Tag Archives: composite-supply

Inter-company charges: What is VATable?

By   1 November 2018
0

This seemingly straightforward area can throw up lots of VAT issues and touches on a number of complex areas. If we look at what is commonly called a “management charge” it is clear that such a charge can cover a lot of different circumstances.

Do I charge VAT on a management charge?

An easy yes or no question one would think, however, this being VAT, the answer is; it depends. Typically, management charges represent a charge by a holding company to its subsidiaries of; a share of overhead costs, the provision of actual management/advisory services or office facilities or similar (the list can obviously be quite extensive).

Consideration for a supply

The starting point is; is something (goods or services) supplied in return for the payment? If the answer is no, then no VAT will be due. However, this may impact on the ability to recover input tax in the hands of the entity making the charge. It is often the case that a management charge is used as a mechanism for transferring “value” from one company to another. If it is done in an arbitrary manner with no written agreement in place, and nothing identifiable is provided, and VAT is charged, HMRC may challenge the VAT treatment and any input recovery of the company making the payment.

Composite of separate supply?

This is a complex area of the tax and is perpetually the subject of a considerable amount of case law. This has been so since the early days of VAT and there appears no signs of disputes slowing down. I have written about such cases here here here here and here

“Usually” if a combination of goods or services are supplied it is considered as a single supply and is subject to the standard rate. However, case law insists that sometimes different supplies need to be divided and a different rate of VAT applied to each separate supply. This may be the case for instance, when an exempt supply of non-opted property (eg; a designated office with an exclusive right to occupy) is provided alongside standard rated advice.

Approach

What is important is not how a management charge is calculated, but what the supply actually is (if it is one). The calculation, whether based on a simple pro-rata amount between separate subsidiaries, or via a complex mechanism set out in a written agreement has no impact on the VAT treatment. As always in VAT, the basic question is: what is actually provided?

Can the VAT treatment of a supply change when recharged?

Simply put; yes/ For example, if the holding company pays insurance (VAT free) and charges it on as part of a composite supply, then VAT will be added to an original non-VAT bearing cost. It may also occur when staff are employed (no VAT on salaries paid) but the staff are supplied to a subsidiary company and VAT is added (but see below).

Staff

The provision of staff is usually a standard rated supply. However, there are two points to consider. One is joint contracts of employment which I look at below, the other is the actual definition of the provision of staff. Care must be taken when analysing what is being provided. The question here is; are staff being provided, or; is the supply the services that those staff carry out? This is relevant, say, if the services the staff carry out are exempt. There are a number of tests here, but the main issue is; which entity directs and manages the staff?

Directors

There can be different rules for directors compared to staff.

If a holding company provides a subsidiary company with a director to serve as such, the normal rules relating to supplies of staff apply and VAT applies.

However, there are different rules for common directors. An individual may act as a director of a number of companies. There may be an arrangement where a holding company pays the director’s fees and then recover appropriate proportions from subsidiaries. In such circumstances, the individual’s services are supplied by the individual to the companies of which (s)he a director. The services are supplied directly to the relevant businesses by the individual and not from one company to another. Therefore, there is no supply between the companies and so no VAT is due on the share of money recovered from each subsidiary.

Planning

Planning may be required if;

  • the subsidiary cannot reclaim all VAT charged to it as input tax
  • there are cashflow/timing disadvantages
  • there are management or administrative complexities

Specific planning

VAT grouping

If commercially acceptable, the holding company and subsidiary companies may form a VAT group. By doing so any charges made between VAT group members are disregarded and no VAT is chargeable on them.

There are pros and cons in forming a VAT group and a brief overview is provided here

A specific development in case law does mean care must be taken when considering input tax recovery in holdco, details here

Joint contracts of employment

If members of staff are employed via joint contracts or employment no VAT is applicable to any charges made between the two (or more) employers. In addition, where each of a number of associated companies employs its own staff, but one company (the paymaster) pays salaries behalf of the others who then pay their share of the costs to the paymaster the recovery of monies paid out by the paymaster is VAT free as it is treated as a disbursement.

Disbursements

Looking at disbursements is a whole article in itself, and in fact there is a helpful one here

But, briefly, if a charge qualifies as a disbursement, then the costs is passed on “in the same state” so if it is VAT free, the onward charge is also VAT free, as opposed to perhaps changing the VAT liability as set out above. It is important to understand the differences between a disbursement and a recharge as a VAT saving may be obtained.

Overseas

The above considers management charges within the UK. There are different rules for making or receiving management charges to/from the EU and outside the EU. These charges are usually, but not always, VAT free and it is worth checking the VAT treatment before these are made/received.

There may be more planning for charities and NFP entities via cost sharing arrangements, but this is outside the scope of this article.

As may be seen, the answer to a simple question may be complex and the answer dependent upon the precise facts of the case. It is unusual to have two scenarios that precisely mirror each other, so each structure needs to be reviewed individually. Please contact us if you have any queries or would like more information on any of the above.

VAT: Separate or composite supply? The Ice Rink Company Ltd case

By   4 October 2017
0

Latest from the courts – Appellant on thin ice?

In the first Tier Tribunal case of The Ice Rink Company Ltd the issue was whether supplies of admission to ice skating rink and the hire of children’s ice skates – where sold as a package were single or multiple supplies. This is yet another separate/composite/compound supply case.

As a background to the issue please see previous relevant cases here here and here (in fact, this case was referred to in this hearing).

The issue of what is a single supply and what must be split as separate supplies seems to be neverending and HMRC appears to have an appetite to challenge every moot position through the courts.

Background

As anyone who has been ice skating will be aware (I tend to avoid the places not least as a result of not wishing to demonstrate my total lack of balance or skill) you can take your own skates, or hire skates for that session. In this case, the costs were £8 to use the rink or £10 with skate hire. The sole issue in the appeal was whether, when the appellants sold a “package deal” at £10 allowing a child to skate and to hire skates, it made a single supply or two separate supplies. If they made separate supplies, the £2 hire of skates to children is zero-rated. If it is a single supply the whole package is standard rated.

Decision

The judge decided that there were two separate supplies and that the skate hire supply could be treated as zero rated. This decision was based on a number of factors put forward by the appellant and which may be summarised as:

  • Skating with skate hire is a mixed supply, as the supply of skates is distinct and separate from the supply of admission
  • Around half the customers wishing to skate brought their own skates and some customers hired skates without paying to skate (at club sessions when a club had hired the rink and they needed skates for their club members). The hire of skates was therefore capable of being carved out from a single supply
  • A single “package” price is not determinative – in this case is it clear to the customer that they have freedom of choice and the components are available separately
  • Despite what HMRC said, it is clear that the skate hire is additional and optional
  • Neither supply is predominant and neither ancillary (as HMRC have previously accepted)
  • There was physical separation between the admission booth and the skate hire zone

The decision helpful included the following observations: “In our view… it is plain that in this case there are two supplies, a supply of the use of a skating rink and the supply of hire of ice skates. Neither is ancillary to the other as they both can be, and are, purchased on their own. Far from it being artificial to split the package into two, that is precisely what is in effect done in a substantial percentage of the appellant’s transactions with those using its facilities.” And “From the customers’ viewpoint a consumer of the package is getting the two things they want. The two elements are dissociable, not because of any spatial separation between the ticket office and the skate hire booth, but because that is the only appropriate way of looking at the supply of the elements.” And “…a substantial percentage of customers will choose to buy one or other of the element but not both, and that it is possible that the same customer may at one time buy a package and at another buy only one of the elements. Therefore it makes no sense to say that the elements are not dissociable when on a majority of the occasions that users enter the reception to use the rinks they choose only one of the two main elements, entry to the rink.”

 Commentary

A sensible decision based on the facts. There does not seem to be an end to these types of cases as the decision is always based on the unique facts of each situation. It is difficult, if not impossible, to draft legislation which covers every type of scenario. Consequently, case law is very important in this area and the lead cases of CPP and Levob are the most cited. This case further illustrates that HMRC are not always correct in reaching a conclusion on multiple/composite supply cases and there is usually value in challenging their determinations. I would also say, from experience, that a review of a business’ activities can often identify such contentious areas and as always, getting it wrong can either result in an assessment and penalties, or mean that a business is paying too much VAT – not something that sits easily with me!