Tag Archives: charity

VAT: Is the card game bridge a sport?

By   21 June 2017
0

Latest from the courts: Advocate General’s (AG) opinion* on the English Bridge Union (EBU) case.

Certain supplies of services closely connected to sport are exempt from VAT.  Consequently the EBU (a non‐profit making membership‐ funded organisation committed to promoting the game of duplicate bridge) appealed to the ECJ wanting certain fees paid to it to be exempt.  HMRC consider that contract bridge is not a sport so that output tax was due on the supply.  This view was supported by the First Tier and Upper Tribunals. So, the simple question is: Is bridge a sport?  The ECJ hearing has come about due to a referral from the British courts in reference to how it should be applied to bridge.

The AG has looked at how the term “sport” should be defined.  As a starting point, it is clear that games such as football, cricket, tennis and squash are sport.  However, this does not mean that activities which are less strenuous cannot be a sport, and the examples of archery and badminton were given.  The AG was also of the view that sport does not need to include any physical element, meaning that any activity which is characterised by:

  • competition
  • an effort to overcome a challenge or obstacle
  • results in physical or mental wellbeing

may qualify as a sport.

In connection with contract bridge; as a card game it:

  • is dependent on skill and training rather than luck
  • requires considerable mental effort and training to compete at an international level
  • is recognised by the International Olympic Committee as a sport

such that the AG concluded that bridge can indeed be defined as a sport.

This, if followed by the ECJ, means that the EBU will be due a refund of output tax declared on competition entry fees charged to its members.

The EBU has always maintained that bridge is a sport and point to the UK Charity Commission which recognises bridge as a sport.  It adopted Parliament’s most recent definition in the Charities Act, updated by Parliament in 2011, which specifically included Mind Sports in the definition of ‘sport’, stating that sports are “activities which promote health or wellbeing through physical or mental skill or exertion”.  Additionally, bridge is seen as an excellent way of improving mental acuity and delaying the onset of dementia, and the social and partnership aspects of bridge are of great benefit to those who may otherwise become isolated.

We now await the court’s decision on whether one needs to wear shorts and get sweaty to be participating in sport.

*  The most important work performed by the Advocates General is to deliver a written Opinion, named “reasoned submission”. The role of the Advocate General is to propose an independent legal solution. It is important to note that the Court is not obligated to follow the Opinion delivered by the Advocate General. Even though the Opinion does not bind the Court it has an impact on the decision in many cases, and in fact, in most cases the ECJ follows it.

VAT Latest from the courts – Reverse Charge

By   13 February 2017
0

The First Tier Tribunal case of University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne is a useful reminder of the impact of the Reverse Charge.

A brief guide to the Reverse Charge is included below.

Background

As with many UK universities, Newcastle was keen to encourage applications to study from new students from overseas. This is an important form of income for the institution.  It used local (overseas) agents to recruit students. Some 40% of those students were studying as undergraduates, 40% as postgraduates on one year “taught” courses and 20% as postgraduate research students studying for doctorates.  In 2014 the University had agreements with more than 100 agents worldwide. The agents used their own resources to recruit students for universities around the world, including in the UK. The University entered into contractual arrangements with agents and paid commission to them. In 2008 the University paid agent commissions of £1.034m, rising to £2.214m in 2012.

The Tribunal was required to consider whether the services supplied by the agents were a single supply to University or separate supplies to both the University and students. If the entire supply is to the University then the Reverse Charge is applicable and, because the University is partly exempt, this would create a VAT cost to it. If the supplies are to both the students and the University, the Reverse Charge element would be less and the VAT cost reduced. (There were changes to the Place Of Supply legislation during the period under consideration, but I have tried to focus on the overall impact in this article.)

The University contended that agents made two supplies: a supply to the University of recruitment services and a supply to students of support services. The commission paid by the University should therefore be apportioned so as to reflect in part direct consideration paid by the University for supplies of services to it, and in part third party consideration for services supplied to the students. The supplies to students would not made in the UK and therefore were not subject to UK VAT.

Decision

After thorough consideration of all of the relevant material, the judge decided that the agents made a single supply of services to the University and make no supplies to students. This meant that the University must account for VAT on the full value of services received since 2010 under the Reverse Charge (although before 2010 different rules on place of supply applied).  Additionally,  it was decided the University was not entitled to recover as input tax VAT for which it is required to account by means of a Reverse Charge. There was no direct and immediate link between the commission paid to agents and any taxable output of the University or the economic activities of the University as a whole.

Commentary

It is understood that the way the University recruited students using overseas agents is common amongst most Universities in the UK, so this ruling will have a direct impact on them.  It was hardly a surprising decision, but underlines the need for all businesses to consider the impact of the application of the Reverse Charge.  Of course, the Reverse Charge will only create an actual VAT cost if a business is partly exempt, or involved in non-business activities.  The value of the Reverse Charge also counts towards the VAT registration threshold.  This means that if a fully exempt business receives Reverse Charge services from abroad, it may be required to VAT register (depending on value). Generally, this means an increased VAT cost. This situation may also affect a charity or a NFP entity.

The case also highlights the importance of contracts, documentation and website wording (should any more reminders be needed).  VAT should always be borne in mind when entering into similar arrangements. It may also be possible to structure arrangements to avoid or mitigate VAT costs if carried out at an appropriate time.

We can assist with any of the above and are happy to discuss this with you.

Guide – Reverse charge on services received from overseas
Normally, the supplier of a service is the person who must account to the tax authorities for any VAT due on the supply.  However, in certain situations, the position is reversed and it is the customer who must account for any VAT due.  This is known as the ‘Reverse Charge’ procedure.  Generally, the Reverse Charge must be applied to services which are received by a business in the UK VAT free from overseas. 
Accounting for VAT and recovery of input tax.
Where the Reverse Charge procedure applies, the recipient of the services must act as both the supplier and the recipient of the services.  On the same VAT return, the recipient must
  • account for output tax, calculated on the full value of the supply received, in Box 1;
  • (subject to partial exemption and non-business rules) include the VAT stated in box 1 as input tax in Box 4; and;
  • include the full value of the supply in both Boxes 6 and 7.
Value of supply.
The value of the deemed supply is to be taken to be the consideration in money for which the services were in fact supplied or, where the consideration did not consist or not wholly consist of money, such amount in money as is equivalent to that consideration.  The consideration payable to the overseas supplier for the services excludes UK VAT but includes any taxes levied abroad.
Time of supply.
The time of supply of such services is the date the supplies are paid for or, if the consideration is not in money, the last day of the VAT period in which the services are performed.
The outcome
The effect of the provisions is that the Reverse Charge has no net cost to the recipient if he can attribute the input tax to taxable supplies and can therefore reclaim it in full. If he cannot, the effect is to put him in the same position as if had received the supply from a UK supplier rather than from one outside the UK. Thus the charge aims to avoid cross border VAT rate shopping. It is not possible to attribute the input tax created directly to the deemed (taxable) supply. 

VAT Latest from the courts – exemption for sporting facilities by an eligible body

By   8 November 2016
0

St Andrew’s College, Bradfield

This Upper Tribunal case demonstrates the importance of getting the structure right. Full case here

Overview

Exemption exists for an eligible body making certain supplies of sporting services.

Background

St Andrew’s College is a boarding school and a registered charity.  It is the representative member of a VAT group which also included two subsidiary companies. The companies provided facilities for playing sport and the group intended to treat these as exempt supplies.  HMRC challenged the intended treatment on the basis that the subsidiaries did not qualify as eligible bodies via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 10 (exemption related to sport, sports competitions and physical education). It was agreed that all of the other criteria were met, so the case turned on the definition of an eligible body.  It was common ground that the College, as an educational charity, was itself an eligible body. Even though, as the representative member of the VAT group, the College was treated as making all supplies actually made by the subsidiaries, that did not mean that the supplies were exempt.

Decision

In order to be regarded as an eligible body the subsidiaries were required to be a non-profit making body.  What was relevant here was whether the subsidiaries (themselves) had specific restrictions on their ability to distribute any profit that they made.  The UT formed the view that there was no specific restriction and that although profits were only covenanted up to the College this was insufficient to meet the test in Group 10 Note (2A).  It was also found that the deeds of covenant did not, of themselves, establish that the subsidiaries could make distributions only to non-profit making bodies.

Consequently, the subsidiaries failed to qualify for exemption and that the First Tier Tribunal correctly found that output tax was due on the income from provision of sporting facilities.

Commentary

This case highlights the importance of putting in place a correct structure and to ensure that it reflects the intention of the supplier.  One may see that in this scenario it would have been relatively simple to arrange matters to accurately reflect the aims of the group.  Care would have been required in drafting documentation etc as matters stood, or rearranging the supply chain.

It should also be noted that there are specific anti-avoidance provisions in place for certain suppliers of sporting services (although not in issue here). Advice should be taken at an early stage in planning to ensure that if exemption is desired, that it is achieved if possible.

VAT – Latest from the courts: Craft fair pitches standard rated

By   17 October 2016
0

The Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Zombory-Moldovan (trading as Craft Carnival)

Background

In the past, the rent of stall at craft fairs have generally been treated as an exempt right over land. In fact, in this instant case, the First Tier Tribunal agreed with the appellant that supplies made to stallholders to sell their goods were the equivalent to a right to occupy land and therefore exempt from VAT.

However, in this decision, the UT overturned this analysis and found that the supply was standard rated.

Decision

The reasons given were that what Craft Carnival supplied went beyond the mere use of a plot of land for a specific period and amounted to the use of a pitch at an event in order to “offer certain goods for sale”.  The test in the previous “Temco” case on this point stated that an exempt supply amounts to a “relatively passive activity linked simply to the passage of time and not generating any significant added value”.  Craft Carnivals had “very real and significant responsibilities beyond the bare provision of an appropriately-sized plot”. This, being a single supply (it was decided) meant that the entire charge was subject to VAT at the standard rate.

The appellant’s website stated that “In addition to the erection of marquees, which are hired for the duration of a fair, Mrs Zombory-Moldovan arranges for the provision 45 of other necessary temporary facilities including portable toilets, electrical generators and security fencing. She also employs between five and seven members of staff to act as ticket sellers and car park 3 marshals. Before the fair takes place Mrs Zombory-Moldovan would have issued a press release and advertised the event in local newspapers and on Craft Carnival’s website and booked a children’s entertainer, such as a magician, to encourage families to attend.”

Impact

Any business or charity which provides similar supplies must review their VAT responsibilities in light of this decision immediately. This case is likely have far-reaching implications for both organisers and those businesses which sell goods in fairs and similar events.  This may encompass; trade fairs, exhibitions and even, possibly, high end car-boot sales type events. We await HMRC’s response to their victory in this case and how wide-ranging they consider the decision to be.

Please contact us if this decision affects your or your client’s businesses.

VAT Latest from the courts – what is an economic activity by a charity?

By   5 September 2016
0

In the VAT case of Longridge on the Thames (Longbridge) here the Court of Appeal considered previous decisions at the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and Upper Tribunal (UT) on whether Longbridge carried on an economic activity. This is an important case as it goes some way in determining the meaning of “business” in light of the term “economic activity” used in EC legislation.  The term “business” is only used in UK legislation, The Principal VAT Directive refers to “economic activity” rather than business, and since UK domestic legislation must conform to the Directive both terms must be seen as having the same meaning.  Since the very first days of VAT there have been disagreements over what constitutes a “business”. I have previously commented on this matter here 

Background

Longbridge is a charity. It uses volunteers to provide boating activities (mainly to young people) on the Thames. The fees charged by Longbridge were often at below cost and the charity relied on donations to continue its operations. It constructed a new building and sought VAT zero rating of these costs on the basis that the building was to be used for non-business purposes. Consequently, it was crucial to the relief claimed that the charity was not carrying out a business in VAT terms.  The FTT and the UT found that the charity’s “predominant concern” was not to make supplies for a consideration and therefore it was not in business. These findings were based on long standing case law, the most salient being; Lord Fisher and Morrison’s Academy Boarding Houses Association. Lord Fisher set out a series of tests which HMRC rely on to determine whether a business exists – considered here and here 

Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed HMRC’s appeal.  It decided that Longridge was carrying on an economic activity and therefore the construction of the new building could not be zero rated.  The decision is worth considering in full, however, the court held that there was a “direct link” between the fees paid and service the recipients received, even if it was subsidised in certain instances and that Longbridge was furthering its charitable objectives.  The requirement for a direct link was clearly demonstrated in The Apple and Pear Development Council case. The establishment of the direct link meant that Longridge was carrying in business (in UK law).

Commentary

The important test for whether an economic activity is being carried on is now; the direct link between payment and service. There is no longer the requirement to consider the test of “predominant concern” and in fact it was stated in the decision by the judges that this test is “unhelpful and may be misleading.” We must now ignore; the motive of the provider of the service, its status as a charity, the amount charged, whether subsidies are received by the charity, and whether volunteers are involved in the relevant activities.

This is a very big change in the analysis of whether a business exists and basically means that previous cases on this matter were wrongly decided.  It brings the UK into line with the EC on the definition of an economic activity and therefore provides clarity on this matter – which has long been an area which has desperately required it.

It means that, unless the decision is reversed at the Supreme Court, we say goodbye to the unloved Lord Fisher tests. However, this may be very bad news for charities and not for profit entities that have relied on these tests to avoid VAT registration and charging VAT on their supplies.  It is likely that many more charities will be dragged into the VAT net.  It remains to be seen whether this case will trigger a renewed targeting effort on charities by HMRC, but what is clear is that charities need to be conscious of this new turn of events and consider their position.  We strongly recommend that any bodies which have had previous discussions with HMRC on this point and any entity which is affected by this decision take professional advice immediately.

VAT – Charities and donations. Latest from the courts

By   22 June 2016
0

What is a donation?

In the widely anticipated case of Friends of the Earth Trust Ltd (TC05165) the issue was; what constitutes a donation for VAT purposes? This is a perpetually thorny issue for charities.

True donations are outside the scope of VAT which usually produces a beneficial outcome for charities as no output tax is due on these payments. However, if any consideration is provided by a charity then it is likely that a taxable supply is being made.  This subject often creates disputes and is another difficult area with which charities and NFP bodies have to contend.

This case is slightly unusual as the appellant was arguing that payments received from the public are taxable supplies.

Background

The charity incurred input tax on the expenses of training of street fundraisers (chuggers) who were used to sign up members of the public to a commitment to make regular direct debit payments to the charity. I am sure we have all encountered this type of fundraising.

The recovery of this input tax was dependent on whether the money collected in this way represented taxable supplies made by the charity, or were simply donations.  If it was non-business income (donations) it was not possible to recover the relevant input tax.

Contentions on the consideration point

Supporters of the charity who paid £3 or more per month received a magazine and various other benefits. Those paying less than £3 received no benefits.

The charity contended that taxable supplies were being made, albeit that the supply was wholly or overwhelmingly zero rated (the supply of printed matter). Further, there was a direct and immediate link between the expenditure on the training of the fundraisers and the benefits obtained (by a certain class of supporter). This would mean that there would be no output tax on the payments, but recovery of the relevant input tax.

HMRC formed the view that the direct debit payments were donations and as a result a non-business activity such that the attributable input tax was irrecoverable.

The Decision

The Tribunal, citing, inter alia, the FTT’s decision in The Serpentine Trust Ltd v The Commrs for Revenue and Customs, decided that “..it is quite clear when viewed objectively that the £3 minimum monthly payment was not “for” the magazine and benefits, or in other words a quid pro quo for them. The magazine and benefits were quid cum quo, the transaction being that the payment was a gift to the appellant to be used in its charitable work and that the appellant would send the supporter free copies…”.

The Chairman stated that the evidence, when viewed in the round, is simply not consistent with the transaction objectively being one where the person was paying a subscription for the magazine and other benefits. And that it was a donation to support the appellant’s charitable activities. The fact that the taxpayer only provided the benefits if the minimum payment of £3 was made did not turn the payment into value given in return for the magazine and other benefits. It still retained its character as a donation. It was just as consistent with the transaction being one whereby the taxpayer undertook to send a free copy of the magazine where donations were made above a certain level.

The Tribunal therefore concluded that the payments were donations to the taxpayer and so the relevant input tax on the fundraising costs was not claimable.

This case demonstrates the uncertainty over the distinction between taxable supplies and donations and that every case is decided on precise facts.  Please contact us if this has rung any alarm bells, or perhaps provided an opportunity to review a charity or NFP body’s income. Our charity services here

VAT Latest from the courts – what is a business?

By   8 June 2016
0

In the CJEU case of * * takes a deep breath * * Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft the court considered whether these Not For Profit companies were making taxable supplies (economic activity). This then dictated whether input tax incurred by them was recoverable.

As a starting point, it may be helpful to look at what the words “economic activity”, “business”, “taxable supplies” and “taxable person” mean:  The term “business” is only used in UK legislation, The Principal VAT Directive refers to “economic activity” rather than business and since UK domestic legislation must conform to the Directive both terms must be seen as having the same meaning.  Since the very first days of VAT there have been disagreements over what constitutes a “business”. I have only recently ended a dispute over this definition for a (as it turns out) very happy client.  In the UK the tests were set out as long ago as 1981 and may be summarised as follows:

Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made (bearing in mind that exempt supplies can also be business)?
Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
Is the activity predominately concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
Are the taxable supplies that are being made of a kind which, subject to differences of detail, are commonly made by those who seek to profit from them?

If there is no business, an entity cannot be making taxable supplies.

In EC Legislation,  Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112 provides: that “a ‘Taxable person’ shall mean any person who, independently, carries out in any place any economic activity, whatever the purpose or results of that activity.”

The case

The case involved the Not For Profit companies constructing and operating a water disposal system. When complete, it was intended to charge a “modest” fee to users of the system.  The companies engaged in economic activities that were not intended to make a profit and only engaged in a commercial activity on an ancillary basis.

The majority of the funding for the work was provided by State (Hungarian) and EC aid.  The Hungarian authority formed the view that, because a nominal fee was charged this did not amount to an economic activity and so there was no right to deduct input tax incurred on the costs of getting the system operational.  The CJEU went straight to judgement and decided that the construction and operation of the system could rightly be regarded as an economic activity and found for the taxpayer. It also provided a very helpful and clear summary in respect of “business” by commenting that “… the fact that the price paid for an economic transaction is higher or lower than the cost price, and, therefore, higher or lower than the open market value, is irrelevant for the purpose of establishing whether it was a transaction effected for consideration …”.

NB: The one area that the CJEU did refer back to the National Court however, was whether the transaction at issue in the case was a wholly artificial arrangement which did not reflect economic reality and was set up with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage.

It is interesting to compare this finding with the UK case law above, especially the points concerning “a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made” and “sound and recognised business principles”. I strongly suspect that what constitutes a business will continue to occupy advisers and HMRC and throw up disputes until the end of time (and/or the end of VAT….).

Full case here

VAT – Apportionment issues: complex and costly

By   24 May 2016
0

The dictionary definition of the verb to apportion is “to distribute or allocate proportionally; divide and assign according to some rule of proportional distribution”.

So why is apportionment important in the world of VAT and where would a business encounter the need to apportion? I thought that it might be useful to take an overall look at the subject as it is one of, if not the most, contentious areas of VAT. If affects both output tax declarations and input tax claims, so I have looked at these two areas separately. If an apportionment is inaccurate it will either result in paying too much tax, or risking penalties and additional attention from HMRC; both of which are to be avoided!

The overriding point in all these examples is that any apportionment must be “fair and reasonable”.

Supplies

The following are examples of where a business needs to apportion the value of sales:

  • Retail sales

Retailers find it difficult to account for VAT in the normal way so they use what is known as a retail scheme. There are various schemes but they all provide a formula for calculating VAT on sales at the standard, reduced and zero rate. This is needed for shops that sell goods at different rates, eg; food, clothing and books alongside standard rated supplies.  As an example, in Apportionment Scheme 1 a business works out the value of its purchases for retail sale at different rates of VAT and applies those proportions to its sales.

  • Construction

A good example here is if a developer employs a contractor to construct a new building which contains retail units on the ground floor with flats above.  The construction of the commercial part is standard rated, but the building of the residential element is zero rated.  The contractor has to apportion his supply between the two VAT rates.  This apportionment could be made with reference to floorspace, costs, value or any other method which provides a fair and reasonable result.  The value of supplies relating to property is often high, so it is important that the apportionment is accurate and not open to challenge from HMRC.  I recommend that agreement on the method used is agreed with HMRC prior to the supply in order to avoid any subsequent issues.

  • Property letting

Let us assume that in the construction example above, when the construction is complete, the developer lets the whole building to a third party. He chooses to opt to tax the property in order to recover the attributable input tax.  The option has no effect on the residential element which will represent an exempt supply. Consequently, an apportionment must be made between the letting income in respect of the shops and flats.

  • Subscriptions

There has been a great deal of case law on whether subscriptions to certain organisations by which the subscriber obtains various benefits represent a single supply at a certain VAT rate, or separate supplies at different rates. A common example is zero rated printed matter with other exempt or standard rated supplies.

  • Take away

Most are familiar with the furore over the “pasty tax” and even with the U-turn, the provision of food/catering is often the subject of disputes over apportionment.  Broadly; the sale of cold food for take away is zero rated and hot food and eat in (catering) is standard rated.  There have been myriad cases on what’s hot and what’s not, what constitutes a premises (for eat in), and how food is “held out” for sale. The recent Subway dispute highlights the subtleties in this area. I have successfully claimed significant amounts of overpaid output tax based on this kind of apportionment and it is always worth reviewing a business’s position.  New products are arriving all the time and circumstances of a business can change.  A word of warning here; HMRC regularly mount covert observation exercises to record the proportion of customers eating in to those taking away.  They also carry out “test eats” so it is crucial that any method used to apportion sales is accurate and supportable.

  • Opticians

Opticians have a difficult time of it with VAT.  Examinations and advice services are exempt healthcare, but the sale of goods; spectacles and contact lenses, is standard rated.  Almost always a customer/patient pays a single amount which covers the services as well as the goods. Apportionment in these cases is very difficult and has been the subject of disagreement and tribunal cases for many years; some of which I have been involved in.  Not only is the sales value apportionment complex, but many opticians are partly exempt which causes additional difficulties. I recommend that all opticians review their VAT position.

Input tax recovery

  • Business/Non-Business (BNB)

If an entity is involved in both business and non-business activities, eg; a charity which provides free advice and also has a shop which sells donated goods. It is unable to recover all of the VAT it incurs.  VAT attributable to non-business activities is not input tax and cannot be reclaimed.  Therefore it is necessary to calculate the quantum of VAT attributable to BNB activities, that VAT which cannot be attributed is called overhead VAT and must be apportioned between BNB activities.  There are many varied ways of doing this as the VAT legislation does not specify any particular method.  Therefore it is important to consider all of the available alternatives. Examples of these are; income, expenditure, time, floorspace, transaction count etc.

  • Partial exemption

Similarly to BNB if a business makes exempt supplies, eg; certain property letting, insurance and financial products, it cannot recover input tax attributable to those exempt supplies (unless the value is de minimis). Overhead input tax needs to be apportioned between taxable and exempt supplies.  The standard method of doing this is to apply the ratio of taxable versus exempt supply values to the overhead tax. However, there are many “special methods” available, but these have to be agreed with HMRC.  Partial exemption is often complex and always results in an actual VAT cost to a business, so it is always worthwhile to review the position regularly.  Exemption is not a relief to a business.

  • Attribution

In both BNB and partial exemption situations before considering overheads all VAT must, as far as possible, be attributed to either taxable or exempt and non-business activities. This in itself is a form of apportionment and it is often not clear how the supply received has been used by a business, that is; of which activity is it a cost component?

  • Business entertainment

At certain events staff may attend along with other guests who are not employed. The recovery of input tax in respect of staff entertainment is recoverable but (generally) entertaining non staff members is blocked. Therefore an apportionment of the VAT incurred on such entertainment is required.

  • Business and private use of an asset

If a company owns, say, a yacht or a helicopter and uses it for a director’s own private use, but it is chartered to third parties when not being used (business use) an apportionment must be made between the two activities. The most usual way of doing this is on a time basis. Apportionment will also be required in the example of a business owning a holiday home used for both business and private purposes. Input tax relating to private (non-business) use is always blocked.

  • Motoring expenses

It is common for a staff member to use a car for both business and private purposes.  Input tax is only recoverable in respect of the business use so an apportionment is required.  This may be done by keeping detailed mileage records, or more simply by applying the Road Fuel Scale Charge which is a set figure per month which represents a disallowance for private use.

The above examples are not exhaustive but I hope they give a flavour to the subject.

If your business apportions, or should apportion, values for either income or expenditure I strongly recommend a review on the method.  There is often no “right answer” for an apportionment and I often find that HMRC impose unnecessarily harsh demands on a taxpayer.  Additionally, many business are unaware of alternatives or are resistant to challenging HMRC even when they have a good case.

What VAT CAN’T you claim?

By   2 March 2016
0
The majority of input tax incurred by most VAT registered businesses may be recovered.  However, there is some input tax that may not be.  I thought it would be helpful if I pulled together all of these categories in one place:

Blocked VAT ClaimsWebsite Images0006

A brief overview

  •  No supporting evidence

In most cases this evidence will be an invoice (or as the rules state “a proper tax invoice)” although it may be import, self-billing or other documentation in specific circumstances.  A claim is invalid without the correct paperwork.  HMRC may accept alternative evidence, however, they are not duty bound to do so (and rarely do).  So ensure that you always obtain and retain the correct documentation.

  • Incorrect supporting evidence

Usually this is an invalid invoice, or using a delivery note/statement/pro forma in place of a proper tax invoice. To support a claim an invoice must show all the information set out in the legislation.  HMRC are within their rights to disallow a claim if any of the details are missing.  A full guide is here: https://www.marcusward.co/vat-invoices-a-full-guide/

  •  Input tax relating to exempt supplies

Broadly speaking, if a business incurs VAT in respect of exempt supplies it cannot recover it.  If a business makes only exempt supplies it cannot even register for VAT.  There is a certain easement called de minimis which provide for recovery if the input tax is below certain prescribed limits. Input tax which relates to both exempt and taxable activities must be apportioned. More details of partial exemption may be found here: https://www.marcusward.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Partial-Exemption-Guide.pdf

  •  Input tax relating to non-business activities

If a charity or NFP entity incurs input tax in connection with non-business activities this cannot be recovered and there is no de minimis relief.  Input tax which relates to both business and non-business activities must be apportioned. Business versus non-business apportionment must be carried out first and then any partial exemption calculation for the business element if appropriate. More details here: https://www.marcusward.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Charities-and-Not-For-Profit-Entities-A-Brief-VAT-Guide.pdf

  •  Time barred

If input tax is not reclaimed within four years of it being incurred, the capping provisions apply and any claim will be rejected by HMRC.

  •  VAT incurred on business entertainment

This is always irrecoverable unless the client or customer being entertained belongs overseas.  The input tax incurred on staff entertainment costs is however recoverable.

  •  Car purchase

In most cases the VAT incurred on the purchase of a car is blocked. The only exceptions are for when the car; is part of the stock in trade of a motor manufacturer or dealer, or is used primarily for the purposes of taxi hire; self-drive hire or driving instruction; or is used exclusively for a business purpose and is not made available for private use. This last category is notoriously difficult to prove to HMRC and the evidence to support this must be very good.

  •  Car leasing

If a business leases a car for business purposes it will normally be unable to recover 50% of the VAT charged.  The 50% block is to cover the private use of the car.

  •  A business using certain schemes

For instance, a business using the Flat rate Scheme cannot recover input tax except for certain large capital purchases, also there are certain blocks for recovery on TOMS users

  •  VAT charged in error

Even if you obtain an invoice purporting to show a VAT amount, this cannot be recovered if the VAT was charged in error; either completely inappropriately or at the wrong rate.  A business’ recourse is with the supplier and not HMRC.

  •  Goods and services not used for your business

Even if a business has an invoice addressed to it and the services or goods are paid for by the business, the input tax on the purchase is blocked if the supply is not for business use.  This may be because the purchase is for personal use, or by anther business or for purposes not related to the business.

  • VAT paid on goods and services obtained before VAT registration

This is not input tax and therefore is not claimable.  However, there are exceptions for goods on hand at registration and services received within six months of registration if certain conditions are met.

  •  VAT incurred by property developers

Input tax incurred on certain articles that are installed in buildings which are sold or leased at the zero rate is blocked.

  •  Second hand goods

Goods sold to you under one of the VAT second-hand schemes will not show a separate VAT charge and no input tax is recoverable on these goods.

  •  Transfer of a going concern (TOGC)

Assets of a business transferred to you as a going concern are not deemed to be a supply for VAT purposes and consequently, there is no VAT chargeable and therefore no input tax to recover.

  •  Disbursements

A business cannot reclaim VAT when it pays for goods or services to be supplied directly to its client. However, in this situation the VAT may be claimable by the client if they are VAT registered. For more on disbursements see here: https://www.marcusward.co/disbursements-vat/

  •  VAT incurred overseas

A business cannot reclaim VAT charged on goods or services that it has bought from suppliers in other EC States. Only UK VAT may be claimed on a UK VAT return. There is however, a mechanism available to claim this VAT back from the relevant VAT body in those States. However, in most cases, supplies received from overseas suppliers are VAT free, so it is usually worth checking whether any VAT has been charged correctly.

Input tax incurred on expenditure is one of the most complex areas of VAT.  It also represents the biggest VAT cost to a business if VAT falls to be irrecoverable.  It is almost always worthwhile reviewing what VAT is being reclaimed.  Claim too much and there could well be penalties and interest, and of course, if a business is not claiming as much input tax as it could, this represents a straightforward cost.

 

VAT Taxable Supply – Basic Definition

By   5 February 2016
1

VAT Back To Basics 

It is sometimes useful when considering a transaction to “go back to basics” for VAT purposes. There are four tests to determine whether a supply is taxable and these are set out below.  Broadly, these tests establish whether UK VAT is payable on a sale.

A transaction is within the scope of UK VAT if all four of the following are satisfied.

  1. It is a supply of goods or services.

There is a distinction between the two types of supply as different VAT treatments may apply.  However, if no goods are services are actually provided, there is no supply.  Indeed, if there is no consideration for a supply, in most cases it is not a taxable supply.

2. It takes place in the UK.

There are quite complex tests to consider when analysing the “place of supply”, especially where services are concerned.  If the place of supply is outside the UK then usually no UK VAT is due, however, the supply may be subject to VAT in another country.

3. It is made by a taxable person.

A taxable person is any legal entity which is, or should be, registered for VAT in the UK.

4. It is made in the course or furtherance of any business carried on by that person

The term “business” is only used in UK legislation, The Principal VAT Directive refers to “economic activity” rather than “business” and since UK domestic legislation must conform to the Directive both terms must be seen as having the same meaning.  Since the very first days of VAT there have been disagreements over what constitutes a “business”. I have only recently ended a dispute over this definition for a (as it turns out) very happy client.  The tests were set out as long ago as 1981 and may be summarised as follows:

So, if the four tests are passed a taxable supply exists.  The next step is often to establish which VAT rate applies!

Tip: It is often easier to consider what isn’t a taxable supply to establish the correct VAT treatment.  Specific examples of situations which are not taxable supplies are; donations, certain free supplies of services, certain grants or funding, some compensation and some transactions which are specifically excluded from the tax by legislation, eg; transfers of going concerns.

I think that it is often the case that the basic building blocks of the tax are overlooked, especially in complex situations and I find it helps to “go back to the first page” sometimes!