Category Archives: VAT Planning

VAT: Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme registered businesses list

By   16 February 2022
1

HMRC has issued updated guidance for businesses which need to check whether an entity which stores goods in the UK on its behalf is registered with the Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme (FHDDS).

The published list is alphabetical order by company name.

The list should be used if you are a business that is not established in the EU to see if the business that stores your goods in the UK is registered with the FHDDS.

If your business is outsourcing or considering outsourcing its fulfilment operations, then the fulfilment house you are using or intending to use of must be legally accredited by HMRC to do so.

Businesses that must be registered

Businesses are required to be registered if it stores any goods where all of the following apply:

  • the goods were imported from a country outside the EU
  • the goods are owned by, or stored on behalf of, someone established outside the EU
  • the goods are being offered for sale and have not been sold in the UK before

It is illegal to operate outside of the scheme and any fulfilment company found doing so will be prevented operating a fulfilment business and may be subject to a £10,000 penalty and a criminal conviction.

VAT: Bad Debt Relief. The Regency Factors case

By   7 February 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the Regency Factors plc Court Of Appeal (CoA) case the issue was the validity of the appellant’s claim for Bad Debt Relief (BDR) on amounts it had not received after the issue of an invoice.

Technical

BDR is a mechanism which goes some way to protect a business from payment defaulters. Under the normal rules of VAT, a supplier is required to account for output tax, even if the supply has not been paid for (however, the use of cash accounting or certain retail schemes removes the problem of VAT on bad debts from the supplier). The specific relief for unpaid VAT is via the BDR scheme.

A guide to BDR here.

Commentary on the Upper Tribunal (UT) hearing in this case here.

Background

In the CoA case the issue was whether the appellant met the conditions in The VAT General Regulations 1995, Reg 168 for claiming BDR via The VAT Act 1994, section 36.

Regency provided a factoring service to its clients for which it is paid a fee. VAT invoices for those fees were issued to clients when the invoices which are being factored are assigned to Regency for collection.

Regency appealed against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) which dismissed Regency’s appeal against VAT assessments made by HMRC to withdraw BDR which Regency had claimed in its VAT returns.

The UT held that the BDR claim was not valid because

  • there was no bad debt; and
  • Regency had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the making of a claim. 

Regency appealed against the decision of the UT on the second point.

Decision

The CoA decided that as Regency’s record keeping was insufficient to support a BDR claim. Specifically, although it did keep the records required by Regulation 168 (2), it did not keep a single VAT BDR account which is required by Regulation 168 (3). The ruling commented that this requirement was a legitimate feature of the scheme as it enables an inspector to check the claim easily. It is not acceptable for a claimant to simply have a pile of unsorted documents which may, or may not, evidence a valid claim.

The court also said that it was possible for HMRC to allow a discretionary claim (clearly, they did not use that discretion in this case) and that the legal requirement was not a barrier to Regency making a proper BDR claim. The appeal was dismissed.

“In short, Regency had the opportunity to prove its claim for bad debt relief in the FTT… but it failed to do so. It is not entitled to a second opportunity”.

Commentary

As always with VAT, accurate record-keeping is essential. As the tax is transaction based, it is vital to keep comprehensive evidence of those transactions and associated payments. Failure to do so may result in:

  • assessments and penalties
  • give HMRC the opportunity to refuse otherwise legitimate input tax recovery
  • refuse other VAT claims (in this case BDR).
  • confusion and uncertainty which often creates costs in time and other resources, and extended relations with HMRC, which is in no business’ interest.

If Regency had taken “one step further” with its record keeping, BDR would have been paid by HMRC.

VAT: New penalty regime delayed

By   17 January 2022
0

The new system for the way penalties and interest is charged due to be introduced on 1 April this year has been deferred to 1 January 2023.

The new points-based regime has been delayed to allow HMRC to implement the necessary IT changes.

I wonder if that represents a reasonable excuse for HMRC being late…

VAT Registration

By   4 January 2022
0

VAT Basics

A business must register for VAT with HMRC if its VAT taxable turnover is more than £90,000 in a 12 month period.

Taxable Turnover

Taxable turnover means the total value of everything that a business sells that is not exempt or outside the scope of VAT.

Registration is mandatory if turnover exceeds the current registration threshold in a rolling 12-month period. This is not a fixed period like the tax year or the calendar year – at the end of every month a business is required to calculate income (not profit) over the past year.

A business may also register voluntarily, which may be beneficial if it wants to reclaim input tax it has incurred.

Catches

There are some transactions that must be included in the turnover calculation which can easily be missed:

  • goods a business hired or loaned to customers
  • business goods used for personal reasons
  • goods which were bartered, part-exchanged or given as gifts
  • services a business receives from suppliers in other countries which are subject to a reverse charge
  • zero-rated items (these are still taxable although no VAT is charged)

Timing

A business must register within 30 days of the end of the month when it exceeded the threshold. The effective date of registration (EDR) is the first day of the second month after a business goes over the threshold.

Future test

A business must mandatorily register for VAT if it expects its VAT taxable turnover to be more than £90,000 in the next 30-day period. This may be because of a new contract or a other known factors.

Registration exception

If a business has a one-off increase in income it can apply for a registration ‘exception’. If its taxable turnover goes over the threshold temporarily it can write to HMRC with evidence showing why the taxable turnover will not exceed the deregistration threshold (currently £88,000 in the next 12 months). HMRC will consider an exception and write confirming if a business will receive one. If not, HMRC will compulsory register the business for VAT.

Transfer of a going concern (TOGC)

If a VAT-registered ongoing business is purchased the buyer must register for VAT from the purchase date. It cannot wait until its turnover exceeds the threshold.

Businesses outside the UK

If a business belongs outside the UK, there is a zero threshold. It must register as soon as it supplies any goods and services to the UK (or if it expects to in the next 30 days).

Late registration

If a business registers late, it must pay the VAT due from when it should have registered (the EDR). Further, it will receive a penalty depending on how much it owes and how late the registration is. The rates based on the VAT due are:

  • up to 9 months late – 5%
  • between 9 and 18 months – 10%
  • over 18 months = 15%.

How to register

A business can register online. By doing this it will register for VAT and create a VAT online account via which it will submit VAT returns.

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 invoices showing the VAT.

Purchases made before registration

There are time limits for backdating claims for input tax incurred before registration. These are:

  • four years for goods still on hand at the EDR
  •  
  • six months for services

Once registered

A business’ VAT responsibilities. From the EDR a business must:

  • charge the right amount of VAT
  • pay any VAT due to HMRC
  • submit VAT Returns
  • keep appropriate VAT records and a VAT account
  • follow the rules for ‘Making Tax Digital for VAT’
  • keep business details up to date (there are penalties for failing to inform HMRC of changes)

VAT groups

VAT grouping is a facilitation measure by which two or more entities can be treated as a single taxable person (a single VAT registration). There are pros and cons of grouping set out here.

VAT: Trading with the EU from 1 January 2022

By   14 December 2021
0

Further to my article on the new changes from next year, HMRC has published information on the rules of origin for trade between the UK and EU.

The Bulletin covers the rules of origin and the forthcoming changes to the requirement for supplier declarations to support proof of origin.

Uber to charge VAT

By   7 December 2021
0

Latest from the courts

Further to my article on the Supreme Court case, Uber went to the High Court seeking to challenge this decision, but the High Court has now upheld it.

This means it is very likely that Uber will be required to charge VAT on its supplies as the court found that taxi firms make contracts directly with their customers because Uber drivers should be treated as workers not contractors. This means that Uber make to supply of taxi services to the fare and not the individual drivers.

The High Court agreed with the Supreme Court and stated that: “… in order to operate lawfully under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 a licensed operator who accepts a booking from a passenger is required to enter as principal into a contractual obligation with the passenger to provide the journey which is the subject of the booking.”

A spokesperson for Uber said: “Every private hire operator in London will be impacted by this decision, and should comply with the verdict in full.”

Although not a VAT case itself, this decision is the latest in a long list of VAT agent/principal cases, the most important being:

Secret Hotels 2 Ltd

Hotels4U.com Ltd

Low Cost Holidays Ltd

Adecco

All Answers Limited

It is crucial that businesses review their position if there is any doubt at all whether agent status applies to their business model.

VAT: Roof panels are not insulation. The Greenspace case

By   2 December 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Greenspace Limited the issue was whether insulated roof panels were “energy-saving materials” per VAT Act 1994, sect 29A, Schedule 7A, group 2, items 1 and 2 and thus liable at the reduced rate of 5%. Or rather at the standard rate of 20% on the basis that they were a supply of a roof itself.

Background

The appellant supplied and installed roof panels for conservatories which comprised a layer of close-cell extruded polystyrene foam (Styrofoam) around 71mm thick. The Styrofoam was covered with a thin aluminium layer and a protective powder coating which are together around 2mm thick. The supplies were made to residential customers and the panels were fitted onto their pre-existing conservatory roofs. The Panels were slotted into place on the existing roof structure and Greenspace did not replace its customers’ existing roof framework when doing this; the struts and glazing bars that supported the previous glass or polycarbonate panels were left in place. Consequently, the Panels were not self-supporting and could only be used if the customer already had an existing conservatory roof structure.

The decision

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided in 2020 that the panels were not “insulation for a roof” but were a new roof in their own right, and that the appellant’s supplies did not therefore qualify for the reduced rate of VAT (unlike insulation that could be separately attached to a roof, the panels actually formed the roof).

The UT dismissed the new appeal and found that the FTT had not been obliged to compare the roof after Greenspace had installed its panels to the original roof. The frame that was retained could not itself be described as a roof, and the provision of the Thermotec panels which made the conservatory weatherproof as well as insulating it could properly be categorised as the provision of a new roof.

One of Greenspace’s grounds of appeal was that the FTT decision was vitiated by the assumption that because the panels took the form of roof coverings, they were necessarily incapable of constituting “insulation for … roofs”. The appellant argued that as this was a flawed assumption (that Greenspace’s supplies “must” be treated as something more than insulation) the decision should be set aside. This contention was rejected by the UT judge.

Commentary

A fine distinction is often required to be made to establish the correct VAT treatment of a supply. In this case a degree of semantics was required to determine whether the panels were energy-saving materials (even when they certainly saved energy). On such small things turned the assessment of £2.6 million here. It always pays to double check VAT treatments rather than making assumptions.

VAT: Trading with the EU. Changes from 1 January 2022

By   23 November 2021
0

From 1 January 2022 the rules for selling to, and buying from, the EU will change.

HMRC have issued information about these changes.

Broadly, from 1‌‌ ‌January‌‌ ‌2022, businesses will no longer be able to delay making import customs declarations under the Staged Customs Controls rules that have applied during 2021. Most businesses will have to make declarations and pay relevant tariffs at the point of import. However, see details of Postponed Accounting.

Please also see a publication issued by the Cabinet Office which includes a Policy Paper on The Border Operating Model.

VAT: Input tax recovery. The Mpala Mufwankolo case

By   15 November 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Mr Mufwankolo the dispute was whether the appellant was able to recover VAT charged by the landlord of the property from which he ran his business – a licenced retail outlet on Tottenham High Road.  

Background

The landlord had opted to tax the commercial property and charged VAT on the rent. The appellant was a sole proprietor; however, the lease was in the name of Mr Mufwankolo’s wife, and the rent demands showed her name and not that of the sole proprietor. It was contended by the appellant, but not evidenced, that the lease had originally been in both his and his wife’s names, despite his wife being the sole signatory.

The issues

Could the appellant recover input tax?

  • Did the business receive the supply?
  • Was there appropriate evidence?

It was clear that the business operated from the relevant property and consequently, in normal circumstances, the rent would be a genuine cost component of the business.

The Decision

The FTT found that there was no entitlement to an input tax claim and the appeal was dismissed. The lease was solely in the wife’s name and the business was the applicant as a sole proprietor. (There was an obvious potential for a partnership and an argument that a partnership was originally intended was advanced. The status of registration was challenged in 2003, but, crucially, not pursued).

It was possible for the property to be sub-let by the wife to the husband, however, this did not affect the VAT treatment as matters stood. Additionally, there was no evidence that the appellant actually paid any of the rent, as this was done by the tenant. There were no VAT invoices addressed to the sole proprietor.

Given the facts, there was no supply to the appellant, so there was no input tax to claim, and the issue of acceptable evidence fell away.

It was a certainty that the appeal could not succeed.

Commentary

There were a number of ways that this VAT cost could have easily been avoided had a little thought been given to the VAT arrangements. An oversight that created an avoidable tax hit.

A helpful guide to input tax considerations here: Care with input tax claims.

Legislation

The VAT Act 1994 Section 3 – Taxable person

The VAT Act 1994 Section 4 – Taxable supply

The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (1) – Input tax

The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (6) – Input tax claim evidence

VAT: Valuation

By   15 November 2021
0

Further to my article on apportionment valuation and case review here and Transfer Pricing valuation I thought it useful to consider HMRC’s internal guidance on its approach to valuation.

Sometimes a single monetary consideration may represent payment for two or more supplies at different VAT rates. In such cases, a business is required to allocate a “fair proportion” of the total payment to each of the supplies. This requirement is set out at in The VAT Act 1994, Section 19(4).

“Where a supply of any goods or services is not the only matter to which a consideration in money relates, the supply shall be deemed to be for such part of the consideration as is properly attributable to it.”

Although this section requires an apportionment of the consideration to be performed, it does not prescribe the methods by which this is to be achieved. The most common methods are based upon the costs incurred in making the supplies or the usual selling prices of the supplies.

Examples of methods that have been found to be of general application are contained in VAT Notice 700 para 8. A business is not obliged to adopt any of these suggested methods, and HMRC may accept alternative proposals provided that they achieve a fair and reasonable result that can be supported by valid calculation.

Some sectors have special methods called margin schemes to determine apportionment of the monetary consideration. Details of these found in their notices and guidance. The schemes include:


Basics

Before it is possible to perform an apportionment calculation, there are four basic questions that need to be addressed to determine whether an apportionment is appropriate and if so, what supplies it relates to.

  1. Is there more than one supply?
  2. Is there a single consideration?
  3. Can any part of the payment be treated as outside the scope of VAT?
  4. What are the liabilities of the supplies in question?

The issue of whether there is a single or multiple supply has created problems from the outset of the tax.  The volume of case law illustrates that each decision is based on the facts of each case and there cannot be a one-size fits all approach to this issue. The most important and recent cases are here:

Card Protection Plan Ltd 

Stocks Fly Fishery

Metropolitan International Schools

The Ice Rink Company Ltd 

General Healthcare Group Limited