Dance classes in some EU countries are subject to different VAT rates depending on whether the dance style is considered artistic or entertainment. In the UK, belly dancing and ceroc lessons are standard rated, but ballet is exempt.
Tag Archives: exempt
VAT: HMRC partial exemption guidance updated
VAT Notice 706 has been updated on he option to send an email to get an approval for a partial exemption special method has been removed from sections 6.2, Appendix 2 and how to apply.
Para 6.2 – “Get approval for a special method
You cannot change your method without our prior approval. You must continue to use your current method, whether that is the standard method or a special method, until we approve or direct the use of another method or direct termination of its use.
You can get approval for a special method by using the online service.
If you are unable to use the online service, contact VAT Written Enquiries team by post.
You must explain clearly how your proposed method will work, you should see Appendix 2 in this guide.
When you propose a special method you must include a declaration that the method is fair from its effective date of application, and for the foreseeable future so that from its effective date a fair amount of input tax is recovered”.
Examples of special methods (PESM) are:
- sectors and sub-sectors
- multi pot
- time spent
- headcount
- values
- number of transactions
- floor space
- cost accounting system
- pro-rata
- combinations of the above methods
Partial Exemption guidance here
VAT: Definition of insurance
Further to my article on insurance and partial exemption, HMRC has published a new definition of what insurance means for VAT as a consequence of the CJEU United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Ltd and another v HMRC [2020] STC 2169 case.
It is set out in para 2.2 of Public Notice 701/36
What insurance is
There is no statutory definition of insurance, although guidance can be gained from previous legal decisions in which the essential nature of insurance has been considered.
The Court of Justice of the European Union , in the case of United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Ltd & Anor v R & C Commrs (Case C235-19) [2020], upheld the definition given in the case of Card Protection Plan Ltd v C & E Commrs (Case C-349/96) [1999] which concluded that:
“…the essentials of an insurance transaction are… that the insurer undertakes, in return for prior payment of a premium, to provide the insured, in the event of materialisation of the risk covered, with the service agreed when the contract was concluded”.
HMRC also accept that certain funeral plan contracts are insurance (and therefore exempt from VAT), even though they are not regulated as such under the FSMA insurance regulatory provisions.
Vehicle breakdown insurance is also seen as insurance even though providers are given a specific exclusion under the FSMA from the requirement to be authorised.
VAT: Electronic Invoicing (eInvoicing)
The rules for sending, receiving and storing VAT invoices in an electronic format.
What is an eInvoicing?
eInvoicing is the transmission and storage of invoices in an electronic format without duplicate paper documents. The format may be a structured format such as XML or an unstructured format such as PDF.
The benefits of eInvoicing
eInvoicing offers significant advantages over paper invoices. The electronic transmission of documents in a secure environment usually provides for:
- structured data for auditing
- improved traceability of orders
- decreased reliance on paper reducing storage and handling costs
- rapid access and retrieval
- improved cash flow
- security and easier dispute handling
Currently, a business does not have to use eInvoicing, but if it does, in conjunction with paper invoices, (a so-called dual system) it can only do this for a short period, ie; if eInvoicing is being trialled.
It is not necessary to inform HMRC that a business is using eInvoicing.
Requirements
eInvoices must contain the same information as paper invoices.
A business may eInvoice where the “authenticity of the origin”, “integrity of invoice data”, and “legibility” can be ensured, and the customer agrees to receive eInvoices
- authenticity of the origin means the assurance of the identity of the supplier or issuer of the invoice
- integrity of content means that the invoice content has not been altered
- legibility of an invoice means that the invoice can be easily read
A business is free to select a method of ensuring the above requirements. Examples of ensuring authenticity and integrity include:
- an advanced or qualified electronic signature
- Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
- business controls which create a reliable audit trail between an invoice and a supply of goods or services
Formats
HMRC accepts a variety of eInvoice message formats, including:
- traditional EDI standards such as UN/EDIFACT, EANCOM and ODETTE
- XML-based standards
- comma-delimited ASCII, PDF
The eInvoices must be transmitted in a secure environment, using industry-accepted authenticity and security technologies, including, but not limited to: http-s, SSL, S-MIME and FTP.
Internal controls required
A business will need to demonstrate that it has control over:
- completeness and accuracy of the invoice data
- timeliness of processing
- prevention, or detection of, the possible corruption of data during transmission
- prevention of duplication of processing (by the person who receives the invoice)
- prevention of the automatic processing, by the person who receives the invoice, of certain types of invoice on which VAT may not be recoverable – for example, margin scheme invoices
- a recovery plan in case of a system failure or loss of data
- an audit trail between eInvoicing systems and the internal application systems which are used to process the eInvoices
Storage
The same rules apply to storage of eInvoices as to paper invoices. A business must normally keep copies of all invoices for six years.
HMRC Access
HMRC may request access to:
- the operations of any computer systems which produce or receive VAT invoices, and to the data stored on them
- supporting documentation including; file structures, audit trail, controls, safe keeping, and information about how the accounting system is organised
- information about the system’s interrogation facilities
HMRC must be able to take copies of information from the system.
If a business cannot meet the conditions for transmission and storage of eInvoicing, it will have to issue paper invoices.
VAT: Is a cosmetic treatment exempt medical care? The Illuminate Skin Clinics Ltd case
Latest from the courts
In the Illuminate Skin Clinics Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether cosmetic procedures qualified as exempt medical treatment.
Background
The Appellant runs a private, ie; non-NHS clinic offering a range of aesthetic, skincare and wellness treatments advertised as: fat freezing, thread lifts, chemical peels, fillers, facials, intravenous drips and boosters. The Appellant’s sole director and shareholder, Dr Shotter, complies with Item 1 (below) in terms of qualifications, ie; she is enrolled on the register of medical professionals.
The list of treatments included:
- Botox
- Dermal fillers
- CoolSculpting
- Microsclerotherapy
- Prescription skincare
- Chemical peels
- Microdermabrasion
- Thread lifting
- Thermavein
- Aqualyx
- Platelet-rich plasma treatment.
HMRC contended that these supplies were standard rated because there is no medical purpose behind the treatments, and they are carried out for purely cosmetic purposes. An assessment was raised for output tax on this income.
The Appellant argued that what it provided was exempt medical care via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 1 – “The supply of services consisting in the provision of medical care by a person registered or enrolled in any of the following:
- The register of medical practitioners…”
And its contention was that the primary purpose of the treatments was “the protection, maintenance or restoration of the health of the person concerned”
In the Mainpay case it was established that “medical” care means “diagnosing, treating and, in so far as possible, curing diseases or health disorders”
Decision
Although there may have been a beneficial psychological impact on undergoing such treatments and this may have been the reason for a patient to proceed (and they may be recommended by qualified medical professionals) this, in itself, was insufficient to persuade the judge that the services were exempt. Consequety, the appeal was rejected and the assessment was upheld.
The FTT found that there was very little evidence of diagnosis. This was important to the overall analysis because diagnosis is the starting point of medical care. Without diagnosis, “treatment”, in the sense of the exemption, is not something which is being done responsively to a disease or a health disorder.
The fact that people go to the clinic feeling unhappy with some aspect of their appearance, and (at least sometimes) are happier when something is done at the clinic about that aspect of their appearance, does not mean that the treatment is medical, or has a therapeutic aim.
It was telling that the differentiation, in Dr Shotter’s own words, between what the clinic does from what “a GP or other health professional” does is; diagnosis. It also highlighted the general trend or purpose of the clinic’s activity – helping people to feel better about their appearance, in contexts where their appearance is not itself a health condition, or threatening to their health in a way which mandates treatment of their appearance by a GP or another health professional.
Helping someone to achieve goals in relation to their appearance, which is what this clinic did, is not treating someone’s mental health status, but is going to their self-esteem and self-confidence. It is a misuse of language to say that this is healthcare in the sense that it would fall within Item 1 of Group 7.
Commentary
There has been an ongoing debate as to what constitutes medical care. Over 20 years ago I was advising a large London clinic on this very point and much turned on whether patients’ mental health was improved by undergoing what many would regard as cosmetic procedures. We were somewhat handicapped in our arguments by the fact that many of the patients were lap dancers undergoing breast augmentation on the direction of the owner of the club…
It is worth remembering that not all services provided by a medically registered practitioner are exempt. The question of whether the medical care exemption is engaged in any given case will turn on the particular facts.
Further recent cases on medical exemption here and here.
VAT: Mind the gap – HMRC latest figures
GOV.UK has published details of the most recent measurement of the tax gap for 2021-2022.
What is the tax gap?
The tax gap is measured by comparing the net tax total theoretical liability with tax actually paid. This is comparing the amount of tax HMRC expected to receive in the UK and the amount HMRC actually received.
The figures
The tax gap is estimated to be 4.8% of total theoretical tax liabilities, or £35.8 billion in absolute terms, in the 2021 to 2022 tax year.
Total theoretical tax liabilities for the year were £739.3 billion.
There has been a long-term reduction in the tax gap as a proportion of theoretical liabilities: the tax gap reduced from 7.5% in the tax year 2005 to 2006 to 4.8% in 2021 to 2022 – remaining low and stable between the years 2017 to 2018 and 2021 to 2022.
Criminal activity and evasion accounted for £4.1billion loss in tax collected.
30% of all underpayments of tax were due to a failure to take reasonable care, while 13% of instances were down to evasion.
A massive 56% of the tax gap is made up by small businesses (up from 40% of the total in 2017-18). Whether this is down to HMRC improving collection from large businesses or an increasing failure to crack down on small business is a moot point. It remains to be seen how HMRC react to this new information, but experience insists that small businesses may expect increased attention for the authorities.
The VAT gap
VAT represents 21% of the overall tax gap.
The VAT tax gap is 5.4%.
The absolute VAT gap is £7.6 billion.
The VAT gap has reduced from 14.0% of theoretical VAT liability in 2005 to 2006 to 5.4% in 2021 to 2022.
More than two thirds of the theoretical VAT liability was estimated to be from household consumption. The remainder came from the expenditure by businesses that supply goods and services where the VAT is non-recoverable (they are exempt from VAT), and from the government and housing sectors.
Information on the method used to estimate the VAT gap is here for those interested (I don’t imagine that there will be that many…).
So, £7.6 millions of VAT is missing. That seems an awful lot.
VAT refunds guidance
VAT Claims
HMRC has completely rewritten its manual VRM7000 on VAT repayments and set-off.
When a business makes a claim for VAT (for whatever reason) HMRC have the power to set-off a payment against other amounts due.
HMRC also has a discretion to take account of any taxpayer liabilities in other regimes HMRC administers such as corporation tax or excise duty.
In summary, the new guidance covers:
- Inherent set-off via The VAT General Regulations 1995, Section 80(2A) and Regulation 29. This is where, say, a supply was incorrectly treated as standard rated when it was exempt. It would not be possible to claim the overcharged output tax (subject to unjust enrichment) without recognising the potential overclaim of input tax as a result of partial exemption.
- Set-off under The VAT Gen Regs 1995, Section 81(3) HMRC. This covers HMRC liability to only pay a claim after setting off any VAT, penalties, interest or surcharge owed to it. Section 81(3) is mandatory and applies to the current liabilities of a taxpayer, regardless of the period incurred.
- Set-off under section 81(3A). This is a special provision which requires HMRC to set any liabilities that would otherwise be out-of-time to assess, against any amounts for which HMRC is liable under a claim. It does this by disregarding the assessment time limit, to undo all the consequences of a mistake.
- VAT group set-offs. When a company leaves a VAT group, it is still jointly and severally liable under section 43(1) VAT Act 1994 for any outstanding debts of the group incurred while the company was a member. Any VAT claim by the ex-member will be subject to set-off against these group debts.
- Set-offs against other taxes and duties. HMRC has the discretion under Section 130 of the Finance Act 2008 to set-off debts due from any other tax regimes HMRC is responsible for. This is subject to the insolvency rules in section 131 Finance Act 2008. A taxpayer should always check that no further liabilities have arisen since the claim was made.
- Transfers of rights to claim to another person (Section 133 of the Finance Act 2008) – A claim will be subject to set-off of any outstanding liabilities to HMRC from both transferor and transferee. NB: HMRC policy is to make reasonable efforts to recover outstanding debts from the original creditor before applying set-off to the current creditors claim.
VAT: Charity exemption for show admittance – The Yorkshire Agricultural Society case
Latest from the courts
In the Yorkshire Agricultural Society First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether payments for entry into the annual The Great Yorkshire Show qualified as exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 12, item 1 –
“The supply of goods and services by a charity in connection with an event—
-
-
- that is organised for charitable purposes by a charity or jointly by more than one charity,
- whose primary purpose is the raising of money, and
- that is promoted as being primarily for the raising of money.”
-
HMRC raised an assessment on the grounds that the supply of admittance fell outwith the exemption so it was standard rated. It appears that this view was formed solely on the basis that the events were not advertised as fundraisers.
The exemption covers events whose primary purpose is the raising of money and which are promoted primarily for that purpose. HMRC contended that the events were not advertised as fundraisers and therefore the exemption did not apply. Not surprisingly, the appellant contended that all of the tests at Group 12 were fully met.
The FTT found difficulty in understanding HMRC’s argument. It was apparent from the relevant: tickets, posters and souvenir programmes all featured the words “The Great Yorkshire Show raises funds for the Yorkshire Agricultural Society to help support farming and the countryside”.
Decision
The FTT spent little time finding for the taxpayer and allowing the appeal. The assessment was withdrawn. There was a separate issue of the assessment being out of time, which was academic given the initial decision. However, The Tribunal was critical of HMRC’s approach to the time limit test (details in the linked decision). HMRC’s argument was that apparently, the taxpayer had brought the assessment on itself by not providing the information which HMRC wanted. The Judge commented: “That is not the same as HMRC being in possession of information which justified it in issuing the Assessment. It is an inversion of the statutory test”.
HMRC’s performance (or lack of it)
Apart from the clear outcome of this case, it also demonstrated how HMRC can get it so wrong. The FTT stated that it was striking that there was very little by way of substantive challenge by HMRC to the appellant’s evidence, nor any detailed exploration of it in cross-examination. The FTT, which is a fact-finding jurisdiction, asked a series of its own questions to establish some facts about the Society’s activities and the Show in better detail. No-one from HMRC filed a witness statement or gave evidence, even though HMRC, in its application to amend its Statement of Case, had said that the decision-maker would be giving evidence. The decision-maker did not give evidence. HMRC were wrong on the assessment and the time limit statutory test and did not cover itself in glory at the hearing.
Commentary
More evidence that if any business receives an assessment, it is always a good idea to get it reviewed. Time and time again we see HMRC make basic errors and misunderstand the VAT position. We have an excellent record on challenging HMRC decisions. Charities have a hard time of it with VAT, and while it is accurate to say that some of the legislation and interpretation is often complex for NFPs, HMRC do not help by taking such ridiculous cases.
VAT: Was an option to tax valid? The Rolldeen Estates Ltd case
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 – What records must be kept by a business?
I thought that it may be useful to round-up all the record-keeping requirements in one place and focus on what HMRC want to see. It is always good practice to carry out an ongoing review a business’ records to ensure that they comply with the rules.
General requirements
Every taxable person must keep such records as HMRC may require. Specifically, every taxable person must, for the purposes of accounting for VAT, keep the following records:
- business and accounting records
- VAT account
- copies of all VAT invoices issued
- VAT invoices received
- certificates issued under provisions relating to fiscal or other warehouse regimes
- copy documentation issued, and documentation received, relating to the transfer, dispatch or transport of goods overseas and/or imported
- credit notes, debit notes and other documents which evidence an increase or decrease in consideration that are received, and copies of such documents issued
- copy of any self-billing agreement to which the business is a party
- where the business is the customer party to a self-billing agreement, the name, address and VAT registration number of each supplier with whom the business has entered into a self-billing agreement
Additionally
HMRC may supplement the above provisions by a Notice published by them for that purpose. They supplement the statutory requirements and have legal force.
Business records include, in addition to specific items listed above, orders and delivery notes, relevant business correspondence, purchases and sales books, cash books and other account books, records of daily takings such as till rolls, annual accounts, including trading and profit and loss accounts and bank statements and paying-in slips.
Unless the business mainly involves the supply of goods and services direct to the public and less detailed VAT invoices are issued, all VAT invoices must also be retained. Cash and carry wholesalers must keep all till rolls and product code lists.
Records must be kept of all taxable goods and services received or supplied in the course of business (standard and zero-rated), together with any exempt supplies, gifts or loans of goods, taxable self-supplies and any goods acquired or produced in the course of business which are put to private or other non-business use.
All records must be kept up to date and be in sufficient detail to allow calculation of VAT. They do not have to be kept in any set way but must be in a form which will enable HMRC officers to check easily the figures on the VAT return. Records must be readily available to HMRC officers on request. If a taxable person has more than one place of business, a list of all branches must be kept at the principal place of business.
Comprehensive records
In addition, we always advise businesses to retain full information of certain calculations such as; partial exemption, the Capital Goods Scheme, margin schemes, TOMS, business/non-business, mileage and subsistence claims, promotional schemes, vouchers, discounts, location of overseas customers, and OSS, amongst other records. The aim is to ensure that any inspector is satisfied with the records and that any information required is readily available. This avoids delays, misunderstandings and unnecessary enquiries which may lead to assessments and penalties.
If you have any doubts that your business records are sufficient, please contact us.