Tag Archives: business

VAT: Transactions in Bitcoins

By Marcus Ward 1 May 2019

Further to my articles here and here concerning transactions involving cryptocurrencies, and considering the increased use of them, it seems timely to provide an update on the VAT treatment of certain business activities which use Bitcoins as a value for exchange, or payment for goods or services.

What is cryptocurrency?

Cryptocurrency is a line of computer code that holds monetary value. Cryptocurrency is also known as digital currency and it is a form of money that is created by mathematical computations. In order for a Bitcoin transaction to take place, a verification process is needed, this is provided by millions of computer users called miners and the monitoring is called mining. Transactions are recorded in the blockchain which is public and contains records of each and every transaction that takes place. Cryptocurrency is not tangible, although they may be exchanged for traditional cash. It is a decentralised digital currency without a central bank or single administrator (which initially made it attractive) and can be sent from user to user on the peer-to-peer network without the need for intermediaries.

What is Bitcoin?

Bitcoin was the first popular cryptocurrency and it first appeared in 2009. The advantage of bitcoin is that it can be stored offline on the owner’s local hardware (a process called cold storage) which protects the currency from being taken by others. If a person loses access to the hardware that contains the bitcoins, the currency is lost forever, and it is estimated that as much as 23% of bitcoin has been mislaid by miners and/or investors.

Exchange between currencies and bitcoin

The VAT treatment of transactions exchanging traditional currencies for Bitcoin, or Bitcoin for currencies carried out for consideration (added by the supplier) are exempt services in a similar way to any other currency transactions via The VAT Directive Article 135(1)(e).

Paying for goods or services using Bitcoin

Similar to any other payment method, simply using Bitcoin to obtain goods or services is outside the scope of VAT and no VAT is due on the value the Bitcoin represents. That is to say that the authorities do not consider that such a transaction is a barter.

Provision of goods or services in return for Bitcoin payment

The provision of goods or services paid for in Bitcoin are treated in a similar way as any supplied for consideration consisting of

Traditional currencies, or
Non-monetary consideration

and the value is; anything received by the supplier in consideration of that supply.

Should the consideration be in Bitcoin, there two alternatives for the conversion of foreign currencies into the main currency of a Member State (although these were drafted before the introduction of Bitcoin and originally relate simply to foreign currencies)

the latest exchange rate recorded on the most representative exchange market of the Member State, or
the latest exchange rate published by the European Central Bank

However, as above, because Bitcoin is not administered by any bank, this may make valuation difficult. The VAT Committee of the European Commission (EC) has indicated that a potential resolution is to use Open Market Rate (OMR*) as the exchange of the virtual currency. This would be the responsibility of the supplier. This is likely to be commercially available information from the websites of the likes of; coindesk, Cryptocompare or Cointelegraph for eg.

All of the above seems logical, although confirmation provided by the EC VAT Committee is welcome.

* OMR is the amount for which an asset is transferred between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion.

VAT: Zero rating of prescriptions

By Marcus Ward 29 April 2019

Latest from the courts

The UK is unique in the EU for the zero rating of medicines prescribed by a registered medical practitioner.

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Pearl Chemist Ltd (Pearl) the issue was whether the development of new technology and legislation affected the zero rating of prescriptions written by UK registered and non-UK registered doctors and the interpretation of “registered medical practitioner”.

Background

Pearl is authorised to dispense medicines prescribed online by doctors based in countries based in the European Economic Area. It contracted with a third party which operated websites which offered medical screening and services, primarily for conditions such as erectile dysfunction, hair loss and obesity/weight loss.

Customers of the third party could obtain an online consultation with qualified doctors. If the doctor decided to issue a prescription, the written prescription would be sent to Pearl who would then despatch the medicine directly to the individual customer on behalf of the third party. Pearl treated all these supplies as zero-rated. The relevant law covering such prescriptions changed in 2008 such that it was now possible to dispense drugs prescribed by a qualified doctor based outside the UK.

HMRC formed the view that these supplies were not covered by the UK zero rating on the basis that an EU qualified doctor who is not registered with the GMC is not a registered medical practitioner. An assessment for output tax was issued in respect of supplies made against prescriptions written by non-UK doctors.

The issues

The issues, broadly were:

Are qualified doctors based outside the UK covered by the description “registered medical practitioner” in UK legislation?
If not, does this breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality? (Whether there is clear discrimination between identical supplies made on the prescription of UK doctors and doctors from other EU countries)

Decision

The judge ruled that the UK zero rating does not cover prescriptions written by non-UK doctors as they are not within the definition of “registered medical practitioner” Consequently, the supplies must be standard rated in the UK. However, the exclusion of medicines prescribed by overseas doctors from the zero-rating constitutes a breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality. This seemed good news for Pearl, but…the Tribunal stated that it was unable to provide an effective remedy for that breach and accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed HRMC’s assessment.

Commentary

This decision seems rather harsh on the appellant. It appears that the judge ruled that she had no power to override UK Parliament’s intention despite the inherent “unfairness” of the outcome of this intention where identical supplies were treated differently depending on where the prescription was written.

Certainly an odd one and I wonder if this is the last of this matter. Any business in a similar situation may need to review its position on the basis of this decision.

Changes to recovery of VAT on imports

By Marcus Ward 15 April 2019

HMRC have recently issued RCB 2 (2019) which sets out HMRC’s view on Toll Manufacturers (TM). TM is an arrangement in which a company which has a specialised equipment processes raw materials or semi-finished goods for another company. It may also be called toll processing. Typically, a TM will import, say, pharmaceutical goods, process and distribute them within the UK for clinical trials on behalf of an overseas owner.

HMRC has become aware that a number of UK TMs have paid import VAT on behalf of overseas customers have also claimed a corresponding deduction for input tax under VAT Act 1994 Section 24. However, there is no provision in UK law for such deduction.

Current treatment

TMs will usually act as importer and recover import VAT via a C79 despite them not being the owner of the goods (the owner instructs the TM to carry out works on their goods on their behalf).

HMRC has now confirmed that this VAT treatment is incorrect, and it will no longer be permitted.

New treatment

Only the owner of the goods will be treated as the importer and be able to recover import VAT. TMs will no longer be able to claim this VAT.

However, HMRC will not require TMs to make adjustments to past claims and the treatment will only be required going forward.

Introduction

The change comes into effect from 15 July 2019

Affect

Affected TMs are likely to need to make significant changes to their systems before that date.

Overseas owners of the relevant goods will either need to:

register for UK VAT and claim the import VAT on a “regular” return, or
make a claim via the Thirteenth VAT Directive (86/560/EEC)

NB: In cases where title has passed before import into the UK (businesses sell on the goods before importing them into the UK so ownership and title has passed to the new owner, however the business that sold the goods acts as importer on UK import declarations, pays the import VAT to HMRC and receives the import VAT certificate – C79) the correct procedure is for the new owner of the goods to be the importer of record and reclaim the import VAT and not the previous owner.

As with many areas of VAT, a No-Deal Brexit is likely to increase the complications for such cross-border transactions in the future.

Please contact us if you have any queries or require assistance on this matter.

VAT: Increased input tax recovery for suppliers of financial services – Brexit

By Marcus Ward 5 April 2019

If the UK leaves the EU in a no-deal scenario there may be a benefit for UK based suppliers of financial and insurance services (so called Specified Supplies) to recipients in the EU. These Specified Supplies attract beneficial input VAT treatment pursuant to the VAT (Input Tax) (Specified Supplies) Order 1999 (the Specified Services Order).

Current position

Currently, these Specified Supplies are exempt and consequently, there is no right to deduct input tax incurred in connection with such services. However, if the Specified Supplies are provided to recipients located outside the EU, they are also VAT free, although any attributable input tax is recoverable; a good VAT position.

Post Brexit position

If the UK leaves the EU, the VAT treatment of supplies to non-EU countries is also applicable to the EU 27 countries; the EU would essentially become a “third country”.

Example

A City of London based bank supplies financial services to both Germany and the US clients. Income from these two clients is 50:50. At the current time the bank would be restricted to a claim of circa half of the VAT it incurs on expenditure in the UK. After Brexit, via The Value Added Tax (Input Tax) (Specified Supplies) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 all input tax incurred will be recoverable in full.

What are Specified Supplies?

Specified Supplies are broadly:

the issue, transfer or receipt of, or any dealing with, money, any security for money or any note or order for the payment of money.
granting of credit
dealing in; shares, stocks, bonds, notes (other than promissory notes), debentures, debenture stock
the operation of any current, deposit or savings account.
the management of certain investment funds/schemes
insurance
and intermediary services in respect of the above supplies

This list is not exhaustive and is only a very general example of types of supplies which may be considered as Specified Supplies. Please seek advice on specific services.

Other matters

The government says that this change will ensure that UK businesses compete for business in the EU on an even footing with businesses in other non-EU countries.

The proposed legislation also provides that partial exemption special methods (PESM) agreed before a no-deal Brexit will be honoured so businesses will not need to apply to HMRC for approval of a new PESM. Please see guide to partial exemption here

NB: If a deal is agreed between the UK and the EU, the above legislation will not be enacted, and the current VAT treatment will continue throughout the implementation period set out in a withdrawal agreement.

VAT – EORI numbers to become invalid if No-Deal Brexit

By Marcus Ward 5 April 2019

If the UK leaves the EU on a no-deal basis, which, despite the apparent will of parliament, is still a likely outcome, all Economic Operators Registration and Identification (EORI) numbers currently used by UK VAT registered businesses will become invalid in other EU Member States.

A guide to EORI here

Businesses are obliged to use an EORI number when undertaking customs activities in the EU. Such UK businesses will be required to obtain a new EU EORI number after the date of a No-Deal Brexit. This is because if the UK leaves via a no-deal Brexit EORI numbers recorded in the UK will no longer be deemed as obtained and registered in an EU Member State. Businesses importing or exporting (currently acquiring or dispatching) from/to the EU will need to request a replacement EORI from a Member State in the EU.

The same rules will apply to businesses in the EU 27 doing business with the UK. Their EORI numbers will also be invalid and will require replacement after a no-deal Brexit date.

We understand that EORI number applications will increase immediately after Brexit and it is very likely to take significantly more time to obtain a new one. It is further probable that filing customs declarations could be disrupted, with the result that the movement of goods cross-border will be delayed.

It is possible that some Member States may be flexible in their approach to existing/new EORI numbers. However, this cannot be guaranteed and there does not appear to be any impetuous between the 27 MS to agree a common approach.

This is yet another reason, should further evidence be required, that a no-deal Brexit will have profound and long-lasting negative impact on UK business. Those who voted Leave to reduce “red tape” will become increasing surprised at the amount of additional administration required post Brexit.

VAT: Brexit referrals to CJEU

By Marcus Ward 2 April 2019

A quickie

What happens to referrals to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) after Brexit day?

Put simply, from the date the UK leaves the EU UK courts will no longer be able to refer cases to CJEU. Cases referred to CJEU before the date of leaving may still be heard.

We understand that there has been a late surge of referrals before the cut off date. This is likely to mean that there will be significant number of CJEU cases which can directly impact the UK for a time to come even though the UK is no longer a Member State.

This of course assumes that:

The UK leaves the EU
UK politicians do not actually agree some sort of compromise with the EU on this point
The Brexit date is not deferred for a long period (in which case referrals to, and decisions of, the CJEU will have direct relevance to UK VAT for many years, or even decades…).

VAT: HMRC Impact Assessment of a No-Deal Brexit

By Marcus Ward 1 April 2019

HMRC have issued an impact assessment for VAT and services if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

The impact assessment covers the effect on businesses of amendments to existing VAT legislation and the introduction of transitional provisions for the supply of services between the UK and the EU

Summary

Under current rules:

VAT is charged on most goods and services sold within the UK and the EU
the place of supply rules for services determine the country in which a business should charge and account for VAT

If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, he UK will continue to have a VAT system. This is unsurprising as it is a major revenue raiser for the Treasury and the taxpayer is required to do all the heavy lifting the tax involves.

HMRC say the published Statutory Instruments (Sis – details of which may be found in the impact assessment but mainly The Taxation – Cross-border Trade Act 2018) broadly maintain the current VAT treatment in the event of a No-Deal Brexit. It expects that “they will have either a negligible impact on the administrative burden on businesses or no impact.”

This seems, prima facie, difficult to swallow.

HMRC also anticipate that an exception to the above is the removal of the VAT Mini One Stop Shop (MOSS), which “may have a significant ongoing cost for some EU and non-EU businesses.”

The impact assessment refers to the Economic Analysis of Brexit which makes interesting reading.

Of course, the House has voted against a No-Deal Brexit, so we can rely on that… can’t we?

VAT Success Stories

By Marcus Ward 1 April 2019

I often write about how it is important to seek VAT advice at the right time, see triggerpoints. So, I thought that I’d give some practical examples on where we have saved our clients money, time and aggravation.

Investment company

HMRC denied claims for input tax incurred on costs relating to the potential acquisition of an overseas business and threatened to deregister the plc as it was not, currently, making taxable supplies. Additionally, HMRC contended that even if VAT registration was appropriate, the input tax incurred did not relate to taxable supplies and was therefore blocked.

We were able to persuade HMRC that our client had a right to be VAT registered because It intended to make taxable supplies (supplies with a place of supply outside the UK which would have been taxable if made in the UK) and that the input tax was recoverable as it related to these intended taxable supplies (management charges to the acquired business). This is a hot topic at the moment, but we were able to eventually demonstrate, with considerable and detailed evidence that there was a true intention.

This meant that UK VAT registration was correct and input tax running into hundreds of thousands of pounds incurred in the UK was repaid.

Restaurant

We identified and submitted a claim for a West End restaurant for nearly £200,000 overpaid output tax. We finally agreed the repayment with HMRC after dealing with issues such as the quantum of the claim and unjust enrichment.

Developer

Our property developing client specialises in very high-end residential projects in exclusive parts of London. They built a dwelling using an existing façade and part of a side elevation. We contended that it was a new build (zero rated sale and no VAT on construction costs and full input tax recovery on other costs). HMRC took the view that it was work on an existing dwelling so that 5% applied and input tax was not recoverable. After site visits, detailed plans, current and historical photograph evidence HMRC accepted the holy grail of new build. The overall cost of the project was tens of millions.

Charity

A charity client was supplying services to the NHS. The issue was whether they were standard rated supplies of staff or exempt medical services. We argued successfully that, despite previous rulings, the supplies were exempt, which benefited all parties. Our client was able to deregister from VAT, but not only that, we persuaded HMRC that input tax previously claimed could be kept. This was a rather pleasant surprise outcome. We also avoided any penalties and interest so that VAT did not represent a cost to the charity in any way. If the VAT was required to be repaid to HMRC it is likely that the charity would have been wound up.

Shoot

A group of friends met to shoot game as a hobby. They made financial contributions to the syndicate in order to take part. HMRC considered that this was a business activity and threatened to go back over 40 years and assess for output tax on the syndicate’s takings which amounted to many hundreds of thousands of pounds and would have meant the shoot could not continue. We appealed the decision to retrospectively register the syndicate.

After a four-year battle HMRC settled on the steps of the Tribunal. We were able to demonstrate that the syndicate was run on a cost sharing basis and is not “an activity likely to be carried out by a private undertaking on a market, organised within a professional framework and generally performed in the interest of generating a profit.” – A happy client.

Chemist

We assisted a chemist client who, for unfortunate reasons, had not been able to submit proper VAT returns for a number of years. We were able to reconstruct the VAT records which showed a repayment of circa £500,000 of VAT was due. We successfully negotiated with HMRC and assisted with the inspection which was generated by the claim.

The message? Never accept a HMRC decision, and seek good advice!

VAT: Partial exemption, the N Brown case

By Marcus Ward 18 March 2019

Latest from the courts.

Partial exemption has always been, and probably always will be, the most complex and oft debated area of the tax.

Attribution

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of N Brown Group plc the issue was how to attribute input tax incurred on marketing. This included:

online
catalogues and leaflets
parcel packs
inserts in magazines and newspapers
direct mailings
advertisements in publications
TV advertisements
telemarketing
brand development
PR
celebrity endorsements
market research
photo shoots

Background

N Brown, as you may know, sells clothing and household goods online to the public. It has only a few retail stores so does not have the facility that a “bricks and mortar” retailer would have of displaying goods in its stores. It therefore has to incur significant marketing costs to bring its products to the attention of its customers and present them in an attractive way that encourages sales. The activities of the appellant include the sale of these goods, which is standard-rated for VAT purposes, and the provision of finance, which is exempt for VAT purposes. The finance element is the provision of credit which produces significant income from the interest on monthly balances which consumers do not pay off.

Issue

The issue was whether the input tax incurred on the marketing was attributable to the sale of goods which were advertised or, as HMRC contended; to both its taxable and exempt income (so that it was residual). If HMRC were correct an element of the input tax would fall to be irrecoverable via the appellants’ partial exemption calculation. HMRC’s position was that the input tax which N Brown incurred in respect of the marketing is residual because, although they did not seek to deny the existence of a “direct and immediate link” between the relevant goods and services and taxable supplies that the appellant made, they consider that there is also a direct and immediate link to the exempt credit provided.

Unsurprisingly, N Brown’s position was that the vast majority of goods and services received in connection with the marketing had a “direct and immediate link” only with taxable supplies that it made and so the relevant input tax was not residual and is therefore recoverable in full.

A subtle distinction, however, as £42 million of VAT was at stake, quite a vital one!

Technical

A general guide to partial exemption is available here

Broadly, a partially exempt business is required to attribute input tax incurred to three categories:

Taxable activities (here, the sale of goods) fully recoverable
Exempt activities (here the provision of credit) not recoverable
Non-attributable (residual) – input tax attributable to both taxable and exempt activities, or neither. This input tax must be apportioned either by the “standard method” or special method agreed with HMRC.

Decision

The judge found that there was a two-way relationship between the sale of the goods and the provision of credit terms. As a consequence, the input tax fell into the category of non-attributable (residual) even if the relevant advertisements made no mention of credit at all. It was also found that the standard method (used by HMRC) did not produce a reasonable outcome so the assessment issued by HMRC would need adjustment in the taxpayer’s favour. This required a different method to be devised and that certain elements of exempt income could be ignored in the calculation. I suspect that negotiations on an agreeable method might take some time…

Commentary

This case demonstrates that care is always required when costs are attributed to a business’ activities. This is especially important when the costs are significant. There tends to be a lot of “debate” with HMRC on such matters and slight nuances can affect attribution and thus the outcome of the calculation. It is an area which always requires specialised advice.

VAT: Input tax recovery on director’s costs

By Marcus Ward 18 March 2019

Latest from the courts: Directors expenditure – what may be recovered as input tax?

The Praesto Consulting UK Limited Court of Appeal (CoA) case.

This is a subject that pops up every now and again: Is a purchase for the director’s business purposes (input tax usually recoverable by the company) or for a director personally (so non-business and not recoverable)?

Background

Mr Ranson was an ex-employee of a claimant in civil proceedings; Customer Systems plc (“CSP”). Mr Ranson resigned to set up a company of which he was sole director, “Praesto”, which then carried on a consultancy business competing with CSP. CSP issued proceedings against Mr Ranson (and three other employees) over the nature of the departure from the company, but not against Praesto itself. The acting solicitor firm issued eight invoices (containing the VAT in question) to Mr Ranson personally, and not his company. The invoices were paid by Praesto

Issue

Praesto paid the legal fees relating to the defence of the civil proceedings brought by CSP against its sole director. Is the company entitled to credit for VAT input tax charged in relation to those fees? That is, was it proper business expenditure by the company, or was the defence of the case a personal cost of the director as a (distinct) individual?

HMRC laid great stress on the fact that the invoices were addressed to Mr Ranson personally, that they related to services provided in relation to the claim brought by CSP against him and that Praesto was never joined as a party to the proceedings.

Decision

The CoA ruled that Praesto could recover VAT on the fees. The action against Mr Ranson was the first phase of litigation which would ultimately seek damages from Praesto (and therefore Praesto had a direct interest in CSP’s claim being dismissed). This was an indication that there was a direct and immediate link between the legal services provided and the business. In reality, Praesto was throughout the proceedings, the main target of the litigation: It was Praesto which had made the profits which CSP sought to claim.

The fact that the invoices were addressed to Mt Ranson provided no legal bar to the company recovering the associated input tax. The judge observed that there was a joint retainer whereby the solicitor firm was being instructed by, and acting on behalf of, both Mr Ranson and Praesto. Under such a retainer both Mr Ranson and Praesto would be entitled to the solicitor’s’ services and both would be jointly and severally liable for the fees. That is a legal relationship involving reciprocal performance. As both parties were jointly and severally liable for the fees, there would be no particular significance in addressing invoices to only one of the parties so liable.

This seems an entirely sensible decision.

Commentary

This has echoes of the P&O case: P&O Ferries (Dover) Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1992] VATTR 221 referred to in this case, where criminal proceedings were brought against various P&O employees and the company itself arising out of the Herald of Free Enterprise Zeebrugge disaster – the company paid for the legal representation of all the individual defendants and claimed input tax on the costs of so doing. It was held that the conviction of even one of the individual employees would have caused severe damage to the public perception of the company’s business. To mitigate the real risk of being driven out of business the board took the view that the company had to take every step available to it to guard against the successful prosecution of each of the individual employees. The legal services in question were, therefore, used for the purpose of the company’s business.

Another area where VAT on costs invoiced to a (future) director personally are recoverable is in pre-incorporation cases where (obviously) the company does not exist so cannot, at that time, recover the VAT. HMRC permit recovery in such cases if the recipient of the invoice does indeed become a director of the company and the supply is used by that company for business purposes

Please contact us if you have any queries.