Tag Archives: business

VAT: How claims are processed

By Marcus Ward 2 February 2023

Further to my article on repayment interest, I thought it may be helpful if I looked at how HMRC process repayment returns, and what can delay payments.

Once a business submits a repayment return it is subject to a number of set steps:

Step 1

HMRC records the date a return is submitted online via MTD.

Step 2

Automated credibility checks are applied to all claims. HMRC say that most returns pass these tests. If this is the case, they proceed immediately for payment.

Step 3

Credibility queries (or “pre-cred” queries) – returns that fail the automated tests are checked manually and are either resolved by the credibility team, or sent to officers to carry out further investigation.

Step 4

Returns sent for further checks – HMRC say that high priority is given to these verifications and any queries are handled with the minimum involvement of, or inconvenience to, a business. Experience insists that this is not always the case.

Step 5

Credibility queries are returned to the credibility team – results of the officer’s action, including any amendments required, are returned with a certificate detailing the amount of time taken and any official delay. Claims are passed for payment.

Step 6

Payment of the claim – once a claim has been accepted, repayment is made immediately. HMRC’s systems check whether repayment interest is applicable. If it is, the interest is paid automatically at the same time as the repayment.

Commentary

Most issues usually arise when returns show “unexpected” repayments – eg; a business regularly submitting payment returns submits an one-off claim, or when a first return shows a significant repayment. The pre-cred checks are undertaken to protect the revenue, that is; to ensure that the claim is valid before money is released. Normally, these checks involve a request for copies of purchase invoices, a telephone conversation, or a physical visit by an officer. Not unreasonably, the quantum of the claim impacts significantly the way HMRC handle it.

However, delays can occur on both sides. A business will have to reply to all HMRC requests timeously (and this is in its interest) but more often a claim will be ‘lost” in the system, or inspectors take an unacceptable time to deal with queries. I have one claim that is still in the system after being lodged in January 2021, despite us providing all information requested immediately.

Reasons for unexpected repayments

There are a number of reasons why a return may be an unusual repayment, which include, but are not limited to a:

large one-off VAT bearing purchase, eg; machinery, computer system, or land/property
premises refurbishment
concentration of professional/advisory fees
large export order
change in business structure
new line of business
change of a product’s liability
change of government policy
new product launch

VAT: New guidance on repayment interest

By Marcus Ward 2 February 2023

HMRC has published new guidance on repayment interest – in cases where HMRC is late in settling a repayment claim for overpaid VAT.

If HMRC is late in paying an amount representing a repayment, ie; when a return shows more input tax than output tax, or a claim is made for VAT previously overpaid, a business may be entitled to repayment interest on the VAT that it is owed. From 1 January 2023 repayment interest replaced the repayment supplement.

Amount of interest

Repayment interest is paid at the Bank of England base rate minus 1%, with a minimum rate of 0.5%.

Start date

VAT already paid to HMRC

The day after the later of these two dates:

when the VAT was paid to HMRC
the payment deadline for your accounting period

VAT not paid to HMRC

The day after the later of these two dates:

the payment deadline for the accounting period
when the VAT return or claim was submitted

End date

Repayment interest ends when HMRC either repays the VAT or sets it off against a different VAT or tax amount that is deemed to be owed.

Notes

any retrospective claims are subject to the unjust enrichment rules
repayment interest is not due if there are any outstanding VAT returns
HMRC will not pay interest on early payments of VAT
if payment on account businesses pay instalments that exceed VAT owed, repayment interest begins on the date the return was due
in cases where HMRC demand a VAT security, and it is not paid, no repayment interest will be due

VAT: TOMS – negative margin permitted? The Square case

By Marcus Ward 31 January 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of The Squa.re Limited (TSL) the issue was whether unsold inventory or inventory sold at a loss could affect the calculation of the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS).

Background

TSL provided serviced apartments to travellers. The company leased accommodation from the owners of the properties who were frequently, if not exclusively, private individuals who were not registered for VAT.

These leases were often for an extended period, eg; annual leases, such that the appellant is committed under the terms of the lease even where the accommodation cannot then be on supplied or not supplied for a profit.

The Issue

The issue was whether TOMS operated in such a way as to permit a negative calculation resulting in repayment to the appellant. HMRC issued an assessment because, while they accepted that there may be a zero margin on a TOMS supply, they considered that a negative margin was not permitted by the scheme. TSL maintained that a repayment of overdeclared output tax was appropriate if a loss was made (an “overall negative margin”) as TOMS does not exclude the possibility of a negative margin.

The dispute between the parties was a technical one only and concerned the interpretation of the statutory provisions implementing TOMS into UK law.

Legal

The domestic implementation of the TOMS is authorised by The Value Added Tax Act 1994, Section 53 and found in Value Added Tax (Tour Operators’) Order 1987 (SI1987/1806). Guidance is provided via Notice 709/5 and Sections 8 to 13 have the force of law.

Decision

The Tribunal determined that it was clear from the legislation that the taxable amount is concerned with the supply made, and not the VAT incurred on the various cost components. Under normal VAT accounting the output tax charged on supplies is calculated by reference to the consideration received by the supplier from the customer. There can realistically be no concept of negative consideration.

The FTT considered that there is no basis inherent within TOMS which would permit a calculation of a negative sum. There had been a supply (of a designated travel service) for a consideration, and it is the taxable amount of that supply which was to be determined. A negative taxable amount is a “conceptual impossibility”. A negative margin arises as a consequence of a lack of profitability, but VAT is a transaction tax and not a tax on profit.

When sold at a loss where the total calculation resulted in a negative margin the annual sum due by way of output tax would be nil (not a repayment).

Where the accommodation is not sold at all, the FTT noted that this cost represented a cost of doing business but, on the basis that there has been no onward supply, there is no supply which meets the definition of a designated travel service. The relevant accommodation is not for the direct benefit of any traveller so there is no supply and TOMS is irrelevant.

Whilst the FTT considered that were it the case that identified costs incurred in buying in goods and services which are not then the subject of an onward supply should be excluded from TOMS calculations, costs associated with the block booking of accommodation of the type incurred by TSL were to be included. Where such costs exceed the value obtained by onward supply, the negative margin forms part of the annual calculation. However, where the global calculation results in a negative margin the tax due for the year under TOMS is nil and there was no basis for a repayment to TSL.

There was no basis on which to permit an overall TOMS negative margin and the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Another demonstration of the complexities of TOMS and the potential pitfalls.

It may be useful to note that input tax claims are not permitted in TOMS calculations, however, any VAT incurred on any bought in, but unsold, services would not be excluded from recovery as there is no TOMS supply. The input tax on unsold inventory was a general cost of doing business and, as such, recoverable in the normal way. Consequently, there may be circumstances for businesses using TOMS where input tax incurred on unsold elements may be claimed outside of TOMS

A VAT Did you know?

By Marcus Ward 30 January 2023

Children’s clothing made from the skin of goats is zero rated, but only if not made from Yemen, Mongolian or Tibetan goats.

VAT: Domestic Reverse Charge for construction services delayed until 1 March 2021

By Marcus Ward 5 June 2020

Further to my article on the Domestic Reverse Charge (DRC) for builders being deferred, HMRC has announced a further delay from 1 October 2020 until 1 March 2021 due to the impact of the coronavirus on the construction sector.

Revenue and Customs Brief 7 (2020 sets out the details.

Changes

HMRC announced that there will be an amendment to the original legislation, which was laid in April 2019, to make it a requirement that for businesses to be excluded from the reverse charge because they are end users or intermediary suppliers, they must inform their sub-contractors in writing that they are end users or intermediary suppliers. Details of the DRC here and here.

VAT: HMRC Toolkits updated

By Marcus Ward 4 June 2020

HMRC has updated the following online toolkits for June 2020:

Input tax

Output tax and

Partial exemption

The Toolkits

These toolkits can be a useful resource. Although designed for agents and advisers, they can equally be of assistance to businesses when completing VAT returns. The contents are based on HMRC’s view of how tax law should be applied, so they should not be used as a substitute for proper professional advice. These toolkits set out areas of risk, provide general checklists, details of record keeping and links to HMRC information. Many find that these toolkits are more user friendly than “traditional” HMRC guidance and they address many contentious areas.

Overview

For a helpful general guide to input tax and checklist please see here. And an introduction to partial exemption here.

VAT – Input tax claims. Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 1 June 2020

Latest from the courts

In the recent First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Aitmatov Academy an otherwise unremarkable case illustrates the care required when making input tax claims.

The quantum of the claim was low and the technical issues not particularly complex, however, it underlined some basic rules for making a VAT claim.

Background

A doctor organised a cultural event at the House of Lords for which no charge was made to attendees. The event organiser as shown on the event form was the doctor. Aitmatov Academy was shown as an organisation associated with the event. It was agreed that the attendees were not potential customers of Aitmatov Academy and that the overall purpose of the event was cultural and not advertising.

Issues

HMRC disallowed the claim. The issues were:

HMRC contended that the expenses were not incurred by the taxpayer but by the doctor personally (the doctor was not VAT registered)
that if the VAT was incurred by the Academy, it was not directly attributed to a taxable supply
that if the VAT was directly attributed to a taxable supply, it was business entertaining, on which input tax is blocked

Decision

The FTT found that the Academy incurred the cost and consequently must have concluded that the Academy was the recipient of the supply, not the doctor.

However, the judge decided that the awards ceremony was not directly or indirectly linked to taxable supplies made or intended to be made by the Academy, and therefore that the referable input tax should not be allowed. Consequently, the court did not need to consider whether the event qualified as business entertainment.

On a separate point, the appellant contended that, as a similar claim had been paid by HMRC previously, she could not see the difference that caused input VAT in this case to be disallowed. The Tribunal explained that its role is to apply the law in this specific instance and as such it cannot look at what happened in an early case which is not the subject of an appeal.

Commentary

A helpful reminder of some of the tests that need to be passed in order for an input tax claim to be valid. I have written about some common issues with claims and provided a checklist. Broadly, in addition to the tests in this case, a business needs to consider:

whether there was actually a supply
is the documentation correct?
time limits
the VAT liability of the supply
the place of supply
partial exemption
non-business activity – particularly charity and NFP bodies
if the claim is specifically blocked (eg; cars, and certain schemes)

I have also looked at which input tax is specifically barred.

Finally, “entertainment” is a topic all of its own. I have considered what is claimable here in article which includes a useful flowchart.

As always, the message is; if a business is to avoid penalties and interest, if there is any doubt over the validity of a claim, seek advice!

The penalty regime……the dark side of VAT

By Marcus Ward 22 May 2020

VAT Penalties

I have made a lot of references to penalties in other articles over the years. So I thought it would be a good idea to have a closer look; what are they, when are they levied, rights of appeal, and importantly how much could they cost if a business gets it wrong?

Overview

Broadly, a penalty is levied if the incorrect amount of VAT is declared, either by understating output tax due, or overclaiming input tax, or accepting an assessment which is known to be too low.

Amount of penalty

HMRC detail three categories of inaccuracy. These are significant, as each has its own range of penalty percentages. If an error is found to fall within a lower band, then a lower penalty rate will apply. Where the taxpayer has taken ‘reasonable care,’ even though an error has been made, then no penalty will apply.

An error, when reasonable care not taken: 30%;
An error which is deliberate, but not concealed: 70%;
An error, which is deliberate and concealed: 100%.

Reasonable care

There is no definition of ‘reasonable care’. However, HMRC have said that they would not expect the same level of knowledge or expertise from a self-employed person, as from a large multi-national.

HMRC expect that, where an issue is unclear, advice is sought, and a record maintained of that advice. They also expect that, where an error is made, it is adjusted, and HMRC notified promptly. They have specifically stated that merely to adjust a return will not constitute a full disclosure of an error. Therefore, a penalty may still be applicable.

Notification

What the penalty is based on

The amount of the penalty is calculated by applying the appropriate penalty rate (above) to the ‘Potential Lost Revenue’ or PLR. This is essentially the additional amount of VAT due or payable, as a result of the inaccuracy, or the failure to notify an under-assessment. Special rules apply where there are a number of errors, and they fall into different penalty bands.

Defending a penalty

The percentage penalty may be reduced by a range of ‘defences:’

– Telling; this includes admitting the document was inaccurate, or that there was an under-assessment, disclosing the inaccuracy in full, and explaining how and why the inaccuracies arose;

– Helping; this includes giving reasonable help in quantifying the inaccuracy, giving positive assistance rather than passive acceptance, actively engaging in work required to quantify the inaccuracy, and volunteering any relevant information;

– Giving Access; this includes providing documents, granting requests for information, allowing access to records and other documents.

Further, where there is an ‘unprompted disclosure’ of the error, HMRC have power to reduce the penalty further. This measure is designed to encourage businesses to review their own VAT returns.

A disclosure is unprompted if it is made at a time when a person had no reason to believe that HMRC have discovered or are about to discover the inaccuracy. The disclosure will be treated as unprompted even if at the time it is made, the full extent of the error is not known, as long as fuller details are provided within a reasonable time.

HMRC have included a provision whereby a penalty can be suspended for up to two years. This will occur for a careless inaccuracy, not a deliberate inaccuracy. HMRC will consider suspension of a penalty where, given the imposition of certain conditions, the business will improve its accuracy. The aim is to improve future compliance and encourage businesses which genuinely seek to fulfil their obligations.

Appealing a penalty

HMRC have an internal reconsideration procedure, where a business should apply to in the first instance. If the outcome is not satisfactory, the business can pursue an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. A business can appeal on the grounds of; whether a penalty is applicable, the amount of the penalty, a decision not to suspend a penalty, and the conditions for suspension.

The normal time limit for penalties to four years. Additionally, where there is deliberate action to evade VAT, a 20 year limit applies. In particular, this applies to a loss of VAT which arises as a result of a deliberate inaccuracy in a document submitted by that person.

These are just the penalties for making “errors” on VAT returns. HMRC have plenty more for anything from late registration to issuing the wrong paperwork.

Even darker

There are even more severe penalties for deliberate acts, including significant terms of imprisonment. That is the subject of another article.

Assistance

My advice is always to check on all aspects of a penalty and seek assistance for grounds to challenge a decision to levy a penalty. We have a very high success rate in defending businesses against inappropriate penalties. It is always worth running a penalty past us.

VAT: Additional time for zero rating exported goods due to the coronavirus

By Marcus Ward 19 May 2020

COVID-19 Update

HMRC has published concessions in VEXP30310 relating to the conditions for the zero rating of exports.

Background

Most exports of goods from the UK are subject to zero rating. However, in order for VAT free treatment to apply, certain conditions must be met, otherwise 20% VAT applies to the sale. One of the conditions is that the goods must be exported within specified time limits.

Time limits

Generally, goods can be zero rated provided that:

they are exported within 3 months of the time of supply, and;
valid evidence of export is obtained within 3 months of the time of supply

COVID-19

During the pandemic, it may not be possible for businesses to export goods within the prescribed time. HMRC recognises that some intended exports have been delayed due to circumstances outside a business’ control. Therefore, the guidance sets out the circumstances in which HMRC may agree to additional time for the export before any tax is collected.

Additional time

The time limits for the export of goods from the UK are set out in legislation. However, HMRC has discretion to permit non-observance of the conditions and time limits for export of goods – VAT Act 1994, Section 30(10). HMRC has said that it will use its discretion to temporarily waive the prescribed time limits for export on a case by case basis. The goods must, however, have either already been exported or will be as soon as is reasonably practicable after the date a business is notified that HMRC is temporarily waiving the tax. An application for HMRC to waive the time limits must be made in writing.

Conditions

HMRC will permit a temporary waiver of time limits if the following conditions are met:

it has not been possible to export goods within the prescribed time limit due to the COVID-19 emergency

Examples include:

the UK or another Government has imposed restrictions on the movement of goods or people due to COVID-19 that prevent the goods being exported to the intended destination
cancellation of the intended mode of transport for reasons directly related to COVID-19
a participant in the export is ill due to COVID-19 and a substitute cannot be found

This list is not exhaustive.

2. the goods have been/will be exported or removed at the earliest opportunity

3. all other conditions for zero rating exports or removals are met – exporters’ responsibilities here

Expiry

Any waiver will expire

one month after any government-imposed restrictions are lifted or
one month after any COVID-19 impediment to the export or removal ceases, or
there ceases to be an intention to export or remove the goods from the UK (Information on intention here)

whichever is the earlier.

If a business considers there are extenuating circumstances that mean additional time is needed to export goods beyond that permitted by the extension, it should contact HMRC setting out the details in full.

Evidence

A business must retain evidence that supports its case for the waiver (eg; cancellation notes demonstrating that the transport intended to use to take goods out of the UK did not take place, or screen shots of government rules preventing the export or removal of the goods).

Please contact us if you require any further advice or assistance.

VAT: Intention is crucial – The Sonaecom case

By Marcus Ward 18 May 2020

We cannot control the future…

The Sonaecom case

In the opinion* of the CJEU AG (C-42/19) the importance of a taxpayer’s intention was of utmost importance, regardless of whether that intention was achieved.

Background

Sonaecom intended to acquire a telecoms provider company. As is usual in such cases, input tax was incurred on consultancy received, from, amongst others; accountants and legal service providers. The intention post acquisition was for Sonaecom to make certain charges to the acquired co. These would have been taxable supplies.

Unfortunately, the intended purchase was aborted.

The issue

The issue before the AG was; as no taxable supplies took place as the deal fell through – to what should the input tax incurred on advice be attributed?

Opinion

In the AG’s view the fact that the acquisition was aborted was no reason for the claim for input tax to denied. This was based on the fact that:

Sonaecom was not a “pure holding company”
There was a genuine intention to make taxable supplies (to the acquired co)
There was a direct and immediate link between the costs and the intended supplies
Although the acquisition costs would exceed the proposed management charges, this was not a reason to invalidate the claim
The above analysis was not affected by the fact that the transaction did not take place

Commentary

There are often issues in relation to intentions of a taxpayer. It is clear, and was emphasised in this case, that intention is all important. Of course, intentions can change over a period of time and commercial and political events may thwart or cause intentions to be re-evaluated. There is often an issue about evidencing an intention. HMRC usually require comprehensive documentary evidence to demonstrate an objective. Such evidence is sometime not available for various reasons. Consequently, it is prudent for businesses to record (board meeting minutes etc at the very least) the commercial reasons for taking a certain course of action. This issue quite often arises in transactions in land and property – which can create additional technical issues.

There is legislation in place to cover situations when intentions, or actual events change and which affect the original input tax position: The Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Regs 108 and 109.

Other areas of VAT which often to raise issues are management charges and holding companies. HMRC apparently continue to be eager to attack taxpayers in these areas and I have looked at the role of holding companies and the VAT treatment here, here and here.

I think it is useful to bear in mind a question which, in itself does not evidence an intention, but provides commercial coherence – Why were the costs incurred if there was no intention to make the acquisition? This does leave aside the future management charges position but goes some way to provide business logic.

It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds, but I would find it very surprising if the court diverges from this AG opinion.

* AG’s Opinion

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) consists of one judge from each Member State, assisted by eleven Advocates General whose role is to consider the written and oral submissions to the court in every case that raises a new point of law, and deliver an impartial opinion to the court on the legal solution.