before the option can be made.

What to consider

The important questions to be asked before a property transaction are:

Was VAT incurred on the purchase price?
Is the purchase with the benefit of an existing lease (will the tenant remain?) if so, it may be possible to treat the transaction as a VAT free TOGC (see below)
Is the property subject to the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS here)?
Is it intended to spend significant amounts on the property, eg; refurbishment?
What other costs will be incurred in respect of the property?
If renting the property out – will the lease granted be full tenant repairing?
Will the tenant or purchaser be in a position to recover any or all VAT charged on the rent/sale?

These are the basic questions to be addressed; further factors may need to be considered depending on the facts of a transaction.

Input tax recovery

Input tax relating to an exempt supply is usually irrecoverable. In fact, a business only making exempt supplies is unable to register for VAT. A guide to partial exemption here. So input tax incurred on, say; purchase, refurbishment, legal costs etc would be lost if a property was sold or rented on an exempt basis. In order to recover this tax, it must relate to a taxable supply. If an OTT is taken, the sale or rent of the property will be standard rated which represents a taxable supply. VAT on supply = input tax claim.

Two-part process

The OTT is a two-part process.

The first part is a decision of the business to take the OTT and it is prudent to minute this in Board meeting minutes or similar. Once the decision to OTT is taken VAT may be added to a sale price or rent and a valid tax invoice must be raised.
The second part is to formally notify HMRC. If the OTT is straightforward the form on which this is done is a VAT1614A. Here. In some cases, it is necessary to obtain HMRC’s permission in which case separate forms are required. HMRC guidance here – para 5.

There can be problems in cases where the OTT is taken, but not formally notified.

Timing

It is vital to ensure that an OTT is made at the correct time. Even one day late may affect the VAT treatment. Generally speaking, the OTT must be made before any use of the property, eg; sale or rent. Care should also be taken with deposits which can trigger a tax point before completion.

Disadvantages

As mentioned above (and bears repeating) the benefit of taking the OTT is the ability to recover input tax which would otherwise fall to be irrecoverable. However, there are a number of potential disadvantages.

opting a commercial property may reduce its marketability. It is likely that entities which are unable to recover VAT would be less inclined to purchase or lease an opted property. These entities may be; partly exempt business, those not VAT registered, or charities/NFP organisations.
the payment of VAT by the purchaser may necessitate obtaining additional funding. This may create problems, especially if a VAT charge was not anticipated. Even though, via opting, the VAT charge is usually recoverable, it still has to be paid for up-front.
an OTT will increase the amount of SDLT payable when a property is sold. This is always an absolute cost.

Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC)

I always say that advice should be taken in all property transactions and always in cases of a TOGC or a possible TOGC. This is doubly important where an opted building is being sold, because TOGC treatment only applies to a sale of property when specific tests are met. A TOGC is VAT free but any input tax incurred is recoverable, so this is usually a benefit for all parties.

Revoking an Option To Tax

The cooling off period – If an OTT has been made and the opter changes his/her mind within six months it can be revoked. This is as long as no tax has become chargeable on a supply of the land, that no TOGC has occurred, and the OTT has actually been notified to HMRC. There are additional considerations in certain cases, so these always need to be checked.
No interest has been held for more than six years – An OTT is revoked where the opter has not held an interest in the opted building for a continuous period of six years. The revocation is automatic, and no notification is required.
20 years – It is possible to revoke an OTT which was made more than 20 years ago. Certain conditions must be met, and advice should be taken on how such a revocation affects future input tax recovery.

Summary

Property transactions are high value and often complex. The cost of getting VAT wrong or overlooking it can be very swingeing indeed. I have also seen deals being aborted over VAT issues. Of course, if you get it wrong there are penalties to pay too. For these reasons, please seek VAT advice at an early stage of negotiations.

More on our land and property services here

A VAT Did you know?

By Marcus Ward 20 December 2024

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.

VAT: Personal Liability Notices

By Marcus Ward 16 December 2024

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?

By Marcus Ward 26 November 2024

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

By Marcus Ward 12 November 2024

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?

By Marcus Ward 25 October 2024

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

By Marcus Ward 21 October 2024

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:

It also refers to for the most up-to-date guidance on reasonable excuse CH160000.as a defence against penalties and interest.

VAT: Second-hand goods scheme and best judgement – The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited case

By Marcus Ward 7 October 2024

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

By Marcus Ward 7 August 2024

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.