HMRC have released a recorded webinar about VAT on private school fees — what you need to do, and when and how to register.
It covers:
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:
Additionally, one of the two circumstances below must also apply
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:
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 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:
Appeals
A liable officer can appeal against
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.
Latest from the courts
In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Brian Lawton the issue was whether a second claim under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme was valid.
Background
Mr Lawton appealed against the refusal of HMRC to pay a claim submitted in respect of the conversion of a barn into a dwelling and subsequent extensions. Unfortunately, the project faced delays and increased costs due to the Covid-19 pandemic. He claimed a refund of VAT in June 2021, which HMRC repaid. The appellant submitted a second planning application for an extension, which was approved, and the work was completed in October 2022. He then made a second VAT claim October 2022 which HMRC refused.
The issue
Whether it was possible to make more than one single VAT refund claim via the scheme when the project was split into two specific phases. Planning permission was granted for two developments, the:
– whether the second claim was ineligible for a refund as an extension to an existing dwelling and whether decision to disallow claim for a VAT refund was correct.
Arguments
Lawton contended that it was possible to make two separate claims due to the distinct nature of the projects, and that his first claim had been erroneous since the barn conversion was uninhabitable.
HMRC’s view was that the second claim related to an extension to a dwelling and not the actual conversion and was consequently ineligible.
Decision
Despite the FTT being sympathetic to BL’s predicament in progressing the first application development at the time of the Covid pandemic and the lockdown with the financial and economic challenges these brought about, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal considered that HMRC were entitled to insist that only one claim was made under the scheme in circumstances where there has been no repayment in error or invoices and works carried out before the claim was submitted and left out of account in error or invoices issued late by a contractor.
It considered that the first claim was the only one which could be made and was restricted to the stage of development that Lawton had submitted and was covered by the completion certificate of March 2021, being “the conversion of a barn to a dwelling”.
The court emphasised that completion for VAT purposes must align with original planning permissions and agreed with HMRC’s position that extensions to existing dwellings do not qualify for refunds under the scheme.
Legislation
Commentary
This case highlights how important both timing and adhering precisely to the rules of the scheme are. The cost of a self-build can be significant and recovering any VAT incurred is important to ensure budgets are met as far as possible.
Further reading
Background to the scheme here, ten top tips here and further information and other cases on the scheme:
Latest from the courts
In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Procurement International Ltd (PIL) the issue was whether the movement of goods constituted a zero-rated export.
Background
Both parties essentially agreed the facts: The Appellant’s business is that of a reward recognition programme fulfiller. The Appellant had a catalogue of available products, and it maintained a stock of the most ordered items in its warehouse. PIL supplied these goods to customers who run reward recognition programmes on behalf of their customers who, in turn, want to reward to their customers and/or employees (reward recipients – RR). The reward programme operators (RPOs) provide a platform through which those entitled to receive rewards can such rewards. The RPO will then place orders PIL for the goods.
A shipper collected the goods from PIL in the UK and shipped them directly to the RR (wherever located). The shipper provided the services of delivery including relevant customs clearances etc. on behalf of the Appellant. PIL had zero-rated the supply of goods sent to RRs located overseas. All goods delivered to RRs outside the UK are delivered duty paid (DDP) or delivered at place (DAP). As may be seen by Incoterms the Appellant remained at risk in respect of the goods and liable for all carriage costs and is responsible for performing or contracting for the performance of all customs (export and import) obligations. The Appellant was responsible for all fees, duties, tariffs, and taxes. Accordingly, the Appellant is responsible for, and at risk until, the goods are delivered “by placing them at the disposal of the buyer at the agreed point, if any, or at the named place of destination or by procuring that the goods are so delivered”.
Contentions
HMRC argued that in situations where the RPO was UK VAT registered, the appellant was making a supply of goods to the RPO at a time when the goods were physically located in the UK, and consequently there was a standard-rated supply. It issued an assessment to recover the output tax considered to be underdeclared.
PIL contended that there was a supply of delivered goods which were zero-rated when the goods were removed to a location outside the UK. It was responsible (via contracts which were accepted to reflect the reality of the transactions) for arranging the transport of the goods.
Decision
The FTT held that there was a single composite supplies of delivered goods, and these were a zero-rated supply of exported goods by PIL. The supplies were not made on terms that the RPOs collected or arranged for collection of the goods to remove them from the UK. The Tribunal found that the RPOs took title to the goods at the time they were delivered to the RR, and not before such that it was PIL and not the RPOs who was the exporter. This meant that the RPOs would be regarded as making their supplies outside the UK and would be responsible for overseas VAT as the Place Of Supply (POS) would be in the country in which it took title to the goods (but that was not an issue in this case).
The appeal was allowed, and the assessment was withdrawn.
Legislation
Domestic legislation relevant here is The VAT Act 1994:
Some paragraphs of VAT Notice 703 have the force of law which applies here, namely the sections on:
Commentary
The Incoterms set out in the relevant contracts were vital in demonstrating the responsibilities of the parties and consequently, who actually exported the goods. It is crucial when analysing the VAT treatment of transactions to recognise each party’s responsibilities, and importantly, when (and therefore where) the change in possession of the goods takes place.
It is important to compare the use of each scheme to standard VAT accounting to establish whether a business will benefit. Some schemes are compulsory and there are particular pitfalls for businesses using certain schemes.
I thought that it would be useful to consider the schemes all in one place and look at their features and pros and cons.
These schemes reviewed here are:
Cash Accounting Scheme
Normally, VAT returns are based on the tax point (usually the VAT invoice date) for sales and purchases. This may mean a business having to pay HMRC the VAT on sales which customers have not yet paid for.
The VAT cash accounting scheme (CAS) instead bases reporting on payment dates, both for purchases and sales. A business will need to ensure its records include payment dates.
A business is only eligible for CAS if its estimated taxable turnover is no more than £1.35m, and can then remain in the scheme as long as it remains below £1.6m.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Annual Accounting Scheme
The Annual Accounting Scheme allows a business to pay VAT on account, in either nine monthly or three quarterly payments. These instalments are based on VAT paid in the previous year. It is then required to complete a single, annual VAT return which is used to calculate any balance owed by the business or due from HMRC.
A business is eligible for the scheme if its estimated taxable turnover is no more than £1.35m and is permitted to remain in the scheme as long as it remains below £1.6m.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Flat Rate Scheme
The Flat Rate Scheme (FRS) is designed to assist smaller businesses reduce the amount of time and complexity required for VAT accounting. The FRS removes the need to calculate the VAT on every transaction. Instead, a business pays a flat rate percentage of its VAT inclusive turnover. The percentage paid is less than the standard VAT rate because it recognises the fact that no input tax can be claimed on purchases. The flat rate percentage used is dependent on a business’ trade sector.
A business is eligible for this scheme if its estimated taxable turnover in the next year will not exceed £150,000. Once using the scheme, a business is permitted to continue using it until its income exceeds £230,000.
If eligible, a business may combine the FRS with the Annual Accounting Scheme, additionally, there is an option to effectively use a cash basis so there is no need to use CAS. Unfortunately, changes to the scheme rules regarding ” limited cost traders” mean that the scheme has become less attractive.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Margin Scheme for Second Hand Goods
A business normally accounts for output tax on the full value of its taxable supplies and reclaims input tax on its purchases. However, if a business deals in second-hand goods, works of art, antiques or collectibles it may use a Margin Scheme. This scheme enables a business to account for VAT only on the difference between the purchase and selling price of an item; the margin. It is not possible to reclaim input tax on the purchase of an item and there will be no output tax if no profit is achieved (however, if an item is sold for less than the purchase price, a business cannot offset losses against the profits of other items to reduce the overall VAT liability).
There is a special margin schemes for auctioneers and a variation of the Margin Scheme (Global Accounting) is considered below.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Global Accounting
The problem with the Second Hand Goods Scheme is that full details of each individual item purchased and sold has to be recorded. Global Accounting is an optional, simplified variation of the Second Hand Margin Scheme. It differs from the standard Margin Scheme in that rather than accounting for the margin achieved on the sale of each individual item, output tax is calculated on the margin achieved between the total purchases and total sales in a particular accounting period.
Advantages
Disadvantages
VAT Schemes for Retailers
It is usually difficult for retailers to issue an invoice for each sale made, so various retail schemes have been designed to simplify VAT. The appropriate scheme for a business depends on whether its retail turnover (excluding VAT) is; below £1m, between £1m and £130m and higher.
Smaller businesses may be able to use a retail scheme with CAS and Annual Accounting but it cannot combine a Retail Scheme with the FRS. However, retailers may choose to use the FRS instead of a Retail Scheme.
Using standard VAT accounting, a VAT registered business must record the VAT on each sale. However, via a Retail Scheme, it calculates the value of its total VAT taxable sales for a period, eg; a day, and the proportions of that total that are taxable at different rates of VAT; standard, reduced and zero.
According to the scheme a business uses it then applies the appropriate VAT fraction to that sales figure to calculate the output tax due. A business may only use the Retail Scheme for retail sales and must use the standard accounting procedures for other supplies. A business must still issue a VAT invoice to any customer who requests one. It is a requirement of any scheme choice that HMRC must consider it fair and reasonable.
A business can join a retail scheme at the beginning of any VAT period and HMRC does not need to be notified.
Examples of Retail Schemes
The required calculations vary for each scheme.
NB: There are special arrangements for caterers, retail pharmacists and florists.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Overall
As may be seen, there are a lot of choices for a business to consider, especially a start-up. Choosing a scheme which is inappropriate may result in VAT overpayment and a lot of unneeded record keeping and administration. There are real savings to be made by using a beneficial scheme, both in terms of VAT payable and staff time. There are also some schemes which are compulsory, like the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS).
We are happy to review a business’ circumstances and calculate what schemes would produce the best outcome.
Please contact us if you require further information.
HMRC internal guidance manual has been updated on 9 October 2024.
This is likely to affect; charities and similar bodies, NFP, clubs, associations, philanthropic organisations, galleries and museums, “hobby” activities, amongst other persons.
Business or Non-Business (N-B) is very important in VAT as it determines, inter alia, whether a supplier is
The definition of business and N-B here.
Legislation: The I Act 1994 Section 24(5).
Further reading
I have written about this issue many times, as it is a fundamental issue in the tax.
The following articles consider case law and other relevant business/N-B issues:
Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. And Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft
What the Guidance Manual covers:
This is the main reference material for HMRC inspectors and other employees, so it is very helpful for advisers to understand HMRC’s likely approach to a potential VAT issue.
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:
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.
This article looks at the period of activity before a business VAT registers: How to deal with sales and what input tax may be recovered.
VAT Registration
The obligation to VAT register here and the pros and cons of voluntary registration here.
Sales
Between application and receiving a VAT number:
During the wait, a business cannot charge or show VAT on its invoices until it receives a VAT number. However, it will still be required to pay the VAT to HMRC for this period. Usually, a business will increase its prices to allow for this and tell its customers why. Once a VAT number is received, the business can then reissue the relevant invoices showing VAT.
Purchases
Purchases made before registration:
Only the legal entity which actually purchased the goods or services and has applied to VAT register is entitled to input tax recovery.
There are time limits for backdating claims for input tax incurred before registration. These are:
Input tax can only be reclaimed if the pre-registration expenditure related to the taxable supplies made, or to be made, by the newly VAT registered business (whether these supplies are subject to subsequent output tax or whether they were made pre-registration but would have been taxable if the business was VAT registered).
The only VAT return on which such input tax is recoverable is the first.
Tip
When a business applies for registration, there is an opportunity to backdate the EDR. The provision for taxpayers to negotiate an earlier date is contained in The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, 9. This option should be considered if there is additional VAT that would become recoverable. This will mean that the first return will be longer than the normal quarterly or monthly returns.
The limit for backdating EDR is four years.
Irrecoverable VAT
Input tax cannot be reclaimed on:
NB: Businesses are not required to reduce the VAT deducted in respect of pre-registration use of fixed assets. Eg; input tax incurred on a van purchased three years before registration and used before and after registration would be recoverable in full.
The “usual” rules for input tax also apply to pre-registration claims; that is, some VAT is never reclaimable, see here.
Specific circumstances
There are special rules for partially exempt businesses and for businesses that have non-business income and for the purchase of certain items (see below) covered by the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS).
Included in the CGS are:
NB: The partial exemption de minimis limit does not apply to input tax incurred pre-registration.
Pre-incorporation
A limited company cannot register for VAT until it is formally incorporated. Goods or services may have been supplied to the directors or employees setting up the company before then.
A company can claim input tax on those goods and services if the it relates directly to the taxable business to be carried on by it following incorporation and registration for VAT. The six-month (services) four-year (goods) limits also apply to pre-incorporation claims.
Documentation
Any claim must be supported by a valid VAT invoice for each item. If this documentation is not available, there is a possibility that HMRC will accept alternative evidence.
Legislation
The right to deduct input tax as above is covered by The VAT general Regulations 1995, reg 111.
Pasties, sausage rolls, pies or other pastries
Sandwiches
Bread
Rotisserie chicken
Takeaways
Catering
This is a general guide and, as case law shows, there will always be products on the “borderline”.
In summary, food that is hot can be treated as cold…
HMRC internal manual – VAT Supply and Consideration has been updated.
The manual provides guidance on determining the liability of the supply of goods or services effected for a consideration including:
The amendments are in respect of payments that are not consideration: Carbon offsetting which adds two new pages giving examples of outside the scope activities and commentary on other ecosystem services.