Tag Archives: construction

VAT: Interaction of Clawback and the Capital Goods Scheme – The Stichting Schoonzicht case

By Marcus Ward 10 March 2020

Latest from the courts

The difference between intended use and first actual use of an asset.

In the Dutch case of Stichting Schoonzicht (C‑791/18) the AG was asked to provide an opinion on the interaction between clawback and the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) via Directive 2006/112/EC, Articles 185 and 187. Details of the CGS here. In the UK clawback is set out in The General Regulations 1995, Reg 108.

Background

Stichting Schoonzicht constructed a number of apartments which it intended to sell on completion. This would have been a taxable supply and afforded full input tax recovery on the costs incurred on the development. Unfortunately, due to market conditions, the business was unable to find buyers at the appropriate sale price. Therefore, a decision was made to let some of the flats on a short-term basis until the market picked up. This was done and created an exempt supply. The intention to make taxable supplies remained, but in the meantime, exempt supplies had actually been made. This could affect the original input tax claim. Details of partial exemption here.

Technical

The Dutch referring court entertained doubts about the compatibility of the ‘first-use full adjustment’ requirement provided for under Netherlands law and the CGS.

So the issue was whether the CGS (Article 187 of the VAT Directive) applied such that any required adjustments to the initial input tax claim could be made via a CGS calculation, or whether, as the Dutch authorities contended, there should be a one-off clawback of the input tax previously claimed.

Decision

In the AG’s opinion, the Dutch tax authorities could clawback 4/7 of the input tax on the construction (as four of the flats were let and three remained unoccupied). The AG decided that the CGS could co-exist with clawback and that EU Member States are allowed to adjust the initial deduction of input tax using clawback where actual use varies from intended use. A distinction was made between clawback and the CGS. The CGS is intended to adjust input tax claims as a result of fluctuations in the taxable use of capital assets over a period of time (ten years for buildings in the UK).

Commentary

In the UK, there are published easements for input tax recovery in similar circumstances: “VAT: Partial Exemption – adjustments when house builders let their dwellings”. However, this is an interesting AG opinion, is worth a read and it will be interesting to see how this develops. However, with prior planning, this situation may be avoided in the UK (where new house sales are zero rated).

VAT: Issue of zero-rating certificate – The Westow Cricket Club case

By Marcus Ward 18 December 2019

Issue an incorrect certificate to obtain zero rated building work at your peril! Don’t get caught out – A warning.

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Westow Cricket Club (WCC) the appeal was against a penalty levied by HMRC for issuing a certificate to a contractor erroneously under The VAT Act 1994, Section 62 (1).

Background

WCC was an entity run by volunteers but was not a charity, although it was a Community Amateur Sports Club (“CASC”). It decided to build a new pavilion and wished to take advantage of certain zero rating which was available for the construction of a building that the

“…organisation (in conjunction with any other organisation where applicable) will use the building, or the part of the building, for which zero-rating is being sought …..solely for

a relevant charitable purpose, namely by a charity in either or both of the following ways:

….(b) As a village hall or similarly in providing social or recreational facilities for a local community.”

– Public Notice 708 para 14.7.1.

To ensure that the issue of such a certificate was appropriate, the appellant wrote to HMRC giving details about the building project and seeking guidance on the zero rating of supplies to WCC in the course of the construction of the pavilion. The response was important in this case as WCC sought to rely on it as a reasonable excuse. Part or the reply stated:

“HM Revenue & Customs policy prevents this Department from providing a definitive response where we believe that the point is covered by our Public Notices or other published guidance, which, in this case, I believe it is. In view of the above, please refer to section 16 of Public Notice 708 Buildings and construction. This explains when you can issue a certificate. Section 17 includes the certificates. Furthermore, I would refer you to sub-paragraph 14.7.4 which covers what is classed as a village hall or similar building. Providing the new pavilion meets the conditions set out, and it appears to do so, the construction work will be zero-rated for VAT purposes…”

Decision

Regrettably, the FTT found that, despite HMRC’s letter expressing a ‘non definitive’ view; which was wrong, this was insufficient to provide reasonable excuse and could not be relied upon. The FTT made references to the fact that the club was not a charity and could not therefore issue the certificate. Consequently, the 100% penalty was applicable and not disproportionate (the penalty imposed is nothing more than the VAT that would have been paid by any other CASC seeking to build a pavilion incurring a vatable supply of a similar sum).

Commentary

HMRC was criticised for potentially leaving taxpayers in ‘no man’s land’ by expressing a view whilst at the same time saying that this was not a definitive response. This is a common tactic used by HMRC and one which many commentators, including myself, have criticised.

Tribunal’s unease

The judge commented that he trusted that HMRC will take note of his concerns and if this is a matter of policy to revisit it in light of the comments made in this decision. Let us hope HMRC listens. It is also an important case for charities (and others) to note when considering if they are able to obtain the construction of buildings VAT free. This is not a straightforward area, and the penalty for getting it wrong is clearly demonstrated here.

Always get proper advice – and don’t rely on vague rulings from HMRC!

VAT: Input tax claim – business or personal? The Taylor Pearson (Construction) Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 3 December 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Taylor Pearson (Construction) Ltd (TPCL) First Tier Tribunal (FFT) case the issue was whether input tax incurred on professional fees in respect of tax planning and the issue of new (E Class) shares to directors was for business purposes or for the benefit of the directors in their personal capacity.

Background

The overall issue in this appeal was whether the company was entitled to deduct input VAT in relation to services provided by tax advisers as to how the company might reduce its tax and NIC liabilities in rewarding its directors and reduce the income tax liabilities of the directors. There are two specific issues:

Whether the services supplied were used for the purpose of the company’s business within the meaning of VATA 1994, section 24.
Whether the services supplied do not have a direct and immediate link with taxable output supplies because they have a direct and immediate link with exempt supplies, being the issue of share capital in the company.

HMRC argued that this appeal is similar to Customs and Excise Commissioners v Rosner [1994] STC 228 and Finanzamt Köln-Nord v Becker (Case C-104/12) in which input VAT incurred in defending the sole trader or individual employees personally, in criminal proceedings entirely unconnected to the business, was held not to be deductible.

Another issue, which was dealt with fairly perfunctory, was whether the issue of new shares was a supply for VAT purposes to which an element of the input tax could be attributed. As per the Kretztechnik ECJ case and subsequent HMRC guidance – the issue of shares was not a supply and the company was entitled to recover the associated input tax to the extent that its business activities generated taxable supplies (business of making supplies of construction goods and services in TPCL’s case).

Decision

In respect of whether the expenditure was for the benefit of the business, the judge stated that “...The advice in question was provided to the company and although the directors were significant beneficiaries of the arrangements that was entirely in their capacity as directors and employees of the company and not in any personal capacity.”

Further:

“…HMRC argued that the incentivisation of employees did not have a direct and immediate link with the purposes of the business I do not consider that this argument has any merit whatsoever and do not understand why HMRC put it forward. This concerns me.”

It is no wonder that the judge commented on this. This appeal was completely on all fours with the FTT case of Doran Bros (London) which HMRC did not appeal.

Consequently, it was decided that:

the services were used for the purposes of the company’s business, and
they did not have a direct and immediate connection with the issue of share capital.

The appeal was therefore allowed.

Commentary

It was a surprising decision by HMRC to take this to FTT. Case law in respect of Kretztechnik is well established and the purpose to which the funds created by a new share issue were put appears irrelevant. I also find it difficult to see how HMRC could ignore Doran Bros which was very clear and on all fours with this case, while referencing cases in which companies defended its directors against accusations of wrongdoings. In this case, the business purpose was to reward and incentivise TPCL’s directors.

This can be a difficult area of the tax and HMRC’s approach in this case demonstrates that it is prepared take these cases as far as possible. It is nearly always the case that VAT incurred on expenditure which is designed to increase staff morale and performance is a business expense.

VAT: Property and construction – amended HMRC guidance

By Marcus Ward 15 November 2019

HMRC has issued a new Buildings and Construction VAT Notice 708.

The changes

The changes are:

paragraph 1.5 has been included to indicate ‘force of law’
paragraph 2.1.1 has been removed (and subsequent paragraphs re-numbered), because it is no longer applicable
paragraph 3.2.4 provides new information for facades
paragraph 3.3.7 has been amended to remove the Extra-Statutory Concession for connecting utilities to existing buildings
paragraphs 6, 8.3.4 and 8.4 have been reworded to improve clarification
paragraph 14.7.1 has been amended following changes in the Finance Act 2010

Help

Please contact us if you have any queries on the complex areas of; land, buildings or construction.

VAT: ‘Intention’ – The Euro Beer case

By Marcus Ward 7 October 2019

Latest from the courts, the Euro Beer Distribution Ltd First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case.

The intention of a taxpayer is extremely important for a number of reasons. It is relevant where:

a VAT registration is requested
input tax is claimed
and in this case; whether deregistration is compulsory

Broadly, immediate action is dependent upon whether a business intends to make taxable supplies in the future. This intention dictates whether registration is possible, whether input tax may be claimed, and whether a business may remain VAT registered. Even if a business has the intention to make taxable supplies, it is sometimes difficult to evidence this to HMRC’s satisfaction.

Background

Euro Beer was in the business of importing and selling alcoholic drinks. It had been in business since 2004 and was also approved and registered as an owner of duty suspended goods under the Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999.

Technical

HMRC compulsorily deregistered Euro Beer via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, para 13 (2) on the grounds that it believed that the appellant had ceased making taxable supplies. Nil returns had been submitted since 2016 and, after enquires, formed the view that there was no intention to make supplies in the future.

Euro Beer contended, unsurprisingly, that there was an intention to make taxable supplies in the future such that continued VAT registration was appropriate. Additionally, the reason for the nil returns was simply, at that time, business had dried up. The appellant provided limited evidence to support its intention. This comprised; emails between the directors and third-party contacts.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed and Euro Beer’s VAT deregistration (and revocation of approval from the Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999) was confirmed as appropriate.

Commentary

This was hardly a surprising decision and one wonders why it got to court. It does, however, emphasise the importance of the concept of intention. This can be a subjective matter and HMRC place significant weight on documentary evidence. There is no question in law that HMRC must register/maintain registration/repay input tax if it is satisfied that there is a business which does not make taxable supplies but ‘intends to make such supplies in the course or furtherance of that business’ – VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, para 9 (b). However, ensuring HMRC is satisfied is often problematic.

This is specifically difficult in the area of land and property. VAT registration and the associated input tax claims of a property developer is often the source of disputes. It is important to differentiate between an intention, and what actually happens. Often business plans change, or the original intention is not fulfilled. In such cases, there is a mechanism for repaying input tax claimed (VAT Gen regs 1995 reg 108) but this is only applicable in certain circumstances. The case of Merseyside Cablevision Ltd (MAN/85/327, VTD 2419) demonstrates that if an intention to make taxable supplies is thwarted, input tax claimed is not clawed back (a person who carries on activities which are preparatory to the carrying on of a business is to be treated as in business and is a taxable person).

It should be noted that a business does not have to specify a date by which it expects to make taxable supplies, or to estimate the value of them.

The lesson is; to document every business decision made:

board minutes, emails, business plans, letters etc
retain all correspondence with; third-parties
provide written advice from legal advisers, accounts etc
invoices demonstrating expenditure in respect of a new venture are persuasive
budgets and considered estimates can be of use
retain all advertising media, offers, promotions and other publicity.

Clearly for land and property additional; planning permission, land registry details, plans, surveys, fees, etc will build up a picture that there is an intention to make taxable supplies.

These are just examples and different business may have alternative evidence.

In commercial terms, it will be difficult for HMRC to be unsatisfied if a business is incurring costs in relation to a project – why would they devote time/staff/advisers/financial resources to something when there is no intention of deriving income?

One final point on the Euro Beer case. The judge stated; ‘an intention to make supplies requires more than a mere hope to be in a position to make supplies at some unspecified time in the future’. It is not enough for a business to ‘generally’ state that there is an intention.

VAT: Domestic Reverse Charge for builders – introduction delayed

By Marcus Ward 9 September 2019

As you were…

The UK Government has announced that it is to delay the introduction of the VAT Domestic Reverse Charge (DRC) for construction businesses by a year after a coalition of trade bodies and organisations highlighted its potentially damaging consequences. Details of DRC here

The DRC was due to come into force from 1st October this year, but it has been announced via Revenue and Customs Brief 10 (2019): domestic reverse charge VAT for construction services – delay in implementation that it has been deferred for a year. The new implementation date will be 1 October 2020 unless there are further delays.

The move has been welcomed by all parties affected by the rules and HMRC said that it was committed to working closely with the sector to raise awareness and provide additional guidance to make sure all businesses will be ready for the new implementation date.

Invoices etc

HMRC have also recognised that some businesses have already put changes in place to anticipate the original introduction date and appreciate that it may not be possible to reverse these changes before 1 October 2019. Where “genuine errors” have occurred, HMRC has stated that it will take into account the late change in its implementation date.

Comments

The Chief Executive of the Federation of Master Builders said “I’m pleased that the government has made this sensible and pragmatic decision to delay reverse charge VAT until a time when it will have less of a negative impact on the tens of thousands of construction companies across the UK. To plough on with the October 2019 implementation could have been disastrous given that the changes were due to be made just before the UK is expected to leave the EU, quite possibly on ‘no-deal’ terms.” The situation hasn’t been helped by the poor communication and guidance produced by HMRC. Despite the best efforts of construction trade associations to communicate the changes to their members, it’s concerning that so few employers have even heard of reverse charge VAT.”

It has been stated by certain trade bodies that more than two-thirds of construction firms had not heard of the VAT changes and of those who had, around the same number had not prepared for them. My own experience backs this up and talking to other tax people and building businesses it is clear that this is not an issue which has been publicised widely and despite accountancy firms doing their best to bring it to the attention of relevant clients and contacts, many remain unaware.

Commentary

Discussions over Brexit (obviously!) have been blamed for the situation, although there is no word about why HMRC waited until a month before the intended implication to decide to delay the DRC. A lot of work has been carried out on this matter, and changes to documentation, processing and systems have taken place which will need to be reversed before 1 October 2019. At least the delay will provide HMRC with a new chance to let affected parties know next time and gives them time to identify why so many building businesses were unaware of the reverse charge.

Whether the DRC IS introduced next year remains to be seen. To my mind, it does not deal with the major sources of tax leakage in the construction industry and, as usual, complaint business will play by the book and those that do not will find a way round the rules. To exclude labour only services appears to be a folly. Perhaps they will be amended before next year.

VAT: Land and property quiz – Answers

By Marcus Ward 1 August 2019

The “fun” quiz.

The important thing to consider is what the purchaser does, or intends to do, with the land once purchased. This will dictate the input tax recovery position. So, can the input tax be recovered? Answers to quiz questions in the 26 July 2019 post below

Answers

On the purchased land the person constructs:

a dwelling and supplies the house on a 25-year lease

Yes

The lease is 21 years or over, so it is zero rated. However, a lease under 21 years would be an exempt so no recovery. For more details

an office and uses it for his own business supplying FS to a client in China

Yes

However, if the FS supply had been to the UK or another EU Member State, the supply would be exempt so no input tax recovery. This may change in the event of a No-Deal Brexit.

a storage facility and a fully taxable company leases it to another company in the same partly exempt VAT group after opting to tax

Unlikely to be full input tax recovery as the VAT group is itself partly exempt. The Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) may apply.

a block of ten flats with a gym and swimming pool which tenants are entitled to use. Grants 99 years leases on all flats

Yes

The supply is zero rated, notwithstanding there are additional (to usual residential dwellings) facilities.

a dwelling but uses it for short term holiday lets of no more than a fortnight.

Yes

Holiday lets are standard rated, so the business would be taxable. The purchaser would need to VAT register, however.

a warehouse which is sold on completion but without an option to tax being made before the sale

Yes

A ‘new” commercial building (one under three years old) is mandatorily standard rated, so no option to tax is required.

the land is held with the intention of constructing dwellings at some time in the future, which could be over six years

Yes

As long as the intention remains, and can be evidenced, the input tax may be attributed to the future taxable, zero rated, supply.

a factory which is not subjected to an option to tax but is leased to an US company

The place of supply (POS) is the UK as this is where the immovable property is located, regardless of the status of the client. Consequently, this is an exempt supply with no right to input tax recovery.

a block of three flats which are rented for six months before freehold sale

No, or maybe, or yes

The initial supply is exempt, so the input tax is, preliminarily, attributed to the short term lets. However, a simplified form of the partial exemption de minimis limits may be used and, depending on the scale of the development, it is possible that some, or all, of the input tax may be recovered despite the initial exempt supplies.

a sport hall by a school Academy which is leased to sporting charities and also used for its own educational purposes. No option to tax

It would be unlikely that an Academy would be able to recover all the input tax. Because it would make (exempt) business supplies, this would fall outside the VAT Act 1994, Section 33 rules, so there would be no input tax recovery in respect of those activities. There would be an apportionment and only the input tax referable to own use would be recoverable as those supplies of education would be non-business. If the Academy opted to tax the facilities (and was VAT registered), the input tax would be recoverable in full. No input tax referable to business use would be possible if the Academy was using VAT126 claims. VAT and Academies

a manufacturing plant which a company rents to a connected (non-VAT grouped) party which makes and sells toys. The option is taken

Yes

As the connected party is fully taxable the anti-avoidance rules do not apply. If the connected party was not able to recover the VAT charged to it (say it made exempt supplies) the anti-avoidance legislation would kick in and the option would be disapplied, meaning that the input tax in the hands of the developer would not be recoverable.

a car showroom and offices which a company uses for its own business of selling cars, providing finance and brokering insurance

There would be mixed use; car sales are taxable, finance and insurance are exempt, so some of the input tax would probably not be recoverable (dependent upon the de minimis limits). The development would be an overhead of the business. It is likely that the property would be an item covered by the CGS.

a care home for the elderly which a company uses for that purpose

This likely be an exempt supply, so no input tax recovery on supplies which are properly VATable. There may be reliefs on construction costs, however.

a small cabin office and the remaining land is used for a forestry business which will have no sales for ten years (when the trees are grown)

Yes

Although the intended taxable supplies are some way off, as long as the intention can be evidenced, the input tax may be recovered when incurred as it will relate to those intended taxable transactions. If the intention changes, this may impact the initial recovery. More information

a residential block which is immediately transferred to an associated company (an arm’s length transaction) on completion. No tenants are in situ.

Yes

The transfer of the freehold triggers the zero rating. The associated company may then, if it chooses, make exempt supplies without a VAT cost. This type of planning can be very helpful.

So there we have it. How did you get on? I would say that any score over eight is very good.

VAT: Brexit – Intending Trader registration for overseas businesses

By Marcus Ward 14 June 2019

With the continuing uncertainty over a No-Deal Brexit, which appears to be a more likely prospect given recent political events, HMRC has made a statement on the process of registering non-UK EU businesses as intending traders in the UK.

Background

What is an intending trader?

An intending trader is a person who, on the date of the registration request:

is carrying on a business
has not started making taxable supplies
has an intention to make taxable supplies in the future

If the business satisfies HMRC of its intention, HMRC must VAT register it. VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, 9 (b). It is, in some cases, difficult to convince that there is a genuine intention to make taxable supplies. This often comes down to documentary evidence.

Why do overseas businesses need to register as intending traders?

In the event of a No-deal Brexit, it is assumed that the EU VAT simplification that relieves the current obligation to be registered in the UK will no longer available. As a consequence, the EU supplier will itself become responsible for accounting for VAT on sales deemed to be made in the UK. In order to do this, the business will require a UK VAT registration. As the simplification is in place until Brexit, the registration will be required the very day after the UK leaves the EU – currently 1 November 2019.

Therefore, many EU businesses have applied for UK VAT registration as intending traders. That is, they do not currently make supplies, but intend to in the future (from 1 November 2109).

The issue

The Chartered Institute of Taxation has reported that businesses applying for intending trader registrations are experiencing difficulties with the process.

In response, HMRC have stated:

“Businesses in the position you have described can register for VAT using the Advanced Notification facility, by registering online requesting a voluntary registration from an advanced date of 1 November 2019. In the ‘business activity’ section they should enter trade class/SIC code 99000 European Community. In the free text box they should describe accurately what the business does and ensure there is a positive amount entered in the ‘taxable turnover in the next 12 months’ box. If this is not done the application will be rejected. This information will enable the VAT Registration Team (VRT) to identify and actively manage any registration that is conditional on the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

If there is a change to the date of withdrawal from the EU, the VRT will amend the Advanced Notification date to match this new date. If the UK enters a transitional period or agrees a deal with the EU that allows current arrangements to continue then the registration will be cancelled. The approval of an Advanced Notification registration in these circumstances is only made as a contingency for the UK leaving the EU without a deal and the VAT number may not be used unless that happens. The business will receive an automated notification of an Advanced Notification VAT Registration and the VRT may follow this up with a manual letter to further explain the conditions and both.

With the UK having agreed an extension to the date of withdrawal from the EU, we would not expect businesses to use this facility until closer to the 1st November.”

It is clearly prudent for overseas businesses which make certain supplies in the UK to properly prepare for a No-Deal Brexit. However, experience insists that many have not identified or made provisions for this outcome.

We are able to assist and advise other EU Member State businesses on this process.

VAT: Holiday Lets – don’t get caught out

By Marcus Ward 14 June 2019

Further to the usual complexity with VAT and property, I have been increasingly asked about the VAT position of holiday lets, so this is a timely piece on the subject.

All residential letting is exempt… except holiday lets, which are standard rated at 20%. So, what is the difference? A house is a house, but the VAT treatment depends on how the property is advertised or “held out”.

If a property is held out for holiday accommodation, then the rental income is taxable.

What is holiday accommodation?

Holiday accommodation includes, but is not restricted to; any house, flat, chalet, villa, beach hut, tent, caravan or houseboat. Accommodation advertised or held out as suitable for holiday or leisure use is always treated as holiday accommodation. Also, increasingly, it is common for farms and estates to have cottages and converted barns within their grounds, which are exploited as furnished holiday lets so this use must be recognised for VAT purposes. Residential accommodation that just happens to be situated at a holiday resort is not necessarily holiday accommodation.

This treats holiday lets the same way as; hotels, inns and B&B were VAT applies, which is fair.

Off-season lettings

If holiday accommodation is let during off-season, it should be treated as exempt from VAT provided it is let as residential accommodation for more than 28 days and holiday trade in the area is clearly seasonal.

What does this mean?

If the letting business exceeds the VAT registration threshold, currently £85,000, it must register for VAT. This usually means that either the business would lose a sixth of its income to HMRC or its letting fees would increase by 20% – which is not usually an option in a particularly price sensitive market. The only upside to registration is that VAT incurred on costs relating to the letting (input tax) would be recoverable. This may be on expenditure such as; agents’ fees, maintenance, refurbishments, laundry, websites and advertising etc.

Agents

If a property owner provides a property to a holiday letting agent and the agent itself provides the letting directly to the end users, this does not avoid the standard rating, even if the agent pays a guaranteed rent to the freeholder. This can catch some property owners out.

Sale of the property

When the owner sells the property, although it may have been used for standard rated purposes, the sale is usually treated as exempt. However, zero rating may be available for the first sale or long lease if it is a new dwelling with no occupancy restrictions. The sale of a “pure” holiday property is likely to be standard rated if it is less than three years old. To add to the complexity, it is also possible that the sale may qualify as a VAT free Transfer Of A Going Concern (TOGC). These are important distinctions because they determine, not only if VAT is chargeable, but, if the sale is exempt, there is usually a clawback of input tax previously claimed, potentially visa the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS).

Overseas properties

A final point: please do not forget overseas property lets. My article here sets out the tax risks.

Summary

There are a lot of VAT pitfalls for a business providing holiday lettings. But for a single site business, unless the property is large or very high end, it is likely that the income will below £85,000 and VAT can be ignored. However, it is important to monitor income and costs to establish whether:

registration is required
registration is beneficial (usually, but not exclusively, for major refurbishment projects).

As always, please contact me if you, or your clients, have any queries.

VAT: Domestic reverse charge for building services – Latest

By Marcus Ward 12 June 2019

The new domestic reverse charge for building and construction services will be introduced on 1 October 2019. Details here

HMRC have now published comprehensive guidance which appears to cover all scenarios (but almost certainly there will be transactions which will produce disputes).

Brief Overview

The domestic reverse charge is a major change to the way VAT is collected in the building and construction industry.

It means the customer receiving the service will have to pay VAT to HMRC instead of paying the supplier.

It will only apply to individuals or businesses registered for VAT in the UK.

This will affect a business if it supplies specified services reported under the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS). A business will need to prepare for the change by:

checking whether the reverse charge affects either sales, purchases or both
informing regular clients or suppliers
ensuring a business’ accounting systems and software are updated to deal with the reverse charge
considering whether the change will have an impact on cashflow

The reverse charge does not apply if the service is zero rated or if the customer is not registered for VAT in the UK. It also does not apply to services which are supplied to end users or intermediaries connected with end users. More details here.

Please contact us if you have any queries.