Tag Archives: court

VAT – Proof of evidence of Intra-EC supplies

By Marcus Ward 23 September 2015

A B2B supply of goods from one Member State to another (a dispatch) is VAT free (with the recipient dealing with acquisition tax in the Member State of receipt). However, in order to VAT free treatment to apply evidence that the goods have moved cross-border must be provided and satisfy the authorities in the Member State of dispatch.

The level of evidence and type of documents required to support the right to VAT free treatment varies significantly between Member States. This has led to confusion and difficulties for businesses.

As a result the EC VAT Expert Group* have, this week, produced a paper (paper 46) named “‘Proof of evidence of Intra-EU supplies’” Here: 46 – Proof of IC Supplies

As well as identifying the wide discretion afforded to Member States as to the type of documents required, it notes that this discretion and lack of clarity often leads to disproportionate compliance burdens for businesses involved in the cross border supply of goods. This also results in the fundamental principle of fiscal neutrality and the free movements of goods being impaired.

In summary

The Group’s findings may be summarised:

Diversity of documentation

Most Member States rely on a myriad of documents which may not be listed in national legislation. Such diversity is a problem and may require businesses to provide documentary evidence that cannot be reasonably obtained. This practice does not reconcile with principles established by the ECJ. The paper adds that tax authorities tend to focus on certain formalities and not permit alternative evidence.

Local initiatives

The paper notes that based on Article 131 of the VAT Directive, and often in light of the fight against fraud, tax authorities are introducing local initiatives. The compatibility of these with the EC framework may be questioned and is causing increasing burdens and costs on legitimate taxpayers.

Importance given by tax authorities to the “knowledge test”

The paper considers that the level of demand from tax authorities to document intra-EC trade should not be upgraded because of fraud cases. Documentary evidence is of a type fraudsters would typically provide. The wide margin of interpretation left to tax authorities and judges regarding concepts such as “good faith” means that further guidance may be required. This, however, should not extend up to a requirement for suppliers to show evidence to authorities that their customers acted in good faith.

Diversity of practices; timing versus legal certainty

The diversity of approaches across EC Member States generates costs and increase risks for businesses operating in different Member States.

Conclusion

The paper considered some recent ECJ case law on cross-border transactions and concluded VAT free treatment should be granted to the supplier when:

1) It demonstrates that the transaction meets the substantive criteria of that provision, namely that it is entered into with another taxable person in a Member State other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods begins. This would be done with the supplier holding at least three non-contradictory documents or elements certifying the transport or dispatch to another Member State.

2) In this context, a reasonable customer assessment could be expected from taxpayers when tax authorities audit whether the transactions are taking place in the context of fraud and/or abuse.

Next Steps

It is recommended that new guidance could be adopted in an Implementing Regulation or an explanatory note to the relevant Articles in the VAT Directive could be prepared by the Commission.

It will be interesting to see if these recommendations are adopted. It would make life a lot more straightforward for businesses who trade cross-border in the EC. Although the UK has one of the most practical regimes in this respect, even genuine movements of goods from the UK can result in an unexpected and unwelcome VAT charge because of a lack of specific documentation.

* The VAT Expert Group assists and advises the European Commission on VAT matters. Details here

VAT- Is the Upper Tribunal bound by High Court decisions?

By Marcus Ward 6 May 2015

Upper Tribunal versus High Court

In the recent case of Meena Seddon Settlement which involved Inheritance Tax, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) was required to decide whether the Upper Tribunal is bound by decisions made in the High Court. The FTT decision will doubtless affect VAT cases in the future.

It decided to follow a precedent set by the Upper Tribunal over an earlier decision by the High Court.

The taxpayer contended that the matter should be decided on the basis of a previous High Court decision. HMRC argued on the basis of a later Upper Tribunal decision. In normal circumstances, a later decision should take precedence over the earlier if both decisions have the same authority and have fully considered the previous judgments. However, if the taxpayer was correct to say that the Upper Tribunal was bound by precedents set by the High Court, the later decision could be disregarded as being wrong in law.

The FTT decided that it was the intention of Parliament that the Upper Tribunal was not bound to follow High Court precedents. This was notwithstanding the fact that a High Court could have a supervisory role over the Upper Tribunal in cases of judicial review. Therefore, it determined the case on the authority of the later Upper Tribunal decision in favour of HMRC.

VAT Planning Overview – The Four “A”s

By Marcus Ward 23 March 2015

To a degree, VAT planning may be considered as something of an abstract concept. It may be straightforward, or very complex, but what does all successful VAT planning have in common? What process should be applied in order to get the right solution and to ensure that nothing is missed? Well this is my technique and it helps me to focus on what is necessary:

The planning process may be broken down into four distinct elements:

Planning process – The four As

Ascertainment
Analysis
Alternatives
Action

One must initially obtain all relevant information and consider the appropriate legislation, case law and HMRC documents etc – Ascertainment

In my experience, the most difficult part of this is obtaining all of the relevant information. It is not always clear if you have received everything available – so it is often difficult to establish what is relevant and what is not. The skill is asking the right questions of course. Any competent VAT adviser should be able to “get the answer” if (s)he has the full picture.

Then one must analyse the information – Analysis

Whether it is reading contracts closely, considering EC legislation, reviewing audit trails, searching case law, looking at documentation or carrying out calculations a full analysis is vital in the process of delivering accurate, useful and relevant advice.

The next step is to use the analysis to construct some various alternatives on how to proceed – Alternatives

The most appropriate solution may present itself immediately, or various structures may need to be considered in detail in order to find some workable alternatives. It is important not to miss anything at this point and to communicate properly with one’s client. Consideration is required of a client’s attitude to, inter alia; complexity, risk, time invested and tax in general in order to properly tailor VAT advice.

Finally, consideration is given to the alternatives and a decision made on what action to take – Action

This is another point at which good communication with one’s client is important. The client needs to understand the technicalities, the risks, the impact on business, the resources required etc in order to make an informed decision. A good adviser will also be aware of the appropriate level of assistance required with implementation. I also find it helps if the worst case scenario is explained in each alternative and the level of resistance form HMRC one is likely to encounter. I also always bear in mind that most people do not “speak VAT jargon”, spend their waking hours studying indirect tax legislation or reviewing VAT cases, so clear and straightforward English is needed! (Also, I find my diagrams and flowcharts created at meetings a help, even if just to amuse clients with my artistic skills!)

VAT – Compound or multiple supplies? Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 17 March 2015

In Colaingrove Limited the Upper Tribunal (UT) this week was required to decide whether the supply of electricity to a mobile home was an independent supply, or just one element of part of an overall supply of holiday accommodation.

This is a notoriously difficult area of VAT as the recent case of WM Morrison Supermarket Limited (“Morrisons”) demonstrates. In this case disposable barbecues (standard rated) were sold with charcoal (reduced rated when sold independently) and the UT decided that it was not possible to carve out the reduced rated element form the overall supply so the whole supply was standard rated.

In Colaingrove a flat-rate charge was made to holidaymakers who paid it as part of the hire charge for self-catering accommodation in mobile homes. The appellant argued that the electricity charge was separately identifiable and quantifiable and should consequently be treated as a reduced rated (5% rather than 20%) independent supply.

The logic in Morrisons was applied in this case and the UT ruled that the charge for the electricity should properly be included in the price of the standard rated holiday accommodation. The charge should not be split out, so the entire charge for the accommodation was standard rated, including the specified sum charged for the electricity.

The judge acknowledged that this case was not an easy one to decide and that the arguments advanced on behalf of the taxpayer were both powerful and attractive. It would seem likely that an appeal to the Court of Appeal will be made.

This case further illustrates that care must be taken when analysing the VAT treatment of supplies. There is significant case law on this matter, but there still remains a certain overlap and sometimes conflicting opinions. The precise facts of the matter are very important when determining whether supplies are compound or multiple for VAT purposes.

Overview

Whether there is a compound or multiple supply is determined by the tests set out in the Card Protection Plan case, namely; firstly, whether there is a principal element of the supply to which all other parts are ancillary and, secondly, whether, in the eyes of the customer, the ancillary element provides a means of better enjoying the principal element. If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then there is a single supply.

VAT – Are e-books books? Update on ECJ’s decision 5 March 2015

By Marcus Ward 5 March 2015

Books are zero rated for VAT purposes, but only (currently) if they are of the traditional dead tree variety. The zero rating does not extend to e-books which are standard rated for VAT. There has been a long standing argument between EC Member States (and between other interested parties) that similar content should not be taxed at different rates solely depending on the method of delivery. This argument is about to be tested in the courts. The UK is not permitted by the EC to extend its current zero rating for printed matter, however, it is expected that the contention in this case will be that the inclusion of new products will not extend the zero rating, but rather the development of technology has created a supply that should be covered by the existing zero rating legislation.

If it is accepted by the courts that all types of book should attract the same rate of VAT, it may mean that the rate will be equalised upwards. So, by the end of the year we could be looking at VAT of 5% being added to books, newspapers and other printed matter which was hitherto VAT free – A “tax on learning” as previous protests had it when there was a threat to tax free books.

UPDATE

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has today ruled that France and Luxembourg must raise their reduced VAT rates on sales of e-book. This will conclude ongoing disputes (see above) between EC countries over whether e-books may be treated similarly to printed books at the nil or reduced rates. The UK and Germany were the main protagonists in challenging those Member States where e-books have been treated the same as printed versions.

Initially, Luxembourg and France began reclassifying e-books at the same rate as printed books – 3% and 5.5% in 2012. Subsequently, Italy and Malta joined them at the start of 2015, reducing the rates to 4% and 5%.

These rates where challenged by the UK and Germany who asked the EC to impose rules to ensure that e-books could not take advantage of the printed book rates. Today, the ECJ published its ruling, stating that since e-books do not have the same physical characteristics as printed books and therefore cannot benefit from the printed book reduced VAT rules.

This decision does seem to go against common sense,but the ECJ’s hands were somewhat tied by the VAT rules which were introduced before e-books existed.

VAT Penalties: A Discussion Document by HMRC

By Marcus Ward 11 February 2015

A discussion document is seeking views by 11 May about potential improvements to how HMRC applies penalties for failing to pay what is owed or to meet deadlines for returns or registration.

As HMRC designs a tax system for the modern, digital world, it wants to ensure that its approach to penalties also keeps up to date with both technology and behavioural science. HMRC is considering whether and how it should differentiate between those who deliberately and persistently fail to meet administrative deadlines or to pay what they should on time, and those who make occasional and genuine errors for which other responses might be more appropriate.

HMRC is looking for feedback from individuals and businesses. The purpose of the discussion is to seek views on the policy design and any suitable possible alternatives, before consulting later on a specific proposal for reform.

I look at the main points below and identify where changes to the penalty system are most likely to be made.

The document may be accessed here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/400211/150130_HMRC_Penalties_a_Discussion_Document_FINAL_FOR_PUBLICATION__2_.pdf

Summary

In terms of Indirect Tax there are two main areas which HMRC is focussing on:

VAT default surcharge – HMRC highlights two issues with the current VAT default surcharge regime. The first is the concern that while the absence of penalty for the initial offence in a 12 month period gives business the chance to get processes right, some customers simply ignore this warning.

The second concern is the issue of proportionality which fails to distinguish between payments that are one or two days late or many months late.

Excise regulatory penalties – This also considers proportionality, noting that regulatory failures can lead to very large penalties, because the penalty is fixed as a percentage of the duty. The size of such penalties might be viewed as disproportionate.

The existing, long-standing default surcharge regime has always had issues with the principle of proportionality. The regime has been challenged in the Courts – notably in the Trinity Mirror Plc case (soon to be heard at the UT) where the earlier FTT allowed the appeal against a default surcharge on the grounds of proportionality.

If you would like assistance in making a representation please contact me.

The penalty regime….the dark side of VAT!

By Marcus Ward 9 February 2015

I have made a lot of references to penalties in my other articles. So what are they, and how much could they cost if a business gets it wrong?

HMRC detail three categories of inaccuracy. These are significant, as each has its own range of penalty percentages. If an error is found to fall within a lower band, then a lower penalty rate will apply. Where the taxpayer has taken ‘reasonable care,’ even though an error has been made, then usually HMRC will not apply a penalty.

Penalty Categories

– An error, when reasonable care not taken: 30%;

– An error which is deliberate, but not concealed: 70%;

– An error, which is deliberate and concealed: 100%.

Unhelpfully, there is no definition of ‘reasonable care’. However, HMRC have said that they would not expect the same level of knowledge or expertise from a self-employed person, as from a large multi-national. HMRC expect that, where an issue is unclear, advice is sought, and a record maintained of that advice. They also expect that, where an error is made, it is adjusted, and HMRC notified promptly. They have specifically stated that merely to adjust a return will not constitute a full disclosure of an error. Therefore a penalty may still be applicable.

The amount of the penalty is calculated by applying the appropriate penalty rate (above) to the ‘Potential Lost Revenue’ or PLR. This is essentially the additional amount of VAT due or payable, as a result of the inaccuracy, or the failure to notify an under-assessment. Special rules apply where there are a number of errors, and they fall into different penalty bands.

Defending a penalty

The percentage penalty may be reduced by a range of ‘defences:’

– Telling; this includes admitting the document was inaccurate, or that there was an under-assessment, disclosing the inaccuracy in full, and explaining how and why the inaccuracies arose;

– Helping; this includes giving reasonable help in quantifying the inaccuracy, giving positive assistance rather than passive acceptance, actively engaging in work required to quantify the inaccuracy, and volunteering any relevant information;

– Giving Access; this includes providing documents, granting requests for information, allowing access to records and other documents.

Further, where there is an ‘unprompted disclosure’ of the error, HMRC have power to reduce the penalty further. This measure is designed to encourage businesses to have their VAT returns reviewed.

A disclosure is unprompted if it is made at a time when a person had no reason to believe that HMRC have discovered or are about to discover the inaccuracy. The disclosure will be treated as unprompted even if at the time it is made, the full extent of the error is not known, as long as fuller details are provided within a reasonable time.

HMRC have included a provision whereby a penalty can be suspended for up to two years. This will occur for a careless inaccuracy, not a deliberate inaccuracy. HMRC will consider suspension of a penalty where, given the imposition of certain conditions, the business will improve its accuracy. The aim is to improve future compliance, and encourage businesses which genuinely seek to fulfil their obligations.

Appealing a penalty

HMRC have an internal reconsideration procedure. A business should apply to this in the first instance. If the outcome is not satisfactory, the business can pursue an appeal to the Tribunal. A business can appeal whether a penalty is applicable, the amount of the penalty, a decision not to suspend a penalty, and the conditions for suspension.

The normal time limit for penalties to four years. Additionally, where there is deliberate action to evade VAT, a 20 year limit applies. In particular, this applies to a loss of VAT which arises as a result of a deliberate inaccuracy in a document submitted by that person. These are just the penalties for making errors on VAT returns. HMRC have plenty more for anything from late registration to issuing the wrong paperwork.

Help

In my view there is generally a very good chance of success in a business challenging a penalty. Each case should at least be reviewed by an adviser, and experience insists that a robust defence often results in full or part mitigation. We have a very good track record in appealing HMRC decisions and have taken cases right up to High Court. However, most cases can be settled before they get to Tribunal, and indeed, the greatest chance of success is usually at the beginning of the process before HMRC become entrenched.

Crime doesn’t pay……..VAT? Is there tax on illegal activities?

By Marcus Ward 26 January 2015

A number of people have been surprised to find that crime does pay tax, thank you very much. It seems bad enough that the police should chase and catch you, put you in the dock and send you to prison, without finding that your first visitor is HMRC….

Dodgy perfume?

Goodwin & Unstead were in business selling counterfeit perfume. They were also up-front about what they were doing. Unstead claimed that “Everything I can carry in my vehicle, everything I trade in and sell, is a complete copy of the real thing. I do not sell goods as the real thing. In fact I sell my goods for a quarter of the original price. I am not out to defraud or con the public. I only appeal to the poseurs in life.”

The real manufacturers might have sued these men for passing off the product of their chemistry experiments in trademarked bottles, but it was HMRC who sent them to jail – for failing to register and pay VAT on their sales. The amount they should have collected was estimated at £750,000, which shows that they must have appealed to a great many poseurs.
.
If they had paid the VAT, Customs would have had no problem with them. Their customers must have been reasonably satisfied – if your counterfeit perfume smells something like the real thing, why worry?
They tried to get out of jail with an ingenious argument – if the sale of the perfume was illegal, surely there shouldn’t be VAT on it. It wasn’t legitimate business activity, so it wasn’t something that ought to be taxable. The European Court had no time for this. They pointed out that it would give lawbreakers an advantage over lawful businesses; they wouldn’t have to charge VAT. The judges suggested that maybe people would even deliberately break the law so they could get out of tax; in this case, the only thing that made the trade illegal was treading on someone’s trademark rights, and that was something that might happen at any time in legitimate businesses. The judges said that VAT would apply to any trade which competed in a legal marketplace, even if the particular sales broke the law for some reason. Counterfeit perfume is VATable because real perfume is too. Of course, Customs have traditionally had two main roles – looking for drug smugglers, and dealing with VAT-registered traders. They have generally treated both with much the same suspicion, but the ECJ made it clear in this case that the two sets of customers are completely separate.

“Personal” services?

Customers paid the escort £130, of which £30 was paid to the agency. VAT on £130 or VAT on £30?

The first hearing before the Tribunal went something like this (this may be using artistic licence, but the published summary implies it was so):

HMRC: “We think the VAT should be on £130 because the escorts are acting as agents of the escort business.”
Trader: “No, it’s just £30, the £100 belongs to the escort and is nothing to do with me.”
Tribunal chairman: “All right, tell me a bit about how the business operates.”
Customs: “No.”
Tribunal chairman: “What?”
Customs: “You don’t want to know.”
Tribunal chairman: “How can I decide whether the escorts are acting as agent or principals without knowing how the business operates?”
Customs: “Don’t go there, just give us a decision.”
Tribunal chairman: “Trader, you tell me how the business operates.”
Trader: “I agree with him, you don’t want to know.”
The Tribunal seems to have been a bit baffled by this. They were aware that Customs had a great deal more evidence which had been collected during the course of a thorough investigation, and they asked the parties to go away and decide whether they might let the Tribunal see a bit more of it so they could make a judgement rather than a guess.

What about drugs then?

It’s well-known that you are allowed to smoke dope in some establishments in Amsterdam, although the Dutch authorities are thinking about restricting this to Netherlands’ residents. They may find that such a rule contravenes the European Law on freedom of movement – under the EU treaty, you can’t be meaner to foreigners than you are to your own people just because they are foreign. That’s a nice idea, but individuals and governments keep trying it on. Anyway, the Coffeeshop Siberie rented space to drug dealers who would sell cannabis at tables for people to take advantage of the relaxed atmosphere. Presumably they are preparing to examine passports or local utility bills before making the sale, if only the Dutch are to be allowed to get stoned. Anyway, the Dutch authorities asked the coffee shop’s owners for VAT on the rent paid by the dealers, and the owners appealed to the ECJ. This time, surely, it was sufficiently illegal. Although the consumption of drugs was tolerated, it was still against the law, and it must therefore be not VATable.
The judges pointed out that the coffee shop was not actually selling drugs. They were just providing the space for other people to sell drugs. Although selling drugs was completely illegal, and there was no legitimate market in cannabis, renting space was a normal business activity. Renting space to someone who did something illegal with it was in the same category as the dodgy perfume sales in Goodwin & Unstead: it was a bit illegal, but not illegal enough. The VAT was still due.

Counterfeiting?
In a German case, the ECJ ruled that the importation of counterfeit money was outside the scope of VAT. The Advocate-General observed that a line must be drawn between, on the one hand, transactions that lie so clearly outside the sphere of legitimate economic activity that, instead of being taxed, they can only be the subject of criminal prosecution, and, on the other hand, transactions which though unlawful must nonetheless be taxed, if only for ensuring in the name of fiscal neutrality, that the criminal is not treated more favourably than the legitimate trader’.

So, there you have it, if you are of a criminal disposition, and you want to avoid VAT, funny money is the way to go. Please note, this does not constitute advice…..!

Holding companies in VAT groups and input tax recovery

By Marcus Ward 29 September 2014

Care must be taken when considering the recoverability of input tax incurred by a holding company.

In the past holding companies which were members of a VAT Group were treated in the same way as any other member of the group. As a result, input tax incurred by the holding company were recoverable by reference the the VAT group’s (as a whole) recovery position.

As a result of the recent Court of Appeal judgement in the case of BAA Ltd HMRC have announced an updated policy HERE

The revised policy is that that input tax is only recoverable by holding companies where it is incurred in the course of an economic activity and there is a direct and immediate link to taxable supplies, This means that a passive holding company cannot now rely solely on its membership of a VAT group to recover input tax. For recovery, the VAT must be incurred in respect of taxable supplies made by the holding company itself.

For information on the impacts on this change – please contact us.

Taxpayer loses in “TNT” claims lead case.

By Marcus Ward 9 July 2014

In the recent FTT case of Zipvit the court considered retrospective claims by businesses in cases where Royal Mail (and Parcelforce) had treated individually negotiated supplies of postage etc as exempt. In the previous ECJ case of TNT it was ruled that these services should have been standard rated. The claims (said to be over £1billion in total stood behind Zipvit) were made on the basis that recipients of these services could reclaim the VAT as input tax that should properly have been charged by the Royal Mail.
The three salient points where:

1. Where the supplies taxable? – On this point the court agreed with the taxpayer, the UK legislation must be read with the same restrictions as in the relevant EC Directive.
2. Was VAT due from, or paid by, the appellant? – Curiously, the judge did not agree with either party and stated that both had been labouring under a misapprehension. No further submissions were requested however, and on this point the appeal failed.
3. Lack of VAT invoice – Although HMRC have the discretion to accept alternative evidence to support an input tax claim, it was not obliged to. The FTT supported HMRC’s refusal and noted that there would, in any event, be a windfall for the applicant. The appeal was dismissed.

The judge commented that it was likely that this case would be appealed to a higher court.
If you have an appeal stood behind Zipvit, or have previously received exempt supplies from Royal Mail or Parcelforce in respect of individually negotiated contracts – please contact us for further information.