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.
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.
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.
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…
Fruit pulp is zero-rated, but fruit juice is standard-rated.
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 have issued guidance in relation to The Value Added Tax (Caravans) Order 2024. This will come into force on 30 September 2024.
Since 2013 caravans that meet certain size criteria and are manufactured to meet BSI standard 3632 are considered to be residential caravans. Such residential caravans are the only caravans that qualify for zero rate VAT.
The BSI standard in place on 6 April 2013 was BS3632:2005. In 2015 when the BSI updated the standard, the updated reference to BS3632:2015 was added into the legislation. This standard was updated again in 2023, so the legislation needed to be updated in order to maintain the zero rate for residential caravans. The amended legislation provides for the continuation of the zero rate, which will also apply to caravans meeting any updated version of BS3632 published by the BSI in the future.
Legislation
The Statutory Instrument amends The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 9, item 1, which applies zero-rating to caravans manufactured to any version of BS3632. The effect of this is to extend the zero-rate to caravans manufactured to the 2023 version of BS3632 and also to ensure that if the BSI updates BS3632 in future the zero rate is maintained.
It also makes a consequential amendment to item 1(b) of Group 9, to preserve the zero rate for second-hand caravans occupied before 6 April 2013.
The term ‘caravan’ is not defined in the VAT legislation. In practice HMRC bases its interpretation on the definitions in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravans Sites Act 1968.
A caravan is a structure that:
More information on the VAT liabilities if various caravans here.
Latest from the courts
In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Go City Ltd the issue was the VAT treatment of passes (“sightseeing packages”) sold by the appellant. Should they be outside the scope of VAT as multi-purpose vouchers (MPVs) or whether “functioning as a ticket”? The difference being the time of supply (tax point).
The issues
The appellant sells passes which enables the buyer to enter London attractions and travel on certain types of transport. The passes were sold at a price lower than the usual admittance price at the attractions. HMRC originally accepted that the supplies were of “face value vouchers” (MPV – see below) via The VAT Act, Schedule 10A, and latterly Schedule 10B, but later changed its view. It raised assessments for the deemed underdeclarations.
Tax point
The difference in VAT treatment is, essentially:
Moreover, the above means that for single purpose vouchers, VAT is due whether the voucher is actually redeemed or not – there is no way to reduce output tax previously accounted for if the voucher is not used. Whereas for MPVs VAT is only due when they are redeemed. More background on vouchers below.
Contentions
Go City Ltd argued that what was being sold was MPV and output tax was only due when the voucher was redeemed.
HMRC contended that the sale was of a “ticket” (effectively a single purpose voucher) and that output tax was due “up-front”.
Decision
The appeal allowed. The Tribunal concluded that he passes were MPVs and their sale was consequently outside the scope of VAT. No output tax was due at the time they were sold.
The passes were not only outside the scope of VAT because they are MPVs, but also because the supplies take place when the customer uses the pass, and not when it is purchased. The position is essentially the same as in Findmypast and MacDonald Resorts .
Furthermore, the FTT considered the validity of a number of the assessments HMRC issued. These were raised “to protect HMRC’s position” in respect of the alleged underdeclaration of output tax. The court ruled that these assessments were invalid because, at the time they were raised, HMRC did not have a view that the appellant’s returns were incorrect, as a final decision had yet to be made.
Commentary
The correct decision I feel. A long read, but well worth it for interested parties.
Technical background
Face value vouchers
Recent changes, radically alter the UK rules for face value vouchers (FVV). FVVs are vouchers, tokens, stamps (physical or electronic) which entitle the holder to certain goods or services up to the value on the face of the vouchers from the supplier of those goods or services. Examples of FVVs would include vouchers sold by popular group discount websites, vouchers sold by high street retailers, book tokens, stamps and various high street vouchers.
Single or multi-purpose
The most important distinction for FFVs is whether a voucher is a single purpose voucher or multi-purpose voucher. If it is a multi-purpose voucher, then little has changed. If it is a single purpose voucher, however, HMRC will now require output tax to be accounted for at the date it is issued. Single purpose vouchers are vouchers which carry the right to receive only one type of goods or services which are all subject to a single rate of VAT. Multi-purpose vouchers are anything else. The differences can be quite subtle.
For example:
The Irish Supreme Court ruled that the bread sold by the restaurant chain Subway was too sweet to be classified as bread and that the high sugar content meant that it could not be zero rated.
Toffee apples are zero-rated, however, any other fruit which is covered in sugar (or toffee) sold as confectionary is standard rated.
Supplies relating to property may be, or have been; 20%, 17.5%, 15.%, 10% 5%, zero-rated, exempt, or outside the scope of VAT – all impacting, in different ways, upon the VAT position of a supplier and customer. In addition, the law permits certain exempt supplies to be changed to 20% without the agreement of the customer. As soon as a taxpayer is provided with a choice, there is a chance of making the wrong one! Even very slight differences in circumstances may result in a different and potentially unexpected VAT outcome, and it is an unfortunate fact of business life that VAT cannot be ignored.
Why is VAT important?
The fact that the rules are complex, ever-changing, and the amounts involved in property transactions are usually high means that there is an increased risk of making errors. This is increased by the fact that these are often one-off transactions by a business, and in-house, in depth tax knowledge is sometimes absent. Such activities can result in large penalties and interest payments, plus unwanted attentions from VAT inspectors. Uncertainty regarding VAT may affect budgets and an unforeseen VAT bill (and additional SDLT) may risk the profitability of a venture.
Problem areas
Certain transactions tend to create more VAT issues than others. These include;
Additionally, the VAT treatment of building services throws up its own set of VAT complications.
The above are just examples and the list is not exhaustive.
VAT Planning
The usual adage is “right tax, right time”. This, more often than not, means considering the VAT treatment of a transaction well in advance of that transaction taking place. Unfortunately, with VAT there is usually very little planning that can be done after the event. For peace of mind a consultation with a VAT adviser can steer you through the complexities and, if there are issues, to minimise the impact of VAT on a project. Assistance of a VAT adviser is usually crucial if there are any disputes with VAT inspectors. Experience insists that this is an area which HMRC have raised significant revenue from penalties and interest where taxpayers get it wrong.
Don’t leave it to chance!
For more information, please see our Land & Property services