Tag Archives: CJEU

VAT: Distinction between goods and services. Mercedes Benz Financial Services case

By Marcus Ward 17 October 2017

In the CJEU case of Mercedes Benz Financial Services (MBFS) the issue was whether certain supplies where of goods or services.

Technical Background

Before looking at the case, it is worthwhile considering the difference between goods and services and why the distinction is important. For most transactions the difference is clear, although sometimes (such as in this case) it is not immediately apparent. A starting point is that services are “something other than supplying goods”. Difficulties can arise in areas such as; provision of; information, software and, as MBFS discovered, Hire Purchase (HP)/leasing.

The distinction is important for two main reasons:

VAT liability – Goods and services may have different VAT rates applicable
Tax point – goods and services have different tax point rules, see here

The difference between HP and Leasing arrangements:

In an HP agreement the intention is usually for the ownership of the goods to pass when the final payment has been made. The transaction therefore relates to a supply of goods. If title to goods does not pass, this is leasing and represents a supply of services.

Case Background

MBFS offered certain contract purchases which were similar to many personal contract purchase deals for vehicles. These featured regular monthly payments with a final balloon payment. In the MBFS arrangements in question a significant difference to “usual” personal contract purchase agreements was that the balloon payment represented over 40% of the price of the car and payment of this fee was entirely optional.

The EU rules set out that there is a supply of goods where “in the normal course of events” ownership will pass at the latest upon payment of the final instalment. Consequently, the focus here was on whether the optional final payment meant that in the normal course of events the ownership of the car would pass to the customer.

Decision

The CJEU decided that the supplies were those of services rather than goods. This was based on the fact that, although the ownership transfer clause is an indicator of the transaction representing a supply of goods, there was a genuine economic alternative to the option being exercised. The circa 40% of the car price was a significant amount and it did not immediately follow that all customers would make this final payment. It was observed that in a “traditional” HP arrangement making the final payment was the “only economically rational choice”. This meant that the supply was one of services.

VAT Impact

As this was ruled to be a supply of services, output tax was not due from MBFS at the start of the contract (as would have been the case if the supply had been one of goods). This results in a significant cashflow saving.

Commentary

Any business which provides vehicles via HP or leasing arrangements should review its supplies and contracts to determine whether it can take advantage of this CJEU ruling. We are able to assist in this process.

VAT: Latest from the courts – Brockenhurst College

By Marcus Ward 19 May 2017

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has released its decision in Brockenhurst College here

Unusually, it has gone against the Advocate General (AG) Kokott’s opinion (here) and concurs with previous decisions reached by the UK courts. This is good news for the taxpayer and other providers of educational services. The decision has been referred back to the Court of Appeal (CoA) for it to consider points such as the distortion of competition and the fulfilment of a separate function, however, it is likely that this will not affect the decision by the CJEU and HMRC’s appeal will be dismissed.

Background

The case considered two types of supply made by Brockenhurst College:

The supplies made from its restaurant, used for training chefs, restaurant managers and hospitality students. The claim was made on the basis that these were exempt supplies of education and not standard rated supplies of catering
Tickets for concerts and other live performances put on by students as part of their educational courses. These were similarly claimed to be exempt.

Students were enrolled in performing arts and catering and hospitality courses. As part of their course of study they were required to run a restaurant and stage live performances. Persons not enrolled on the relevant courses would pay for and attend these events. The services were usually supplied to a limited public including; parents, siblings, friends etc, and were supplied at a reduced cost as part of the practical element of the students’ education. The appellant argued that the experience was invaluable to their studies and should be regarded as ‘closely related’ to the principal supply of education. HMRC considered that the services in question were supplied to third parties in return for payment. Consequently, the services, whilst of benefit and practical experience to the students were separate VATable supplies made to third parties and the supplies cannot, therefore, be closely related to the supply of education to the student.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) concluded that the supplies in question were exempt as being closely linked to education because:

the College was an eligible body and so its principal supplies were exempt supplies of education
the supplies were integral and essential to those principal exempt supplies
the supplies were made at less than their cost
the supplies were not advertised to the general public. Instead, there was a database of local groups and individuals who might wish to attend the restaurant or performances
the supplies were not intended to create an additional source of income for the College

HMRC disagreed with the conclusion on the basis that the supplies were outside the education exemption because the students were not the beneficiaries of the supplies in question, but only benefitted from making them. HMRC appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT).

The UT rejected HMRC’s argument and agreed with the FTT. It held that the supplies were closely related to the exempt supplies of education because they enabled the students to enjoy better education. The requirement in the domestic law for the supplies to be for the direct use of the student was met because they were of direct benefit to him.

HMRC subsequently appealed to the CoA which referred it to the CJEU.

The AG’s opinion was that closely related transactions are to be regarded as independent supplies to the principal supply, but do not include the supply of restaurant or training services supplied to third parties who are not themselves receiving the principal supply of training. The third parties pay for their own consumption (of either the catering or performance) and do not pay for the provision of education. It is very rare that the CJEU makes a decision that goes against the AG’s opinion.

CJEU Decision

The CJEU ruled that activities consisting of students of a higher education establishment supplying, for consideration and as part of their education, restaurant and entertainment services to third parties, may be regarded as supplies closely related to the principal supply of education and accordingly be exempt from VAT – provided that those services are essential to the students’ education and that their basic purpose is not to obtain additional income for that establishment by carrying out transactions which are in direct competition with those of commercial enterprises liable for VAT, which it is for the national court to determine.

Action

We understand that there are a number of cases stood behind Brockenhurst. Any other colleges, FE, universities or other eligible bodies carrying out similar activities to Brockenhurst need to consider their tax position. It is possible that retrospective claims may be made, depending on specific circumstances. Treating such supplies as exempt may also impact on a body’s partial exemption position and could create business/non-business implications. This may also impact on activities like hairdressing, motor maintenance and beauty treatments which colleges provide on a similar basis to the activities in this instant case.

We are happy to discuss the implications of this case with you.

VAT Implications of Transfer Pricing – Valuation

By Marcus Ward 24 April 2017

The EC has recently published a paper on the possible VAT implications of Transfer Pricing (TP) here

This Working Paper considers when TP adjustments may affect the application of VAT. The main conflict is highlighted as the difference between how sales are valued. For TP purposes value is determined via arm’s length (open market value) versus the subjective value, ie; the price actually paid, for VAT purposes.

Transfer Pricing

The arm’s length principle is the international transfer pricing standard that Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries have agreed, and which should be used for tax purposes by Multinational Enterprise Group (“MNE group”) and tax administrations, including the price, match comparable market conditions and that profits are fairly divided between the jurisdictions in which MNE operates.

According to the OECD TP Guidelines, by seeking to adjust profits by reference to the conditions which would have been obtained between independent enterprises for comparable transactions and under comparable circumstances, ie; in “comparable uncontrolled transactions” the arm’s length principle treats the members of an MNE group as entities operating separately rather than as inseparable parts of a single unified business. Because the separate entity approach treats the members of an MNE group as if they were independent entities, attention is focused on the nature of the transactions between those members and on whether the conditions thereof differ from those that would be obtained in comparable uncontrolled transactions.

VAT

It is not generally required for VAT purposes that the consideration which must be present in order for a transaction to be qualified as taxable, has to reflect the market value of the goods or services supplied. In fact, as to the concept of “consideration”, it is settled case law of the CJEU that the taxable amount for the supply of goods or services is represented by the consideration actually received for them.

I shan’t rehearse the details here as they are clearly set out in the paper linked to above.

However, it is an important area of tax and I strongly recommend reading the Working Paper for any business or adviser involved in international supplies. It is also an interesting read for students of the tax technical side of such supplies.

We have a strong global structure of skilled advisers which are able to assist if you have any queries.

VAT Legal impact of The Great Repeal Bill and Article 50

By Marcus Ward 3 April 2017

Changes to VAT on the day the UK leaves the EU – details of new White Paper

There has been significant confusion and differing views over how the UK would treat existing CJEU case law and its impact on the UK legislation when the UK leaves the EU.

Welcome certainty and clarity has been provided by the publication of a White Paper in respect The Great Repeal Bill (GRB). Full details of the GRB here

Background

The European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) gives effect in UK law to the EU treaties. It incorporates EU law into the UK domestic legal order and provides for the supremacy of EU law. It also requires UK courts to follow the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Some EU law applies directly without the need for specific domestic implementing legislation, while other parts of EU law need to be implemented in the UK through domestic legislation. As explained in the White Paper, domestic legislation other than the ECA also gives effect to some of the UK’s obligations under EU law. The government states that “…it is important to repeal the ECA to ensure there is maximum clarity as to the law that applies in the UK, and to reflect the fact that following the UK’s exit from the EU it will be UK law, not EU law, that is supreme.” The GRB will repeal the ECA on the day we leave the EU.

Overview

The main point stressed in the White Paper is that “The same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before. It will then be for democratically elected representatives in the UK to decide on any changes to that law, after full scrutiny and proper debate” and “This Bill will, wherever practical and appropriate, convert EU law into UK law from the day we leave so that we can make the right decisions in the national interest at a time that we choose.”

The intention is that the GRB will do three things:

It will repeal the ECA and return power to UK institutions.
The Bill will convert EU law as it stands at the moment of exit into UK law before we leave the EU. This allows businesses to continue operating knowing the rules have not changed significantly overnight, and provides fairness to individuals, whose rights and obligations will not be subject to sudden change. It also ensures that it will be up to the UK Parliament (and, where appropriate, the devolved legislatures) to amend, repeal or improve any piece of EU law (once it has been brought into UK law) at the appropriate time once we have left the EU.
The Bill will create powers to make secondary legislation. This will enable corrections to be made to the laws that would otherwise no longer operate appropriately once we have left the EU, so that our legal system continues to function correctly outside the EU, and will also enable domestic law once we have left the EU to reflect the content of any withdrawal agreement under Article 50.

This means that case law precedent from the CJEU will continue to apply (for a time at least). Any uncertainties/disagreements over the meaning of UK law after the UK leaves the EC that has been derived from EU cases will be decided by reference to the CJEU case law as it exists on the day the UK leaves. As a consequence, the GRB is likely to give CJEU case law similar precedent status to the UK Supreme Court. The result is that Tribunals (and other court cases) will be heard in a similar way as they are now and both sides may continue to rely on case law as they have up to this point. Any changes to the VAT legislation, if any, may then be made at a more leisurely pace while providing certainty while this is done.

Customs

There will also be changes to the current UK Customs regime as a consequence of the UK leaving the Single Market. The Customs Declaration Services (CDS) programme is intended to replace the existing system for handling import and export freight (CHIEF) from January 2019. Now that the Government has made a decision to leave the EU customs union, there is concern that this project is in place on time. A letter from the Treasury Select Committee states that “even modest delays, there is potential for major disruption to trade and economic activity”.

There are still a lot of uncertainties which will not be dealt with until we know the terms of the UK leaving and we will try to report these as soon as we have any information. Please subscribe to our free monthly e-newsletter to keep up to date on this, and other VAT developments. Simply email us at marcus.ward@consultant.com

Latest from the courts: missing goods subject to VAT

By Marcus Ward 13 October 2016

In the CJEU case of Maya Marinova the issue was whether goods which could not be located in the Bulgarian appellant’s warehouse were subject to VAT on the grounds they had been disposed of.

Background

The appellant purchased certain goods, and subsequently, at an inspection, was unable to either;

produce the goods , or;
demonstrate how they were disposed of.

The Bulgarian authorities had confirmed that the goods had been purchased from a supplier, but the purchases did not appear in the business’ purchase records. They assessed for VAT on the missing goods assuming that they had been purchased and sold off record and the output tax had not been accounted for. They employed a mark-up exercise based on similar goods sold in the appellant’s shop.

The case proceeded directly to the court without an AG’s opinion. The matter was; whether the decision to assess offended the principle of fiscal neutrality if it were supported by national legislation (which it was here). It was decided that in these circumstances, such action was not precluded and the assessment was basically sound. It was stated that “… tax authorities may presume that the taxable person subsequently sold those goods to third parties and determine the taxable amount of the sale of those goods according to the factual information at hand …”. As usual, the case was passed back to the referring court to consider whether the Bulgarian domestic legislation goes further than is necessary to ensure the correct collection of tax and to prevent evasion.

Commentary

Although the issues in this case arose from specific facts, this is not an uncommon scenario for a business. It was hardly a surprising outcome. In a similar position in the UK, HMRC is also very likely to form the view that if the goods are no longer on hand, then they must have been disposed of, unless evidence to the contrary is provided by a taxpayer.

Of course, there may be a genuine reason why the goods are no longer in stock, but no output tax has been declared on them. These reasons are considered in guidance published by HMRC here and the rules mainly consider goods which have been lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed.

There are specific ways of dealing with VAT in these situations, and in fact, whether output tax is due at all. Failure to comply with this guidance may result in an assessment being issued. The general point is VAT is only due after a tax point has been created. A crude example is that if goods are shoplifted from a store, there is no output tax due. However, if the goods were sold and recorded via a till, and the money which went into the till was stolen, output tax is still due on the supply of those goods (as found in the case of G Benton [1975] VATTR 138).

As always with VAT, it is crucial to keep accurate and up to date records to evidence supplies (as well as recording the movement of stock and any discrepancies in these circumstances). Although an inspector will need to demonstrate “best judgement” in issuing an assessment in respect of missing goods, it is obviously prudent to be able to demonstrate why the anticipated output tax has not been declared and therefore be prepared for such enquiries.

In this instant case, it was not discovered why the goods were not located in the warehouse. It could be that there was a miscommunication between parts of the business, a simple underdeclaration of sales, staff theft, or any other hazards of business. Even for non-tax reasons it is vital that a business’ systems are sufficiently robust to identify such occurrences and procedures are put into place to deal with them.

If you or your clients have received an assessment of this sort, it is usually worthwhile obtaining a review of the position.

VAT Compound Interest – Latest

By Marcus Ward 24 November 2015

Proposed introduction of a new tax.

The Littlewoods case is slowly making its way through the court system with the CJEU ruling that there is a right to the taxpayer of adequate indemnity in respect of tax incorrectly collected via a mistake of law. There are myriad claims to which this will apply, especially “Fleming” claims where they covered a significant period of time a number of years ago.

HMRC has now applied to Supreme Court’s decision for permission to appeal the decision and we expect the Supreme Court’s verdict within the next month.

HMRC appear very concerned that it will ultimately be required to pay large amounts of interest to taxpayers who have suffered as a result of HMRC applying the relevant law incorrectly. Consequently, it has announced that the Summer Finance Bill 2015 will impose a 45% corporation tax charge on compound interest. There will be no right of set off or deduction for other losses. HMRC will withhold the corporation tax from any payment of interest made. This will take effect on 21 October 2015 (although the relevant legislation will not become law until 2016 indicating that HMRC is indeed running scared).

It is understood that there are a number of parties currently working on ways to challenge the legality of the proposed legislation.

Action

Claims already submitted

No immediate action is required, although it may be beneficial to review the basis of the claim, how it was made and what the status of it is currently.

New claims

For businesses which have received repayments due to HMRC error, it may be worthwhile reviewing the position to determine whether a claim for compound interest is appropriate and if so, to make a claim as soon as possible. We would, of course, be happy to advise on this and assist where necessary.