Banana and strawberry flavoured Nesquik drinks are standard rated, but chocolate flavoured Nesquik is zero rated.
Category Archives: VAT- Output Tax
VAT: Are cosmetic skin treatments exempt medical care? The Skin Science case
Latest from the courts
In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Gillian Graham T/A Skin Science the issue was whether certain cosmetic skin treatments were exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 1 which covers services for the primary purpose of protecting, restoring or maintaining health: “medical care”
Were the services provided by Skin Science (SS) medical care?
Background
SS ran a clinic at 10 Harley Street, London and Ms Graham was a Registered General Nurse (RGN).
As an RGN the Appellant must submit revalidation every three years to the Nursing & Midwifery Council. The revalidation process requires her to demonstrate evidence of the scope of her professional practice including; evidence of hours worked, case studies, discussions with other medical professionals to obtain feedback and attending training courses. The Appellant’s realm of practice is disorders of the skin.
Patients generally attend the Appellant’s clinic by choice and are not referred to the Appellant by a doctor or psychologist. Some clients might see the Appellant following referrals from beauticians who may be unable to carry out treatments for certain conditions.
The treatments that the Appellant provides to her patients are not generally part of a treatment plan which involves other health professionals. SS could not confirm whether psychiatrists, psychological professionals or doctors would prescribe fillers or toxin for the conditions that she diagnoses.
A range of treatments were provided, including:
- Restylane
- Pix Cannula
- Teosyal light filling
- Muscle relaxing injections
- Dermal roller
- Glycolic Acid Peel
- TCA Peel
- Botox
- Belotero Volume
- Dermal fillers
- Face lift by injection
- Hollywood Eye Magic Serum
- Belotero injections
SS provided a description of each treatment to the Tribunal.
The appellant also prescribed medicines such as; Lidocaine, Botulinum, Scleremo, Zinerate and Tretinoin.
Contentions
SS argued that the supplies of skin care treatments are exempt from VAT as they are supplies of medical care. She diagnoses recognised medical conditions, provides treatment to address those conditions and is fully qualified to do so. As all of her treatments are aimed at treating or curing those recognised medical conditions, they inevitably have a therapeutic purpose. Although they may improve the appearance of the patients and in some cases be regarded as inherently cosmetic, this is consequential as the primary purpose is to address an underlying medical condition whether physical or psychological or both. Moreover, purpose should be determined by a medical professional and not by HMRC.
HMRC contended that these supplies were standard rated (causing SS to become VAT registered) as they did not have the primary purpose of protecting, restoring or maintaining health as they were overwhelmingly cosmetic and so do not satisfy the requirements of the exemption.
Decision
It was noted that the concept of the “provision of medical care” does not include medical interventions carried out for a purpose other than that of diagnosing, treating and in so far as possible, curing diseases or health disorders and it is the purpose of the medical intervention rather than merely the qualifications of the person providing it that is key.
Health problems may be psychological, they are not limited to physical problems. Where treatment is for purely cosmetic reasons it cannot be within the exemption. Where, however, the purpose of the treatment is to treat or provide care for persons who as a result of illness, injury or a congenital physical impairment are in need of plastic surgery or other cosmetic treatment then this may fall within the concept of medical care.
The Appellant is not a psychological professional under Item 1(c) of Group 7 (health professionals) or a psychiatrist under Item 1(a) (medical practitioners), so the focus must be on what is within the scope of an RGN’s profession. The judge found that the Appellant had not proven her case that diagnosing and treating conditions which are psychological is within the scope of her profession as an RGN.
The decision was that the treatments were not for the primary purpose of protecting, restoring or maintaining health and so not “medical care” and consequently the appeal was dismissed.
A parallel outcome to a similar case in the Skin Clinics Ltd case. Other cases on medical exemption here, here and here.
Commentary
There has been an ongoing debate as to what constitutes medical care. Over 20 years ago I was advising a large London clinic on this very point and much turned on whether patients’ mental health was improved by undergoing what many would regard as cosmetic procedures. We were somewhat handicapped in our arguments by the fact that many of the patients were lap dancers undergoing breast augmentation on the direction of the owner of the club…
It is crucial to apply the above tests to any medical services to determine whether they come within the exemption.
It is worth remembering that not all services provided by a medically registered practitioner are exempt. The question of whether the medical care exemption is engaged in any given case will turn on the particular facts.
VAT – Charity Fundraising Exemption
Avoid adding VAT to fundraising income
There are very few VAT reliefs for charities (and it may be argued that an exemption is more than a burden than a relief) but there is an exemption for a charity which qualifies as undertaking a one-off fundraising event. The criteria are quite restrictive, and it is important that the correct treatment is applied. Furthermore, it may be in a charity’s interest to avoid the exemption if there is a lot of input tax attributable to the event, say; venue hire, entertainment, catering etc.
A qualifying event means that a charity (or its trading subsidiary) does not charge VAT on money paid for admittance to that event.
What is covered?
In order to be exempt, the event must be a one-off fundraising event which is “any event organised and promoted primarily to raise funds (monetary or otherwise) for a charity”. Consequently, we always advise clients to make it clear on tickets and advertising material (including online) that the event is for raiding funds and to use a statement; “all profits will be used to support the charitable aims of XYZ” or similar.
HMRC say that an event is an incident with an outcome or a result. This means that activities of a semi-regular or continuous nature, such as the operation of a shop or bar, cannot therefore be an event.
The following are examples of the kind of event which qualify:
- ball, dinner dance, disco or barn dance
- performance – concert, stage production and any other event which has a paying audience
- showing of a film
- fete, fair or festival
- horticultural show
- exhibition: art, history or science
- bazaar, jumble sale, car boot sale, or good-as-new sale
- sporting participation (including spectators): sponsored walk or swim
- sporting performance
- game of skill, contest or a quiz
- participation in an endurance event
- fireworks display
- dinner, lunch or barbecue
- an auction of bought in goods
Tip
Often there may be an auction of donated goods at a fundraising event. There is a specific and helpful relief for such sales. The sale of donated goods is zero rated which means any attributable input tax is recoverable. Consequently, if both exempt and zero rated supplies are made it is possible to apportion input tax to a charity’s benefit. Zero rating may also apply to sales such as: food (not catering) printed matter and children’s clothing
Limit to the number of events held
Eligible events are restricted to 15 events of the same kind in a charity’s financial year at any one location. The restriction prevents distortion of competition with other suppliers of similar events which do not benefit from the exemption. If a charity holds 16 or more events of the same kind at the same location during its financial year none of the events will qualify for exemption. However, the 15-event limit does not apply to fundraising events where the gross takings from all similar events, such as coffee mornings, are no more than £1,000 per week.
Clearly, the number of events needs to be monitored and planning will therefore be available should exemption be desired (or avoided as the relevant figures dictate).
What is a charity?
This seems to be a straightforward question in most cases, but can cause difficulties, so it is worthwhile looking at the VAT rules here.
Bodies have charitable status when they are:
- registered, excepted or exempted from registration with the Charity Commission in England and Wales
- registered by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) in Scotland
- invited to register by The Charity Commission for Northern Ireland which are treated by HMRC as charitable.
Not all non-profit making organisations are charities. The term ‘charity’ has no precise definition in any law. Its scope has been determined by case law. It is therefore necessary to establish whether an organisation is a charity using the following guidelines:
- charities are non-profit distributing bodies established to advance education, advance religion, relieve poverty, sickness or infirmity or carry out certain other activities beneficial to the community
- in England and Wales charities must normally register with Charity Commission- some very small charities don’t need to register with Charity Commission, there are also some other special cases where particular bodies do not need to register, if there is uncertainty regarding a position see the Charity Commission website
- in Scotland all charities must be registered with the OSCR – HMRC decides whether bodies in Northern Ireland are eligible.
Trading arm
It is worth noting that HMRC also accept that a body corporate which is wholly owned by a charity and whose profits are payable to a charity, will qualify and may therefore may apply the VAT exemption to fundraising events. This means that a charity’s own trading company can hold exempt fundraising events on behalf of the charity.
Further/alternative planning
If sales are not exempt as a fundraising event, there is a way to avoid VAT being chargeable on all income received. It is open to a charity to set a basic minimum charge which will be standard rated, and to invite those attending the event to supplement this with a voluntary donation.
The extra contributions will be outside the scope of VAT (not exempt) if all the following conditions are met:
- it is clearly stated on all publicity material, including tickets, that anyone paying only the minimum charge will be admitted without further payment
- the extra payment does not give any particular benefit (for example, admission to a better position in the stadium or auditorium)
- the extent of further contributions is ultimately left to ticket holders to decide, even if the organiser indicates a desired level of donation
- for film or theatre performances, concerts, sporting fixtures etc, the minimum charge is not less than the usual price of the particular seats at a normal commercial event of the same type
- for dances, and similar functions, the minimum total sum upon which the organisers are liable to account for VAT is not less than their total costs incurred in arranging the event
It should be noted that any other donations collected at an event are also outside the scope of VAT.
Partial exemption
A charity must recognise the impact of making exempt supplies (as well as carrying out non-business activity). These undertakings will have an impact on the amount of input tax a charity is able to recover. Details here
Summary
We find that charities are often confused about the rules and consequently fail to take advantage of the VAT position. This also extends to school academies which are all charities. It is usually worthwhile for charities to carry out a VAT review of its activities as quite often VAT savings can be identified.
VAT: Business Brief on Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme B2B
HMRC have issued a BB 5(2024) on Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) for business to business (B2B) wholesale supplies.
- sets out the VAT accounting for TOMS B2B wholesale supplies
- explains that businesses may choose whether to apply TOMS to B2B wholesale supplies
- details a technical change to the treatment of B2B wholesale supplies in relation to TOMS
Ultimately, the policy allowing businesses to choose whether to apply TOMS to B2B wholesale supplies remains unchanged.
VAT and influencers
A Warning
There has been a great deal of debate on the subject of VAT and influencers, with HMRC issuing assessments for underdeclared output tax on “gifts” received by them.
What is an influencer?
An influencer is someone who has certain power to affect the purchasing decisions of others because of their; authority, knowledge, position, or relationship with their audience. These individuals are social relationship assets with which brands can collaborate to achieve their marketing objectives.
In recent years the growth of social media means that influencers have grown in importance. According to recent statistics, the projected number of global social media users in 2023 was 4.89 billion. This is a 6.5% rise from the previous year.
What is the VAT issue?
Business gifts to influencers
A business is not required to account for VAT on certain dealings if they meet certain conditions. For free gifts, the condition is that the total cost of all gifts to the same person is less than £50 in a 12-month period. Further, if the goods are “free samples” – used for marketing purposes and provided in a quantity that lets potential customers test the product, then the £50 rule does not apply. If an influencer receives free gifts or samples, there are no VAT implications for them.
HMRC Action
However, we understand that HMRC has decided that, in the majority of cases, the supply of goods to influencers were not ‘free gifts” but rather consideration for a taxable supply of marketing or advertising. They were also not considered free samples as, generally, influencers would not be in the position to test the goods, having no expertise in the field. It is also concluded that influencers, in most cases were “in business“.
The payment for the marketing, promotion or advertising services (the VAT treatment is similar, regardless of how the services are categorised) is by way of the supply of goods, rather than monetary consideration. That is; consideration is flowing in both directions. Consequently, output tax is due on this amount if the influencer is, or should be, VAT registered.
What is the value of the supply?
Non-monetary consideration
Non-monetary consideration includes goods or services supplied as payment, for example in a “barter” (including part exchange) agreement. If the supply is for a consideration not consisting or not wholly consisting of money, its value shall be taken to be such amount in money as, with the addition of the VAT chargeable, is equivalent to the consideration. Where a supply of any goods or services is not the only matter to which a consideration in money relates, the supply is deemed to be for such part of the consideration as is properly attributable to it.
In determining the taxable amount, the only advantages received by a supplier that are relevant are those obtained in return for making the supply should be recognised. Non-monetary consideration has the value of the alternative monetary payment that would normally have been given for the supply.
VAT Registration
If an influencer receives gifts valued at over £90,000 in any 12-month period, or these gifts plus other monetary consideration, VAT registration is mandatory.
More on business promotions here.
A VAT Did you know?
Where goods are located in a shop can affect the VAT treatment. Nuts sold in the bakery aisle are VAT free, but those sold with snacks or confectionary are standard rated.
VAT: Evidence for exports. The H Ripley case
Latest from the courts
In the H Ripley & Co Limited First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether the appellant had satisfactory evidence to support the zero rating of the export of goods (scrap metal).
Background
HMRC denied zero rating on the basis that the appellant did not provide satisfactory evidence to support the fact that the scrap metal was removed from the UK.
The requirements are set out in VAT Notice 725 para 5 and acceptable documentary evidence may include:
- the customer’s order – including customer’s name and delivery address
- inter-company correspondence
- copy sales invoice
- advice note
- packing list
- commercial transport documents from the carrier responsible for removing the goods from the UK, for example an International Consignment Note (CMR) fully completed by the consignor, the haulier and signed by receiving consignee
- details of insurance or freight charges
- bank statements as evidence of payment
- receipted copy of the consignment note as evidence of receipt of goods abroad
- a signed CMR document or note
- a bill of lading
- an airfreight invoice
- an invoice from the carrier of the goods
- official documents issued by a public authority, such as a notary, confirming the arrival of the goods
- any other documents relevant to the removal of the goods in question which you would normally get in the course of business
or a combination of the above.
HMRC advised the appellant that it had received an information request from the Belgian tax authorities in respect of certain transactions and consequently, HMRC required information on the company’s documents in connection with the supplies. On receipt of the information HMRC concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support zero-rating so the sales were treated as standard rated and the appellant’s repayment claim was reduced to reflect this.
In these circumstances the burden of proof is on the appellant to show that it has satisfied the conditions set out in Notice 725 to zero-rate its supplies and provide documentation to show that the goods were removed from the UK.
Decision
The court noted that it was not HMRC’s position that supplementary evidence could not be provided post the required three-months period but that it was entitled to decline the additional evidence when it was provided some 18 to 30 months after the three-month period. It was clear that the evidence of removal must be obtained within three months and not that the valid evidence is brought into existence within the three-month time limit and obtained at some future date.
Notice 725 sets out the conditions which attach to the entitlement to zero-rate supplies. The FTT considered it to be clear from paragraph 4.3 and 4.4 (which have the force of law) that the onus is on the exporter company claiming zero-rating to gather sufficient evidence of removal within three months of the date of the supply. If it does not do so, it is not entitled to zero-rate the supplies.
Specifically, the court considered:
- Sales Invoices – did not provide clear evidence that the goods were removed from the UK. Despite the invoices confirming the sale of scrap metal to a Belgium registered company it did not follow that the address of the purchaser is the same address as the destination that the goods were sent to.
- Bank Statements – simply provided proof of payment they did not confirm who received the goods nor where the goods were delivered.
- Weighbridge Tickets – merely confirm a consignment of scrap metal was sold to a Belgium based company and the goods were collected by a UK registered vehicle.
- CMRs – none of the CMRs were fully completed by the haulier and signed by the receiving consignee.
- P&O Boarding Cards –a taxpayer must have in its possession valid evidence of export within three months from the time of supply. The boarding cards were not provided to HMRC until 30 May 2018, some 18 to 30 months after the disputed consignments took place. It was not disproportionate for HMRC to state that the time limit for obtaining valid evidence of removal was three months and that the substantive requirements of Notice 725 had not been met. In any event, the court did not accept that the boarding cards evidence the exports of the scrap metal; none of the reference numbers on the boarding card match those used in any of the other documents and none of the lead names on the boarding cards match any of the other names in any other document. The boarding cards do not have any identifying features such that they may be matched with any of the disputed consignments.
- E-mails and WhatsApp messages –none of the messages evidence that the loads were exported. At best they evidence a request from the buyer to a carrier to collect goods from the supplier’s yard and the WhatsApp messages were silent on whether the loads were exported from the UK.
The appeal was dismissed, and the assessments were upheld because none of the documents either individually or taken as a whole, were sufficient evidence to support zero-rating.
Commentary
Yet another case illustrating the importance of insuring correct documentation is held. It is not sufficient that goods leave the UK, but the detailed evidence requirements must always be met.
VAT: Input tax claim on Land Rovers. The Three Shires Trailers case
Latest from the courts
In the Three Shires Trailers Limited First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issues were whether an input tax claim on the purchase of two Land Rover Discoveries was appropriate when they were converted from commercial vehicles to cars, or was a self-supply triggered?
Background
The vehicles were commercial vehicles when purchased and input tax was recovered. Subsequently, they were converted by the addition of three fold up seats with seat belts behind the driver seat and removing materials which had blacked out the rear windows which reclassified them as cars. This would have subjected them to an input tax block if purchased in that state.
The purpose of buying the vehicles was for the transport of trailers to customers, the collection of trailers from suppliers and to enable personnel of the appellant to attend trade fairs all over the country.
Technical
“A Motor Car” is defined as:
“any motor vehicle of a kind used on public roads which has three or more wheels and either:
(a) is constructed or adapted solely or mainly for the carriage of passengers; or
(b) has to the rear of the driver’s seat roofed accommodation which is fitted with side windows or which is constructed or adapted for the fitting of side windows…”
Issues
The appellant stated that the vehicles were used only for business purposes. Employees were not permitted to use the vehicles for private purposes and did not do so. The vehicles were kept at the business’s premises. He also explained that the vehicles were not converted to cars, if they were cars, they were qualifying cars and if they were non-qualifying cars, the use was only temporary, and they were converted back to commercial vehicles.
Initially, HMRC disallowed the claim because the vehicles became cars and subject to the input tax block.
Subsequently, HMRC’s case was that the vehicles had been converted from commercial vehicles to non-qualifying cars which triggers an irreversible self-supply under Article 5 of the Value Added Tax (Cars) Order 1992 so output tax equalling the claimed input tax was due.
Decision
The FTT decided that, at the time when the vehicles were acquired, they were indisputably commercial vehicles and the appellant was entitled to deduct the input tax on them.
The judge found that, after conversion, the vehicles were intended for use, and were used, only for business purposes. The appellant did not intend that the vehicles should be used for private purposes and so far as he was aware, there was no private use. The vehicles were therefore qualifying motor vehicles eligible for input VAT recovery. No output tax was due on a self-supply.
The appeal was allowed.
Commentary
Another case on the recovery of input tax on car purchases and the difference between commercial vehicles and cars. It is notoriously difficult to persuade HMRC that there is no private use of cars, but it is possible.
VAT: Buildings and construction update
HMRC has amended Notice 708 which covers:
- when building work can be zero-rated or reduced-rated at 5%
- when building materials can be zero-rated or reduced-rated at 5%
- when the sale, or long lease in a building is zero-rated
- where you can find out more about the VAT domestic reverse charge for building and construction services
- when developers are blocked from deducting input tax on goods that are not building materials
- when a builder or developer needs to have a certificate from their customer, confirming that the building concerned is intended to be used for a purpose that attracts the zero or reduced rate
- when a customer can issue that certificate to a builder or developer
- what happens when a certificated building is no longer used for the purpose that attracted the zero rate, the use for that purpose decreases or the building is disposed of
- the special time of supply rules for builders
- when a business, on using its own labour to carry out building work on a building or civil engineering structure that it occupies or uses, must account for a self-supply charge
Sections 18.1 and 18.2 of the Notice and the certificates in those sections have been updated to show they have force of law under The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5, Note 12.
VAT treatment of serviced apartments: The Realreed Limited case
Latest from the courts
In this First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether serviced apartments qualify for exemption.
Background
Realreed owns a property called Chelsea Cloisters in Sloane Avenue, London. The property comprises; 656 self-contained apartments and some commercial units. 421 of these apartments are let on long leases (no VAT issues arise from these supplies). The appeal concerned the VAT treatment of the letting of the remaining 235 apartments, which include studio, one-bedroom or two-bedroom self-contained rooms. The appellant has, at all times, received a significant number of occupiers from corporate customers when they relocate their employees to London for a specified period, such as a secondment.
The contentions
Realreed argued that the letting of the apartments is a supply of accommodation which is exempt under The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 1, Item 1. Chelsea Cloisters operates like a ‘home from home’ for its tenants: it provides residential accommodation. The physical appearance of the building is very similar to that of other residential buildings in the vicinity. It does not have signage suggesting the serviced accommodation is a hotel or similar establishment. It is rare for hotels (or similar establishments) at the booking point to offer long-term availability in the same way as Realreed does. Chelsea Cloisters does not offer room service, or catering of any form. Tenants have fully functioning kitchens and other self-catering facilities within their apartments and have washing machines and dryers to do all their own laundry. Tenants can, and do, stay for extended periods of time (one for around 20 years). The business has always involved the provision of residential accommodation on a longer-term basis than would typically be found in a hotel, with a much higher degree of personal autonomy for the occupant.
HMRC contended that the use of the Apartments is carved out of the exemption in Item 1 by excepted item (d), which applies to “the provision in an hotel, inn, boarding house or similar establishment of sleeping accommodation”. Note 9 to Group 1 provides that “similar establishment” “includes premises in which there is provided furnished sleeping accommodation whether with or without the provision of board or facilities for the preparation of food, which are used or held out as being suitable for use by visitors or travellers”.
Decision
The court considered that Realreed provided sleeping accommodation in an establishment which is similar to a hotel. The two hallmarks of short-term accommodation coupled with additional services (daily maid service, linen changing, cleaning at the end of a stay, residents bar, concierge) mean that Chelsea Cloisters is an establishment in potential competition with the hotel sector, which also offers short-term accommodation with services.
The FTT found that Realreed provided furnished sleeping accommodation, so the remaining question was whether Chelsea Cloisters is used by or held out as being suitable for use by “visitors or travellers” per Note 9.
The FTT interpreted ‘visitor or traveller’ as referring to a person who is present in a particular place without making it their home, ie; they are not staying there with any degree of permanence. The average length of visit was less than a fortnight which must mean that the apartments were indeed made available to visitors or travellers.
The supplies were therefore standard rated.
Commentary
There is a distinction between leases and other room lettings for VAT. The most important issue is the degree of “permanence”, although other factors have a bearing. Businesses which let rooms should consider the nature of their supplies with reference to this case which helpfully sets out which factors need to be considered.