Tag Archives: agent-principal

VAT: Uber Supreme Court case

By Marcus Ward 23 February 2021

Latest from the courts

As many would have heard, the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals driving taxis are “workers” rather than third party contractors. Although not a VAT case, it has This decision has highlighted a number of VAT issues.

Agent versus principal

The main matter in VAT terms is; which party is making the supply? This is often a point of dispute with HMRC, especially with taxi businesses, driving schools, the operation of online platforms, travel and accommodation, and many other types of businesses. It is one of the most common areas of disagreement as many cases have demonstrated, eg; here, here, here, and here.

The difference

VAT legislation does not define agency for the purposes of the tax.

As is often the case in these types of arrangements, there are some matters that point towards a business acting as agent, and others indicating that the proper VAT treatment is that of principal. The important difference, of course, being whether output tax is due on the “commission” received by an agent (20% in Uber’s case), or on the full payment made to it by the end user.

Uber contended that the drivers were independent contractors who work under contracts made directly with the customers and are not employees. Thus, they (Uber) acted as agent. One main argument advanced by them was that the drivers were free to work for other businesses (although in reality this was very unlikely due to the market share held by Uber).

Contract

It also demonstrates both the importance of a contract (or lack of one in Uber’s case), and how all parties act in relation to it. There have been many VAT cases on how much weight should be given to a written agreement versus what the relevant parties actually agree, how they act, how the services are performed and what the customer thinks is the position (who [s]he thinks is providing the service).

Decision

Finding that the drivers work for, and under contracts with, Uber, the following aspects supported its decision – Uber sets the fare, the terms are set by Uber and drivers have no input, Uber restricts communications between driver and passenger, and Uber exercises significant control over the way in which the services are delivered.

Update

A similar decision has been made in the Dutch courts in the Deliveroo case.

Next steps

Commentary

We wait to hear how HMRC will proceed as a result of this case. There is a chance that it may attack taxi firms which they have previously accepted as agent on the grounds that they are principals – providing the service via their ‘employees/workers” and so assessing output tax on the full value of the fare paid.

VAT: More on agent or principal – The All Answers Limited case

By Marcus Ward 9 December 2018

Latest from the courts

In the All Answers Limited (AAL) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether AAL acted as an agent as it contended, or was a principal as HMRC argued. It also considered the position of contracts in certain situations. There have been a huge number of cases on this point, many of which I have commented on. Some of them here here and here

Background

AAL runs an online business which provides essays, coursework and dissertations to students. The FTT found many euphemisms used for this service, but the service which the student paid for effectively passed off other peoples’ work as the students own in order to obtain a certain grade which was decided by the student. Or in other words; cheating. AAL arranged for one of its circa 400 writers, which were usually other students, teachers or lecturers etc (who should have known better) to provide the required work.

Technical

AAL contended that it was acting as the students’ agent in respect of making arrangements to provide the written work. Consequently, it would only account for output tax on the “commission” retained, rather than on the full value of the amount paid by the student – a significant difference. The contracts produced as evidence fully supported the agency analysis. The Terms and Conditions between AAL and the writer provided that the appellant acts as the writer’s agent to sell his/her services and to enter into “relationships” with clients on the writer’s behalf and to collect payment on the writer’s behalf.

HMRC’s view was that there were no agency services supplied and that the economic reality should be examined rather than relying solely on the relevant contracts. The respondent argued that the notion of agency, so carefully woven into the AAL’s Terms and Conditions, lacked both factual and economic reality because the only service provider was the appellant who choose to use a sub-contractor to provide it with the work which AAL ultimately supplied to the client as principal.

The Decision

Unsurprisingly, the judge concluded that the appellant was acting as principal, not agent and so AAL’s appeal was dismissed. In the ruling, certain comments were made which illustrate how the decision was arrived at and are useful to consider when looking at agency/principal positions.

In respect of the T&Cs, the judge observed “…an agreement which is not a sham may nonetheless be artificial and intended to deflect attention from the true positions taken by both the client and the writer, to whom the appellant profitably lends a willing hand, with no concern for ethics or morality”.

And in respect of the business model: “It could not be stressed more strongly during the appeal before us, and in the documents emanating from the appellant, that its business model is based upon the identity of the client and the identity of the person who is to write the requested piece of academic work, not being made known to one another…” In such circumstances it is difficult to conclude that any agency services are being carried out.

Commentary

As in nearly all agent/principal cases, the VAT position is determined according to the facts of each individual case. Slight variations may produce different VAT outcomes, so it is crucial to look at the detail of each business activity. Contracts are a useful starting point, but as this case shows, if a contract is deliberately drafted to produce a VAT outcome that is not supported by the actual facts of a transaction then it must be disregarded in favour of an analysis of the economic reality. It seems that in this case, AAL desired agency treatment in order to significantly reduce its output tax (which was sticking tax as the recipient was unable to recover it as input tax). Its advisers drafted the relevant contract with this in mind. The FTT saw through that and, came to this sensible decision.

VAT: Time of supply (tax point). Baumgarten Sports case

By Marcus Ward 4 December 2018

Latest from the courts

In the Baumgarten Sports EJEU case, the matter was the time of supply of a German football agent’s services.

Background

As is common in the football world, clubs make payments to agents in order to obtain the services of footballers. When the agent places a player with a football club, it receives commission from that club, provided that the player subsequently signs an employment contract and holds a licence issued by the Deutsche Fußball Liga GmbH (German Football League). The commission is paid to the company in instalments every six months for as long as the player remains under a contract with that club.

The arguments

The German tax authorities took the view that a tax point was created when Baumgarten Sports services were complete – when the contract was signed, and that output tax was due in full at that time The appellant contended that the rules for “successive payments” applied and that VAT was due on each six monthly payment.

Legislation

The issue is covered by Articles 63 and 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’).

Decision

The supply of services gave rise to successive payments, the chargeable event for VAT occurs and VAT becomes chargeable on expiry of the periods to which those payments relate (re; Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company, C‑463/14).

The chargeable event (tax point) and chargeability of a tax on the supply of the agent’s services must be regarded as occurring, not when the player is placed, but on expiry of the periods to which the payments made by the club relate.

Commentary

It is useful to look at the UK tax point rules for services, which I have summarised here:

VAT must normally be accounted for in the VAT period in which the tax point occurs and at the rate of VAT in force at that time. Small businesses may, however, account for VAT on the basis of cash paid and received.

Although the principal purpose of the time of supply rules is to fix the time for accounting for, and claiming VAT, the rules have other uses including

calculating turnover for VAT registration purposes
establishing the period to which supplies (including exempt supplies) are to be allocated for partial exemption purposes, and
establishing when and if input tax may be deducted

The tax point for a transaction is the date the transaction takes place for VAT purposes. This is important because it crystallises the date when output tax should be declared and when input tax may be reclaimed. Unsurprisingly, get it wrong and there could be penalties and interest, or VAT is declared too early or input tax claimed late – both situations are to be avoided, especially in large value and/or complex situations.

The basic tax point for a supply of services is the date the services are performed.

Actual tax point

Where a VAT invoice is raised or payment is made before the basic tax point, there is an earlier actual tax point created at the time the invoice is issued or payment received, whichever occurs first.

14 Day Rule

There is also an actual tax point where a VAT invoice is issued within 14 days after the basic tax point. This overrides the basic tax point.

Continuous supply of services

If services are supplied on a continuous basis and payments are received regularly or from time to time, there is a tax point every time:

A VAT invoice is issued
a payment is received, whichever happens first

Deposits

Care should be taken when accounting for deposits. The VAT rules vary depending on the nature of the deposit. In some circumstances deposits may catch out the unwary, these could be, inter alia; auctions, stakeholder/escrow/solicitor accounts in property transactions, and refundable/non-refundable deposits. There are also other special provisions for particular supplies of goods and services, for eg; TOMS.

Summary

The tax point may be summarised (in most circumstances) as the earliest of:

The date an invoice is issued
The date payment is received
The date title to goods is passed, or services are completed.

Planning

Tax point planning can be very important to a business. the aims in summary are:

Deferring a supplier’s tax point where possible
Timing of a tax point to benefit both parties to a transaction wherever possible
Applying the cash accounting scheme (or withdrawal from it)
Using specific documentation to avoid creating tax points for certain supplies
Correctly identifying the nature of a supply to benefit from certain tax point rules
Generating positive cashflow between “related” entities where permitted
Broadly; generate output tax as early as possible in a VAT period, and incur input tax as late as possible
Planning for VAT rate changes
Ensure that a business does not incur penalties for errors by applying the tax point rules correctly.

As always, please contact us if you have any queries.

Inter-company charges: What is VATable?

By Marcus Ward 1 November 2018

This seemingly straightforward area can throw up lots of VAT issues and touches on a number of complex areas. If we look at what is commonly called a “management charge” it is clear that such a charge can cover a lot of different circumstances.

Do I charge VAT on a management charge?

An easy yes or no question one would think, however, this being VAT, the answer is; it depends. Typically, management charges represent a charge by a holding company to its subsidiaries of; a share of overhead costs, the provision of actual management/advisory services or office facilities or similar (the list can obviously be quite extensive).

Consideration for a supply

The starting point is; is something (goods or services) supplied in return for the payment? If the answer is no, then no VAT will be due. However, this may impact on the ability to recover input tax in the hands of the entity making the charge. It is often the case that a management charge is used as a mechanism for transferring “value” from one company to another. If it is done in an arbitrary manner with no written agreement in place, and nothing identifiable is provided, and VAT is charged, HMRC may challenge the VAT treatment and any input recovery of the company making the payment.

Composite of separate supply?

This is a complex area of the tax and is perpetually the subject of a considerable amount of case law. This has been so since the early days of VAT and there appears no signs of disputes slowing down. I have written about such cases here here here here and here

“Usually” if a combination of goods or services are supplied it is considered as a single supply and is subject to the standard rate. However, case law insists that sometimes different supplies need to be divided and a different rate of VAT applied to each separate supply. This may be the case for instance, when an exempt supply of non-opted property (eg; a designated office with an exclusive right to occupy) is provided alongside standard rated advice.

Approach

What is important is not how a management charge is calculated, but what the supply actually is (if it is one). The calculation, whether based on a simple pro-rata amount between separate subsidiaries, or via a complex mechanism set out in a written agreement has no impact on the VAT treatment. As always in VAT, the basic question is: what is actually provided?

Can the VAT treatment of a supply change when recharged?

Simply put; yes/ For example, if the holding company pays insurance (VAT free) and charges it on as part of a composite supply, then VAT will be added to an original non-VAT bearing cost. It may also occur when staff are employed (no VAT on salaries paid) but the staff are supplied to a subsidiary company and VAT is added (but see below).

Staff

The provision of staff is usually a standard rated supply. However, there are two points to consider. One is joint contracts of employment which I look at below, the other is the actual definition of the provision of staff. Care must be taken when analysing what is being provided. The question here is; are staff being provided, or; is the supply the services that those staff carry out? This is relevant, say, if the services the staff carry out are exempt. There are a number of tests here, but the main issue is; which entity directs and manages the staff?

Directors

There can be different rules for directors compared to staff.

If a holding company provides a subsidiary company with a director to serve as such, the normal rules relating to supplies of staff apply and VAT applies.

However, there are different rules for common directors. An individual may act as a director of a number of companies. There may be an arrangement where a holding company pays the director’s fees and then recover appropriate proportions from subsidiaries. In such circumstances, the individual’s services are supplied by the individual to the companies of which (s)he a director. The services are supplied directly to the relevant businesses by the individual and not from one company to another. Therefore, there is no supply between the companies and so no VAT is due on the share of money recovered from each subsidiary.

Planning

Planning may be required if;

the subsidiary cannot reclaim all VAT charged to it as input tax
there are cashflow/timing disadvantages
there are management or administrative complexities

Specific planning

VAT grouping

If commercially acceptable, the holding company and subsidiary companies may form a VAT group. By doing so any charges made between VAT group members are disregarded and no VAT is chargeable on them.

There are pros and cons in forming a VAT group and a brief overview is provided here

A specific development in case law does mean care must be taken when considering input tax recovery in holdco, details here

Joint contracts of employment

If members of staff are employed via joint contracts or employment no VAT is applicable to any charges made between the two (or more) employers. In addition, where each of a number of associated companies employs its own staff, but one company (the paymaster) pays salaries behalf of the others who then pay their share of the costs to the paymaster the recovery of monies paid out by the paymaster is VAT free as it is treated as a disbursement.

Disbursements

Looking at disbursements is a whole article in itself, and in fact there is a helpful one here

But, briefly, if a charge qualifies as a disbursement, then the costs is passed on “in the same state” so if it is VAT free, the onward charge is also VAT free, as opposed to perhaps changing the VAT liability as set out above. It is important to understand the differences between a disbursement and a recharge as a VAT saving may be obtained.

Overseas

The above considers management charges within the UK. There are different rules for making or receiving management charges to/from the EU and outside the EU. These charges are usually, but not always, VAT free and it is worth checking the VAT treatment before these are made/received.

There may be more planning for charities and NFP entities via cost sharing arrangements, but this is outside the scope of this article.

As may be seen, the answer to a simple question may be complex and the answer dependent upon the precise facts of the case. It is unusual to have two scenarios that precisely mirror each other, so each structure needs to be reviewed individually. Please contact us if you have any queries or would like more information on any of the above.

VAT: Adecco Court of Appeal case. Agent or principal?

By Marcus Ward 6 August 2018

Latest from the courts

In the recent Court of Appeal (CA) case of Adecco here the issue was whether the services provided by Adecco – an employment bureau which supplied its clients with temporary staff (temps) were by way of it acting as principal or agent.

Background

Details of the issues as considered in the FTT and UT were covered here

Overview

As is often the case in these types of arrangements, there are some matters that point towards the appellant acting as agent, and others indicating that the proper VAT treatment is that of principal. The important difference, of course, being whether output tax is due on the “commission” received by Adecco or on the full payment made to it (which includes the salaries of the relevant workers).

Decision

The CA decided that the supply of temporary staff by Adecco was as principal and consequently, VAT was due on the full amount received, not just the commission retained.

Reasoning

The CA focussed on the contractual position. Among the reasons provided for this decision were as follows (I have somewhat summarised). I think it worthwhile looking in some detail at these:

There was no question of the temps having provided their services under contracts with the clients: no such contracts existed. The contractual position must be that the temps’ services were provided to clients in pursuance of the contracts between Adecco and its clients and Adecco and the temps.
Although the contract between Adecco and a temp referred to the temp undertaking an assignment “for a client” and providing services “to the client”, it also spoke of the client requiring the temp’s services “through Adecco” and of the temp being supplied “through Adecco”.
While temps were to be subject to the control of clients, that was something that the temps agreed with Adecco, not the clients. The fact that the contract between Adecco and a temp barred any third party from having rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 confirms that the relevant provisions were to be enforceable only by Adecco, which, on the strength of them, was able to agree with its clients that the temps should be under their control. Adecco can fairly be described as conferring such control on its clients. (Broadly; the employment regulations required Adecco to treat itself as a principal with the result that that it could not therefore treat itself as an agent).
Adecco paid temps on its own behalf, not as agent for the clients.
Adecco by did not drop out of the picture once it had introduced a temp to a client. It was responsible for paying the temp (and for handling national insurance contributions and the like) and had to do so regardless of whether it received payment from the client Adecco also enjoyed rights of termination and suspension. It is noteworthy (as the UT said) that the contract between Adecco and a temp proceeded on the basis that a temp’s unauthorised absence could “result in a breach of obligations which we owe to the client”.
Adecco did not perform just administrative functions in relation to the temps. The temps, after all, were entitled to be paid by Adecco, not the clients.
Adecco charged a client a single sum for each hour a temp worked. It did not split its fees into remuneration for the temp and commission for itself.
The fact that Adecco had no control over a temp in advance of his taking up his assignment with the client did not matter.
Adecco undoubtedly supplied the services of employed temps to its clients.
In all the circumstances, both contractually and as a matter of economic and commercial reality, the temps’ services were supplied to clients via Adecco. In other words, Adecco did not merely supply its clients with introductory and ancillary services, and VAT was payable on the totality of what it was paid by clients.

Action

Clearly this was not the outcome the appellant desired, and it may impact similar arrangements in place for other businesses. Although found on the precise nature of the relevant contracts, the outcome of this case is not limited to employment bureaux and similar but must be considered in most cases where commission is received by an “agent”. These may include, inter alia; taxi services, driving schools, transport, travel agents, training/education, online services, repairs, warrantee work and many other types of business. It is crucial that contracts are regularly reviewed the ensure that the appropriate VAT treatment is applied and that they are clear on the agent/principal relationship. If there is any doubt, please contact us as it is often one of the most ambiguous areas of VAT.

VAT: More on agent/principal – Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 3 July 2017

Lowcost Holidays Ltd

There is a very important distinction in VAT terms between agent and principal as it dictates whether output tax is due on the entire amount received by a “middle-man” or just the amount which the middle-man retains (usually a commission). It is common for the relationship between parties to be open to interpretation and thus create VAT uncertainty in many transactions.

It appears to me that this uncertainty has increased as a result of the growing amount of on-line sales and different parties being involved in a single sale.

By way of background, I looked at this issue at the end of last year here

The case

On a similar theme, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Lowcost Holidays Ltd the issue was whether the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) applied to Lowcost’s activities.

Background

Lowcost was a travel agent offering holiday accommodation in ten other EU Member States, and other countries outside the EU, for the most part to customers based in the UK. The issue between the parties is whether Lowcost provided holiday accommodation to customers as a principal, dealing in its own name, under article 306 of Directive 2006/112, the Principal VAT Directive and therefore came within TOMS or whether it acted solely as an intermediary or agent (in which case TOMS would not apply and the general Place Of Supply rules apply).

Decision

The FTT found in favour of the appellant. HMRC had argued that Lowcost was buying and selling travel and accommodation as principal, however, the FTT decided that the contracts which Lowcost entered into with; hotels, transport providers and holidaymakers were clear that the arrangement was for the appellant acting as agent. The helpful Supreme Court case of SecretHotels2 (which I commented on here) was applied in this case. The main point being that the nature of a supply is to be determined by the construction of the contract – unless it is a ‘sham’ and great weight was given to the terms of Lowcost’s contracts rather than what HMRC often call the “economic reality”. Specifically highlighted to the court was the fact that Lowcost set the prices for the holidays, which HMRC pointed out would be inconsistent with an agency arrangement. The FTT decided that this was outweighed by the actual terms of the contracts.

Consequently, as Lowcost acted as agent (for the providers of the services not the holidaymaker) the Place Of Supply was determined by reference to where the supply was received under the general rule. In this case, this is VAT free when the services were received by principals located outside the UK.

As with all TOMS and agent/principal matters it really does pay to obtain professional advice.