Tag Archives: CoA

Why are Certificates Of Origin important? An overview

By Marcus Ward 18 December 2023

What is a Certificate of Origin (CO)?

A CO is a formal, official document which evidences in which country a good or commodity was manufactured. The certificate of origin contains information regarding the product, its destination, and the country of export.

A CO is required for most treaty agreements for cross-border trade and have become more important since Brexit (no more single market alas).

Why is a CO important?

The CO is an important document because it determines whether certain goods are eligible for import, or whether goods are subject to duties.

CO – General

Customs officials expect the CO to be a separate document from other commercial documents such as invoices or packing lists. Officials may also expect it to be signed by the exporter, the signature notarised, and the document subsequently signed and stamped by a Chamber of Commerce. Additionally, the destination Customs authority may request proof of review from a specific Chamber of Commerce.

Some countries accept electronically issued COs which have been electronically signed by a Chamber of Commerce.

Types of CO

A CO can be either in paper or digital format and must be approved by the requisite Customs Authority.

There is no standard CO document for global trade, but a CO prepared by the exporter, has at least the basic details about the product being shipped.

Non-Preferential Cos

Non-preferential COs, also known as “ordinary COs” indicate that the goods do not qualify for reduced tariffs or tariff-free treatment under trade arrangements between countries. If an exporting country does not have in place a treaty or trade agreement with the importing country, an ordinary CO will be needed.

Preferential COs

This is for shipments between countries with a trade agreement or reduced tariffs and proves the goods qualify for reduced import duties.

Legalised CO

Some countries require additional information to demonstrate the authenticity of the information in the CO. A Legalised CO is an ordinary CO that has been further authenticated. The legalisation process usually involves the CO being validated by various appropriate authorities to give more evidence to its authenticity.

Certified CO

A Certified CO is similar to a n ordinary CO. However, it has been certified by a Chamber of Commerce, government agency or other relevant authority to confirm its authenticity.

Certification involves an in-depth review of all of the information declared on the CO, as well as a thorough side-by-side comparison with the requirements of the trade agreement and regulations of the country of import to ensure full compliance.

EUR1

A EUR1 certificate is used in trade between the UK and partner countries. It is used to confirm that goods originate in the EU or a partner country so that the importer can benefit from a reduced rate of import duty.

EUR1 certificates are issued by Chambers of Commerce or Customs offices.

Contents of a CO

A CO will typically contain the following information:

name and contact information of the manufacturer of the goods
country of origin
contact information of the exporting agent
contact information of the receiver/importing agent
description of the goods, including the appropriate product codes
quantity, size, and weight of goods
A waybill or bill of lading number
means of transport and route information
commercial invoice of payment

* A waybill is a document issued by a carrier giving details and instructions relating to the shipment of a consignment of cargo. It shows the names of the consignor and consignee, the point of origin of the consignment, its destination, and route.

How do I find out if I need a CO?

A business will need to check with its local Chamber of Commerce.

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: 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.

Beyblades – a Customs Duty case

By Marcus Ward 17 July 2018

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal (CA) case of Hasbro European Trading BV (Hasbro) the issue was whether Customs Duty (CD) was due on the import of Beyblades. If they fall within the definition of a toy CD is payable at 4.7%. However, if they are more accurately classified as a game they are treated as duty free – so a significant difference in import cost dependent on what, superficially, appears to be a somewhat question of semantics.

Beyblades

For the purposes of the case, it is important to understand what a Beyblade is and how it is used.

Beyblade is the brand name for a line of spinning tops originally developed and manufactured by Tomy in Japan. The main novelty is that they are a series of items which are customisable, with interchangeable parts. A Beyblade is set in motion by means of a rip-cord powered launcher.

A “game” is played with two players. Each player is allowed a number of Beyblades to choose from during a match. Players may use any parts available to them to make their Beyblades), but may not switch parts once a match has started. The first player to reach seven points wins. Points are awarded to the player based on how their Beyblade knocks out the opponent’s

One point is awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade stops spinning
One point is awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade is knocked out of the stadium or into a pocket on the edge of the ring
Two points are awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade breaks during a game

The Arguments

The case concerned the classification of Beyblades’. The appellant, Hasbro contended that Beyblades are correctly classified as “articles for … table or parlour games” under heading 9504 of the Combined Nomenclature. In contrast, HMRC maintained that Beyblades should be classified as “other toys” under heading 9503, The First-tier Tribunal FTT and the Upper Tribunal (U’) both previously agreed with HMRC’s analysis.

Classification

There are “explanatory notes” to the Harmonised System (HSENNs). The CA ruled that the classification rule which prefers the most specific description does not apply at the level of the HSENs: they are an important guide to interpretation, but do not have force of law.

The Decision

The CA allowed the appeal and went against the decisions in the FTT and UT. The judge concluded that “In the circumstances, it seems to me to fall to us to decide which of the alternative headings provides the more specific description. In my view, it is heading 9504. As I see it, “articles for … parlour games” encompasses a more limited range of goods than “toys” and “more clearly identifies Beyblades”, particularly since, as I say, “articles for … parlour games” reflects the fact that Beyblades are meant to be used in games…”. The fact that Beyblades are used in a competitive scenario seems to have swung the decision which knocked out HMRC. Consequently, there was no CD payable as they fell to be duty free.

Commentary

It does beg the question; why did this issue need to get to the CA for the appellant to finally win (but of course, this isn’t the first case which has raised that question). Perseverance was clearly the key word here. If you are convinced that HMRC is wrong on ay matter, it really does pay to challenge any ruling.

VAT – There is no such thing as a free lunch

By Marcus Ward 3 January 2018

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal case of ING Intermediate Holdings Ltd the issue was whether the provision of “free” banking actually constituted a supply for VAT purposes.

Background

The appeal concerned the recoverability of input tax. ING wished to recover (via deduction against the outputs of a separate investment business) a proportion of VAT expenses incurred in connection with a “deposit-taking” business. ING contended that this activity did not involve any VATable supply. HMRC contended, and did so successfully before both prior tribunals, that it is more than a deposit-taking business and involved the provision of banking services.

The issue

The relevant services were supplied to the public, and the user of the services were not charged a fee. Consequently, the essential issue was; whether the “free” banking services were provided for consideration and, if so, how that consideration ought to be quantified for VAT purposes. If there was a consideration, there was a supply, and that supply would be exempt; thus not providing a right to recovery of input tax for the appellant.

Technical

There is no definition of consideration in either the EC Principal VAT Directive or the VAT Act 1994. In the UK, the meaning was originally taken from contract law, but the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has confirmed that the term is to be given the Community meaning and is not to be variously interpreted by Member States. The Community definition used in ECJ cases is taken from the EC 2nd VAT Directive Annex A13 as follows even though this Directive is no longer in force:

“…the expression “consideration” means everything received in return for the supply of goods or the provision of services, including incidental expenses (packing, transport, insurance etc), that is to say not only the cash amounts charged but also, for example, the value of the goods received in exchange or, in the case of goods or services supplied by order of a public authority, the amount of the compensation received.”

NB: In order for there to be consideration, it must be able to be quantifiable and able to be expressed in monetary terms.

Decision

The CA decided that although there was no distinct charge to the users of the service, there was a supply of services for a consideration. That consideration was the difference between what the customer obtained from the relevant account, and what he could have obtained from an account which was not free, but provided better returns (the interest rate offered must have contained some deduction for the services provided). This was capable of being expressed in monetary terms (although it is interesting to note that the CA stated that it would be undesirable to say which method should be applied, although the court was “entirely satisfied” that it could be done).

Consequently there was a supply for VAT purposes and ING’s appeal was therefore dismissed.

Commentary

HMRC quite often argue that there is a supply when in fact, there is no supply. However, they did have a decent argument in this case and I understand that they are likely to apply this to a number of other long running disputes. Please contact us if you consider that this case could affect your business or your client’s business.

VAT Self-billing and latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 6 January 2017

Self-billing: where the customer issues the invoice (and how this can go wrong).

A recent case Court of Appeal case: GB Housley here has highlighted the inherent dangers of using the self-billing system. Self-billing is a very useful mechanism for a lot of businesses, especially in respect of activities like royalties and scrap purchases where the supplier may not know (or know immediately) the value of the supply. Before we look at the case, it may be useful to recap the rules for self-billing.

Self-billing is an arrangement between a supplier and a customer. Both customer and supplier must be VAT registered. The customer prepares the supplier’s invoice and forwards a copy to the supplier with the payment. There is no requirement to notify HMRC or get approval for using the arrangement.

If you are the customer

You issue the documentation and you are able to reclaim as input tax the VAT shown on the self-billing invoice.

In order to set up self-billing arrangements with your supplier you are required to:

enter into an agreement with each supplier
review agreements with suppliers at regular intervals
keep records of each of the suppliers who let you self-bill them
make sure invoices contain the required information and are correctly issued

If a supplier stops being registered for VAT then you can continue to self-bill them, but you can’t issue them with VAT invoices. Your self-billing arrangement with that supplier is no longer covered by the VAT regulations.

Self-billing agreements

You can only operate a self-billing arrangement if your supplier agrees to put one in place. If you don’t have an agreement with your supplier your self-billed invoices won’t be valid, and you won’t be able to reclaim the input tax shown on them.

Both parties need to sign a formal self-billing agreement. This is a legally binding document. The agreement must contain:

your supplier’s agreement that you, as the self-biller, can issue invoices on your supplier’s behalf
your supplier’s confirmation that they won’t issue VAT invoices for goods or services covered by the agreement
an expiry date – usually for 12 months’ time but it could be the date that any business contract you have with your supplier ends
your supplier’s agreement that they’ll let you know if they stop being registered for VAT
details of any third party you intend to outsource the self-billing process to

Reviewing self-billing agreements

Self-billing agreements usually last for 12 months. At the end of this you will need to review the agreement to make sure you can prove to HMRC that your supplier agrees to accept the self-billing invoices you issue on their behalf. It’s very important that you don’t self-bill a supplier when you don’t have their written agreement to do so.

Record keeping

If you are a self-biller you’ll need to keep certain records. These are:

copies of the agreements you make with your suppliers
the names, addresses and VAT registration numbers of the suppliers who have agreed that you can self-bill them

If you don’t keep the required records, then the self-billed invoices you issue won’t be proper VAT invoices.

All self-billed invoices must include the statement “The VAT shown is your output tax due to HMRC”.

It is important that a business does not add VAT to self-billed invoices that it issues to suppliers who are not VAT-registered.

A business will only be able to reclaim input tax shown on self-billed invoices if it meets all the record keeping requirements.

If you are a VAT registered supplier

If one of your customers wants to set up a self-billing arrangement with you, they’ll ask you to agree to this in writing. If you agree, they will give you a self-billing agreement to sign.

For VAT purposes you will be required to do all of the following:

sign and keep a copy of the self-billing agreement
agree not to issue any sales invoices to your customer for any transaction during the period of the agreement
agree to accept the self-billing invoices that your customer issues
tell your customer at once if you change your VAT registration number, deregister from VAT, or transfer your business as a going concern

The VAT figure on the self-billed invoice your customer sends you is your output tax. You are accountable to HMRC for output tax on the supplies you make to your customer, so you should check that your customer is applying the correct rate of VAT on the invoices they send you. If there has been a VAT rate change, you will need to check that the correct rate has been used.

The Case

The issues were whether the lack of formalised self-billing agreements disqualified the use of self-billing, and if that was the case, whether alternative evidence should have been accepted to support a claim for input tax. The CoA discharged HMRC’s assessment which was issued to GB Housley – a scrap metal merchant.

The assessment was based on input tax claims made on the basis of the self-billed documents. It was ruled that although the self-billing was used in error, HMRC should have considered alternative evidence and used its discretion on whether to allow the claims on transactions which took place. For this reason, as it is unclear whether HMRC would have assessed if they had considered other information, the assessment should be removed.

A timely warning to ensure that all of the conditions of self-billing arrangements are met, and that this is clearly demonstrable. Ongoing monitoring is crucial for businesses operating self-billing as an overlooked change can affect the VAT treatment.

In this case, it looks like the applicant was rather fortunate, but this outcome cannot be relied on if self-billing is applied incorrectly.

We are able to advise on such agreements, arrangements and accounting.

Court of Appeal judgement on Subway hot food case

By Marcus Ward 11 June 2014

The CoA has just released its judgement in the Subway hot food case. It concerns the liability of toasted sandwiches (known as Subs) with a hot filling; meatball marinara.

This is a lead case for a large number of claims submitted on the basis that VAT has been over declared on certain supplies of hot takeaway food, that are (it was argued) essentially the same as supplies that have obtained zero rating. The Court has dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal.

If you have any “hot food” claims lodged – please contact us for further information.