Tag Archives: court

VAT: Input tax claims – alternative evidence

By Marcus Ward 7 March 2019

What can be used to make a claim?

It is well known that in order to claim input tax on expenditure a business is required to have a valid tax invoice to support it. But what if there is no VAT invoice? Can HMRC accept any other evidence to support a claim? Well, the answer is yes… sometimes.

HMRC has discretion provided by EC law. The right to deduct is given by Article 167 of the Principal VAT Directive (via VAT Regulations 1995/2518 Reg 29(2) in the UK). Specifically, the wording most relevant here is “…such other documentary evidence of the charge to VAT as the Commissioners may direct.” Broadly, a business must hold the correct evidence before being able to exercise the right to deduct.

Where claims to deduct VAT are not supported by a valid VAT invoice HMRC staff are required to consider whether there is satisfactory alternative evidence of the taxable supply available to support deduction. HMRC staff should not simply refuse a claim without giving reasonable consideration to such evidence. HMRC has a duty to ensure that taxpayers pay no more tax than is properly due. However, this obligation is balanced against a duty to protect the public revenue.

Full details of tax invoices here.

What HMRC consider

HMRC staff are required to work through the following checklist:

Does the business have alternative documentary evidence other than an invoice (for example a supplier statement)?
Does the business have evidence of receipt of a taxable supply on which VAT has been charged?
Does the business have evidence of payment?
Does the business have evidence of how the goods/services have been consumed or evidence regarding their onward supply?
How did the business know the supplier existed?
How was the business relationship with the supplier established? For example: How was contact made?
Does the business know where the supplier operates from (have staff visited?)
How did the business contact them?
How does the business know the supplier can supply the goods or services?
If goods, how does the business know they are not stolen?
How does the business return faulty supplies?

Outcome

If the responses to the above tests are credible, HMRC staff should exercise their discretion to allow the taxpayer to deduct the input tax. Overall, HMRC are required to be satisfied that sufficient evidence is held by the business which demonstrates that VAT has been paid on a taxable supply of goods or services received by that business and which were used by that business for its taxable activities

Challenge HMRC’s decision

A business may only challenge HMRC’s decision not to allow a claim (did not exercise its discretion) if it acted in an unfair or unreasonable way. In these cases, the onus is on the taxpayer to demonstrate that HMRC have been unreasonable in not using the available discretion. This is quite often a difficult thing to do.

Case law

Not surprisingly, there is significant case law on this subject. The most relevant and recent being the Upper Tribunal (UT) cases of James Boyce and Scandico Ltd.

Tips

If possible, always obtain a proper tax invoice from a supplier, and don’t lose it! The level of evidence required when no invoice is held usually depends on the value of the claim. There would be a difference between persuading an inspector that £20 input tax on stationery is recoverable and the claiming of £200,000 VAT on a property purchase is permissible. As always in VAT, if you get it wrong and claim VAT without the appropriate evidence there is likely to be a penalty to pay.

If you, or your clients are in dispute with HMRC on input tax claims, please contact us.

VAT: More on the Mercedes Benz Financial Services case – PCP

By Marcus Ward 1 March 2019

Further to my article on the Mercedes Benz Financial Services (MBFS) case on Personal Contract Purchase (PCP), HMRC has published a Briefing Note – Changes to the VAT treatment of PCPs

HMRC has fully implemented the findings in the MBFS CJEU case. In summary, HMRC state that:

“The correct treatment of PCP and similar contracts depends on the level at which the final optional payment is set:

if, at the start of the contract, it is set at or above the anticipated market value of the goods at the time the option is to be exercised, the VAT treatment of the contract will follow the MBFS It is a supply of leasing services from the outset and VAT must be accounted for on the full value of each instalment, there is no advance, or credit, so there is no finance
if, at the start of the contract, it is set below the anticipated market value, such that a rational customer would buy the asset when they exercise the option, it is a supply of goods, with a separate supply of finance. VAT is due on the supply of goods in full at the outset of the contract, the finance is exempt from VAT”

This treatment must be used by 1 June 2019. Past declarations which have been in error must be adjusted per PN 700/45. Businesses affected by the changes may also need to consider adjustments to input tax claimed, or forgone in respect of partial exemption. A guide to partial exemption here.

VAT: Place of supply of “erotic services”

By Marcus Ward 19 February 2019

Latest from the courts

Readers of a nervous disposition may want to look away now.

In the case of Geelen C-568/17 (in French) the advocate General (AG) was asked for an opinion on the supply of what was coyly called webcam sessions.

Background

The defendant in the main proceedings, Mr Geelen, was a VAT registered person in The Netherlands. He provided the services of the organisation and provision of interactive erotic sessions broadcast live over the Internet. The models were located in the Philippines and Mr Geelen provided them with the necessary hardware and software to transmit the sessions over the Internet. Customers contacted the models via a website after creating an account for this purpose. The sessions were broadcast live and were interactive, which meant that customers had the opportunity to communicate with the models and give them instructions. The services provided by the defendant were intended for the Dutch market. I set out the arrangements here, as I am sure that none of my readers will be aware of such things * polite cough *

This is interesting as an example of technology overtaking legislation which was enacted before such services could even be contemplated (well, by the people drafting the VAT legislation anyway).

The issue

The issue was where was the place of supply of these services. If they were in The Netherlands, then Dutch VAT would apply, but if they were deemed to be outside the EU, no EU VAT would be payable. The tax authorities considered that such services were subject to VAT in The Netherlands and issued a tax assessment notice.

Technical

Generally, the rule is that for B2C services the place of supply (POS) is where the supplier belongs. However, there is an exception for cultural, artistic, and entertainment activities. These are taxed where performed (outside the EU in this case if the exception is applicable).

Opinion

It was the AG’s opinion that, in the first place, there was no doubt that the services in question were entertaining…

However, he opined that the only way to provide cultural activities, entertainment, education, etc. was either to bring service users together at the actual place of service delivery, or to provide a service at the location of the users.

The technological development that has taken place since the relevant legislation was drafted has enabled services in which beneficiaries participate remotely, sometimes even actively, in a cultural, entertainment or other event, without necessarily doing so in real time. In a cultural reference: The “unity of action, time and place”, to refer to the categories of classical theatre, was thus upset.

In the AG’s opinion, these services were not intended to be covered by the exception. Consequently, these were not services “supplied where performed” and the general B2C rules applied, so the POS was The Netherlands and Dutch VAT was applicable. It was concluded that performance does not take place where the models are based, or where the consumer was located, but where Mr Geelen brought together all elements of the supply.

Summary

The legislation must be interpreted as meaning that the services of organising and providing live interactive webcam sex do not constitute services for entertainment purposes within the meaning of the relevant provisions.

VAT: Yet more cases on food

By Marcus Ward 11 February 2019

Latest from the courts

Like London buses, few cases on the VAT liability of food, then a veritable deluge (although I am unsure whether there can be a deluge of buses…).

Following Eat Ltd and my summary, two further food cases have been heard at First Tier Tribunal (FTT). These are on the subjects of juicing and brownies.

Juice

In The Core (Swindon) the issue was whether fruit and vegetable juices sold as meal replacements were beverages and therefore standard rated or whether they were not beverages and therefore zero-rated as food.

Background

The appellant provides “juice cleanse programmes” (JCPs) which consist of fresh drinkable products made from juicing raw fruits and vegetables and are intended to replace normal meals. The relevant test was how the product was objectively “held out for sale” by the supplier.

What needed to be considered was:

How is the product marketed?
Why it is consumed by the customer?
What is the use to which it is put?

Case law

Similar products were considered in Fluff, Ltd. Roger Skinner and Bioconcepts where the above tests were set out.

Decision

Judging the JCPs by reference to the above tests the Tribunal found that the purchasers of the JCPs purchase them as meal replacements. Customers do not purchase them as beverages (they drink water in addition to consuming the products). They do not therefore purchase them in order to increase their bodily fluid, or to slake their thirst, or to fortify themselves or to give pleasure. The products are deliberately made palatable, in order not to deter consumers from drinking them, and they are not unpleasant to drink, but they are not consumed for pleasure. Customers purchase and consume them as a meal replacement, not as a beverage. As a consequence, they were zero rated food.

Brownies

In Pulsin’ Ltd the issue was whether a raw choc brownies was a cake (zero rated) or a biscuit (standard rated). So, shades of the infamous Jaffa Cake case.

Background

The products in question were individually wrapped bars produced by cold compression of predominantly: dates, cashews, cacao, various syrups, concentrated grape juice and brown rice bran. All ingredients used are intended to be as natural, unprocessed, hypoallergenic and as nutritionally beneficial as possible.

Case law

The cases set out above were also referred to in this case, along with Kinnerton which I considered here although the judge dismissed HMRC’s contention that the decision in that case was helpful in this.

Decision

The judge formed the view that the products do show enough characteristics of cakes to be so categorised. Therefore, all variants of the raw choc brownies were properly classified as cakes and are therefore eligible to be zero rated.

Commentary

What was interesting here was the judge’s comments on the current position regarding food and VAT.

“It is the Tribunal’s view that the current state of the law on the taxation of food items is not fit for purpose and will necessarily present apparently anomalous results as tastes and attitudes to eating change. The Tribunal fundamentally disagrees with HMRC’s guidance that the borderline between cake and confectionary presents few problems. The lines set and perceived by HMRC in the application of this out of date provision (as recognised by them in their anguished consideration of flapjacks and cereal bars) drives anomalous outcomes….”

And so say all of us…

The zero rating of food is complicated as the provision under VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1 provide for a wide general description (qualifying for zero rating) subject to excepted items (which must therefore be standard rated) with exclusions and overriding items to those exceptions (which then requalify to be zero rated).

VAT: Zero rated food – a summary

By Marcus Ward 8 February 2019

Food – What’s hot and what’s not?

Further to my article on the recent Eat case I have had a number of queries on what “hot” food can be zero rated. So, as a brief overview of the current position a quick look at types of food:

Pasties, sausage rolls, pies or other pastries

If they are hot and straight from the oven: Although the pasty is hot, it is not being kept warm, so therefore there is no VAT
Left to cool to room temperature: The pasty is not being kept warm, so no VAT is chargeable.
Kept hot in a cabinet, on a hot plate or under a heat lamp: The pasty is being kept warm so VAT is due

Sandwiches

Cold food is zero-rated for tax purposes so no VAT.
Heated for a customer – standard rated per the Eat case.

Bread

Freshly baked, cooling or cold – the bread is not kept warm, even though it may be straight from the oven, so would be VAT free.

Rotisserie chicken

If hot from the spit; VAT on takeaway food intended to be served hot is VATable.
Kept hot in a cabinet, on a hot plate or under a heat lamp – As the food is kept hot and served hot, VAT is applicable.
Left to cool to room temperature – If the chicken is cooked then left to cool, such as in bags in a supermarket, it will be VAT free.

Takeaways

such as fish and chips: VAT remains on all takeaway food served hot.

Catering

All supplies of catering is subject to VAT regardless of what food and drink is being provided. This includes all restaurants and cafés.

This is a general guide and, as case law shows, there will always be products on the “borderline”.

VAT: Latest on holding companies and input tax recovery

By Marcus Ward 21 January 2019

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of W Resources plc (WRP) the enduring matter of input tax recovery by a holding company was considered. This follows similar considerations in the cases of Norseman and BAA and HMRC’s updated guidance on the matter. This case considered whether a holding company could recover input tax incurred on certain costs. This is turn depended on whether the holding company intended to make taxable supplies. Specifically; the intention to recharge professional expenses incurred to two non VAT-grouped subsidiary companies contingent on those companies receiving income at a future time.

Background

WRP acquired two subsidiary companies. The subsidiary company’s business the exploration and exploitation of tungsten in the EU. WRP contended that it incurred the relevant input tax

to enable the subsidiaries to raise funds to carry out their exploration activities
to exercise financial control over the subsidiaries
to obtain geological expertise, project management and supervision and day to day management and supervision for the subsidiaries so that they could carry on their exploration and exploitation activities

HMRC denied the claim of input tax on the basis that the WRP was not carrying on an economic activity or making supplies for a consideration (such that it should not be VAT registered).

It was common ground that, if it was decided that all of the supplies which were made by the WRP to the subsidiary companies (following their acquisition by the appellant) were supplies made for a consideration and in the course of carrying on an “economic activity”, then the input tax which was incurred during the preparatory phase should be recoverable.

So, the issue was – were the intended recharges so uncertain such that there could be no direct link to an economic activity?

Decision

The appeal was dismissed.

Although the judge distinguished Norseman (above) where there was only a vague intention to make charges to subsidiary companies and here the position was different because there was a fixed intention that WRP would be able to invoice in due course for its supplies of services at an amount quantified by reference to the value of the services received but only if the relevant subsidiary began to generate revenues, the fact that it was uncertain whether the subsidiaries would generate income was to sufficient to break the link between supply and consideration. The fact that the intended charges were contingent was fatal to the appeal.

Commentary

The judge appears to have come to the decision reluctantly and entertained the thought that “the contrary is certainly arguable”. This case demonstrates, yet again, the difficulties in determining future intentions of a business. Such intentions dictate whether a business may VAT register and/or recover input tax. It is often difficult to evidence intentions and HMRC seem intent to challenge input tax recovery in such circumstances and will be buoyed by this result.

This case again emphasises the importance of holding companies having appropriate processes and ensuring that proper documentation is in place to evidence, not only the intention to make taxable supplies of management charges, but that those charges were actually made to subsidiaries.

Often significant costs can be incurred by a holding company in cases such as acquisitions and restructuring. It is important that these costs are incurred by, and invoiced to, the appropriate entity in order for the VAT on them to be recovered. Consideration should be given to how the input tax is recovered before it is incurred, and the appropriate structure put in place if possible.

Further information and advice on inter-company charges may be found here

VAT: No Deal Brexit – new regulations for “imports”

By Marcus Ward 14 January 2019

A new Statutory Instrument (SI) SI 2018/1376 has been issued which sets out certain measures to be adopted in the event of a No Deal Brexit in respect of postal packets. A background to VAT and Brexit here

If the UK leaves the EU without a deal it will be unable to treat the movement of goods between EU Member States in the same way as previously. Such a movement of goods now become an import – similar to any other goods currently entering the UK from outside the EU. A guide to imports here

These regulations mean that certain overseas businesses will be required to register in the UK and pay import VAT on a consignment of goods up to the value of £135.

I have summarised below the most salient parts of the SI.

What is a qualifying import?

The regulations state that a “qualifying importation” is made where—

A supplier supplies goods for a consideration to a recipient in the course or furtherance of a business carried on by the supplier
the supplier is not established in the UK
the goods are dispatched from a place outside the United Kingdom to the United Kingdom in a postal packet
the value of the contents of the postal packet is £135 or less
the postal packet does not contain goods of a class or description subject to any duty of excise

There are two exceptions (there always appear to be exceptions in VAT…)

the supplier ensures that a UK-established postal operator has a legally binding obligation to pay any import VAT that is chargeable on that qualifying importation to the Commissioners
a non UK-established postal operator has an obligation under an agreement with the Commissioners to pay any import VAT that is chargeable on that qualifying importation.

Requirement to register

A supplier must be registered under the new regulations with effect from the date on which the first qualifying importation is dispatched by the supplier. There is no de minimis limit.

Application for registration

a notification of a requirement to be registered and an application to be registered must be made using electronic communications in such form and manner to be specified by HMRC
it must provide such information as specified by HMRC

Returns

Returns will be known as “Postal Packet Returns” and will be quarterly and will be due on the first calendar day after the last day of the month next following the end of the period.

Penalties

This being VAT – of course there are penalties for getting wrong.

The penalty for failure to register is a flat rate of £1000.

The SI also contains regulations for others to be jointly and severally liable for that import VAT in certain circumstances. Further, as expected, (see here) the SI also removes Low Value Consignment Relief (LVCR) for the import of commercial goods with a value of £15 or less.

A No Deal Brexit will undoubtedly increase administration, red tape and cause delays and uncertainties, and VAT is only one aspect of that. Let us hope that this SI is not needed…

HMRC announces Top 10 prosecutions of 2018

By Marcus Ward 11 January 2019

The publication of this annual list is an insight into the work of HMRC’s Fraud Investigation Service. Clearly this is important work and recovers money that may be used to support important public services and consequently, it is not a victimless crime.

It further demonstrates the diversity of crimes HMRC deals with. HMRC’s fraud investigations have led to 671 people being convicted over the last 12 months for their part in tax crimes. Additionally, HMRC has charged another 919 people and taken on 746 new criminal investigations.

This year’s top 10 prosecutions include:

one of the UK’s most wanted tax fugitives, who spent more than 11 years on the run and owes more than £53 million, ending up behind bars after he was caught in Canada
a tax consultant, who fled the UK before he could be arrested for masterminding a conspiracy to steal £6.9 million from construction workers’ pay packets, going to prison
a high-flying businessman who masterminded a sophisticated £9.8 million international VAT fraud to fund his lavish lifestyle and for which he was jailed for 9 years

HMRC’s Fraud Investigation Service brings in around £5 billion a year through civil and criminal investigations.

Excise Duty: Your Christmas drink of choice, or perhaps not

By Marcus Ward 17 December 2018

Advocate General (AG) Manuel Sanchez-Bordona has released his opinion in the Bene Factum case (The link is to Lithuanian, so you ‘may” need to translate…).

A curious matter and one which brings into focus the drinking habits of people across the EU. Now, as those who know me will be aware, I am not adverse to a good single malt, nor a decent claret, but I do wonder sometimes where people draw the line.

Background

It transpires that in Lithuania people who choose not to drink, or cannot afford, even the cheapest alcoholic items have turned to drinking perfume and mouthwash which contain isopropyl alcohol. This has a similar effect on the human body to what most people would regard as being from more usual beer, wine or spirits etc. Sounds delicious eh?

Issue

The issue was whether these products where subject to Excise Duty, or, as the appellant contended, they were duty free as cosmetic products.

Decision

The AG found that isopropyl alcohol is almost unpalatable to most people. The fact that Bene Factum held out, advertised and marketed to people to drink the products did not affect the fact that the main purpose of the goods was for their use as cosmetics and mouthwash. What must be considered is Excise Duty depends on an objective classification to determine whether it is intended for human consumption. This classification is not affected by the fact that Bene Factum actively encouraged people to drink these products rather than use them for cosmetic purposes.

Consequently, the goods where not subject to Excise Duty. Good news for Lithuanian alcohol connoisseurs! It remains to see if the court follows this opinion, in most cases they do, but one never knows.

Commentary

If there is anybody out there who is getting ready for their Christmas party, looks at some cosmetic products and considers taking a swig, I make the following comments:

Probably best to stick supermarket own brand booze if money is an issue
I expect that these things taste absolutely terrible (although I have not sampled them)
I tend to stick to things that are to be applied externally doing just that with them without ingestion
If you can’t decide whether to gargle with something or drink it, I counsel spitting it out
If these goods come to the UK, at least they will be even cheaper being duty free. I am not sure that is a good thing.

VAT: More on agent or principal – The All Answers Limited case

By Marcus Ward 9 December 2018

Latest from the courts

In the All Answers Limited (AAL) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether AAL acted as an agent as it contended, or was a principal as HMRC argued. It also considered the position of contracts in certain situations. There have been a huge number of cases on this point, many of which I have commented on. Some of them here here and here

Background

AAL runs an online business which provides essays, coursework and dissertations to students. The FTT found many euphemisms used for this service, but the service which the student paid for effectively passed off other peoples’ work as the students own in order to obtain a certain grade which was decided by the student. Or in other words; cheating. AAL arranged for one of its circa 400 writers, which were usually other students, teachers or lecturers etc (who should have known better) to provide the required work.

Technical

AAL contended that it was acting as the students’ agent in respect of making arrangements to provide the written work. Consequently, it would only account for output tax on the “commission” retained, rather than on the full value of the amount paid by the student – a significant difference. The contracts produced as evidence fully supported the agency analysis. The Terms and Conditions between AAL and the writer provided that the appellant acts as the writer’s agent to sell his/her services and to enter into “relationships” with clients on the writer’s behalf and to collect payment on the writer’s behalf.

HMRC’s view was that there were no agency services supplied and that the economic reality should be examined rather than relying solely on the relevant contracts. The respondent argued that the notion of agency, so carefully woven into the AAL’s Terms and Conditions, lacked both factual and economic reality because the only service provider was the appellant who choose to use a sub-contractor to provide it with the work which AAL ultimately supplied to the client as principal.

The Decision

Unsurprisingly, the judge concluded that the appellant was acting as principal, not agent and so AAL’s appeal was dismissed. In the ruling, certain comments were made which illustrate how the decision was arrived at and are useful to consider when looking at agency/principal positions.

In respect of the T&Cs, the judge observed “…an agreement which is not a sham may nonetheless be artificial and intended to deflect attention from the true positions taken by both the client and the writer, to whom the appellant profitably lends a willing hand, with no concern for ethics or morality”.

And in respect of the business model: “It could not be stressed more strongly during the appeal before us, and in the documents emanating from the appellant, that its business model is based upon the identity of the client and the identity of the person who is to write the requested piece of academic work, not being made known to one another…” In such circumstances it is difficult to conclude that any agency services are being carried out.

Commentary

As in nearly all agent/principal cases, the VAT position is determined according to the facts of each individual case. Slight variations may produce different VAT outcomes, so it is crucial to look at the detail of each business activity. Contracts are a useful starting point, but as this case shows, if a contract is deliberately drafted to produce a VAT outcome that is not supported by the actual facts of a transaction then it must be disregarded in favour of an analysis of the economic reality. It seems that in this case, AAL desired agency treatment in order to significantly reduce its output tax (which was sticking tax as the recipient was unable to recover it as input tax). Its advisers drafted the relevant contract with this in mind. The FTT saw through that and, came to this sensible decision.