Tag Archives: eu

VAT: Distinction between goods and services. Mercedes Benz Financial Services case

By Marcus Ward 17 October 2017

In the CJEU case of Mercedes Benz Financial Services (MBFS) the issue was whether certain supplies where of goods or services.

Technical Background

Before looking at the case, it is worthwhile considering the difference between goods and services and why the distinction is important. For most transactions the difference is clear, although sometimes (such as in this case) it is not immediately apparent. A starting point is that services are “something other than supplying goods”. Difficulties can arise in areas such as; provision of; information, software and, as MBFS discovered, Hire Purchase (HP)/leasing.

The distinction is important for two main reasons:

VAT liability – Goods and services may have different VAT rates applicable
Tax point – goods and services have different tax point rules, see here

The difference between HP and Leasing arrangements:

In an HP agreement the intention is usually for the ownership of the goods to pass when the final payment has been made. The transaction therefore relates to a supply of goods. If title to goods does not pass, this is leasing and represents a supply of services.

Case Background

MBFS offered certain contract purchases which were similar to many personal contract purchase deals for vehicles. These featured regular monthly payments with a final balloon payment. In the MBFS arrangements in question a significant difference to “usual” personal contract purchase agreements was that the balloon payment represented over 40% of the price of the car and payment of this fee was entirely optional.

The EU rules set out that there is a supply of goods where “in the normal course of events” ownership will pass at the latest upon payment of the final instalment. Consequently, the focus here was on whether the optional final payment meant that in the normal course of events the ownership of the car would pass to the customer.

Decision

The CJEU decided that the supplies were those of services rather than goods. This was based on the fact that, although the ownership transfer clause is an indicator of the transaction representing a supply of goods, there was a genuine economic alternative to the option being exercised. The circa 40% of the car price was a significant amount and it did not immediately follow that all customers would make this final payment. It was observed that in a “traditional” HP arrangement making the final payment was the “only economically rational choice”. This meant that the supply was one of services.

VAT Impact

As this was ruled to be a supply of services, output tax was not due from MBFS at the start of the contract (as would have been the case if the supply had been one of goods). This results in a significant cashflow saving.

Commentary

Any business which provides vehicles via HP or leasing arrangements should review its supplies and contracts to determine whether it can take advantage of this CJEU ruling. We are able to assist in this process.

VAT Implications of Transfer Pricing – Valuation

By Marcus Ward 24 April 2017

The EC has recently published a paper on the possible VAT implications of Transfer Pricing (TP) here

This Working Paper considers when TP adjustments may affect the application of VAT. The main conflict is highlighted as the difference between how sales are valued. For TP purposes value is determined via arm’s length (open market value) versus the subjective value, ie; the price actually paid, for VAT purposes.

Transfer Pricing

The arm’s length principle is the international transfer pricing standard that Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries have agreed, and which should be used for tax purposes by Multinational Enterprise Group (“MNE group”) and tax administrations, including the price, match comparable market conditions and that profits are fairly divided between the jurisdictions in which MNE operates.

According to the OECD TP Guidelines, by seeking to adjust profits by reference to the conditions which would have been obtained between independent enterprises for comparable transactions and under comparable circumstances, ie; in “comparable uncontrolled transactions” the arm’s length principle treats the members of an MNE group as entities operating separately rather than as inseparable parts of a single unified business. Because the separate entity approach treats the members of an MNE group as if they were independent entities, attention is focused on the nature of the transactions between those members and on whether the conditions thereof differ from those that would be obtained in comparable uncontrolled transactions.

VAT

It is not generally required for VAT purposes that the consideration which must be present in order for a transaction to be qualified as taxable, has to reflect the market value of the goods or services supplied. In fact, as to the concept of “consideration”, it is settled case law of the CJEU that the taxable amount for the supply of goods or services is represented by the consideration actually received for them.

I shan’t rehearse the details here as they are clearly set out in the paper linked to above.

However, it is an important area of tax and I strongly recommend reading the Working Paper for any business or adviser involved in international supplies. It is also an interesting read for students of the tax technical side of such supplies.

We have a strong global structure of skilled advisers which are able to assist if you have any queries.

VAT Legal impact of The Great Repeal Bill and Article 50

By Marcus Ward 3 April 2017

Changes to VAT on the day the UK leaves the EU – details of new White Paper

There has been significant confusion and differing views over how the UK would treat existing CJEU case law and its impact on the UK legislation when the UK leaves the EU.

Welcome certainty and clarity has been provided by the publication of a White Paper in respect The Great Repeal Bill (GRB). Full details of the GRB here

Background

The European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) gives effect in UK law to the EU treaties. It incorporates EU law into the UK domestic legal order and provides for the supremacy of EU law. It also requires UK courts to follow the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Some EU law applies directly without the need for specific domestic implementing legislation, while other parts of EU law need to be implemented in the UK through domestic legislation. As explained in the White Paper, domestic legislation other than the ECA also gives effect to some of the UK’s obligations under EU law. The government states that “…it is important to repeal the ECA to ensure there is maximum clarity as to the law that applies in the UK, and to reflect the fact that following the UK’s exit from the EU it will be UK law, not EU law, that is supreme.” The GRB will repeal the ECA on the day we leave the EU.

Overview

The main point stressed in the White Paper is that “The same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before. It will then be for democratically elected representatives in the UK to decide on any changes to that law, after full scrutiny and proper debate” and “This Bill will, wherever practical and appropriate, convert EU law into UK law from the day we leave so that we can make the right decisions in the national interest at a time that we choose.”

The intention is that the GRB will do three things:

It will repeal the ECA and return power to UK institutions.
The Bill will convert EU law as it stands at the moment of exit into UK law before we leave the EU. This allows businesses to continue operating knowing the rules have not changed significantly overnight, and provides fairness to individuals, whose rights and obligations will not be subject to sudden change. It also ensures that it will be up to the UK Parliament (and, where appropriate, the devolved legislatures) to amend, repeal or improve any piece of EU law (once it has been brought into UK law) at the appropriate time once we have left the EU.
The Bill will create powers to make secondary legislation. This will enable corrections to be made to the laws that would otherwise no longer operate appropriately once we have left the EU, so that our legal system continues to function correctly outside the EU, and will also enable domestic law once we have left the EU to reflect the content of any withdrawal agreement under Article 50.

This means that case law precedent from the CJEU will continue to apply (for a time at least). Any uncertainties/disagreements over the meaning of UK law after the UK leaves the EC that has been derived from EU cases will be decided by reference to the CJEU case law as it exists on the day the UK leaves. As a consequence, the GRB is likely to give CJEU case law similar precedent status to the UK Supreme Court. The result is that Tribunals (and other court cases) will be heard in a similar way as they are now and both sides may continue to rely on case law as they have up to this point. Any changes to the VAT legislation, if any, may then be made at a more leisurely pace while providing certainty while this is done.

Customs

There will also be changes to the current UK Customs regime as a consequence of the UK leaving the Single Market. The Customs Declaration Services (CDS) programme is intended to replace the existing system for handling import and export freight (CHIEF) from January 2019. Now that the Government has made a decision to leave the EU customs union, there is concern that this project is in place on time. A letter from the Treasury Select Committee states that “even modest delays, there is potential for major disruption to trade and economic activity”.

There are still a lot of uncertainties which will not be dealt with until we know the terms of the UK leaving and we will try to report these as soon as we have any information. Please subscribe to our free monthly e-newsletter to keep up to date on this, and other VAT developments. Simply email us at marcus.ward@consultant.com

VAT Triangulation – What is it? Is it a simple “simplification”?

By Marcus Ward 24 March 2017

Unusually in the VAT world, Triangulation is a true simplification and is a benefit for businesses carrying out cross-border trade in goods.

What is it?

Triangulation is the term used to describe a chain of intra-EU supplies of goods involving three parties in three different Member States (MS). It applies in cases where, instead of the goods physically passing from one to the other, they are delivered directly from the first to the last party in the chain. Thus:

trig (2) In this example; a UK company (UKco) receives an order from a customer in Germany (Gco). To fulfil the order the UK supplier orders goods from its supplier in France (Fco). The goods are delivered from France to Germany.

Basic Treatment

Without simplification, UKco would be required to VAT register in either France or Germany to ensure that no VAT is lost. That is; if registered in France, French VAT (TVA) would be charged to UKco, this would be recovered and the onward supply to Gco would be VAT free. The supply to Gco would be subject to acquisition tax in Germany. VAT therefore is neutral to all parties. Alternatively, UKco may choose to VAT register in Germany. This would mean that it would be able to produce a German VAT number to Fco so to obtain the goods VAT free. UKco would recover acquisition tax it applies to itself on the purchase and charge German VAT to Gco. Again, VAT is neutral to all parties.

Triangulation does away with these requirements.

To avoid creating a need for many companies to be structured in this way, Triangulation simplification was created via the EU VAT legislation (which is implemented across all MS) so, in this example, UKco is not required to register in any MS outside the EU.

Simplification

Under the simplification procedure Fco issues an invoice to UKco without charging VAT and quoting UKco’s VAT number. UKco, in turn, issues an invoice to Gco without charging VAT. The invoice is required to show the narrative “VAT Simplification Invoice Article 141 simplification”. Gco should account for the purchase from UKco in its German VAT Return using the Reverse Charge mechanism. Details of the Reverse Charge here

The Conditions

EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC, Article 141 sets out the conditions which must be met for Triangulation simplification to apply. Using the example above these may be summarised as:

There are three different parties (separate taxable persons) VAT registered in three different MS
The goods are transported directly from Fco to Gco
The invoice flow involves Fco selling the goods to UKco (the intermediate supplier)
UKco supplier in turn invoices its customer, Gco
UKco must obtain a valid VAT number from Gco (MS of destination) and quote this number on its invoice
UKco must quote “Article 141 simplification” on its invoice to Gco.

Impact on businesses

A business may be involved in triangulation as either:

the first supplier of the goods (Fco in the example above),
the intermediate supplier (UKco in the example above), or
the final consumer (Gco in the example above).

In whichever role, it is important to ensure all relevant details have been obtained and the documentation is correct.

And after Brexit?

As in many areas, we do not yet know how Brexit will affect the UK’s relationship with the EU. In general, the “worse” case scenario for UK business is that this simplification will be unavailable and all cross-border transactions will be treated as exports and imports similar to any other transactions with countries outside the EU and UK business will need to VAT register in one or more MS in the EU. This will add complexity and possibly delays at borders for goods moving to and from the UK. It is also likely to create additional cash flow issues.

In these uncertain times it makes sense to keep abreast of the (likely) changing requirements and take advantage of the simplification while it lasts.

VAT After Brexit

By Marcus Ward 27 June 2016

There have been many articles anticipating what would happen to Indirect Tax if the UK left the EU. Now the deed has been done we thought it would be a good idea to summarise what we actually know. This can be done very succinctly; “not very much”.

UK VAT legislation derives from the Euro-wide Principal VAT Directive (“PVD”) and consequently has the largest European dimension of any tax.

There are many factors which will impact on the future of VAT in the UK. The main one being which model the UK follows for trading with the EU, or whether it can negotiate a completely new model. Very broadly, and without going over ground that I’m sure has been covered many times since the vote, the four options are:

Membership of the EEA
Negotiated bilateral agreement
Advanced Free Trade Agreement
WTO membership

Each option is likely to result in differing VAT scenarios for trade, reporting and compliance. Until we understand what agreements will be made, it is likely that VAT life will go on in much the same way as it has done without the need for businesses to make any changes. Without a crystal ball it is impossible to say what the implications for Indirect Tax are, however, it is more than likely that any business which is involved in the following areas should be prepared for significant changes in the future:

Dispatches to the EU or acquisitions from the EU. It is likely that these will become exports and imports
Supplies of services to the EU or the purchase of services from the EU
Expenses incurred in the EU
Distance Selling
Triangulation
Financial services and insurance
Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS)
MOSS supplies
Outsourcing and offshoring

It is likely that a domestic government may wish to reverse certain ECJ decisions imposed on the UK with which it disagrees. Leaving the EU will allow the UK freedom to set its own VAT rates and introduce its own legislation, although, practically and politically, it is not anticipated that the UK model will differ too sharply from the existing rules. At this stage however, this is mainly guesswork.

So, with a lot of negotiations in prospect, we are holding fire until we have more concrete information. It could be a bumpy ride, but one which isn’t about to start for some time.

In the meantime, we will keep you informed about any proposals and the introduction of any definite changes.

Watch this space!

VAT – Trading in Bitcoin ruled exempt by ECJ

By Marcus Ward 22 October 2015

VAT – Trading in Bitcoin ruled exempt by ECJ

Further to my article of 13 March 2014 here

The European Court of Justice (ECJ), the highest court of appeal for EC matters, has ruled that trading in digital, such as bitcoin, is exempt. this is on the basis that they are a method of payment with no intrinsic value, like goods or commodities. They are therefore covered by the exemption relating to “currency, bank notes and coins used as legal tender” – (Article 135 (1) of the VAT directive).

This confirms that the UK authority’s approach is correct and that the VAT treatment applied in Germany, Poland and Sweden where those authorities treated the relevant transactions as subject to VAT, is erroneous.

This is good news for the UK as it is a big (if not the biggest) player in the bitcoin sector.

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