Tag Archives: court

VAT: Charging EVs ruled to be goods not services

By Marcus Ward 24 April 2023

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) it was ruled that electric vehicle charging via public charging points, was a supply of goods, regardless that some elements of the supply were services, ie; access technical support, reservation of a charging point, and a parking space while charging. The overriding supply was the provision of electricity which is classified as goods.

The full P. In W. case here.

It is unlikely that the UK authorities will form a different view.

Although in most cases there is unlikely to be a significant difference, although there could be issues with the time of supply (tax point).

VAT: Was an option to tax valid? The Rolldeen Estates Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 18 April 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Rolldeen Estates Ltd there were a number of issues, inter alia; whether the appellant’s option to tax (OTT) was valid, if not, whether HMRC had the power to deem it valid, whether HMRC acted unreasonably and whether appellant estopped from relying on earlier meeting with an HMRC officer.

Background

The letting of property is an exempt supply, however, a landlord the owner can OTT the property and charge VAT on that supply. If the OTT is exercised, the supplier is able to reclaim input VAT on costs such as repairs and maintenance, but charges output VAT on its supplies. The OTT provisions are set out at The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10.

The appellant in this case had previously submitted an OTT form VAT1614A and charged VAT on the rent to its tenant. Subsequently, the property was sold without charging VAT. HMRC issued an assessment for output tax on the sale value.

Schedule 10

A taxpayer does not need HMRC’s permission to OTT, unless that person has already made exempt supplies in relation to that property – in particular, if the property has already been let without VAT having been charged. In that scenario, the person must apply to HMRC for permission to exercise the OTT, and permission will only be given if HMRC are satisfied that the input tax is fairly attributed as between the exempt period and the taxable period. When OTT the company stated that no previous exempt supplies of the relevant property had been made and this was also confirmed in subsequent correspondence with HMRC.

Appellant’s contentions

The company informed HMRC that the OTT was invalid so that no VAT was due on the sale. Evidence was provided which demonstrated that Rolldeen had made exempt supplies before the date of the OTT so that HMRC’s permission had therefore been required before it could be opted. No permission had been given and therefore there was no valid OTT in place even though the appellant had purported to exercise that option. Also, the appellant submitted that it was unreasonable of HMRC to have exercised the discretion to deem the OTT to have effect, because they had failed to take into account the fact that during an inspection, HMRC had known that Rolldeen had made exempt supplies before OTT.

HMRC’s view

VATA, Schedule 10, para 30 allows HMRC retrospectively to dispense with the requirement for prior permission, and to treat a “purported option as if it had instead been validly exercised”. HMRC issued a decision stating that it was exercising its discretion under Schedule 10, para 30 to treat the relevant property as opted with effect from the date of the VAT1614A and that VAT was due on the sale and the assessment was appropriate.

Decision

The FTT found that:

after an inspection by HMRC it knew that prior exempt supplies had been made
although HMRC knew exempt supplies had already been made Rolldeen was estopped* from relying on that fact, because both parties had shared a “common assumption” that the OTT had been valid
para 30 could be used to retrospectively validate the OTT (albeit only in relation to supplies made after 1 June 2008). In this case that was sufficient as the sale of the property occurred on in March 2015
HMRC had not acted unreasonably because they had not taken into account their own failure to carry out a compliance check
this is exactly the sort of situation for which para 30 was designed
it was entirely reasonable and appropriate of HMRC to deem the purported option to have been validly exercised

The appeal was rejected and the assessment was valid.

Commentary

Again, proof, if proof is needed, that OTT can be a complex and costly area of the tax and care must always be taken. Advice should always be sought, as once an OTT is made, there is usually no going back.

An interesting point in this case was that no case law was cited on this issue and the FTT was unable to identify any.

* The principle of “estoppel” means that a person may be prevented from relying on a particular fact or argument in certain circumstances.

VAT: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) new guidance

By Marcus Ward 14 February 2023

HMRC has published an updated Internal Manual which provides guidance on the ADR mechanism. I have written about this in detail here.

What is ADR?

ADR is the involvement of a third party (a facilitator) to help resolve disputes between HMRC and taxpayers. It is mainly used by SMEs and individuals for VAT purposes, although it is not limited to these entities. Its aim is to reduce costs for both parties (the taxpayer and HMRC) when disputes occur and to reduce the number of cases that reach statutory review and/or Tribunal. The facilitator is impartial and independent and aims to assist both parties in resolving the tax dispute.

Changes

The changes are mainly in connection with disagreements about whether a case is suitable for ADR. These include cases where requests have been made for ADR, for example:

requests from taxpayers for ADR where the HMRC decision is that the case is not suitable for ADR
requests from taxpayers for ADR where some of the HMRC case team believe the case is unsuitable, but other members of the team believe the case may be suitable
referrals from HMRC for complex or sensitive cases where they would like to offer ADR to the taxpayer

An ADR Panel, which consists of senior personnel from HMRC, will consider requests for ADR in circumstances where there is uncertainty about the suitability of a case for ADR. The ADR Panel will aim to provide assurance that applications by taxpayers in the most complex or potentially contentious cases for ADR are properly assessed and that decisions are consistent and principled.

VAT: TOMS – negative margin permitted? The Square case

By Marcus Ward 31 January 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of The Squa.re Limited (TSL) the issue was whether unsold inventory or inventory sold at a loss could affect the calculation of the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS).

Background

TSL provided serviced apartments to travellers. The company leased accommodation from the owners of the properties who were frequently, if not exclusively, private individuals who were not registered for VAT.

These leases were often for an extended period, eg; annual leases, such that the appellant is committed under the terms of the lease even where the accommodation cannot then be on supplied or not supplied for a profit.

The Issue

The issue was whether TOMS operated in such a way as to permit a negative calculation resulting in repayment to the appellant. HMRC issued an assessment because, while they accepted that there may be a zero margin on a TOMS supply, they considered that a negative margin was not permitted by the scheme. TSL maintained that a repayment of overdeclared output tax was appropriate if a loss was made (an “overall negative margin”) as TOMS does not exclude the possibility of a negative margin.

The dispute between the parties was a technical one only and concerned the interpretation of the statutory provisions implementing TOMS into UK law.

Legal

The domestic implementation of the TOMS is authorised by The Value Added Tax Act 1994, Section 53 and found in Value Added Tax (Tour Operators’) Order 1987 (SI1987/1806). Guidance is provided via Notice 709/5 and Sections 8 to 13 have the force of law.

Decision

The Tribunal determined that it was clear from the legislation that the taxable amount is concerned with the supply made, and not the VAT incurred on the various cost components. Under normal VAT accounting the output tax charged on supplies is calculated by reference to the consideration received by the supplier from the customer. There can realistically be no concept of negative consideration.

The FTT considered that there is no basis inherent within TOMS which would permit a calculation of a negative sum. There had been a supply (of a designated travel service) for a consideration, and it is the taxable amount of that supply which was to be determined. A negative taxable amount is a “conceptual impossibility”. A negative margin arises as a consequence of a lack of profitability, but VAT is a transaction tax and not a tax on profit.

When sold at a loss where the total calculation resulted in a negative margin the annual sum due by way of output tax would be nil (not a repayment).

Where the accommodation is not sold at all, the FTT noted that this cost represented a cost of doing business but, on the basis that there has been no onward supply, there is no supply which meets the definition of a designated travel service. The relevant accommodation is not for the direct benefit of any traveller so there is no supply and TOMS is irrelevant.

Whilst the FTT considered that were it the case that identified costs incurred in buying in goods and services which are not then the subject of an onward supply should be excluded from TOMS calculations, costs associated with the block booking of accommodation of the type incurred by TSL were to be included. Where such costs exceed the value obtained by onward supply, the negative margin forms part of the annual calculation. However, where the global calculation results in a negative margin the tax due for the year under TOMS is nil and there was no basis for a repayment to TSL.

There was no basis on which to permit an overall TOMS negative margin and the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Another demonstration of the complexities of TOMS and the potential pitfalls.

It may be useful to note that input tax claims are not permitted in TOMS calculations, however, any VAT incurred on any bought in, but unsold, services would not be excluded from recovery as there is no TOMS supply. The input tax on unsold inventory was a general cost of doing business and, as such, recoverable in the normal way. Consequently, there may be circumstances for businesses using TOMS where input tax incurred on unsold elements may be claimed outside of TOMS

VAT: Is the supply of football pitches an exempt right over land? The Netbusters case.

By Marcus Ward 11 November 2020

Latest from the courts.

In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Netbusters (UK) Limited the issue was whether the supply was the standard rated provision of sporting facilities, or an exempt right over land.

Background

Netbusters organised football and netball leagues and provided the playing facilities (artificial pitches for football and courts for netball). The hire of the facilities was for a defined period of time and no other party had the right to access the pitches during those times. The hire could be a block, or one-off booking. The appellant contended that the supplies were exempt via VAT Act 1994, Sch 9, Group 1 – “The grant of any interest in or right over land or of any licence to occupy land…” However, item 1 Note (para m) excludes the “the grant of facilities for playing any sport or participating in any physical recreation” in which case they become standard rated. To add complexity, Note 16 overrides the exception for sporting facilities (so they are exempt) if the grant of the facilities is for:

“(a) a continuous period of use exceeding 24 hours; or
(b) a series of 10 or more periods, whether or not exceeding 24 hours in total, where the following conditions are satisfied—
(i) each period is in respect of the same activity carried on at the same place;
(ii) the interval between each period is not less than one day and not more than 14 days;
(iii) consideration is payable by reference to the whole series and is evidenced by written agreement;
(iv) the grantee has exclusive use of the facilities; and
(v) the grantee is a school, a club, an association or an organisation representing affiliated clubs or constituent associations.”

I have a simplified flowchart which may assist if you, or your clients, need to look at these types of supplies further.

Another issue was whether Netbusters’ league/tournament management services which were, in principle, available independently of pitch hire, but in practice rarely were provided in that way, were separate supplies or composite. There was a single price payable for both pitch hire and league management services.

The appellant contended that its supplies were exempt via VAT Act 1994, Sch 9, Group 1 or that Revenue and Customs Brief 8 (2014): sports leagues, is applicable which states “HMRC accepts that the decision of the FTT is applicable to all traders who operate in circumstances akin to Goals Soccer Centres plc. This includes traders who hire the pitches from third parties such as local authorities, schools and clubs…”

HMRC argued that there was no intention to create a tenancy and the agreements between the parties did not provide for exclusive use of the premises, so the supplies fell to be standard rated.

Decision

The appeal was allowed; the supply was a singe exempt supply because the objective character of the supplies were properly categorised as the granting of interests in, rights over or licenses to occupy land. It was found to be significant Netbusters (or its customers) had the ability to exclude others from the pitches during the period of the matches.

It was therefore unnecessary to consider whether Netbusters’ supplies grants of facilities satisfy all the conditions set out in Note 16 (although the FTT were disinclined to do this anyway as a consequence of the way respondent prepared its case).

Commentary

The issue of the nature sporting rights has a long and acrimonious history both in the UK and EU courts. Any business providing similar services are advised to review the VAT treatment applied.

VAT – Input tax claims. Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 1 June 2020

Latest from the courts

In the recent First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Aitmatov Academy an otherwise unremarkable case illustrates the care required when making input tax claims.

The quantum of the claim was low and the technical issues not particularly complex, however, it underlined some basic rules for making a VAT claim.

Background

A doctor organised a cultural event at the House of Lords for which no charge was made to attendees. The event organiser as shown on the event form was the doctor. Aitmatov Academy was shown as an organisation associated with the event. It was agreed that the attendees were not potential customers of Aitmatov Academy and that the overall purpose of the event was cultural and not advertising.

Issues

HMRC disallowed the claim. The issues were:

HMRC contended that the expenses were not incurred by the taxpayer but by the doctor personally (the doctor was not VAT registered)
that if the VAT was incurred by the Academy, it was not directly attributed to a taxable supply
that if the VAT was directly attributed to a taxable supply, it was business entertaining, on which input tax is blocked

Decision

The FTT found that the Academy incurred the cost and consequently must have concluded that the Academy was the recipient of the supply, not the doctor.

However, the judge decided that the awards ceremony was not directly or indirectly linked to taxable supplies made or intended to be made by the Academy, and therefore that the referable input tax should not be allowed. Consequently, the court did not need to consider whether the event qualified as business entertainment.

On a separate point, the appellant contended that, as a similar claim had been paid by HMRC previously, she could not see the difference that caused input VAT in this case to be disallowed. The Tribunal explained that its role is to apply the law in this specific instance and as such it cannot look at what happened in an early case which is not the subject of an appeal.

Commentary

A helpful reminder of some of the tests that need to be passed in order for an input tax claim to be valid. I have written about some common issues with claims and provided a checklist. Broadly, in addition to the tests in this case, a business needs to consider:

whether there was actually a supply
is the documentation correct?
time limits
the VAT liability of the supply
the place of supply
partial exemption
non-business activity – particularly charity and NFP bodies
if the claim is specifically blocked (eg; cars, and certain schemes)

I have also looked at which input tax is specifically barred.

Finally, “entertainment” is a topic all of its own. I have considered what is claimable here in article which includes a useful flowchart.

As always, the message is; if a business is to avoid penalties and interest, if there is any doubt over the validity of a claim, seek advice!

VAT: Intention is crucial – The Sonaecom case

By Marcus Ward 18 May 2020

We cannot control the future…

The Sonaecom case

In the opinion* of the CJEU AG (C-42/19) the importance of a taxpayer’s intention was of utmost importance, regardless of whether that intention was achieved.

Background

Sonaecom intended to acquire a telecoms provider company. As is usual in such cases, input tax was incurred on consultancy received, from, amongst others; accountants and legal service providers. The intention post acquisition was for Sonaecom to make certain charges to the acquired co. These would have been taxable supplies.

Unfortunately, the intended purchase was aborted.

The issue

The issue before the AG was; as no taxable supplies took place as the deal fell through – to what should the input tax incurred on advice be attributed?

Opinion

In the AG’s view the fact that the acquisition was aborted was no reason for the claim for input tax to denied. This was based on the fact that:

Sonaecom was not a “pure holding company”
There was a genuine intention to make taxable supplies (to the acquired co)
There was a direct and immediate link between the costs and the intended supplies
Although the acquisition costs would exceed the proposed management charges, this was not a reason to invalidate the claim
The above analysis was not affected by the fact that the transaction did not take place

Commentary

There are often issues in relation to intentions of a taxpayer. It is clear, and was emphasised in this case, that intention is all important. Of course, intentions can change over a period of time and commercial and political events may thwart or cause intentions to be re-evaluated. There is often an issue about evidencing an intention. HMRC usually require comprehensive documentary evidence to demonstrate an objective. Such evidence is sometime not available for various reasons. Consequently, it is prudent for businesses to record (board meeting minutes etc at the very least) the commercial reasons for taking a certain course of action. This issue quite often arises in transactions in land and property – which can create additional technical issues.

There is legislation in place to cover situations when intentions, or actual events change and which affect the original input tax position: The Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Regs 108 and 109.

Other areas of VAT which often to raise issues are management charges and holding companies. HMRC apparently continue to be eager to attack taxpayers in these areas and I have looked at the role of holding companies and the VAT treatment here, here and here.

I think it is useful to bear in mind a question which, in itself does not evidence an intention, but provides commercial coherence – Why were the costs incurred if there was no intention to make the acquisition? This does leave aside the future management charges position but goes some way to provide business logic.

It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds, but I would find it very surprising if the court diverges from this AG opinion.

* AG’s Opinion

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) consists of one judge from each Member State, assisted by eleven Advocates General whose role is to consider the written and oral submissions to the court in every case that raises a new point of law, and deliver an impartial opinion to the court on the legal solution.

VAT: zero rating of e-publications brought forward – to tomorrow

By Marcus Ward 30 April 2020

Further to the history of objection to reduce rating e-publications, and the 2020 budget announcement which stated that e-publications will be zero rated from 1 December 2020, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has today announced that this date is brought forward and zero rating will now apply from 1 May 2020 – which is of course tomorrow.

Further details of the measure here.

Zero rating

This brings electronically supplied sales in line with traditional printed matter. The zero rate will apply to:

books
booklets
brochures
pamphlets
leaflets
newspapers
journals and periodicals (which include magazines)
children’s picture and painting books

What supplied electronically means

The term ‘supplied electronically’ is not defined in legislation. It falls to be interpreted in accordance with its generally accepted meaning and includes supplies made over the internet and by e-mail.

Excluded items

Items that are not entitled to the VAT zero rate:

Advertising

If more than half of an e-publication is devoted to advertising, audio or video content, its supply will remain standard rated for VAT purposes.

Audiobooks

The zero rating extension only applies to the supply of electronic versions of books already zero rated in UK law. As such, zero-rating is limited to electronic versions of books that can be read or looked at. Supplies of audiobooks remain taxable at the standard rate whether supplied in a physical or digital format.

Intellectual property

e-book readers

e-book readers are one form of hardware to which e-books can be downloaded before being read but are not in themselves e-books. Therefore, supplies of e-book readers are standard rated

Software

Software, eg: an app is used to access e-publications but is not in itself an e-publication. Therefore, supplies of such software are standard rated.

Lending of electronic publications

The lending of any of the zero rated e-publications for a charge (for example, by a library) is zero rated.

Summary

Although welcome, as zero rating is VAT nirvana, the short lead in time could catch out some business which make such online supplies. Businesses which provide e-publications may want to consider making a retrospective claim as a result of the News Corp case.

VAT: Retrospective claims – standard of proof. NHS Lothian case

By Marcus Ward 24 April 2020

Latest from the courts

An interesting and helpful comment was made by the judge in the NHS Lothian Health Board Court of Session (the Scottish equivalent of the Court of Appeal) case.

Background

The case involved a claim for overpaid VAT going back to 1974. The primary issue was not the existence of the taxpayer’s claim to recover overpaid VAT, but the quantification of that claim, and in particular whether the claim can be quantified with sufficient accuracy to permit an order for repayment of tax to be made. In the previous case it was held that the onus of proving that an amount of tax had been paid and not recovered rested upon the taxpayer and that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities and Lord Drummond Young agreed with that proposition here.

Judgement

The specific comments which will be of assistance with businesses with similar clams were:

“The fundamental problem in such cases is that primary evidence does not exist owing to the lapse of time. The absence of such evidence, at least in cases such as the present, is not the fault of the taxpayer, and the lack of evidence should not be held against the taxpayer,”

Outcome

The court urged Tax Tribunals (First Tier Tribunal – FTT and Upper Tribunal – UT) to apply a flexible approach to the burden and standard of proof when making decisions in similar cases; of which there is a considerable number. This approach should apply to so called “Fleming” claims and others in respect of overpaid output tax. We understand that 700 such claims were made by NHS authorities in Great Britain alone, and circa 200 of these remain unresolved.

Commentary

In most cases, a taxpayer is only required to retain records for six years. So the comments made in this case should bolster the chances of success for claims made by other businesses, whether they be for overpaid output tax or underclaimed input tax. There are many and varied reasons why sufficiently detailed could be unavailable; we are looking at a potential 46-year time span. In 1974 record keeping was a different world and physical/manual records were usually the only option. It seems only reasonable that HMRC should make the allowances suggested in this case when it is agreed that a claim is valid in all other respects.

Action

If you, or your client, have had a claim rejected on the basis of insufficient supporting primary evidence, it may be worthwhile revisiting it on the basis of this decision. It sets out helpful and clear guidance and provides businesses with effective, appropriate tax relief where applicable.

VAT: Zero rated books? The Thorstein Gardarsson UT case

By Marcus Ward 14 April 2020

Latest from the courts

In The Thorstein Gardarsson T/A Action Day A Islandi Upper Tribunal (UT) case the issue was whether supplies of an “Action Day Planner” (ADP) were zero-rated as supplies of a book.

Legislation

The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 3, item 1 zero rates – “Books, booklets, brochures, pamphlets and leaflets.” The words in Group 3 are used in their ordinary, everyday sense.

Background

The Appellants (HMRC) appealed against a decision of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) which determined that the ADP is a “book” with the result that supplies of it made by Thorstein Gardarsson (TG) were zero-rated for VAT purposes. TG belonged outside the EU but sold its products B2C via the Amazon platform to consumers in the UK.

HMRC argued that the ADP was properly to be considered a ‘diary’ and thereby stationery which is standard rated. Predictably, TG asserted that the ADP is not a diary and despite it having space in which the ‘student’ seeking to master skills of time management may enter information, doing so is merely part of the learning taught through the narrative sections of the book.

The FTT allowed TG’s earlier appeal and considered the judgment of the High Court in Colour Offset Ltd. [1995] BVC 31 to be binding. The FTT concluded that the main function of the ADP is to teach the user how to better or more effectively manage time. The writing space was no different from a student filling out answers to practice papers or someone completing a crossword puzzle. The ADP was therefore a book and zero rated.

Appeal

In this UT case HMRC appealed the FTT decision on the grounds that whilst Colour Offset was binding on the FTT, it failed to:

identify the correct test set out in Colour Offset
apply the test correctly to the facts it had found

The Product

The external appearance if the ADP is that of a black leather covered book. It had an elastic strap attached to the inside of the back cover that can be wrapped around the front to hold it closed. Inside it has 115 pages. The ADP is described as a time management tool developed to “help people to grow; to teach and instruct people time management skills”. The first 16 pages contain text setting out a narrative of the ethos articulated by the appellant for effective time management. The remainder of the ADP is taken up with 52 double page planners. At the back is a cardboard slip pocket.

Decision

The UT noted that the FTT had quoted from VAT Notice 701/10 and this had led the FTT into error. In the Notice ‘crossword books, exam study guides etc.’ are considered books although the statutory provisions do not mention these at all. The Notice only records HMRC’s practice in this regard and does not have force of law. However, the FTT concluded that because crossword books and exam study guides are referred to as books, it should follow that any item with the necessary physical characteristics ‘which has as its main function informing/educating or recreational enjoyment’ is also a book. The tests in Colour Offset do not refer at all to whether the main function of an item is to inform or educate; nor does it refer to recreational enjoyment.

The UT considered that the FTT approached its task by applying a test that was different from that articulated in Colour Offset and this had the ability to produce a different outcome from the correct test. In doing so, he FTT made an error of law. It also concluded that the ADP is not a book as its main function is to be written in (as distinct from being read or looked at) and that the comparison to crossword puzzles or revision guides is irrelevant. Therefore, ADPs were standard rated and output tax was due on the sale of them.

HMRC’s appeal was allowed, the FTT decision is set aside and directed the matter back to the FTT for reconsideration. It was directed that the FTT makes a decision predicated on the basis that the ADP is not a book.

Commentary

The zero rating of printed matter has long been a moot point in VAT and the amount of detail that the guidance goes into demonstrates this. It should be noted that HMRC guidance set out in Public Notice 701/10 is purely that, and does not have the force of law. This logic extends to all HMRC published guidance unless the narrative specifically states that it has the force of law. A lot of the guidance is based on case law, but certain definitions are unhelpful.

Even the FTT can get it wrong and apply the wrong tests, so if you or your clients have any doubts about the VAT liabilities of supplies made, it is worthwhile having these reviewed by a specialist.