Tag Archives: exempt

VAT: Exemption of fund management services

By Marcus Ward 8 February 2023

HM Treasury has published a consultation paper on the treatment of the service of management of special investment funds (SIFs).

SIF meaning in VAT terms

There is no definition of a SIF in existing legislation.

Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Trust plc (case C-363/05) ruled on the interpretation of the term ‘Special Investment Funds as defined by Member States’.

The key points in this judgment are:

the term ‘special investment funds’ is capable of including closed-ended investment funds, such as investment trust companies (ITCs)
Member States have a discretion to define ‘special investment funds’ for the VAT exemption but, in doing so, must pay due regard to:
the purpose of the exemption
the principle of fiscal neutrality.

According to the Court, the purpose of the exemption is to facilitate investment in securities for investors through investment undertakings. This requires there to be VAT neutrality between the direct investment in securities and investment through collective investment undertakings, as the latter incurs a management charge. Furthermore, there must be equality of VAT treatment for funds which are similar to, and in competition with, funds falling within the scope of the exemption.

As a result of the case, the exemption was extended so that there was a level VAT playing field for all similar collective investment undertakings which compete in the UK retail market. This includes closed and open-ended collective investment undertakings, umbrellas and sub-funds, as well as some pension schemes.

The fund management exemption is limited to the management of SIFs. Consequently, the management of other investment funds will generally be standard-rated.

Legislation

The current VAT fund management regime is provided for by UK legislation, retained EU law and case law. The VAT Act 1994 implemented the Directive. Schedule 9, Group 5, Items 9 and 10 of the Act lists specific types of funds, the management of which is exempted from VAT.

Place of supply

This is important for SIFs management as if the supply is in respect of overseas funds the services are excluded from the exemption (they are outside the scope of UK VAT) when received overseas. This means that there is no output tax on the supply, but unlike exemption, it affords full recovery on input tax incurred in the UK. The perfect VAT outcome.

HMRC Consultation

The technical consultation sets out proposed reform of the legislation that provides for the VAT treatment of fund management. This is required because the fund management industry continues to innovate and introduced new types of funds to the marketplace, and the existing approach has struggled to keep pace with the evolution of the industry and proliferation of fund types.

The purpose of the exercise is to improve the legislative basis of the current VAT treatment of fund management.

Danger?

It is proposed that the following criteria for a fund to be considered a SIF would be legislated for:

a) the fund must be a collective investment

b) the fund must operate on the principle of risk-spreading

c) the return on the investment must depend on the performance of the investments, and the holders must bear the risk connected with the fund; and

d) the fund must be subject to the same conditions of competition and appeal to the same circle of investors as a UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities), that is funds intended for retail investors

There is a danger that if the exemption is broadened, fund managers which can now recover input tax may be denied so in the future.

If you have any queries, please contact us.

VAT: Insurance partial exemption

By Marcus Ward 24 January 2023

HMRC has issued new guidance for the insurance sector. It will be relevant to those dealing with partial exemption for insurers, including business and HMRC when discussing how partial exemption applies in practice for an insurer.

The guidance is intended to help insurers agree a fair and reasonable partial exemption special method (PESM) with the minimum of cost and delay. It also helpfully sets out definitions of various insurance/reinsurance transactions and business structures.

Background

Insurance businesses usually make a mixture of exempt and taxable supplies and may also provide specified services to customers located outside of the UK which incur a right to recover input tax.

When determining how to calculate the recoverable elements of input tax, the starting point is with the standard partial exemption method, as defined within The VAT Regulations 1995, regulation 101, but this will rarely be suitable for the insurance sector.

Many insurance businesses are complex organisations that provide many different services of differing liabilities to customers, often in different countries, using costs form suppliers around the world in different proportions. In addition, certain costs may have little relation to the value of the supplies for which they are incurred.

Therefore, most insurance businesses will need to apply to HMRC for approval to use a PESM.

Fair and reasonable

Partial exemption is the set of rules for determining recoverable input tax on costs which are used, or intended to be used, in making taxable supplies which carry a right of deduction. The first step is usually allocating costs which are directly attributable to taxable or exempt supplies. The balance (overhead input tax, or “the pot”) is required to be apportioned by either a standard method (The “standard method” requires a comparison between the value of taxable and exempt supplies made by the business) or a PESM.

A PESM needs be fair and reasonable, namely:

robust, in that it can cope with reasonably foreseeable changes in business
unambiguous, in that it can deal, definitively with all input tax likely to be incurred
operable, in that the business can apply it without undue difficulty
auditable, in that HMRC can check it without undue difficulty
fair, in that it reflects the economic use of costs in making taxable and exempt supplies

HMRC will only agree the use of a PESM if a business declares that it has taken reasonable steps to ensure the method is fair and reasonable. HMRC cannot confirm that a special method is fair and reasonable but will make enquiries based on an assessment of risk and will never knowingly approve an unfair or unreasonable special method.

Attribution of input tax

In the insurance sector, relatively few costs are either used wholly to make taxable or exempt supplies.

The VAT regulations (see above) require direct attribution to be carried out before cost allocation to sectors. However, direct attribution at this stage can cause difficulties where tax departments are unaware of how particular costs are used and have a large number of such costs to review.

It has therefore been agreed between HMRC and the Association of British Insurers that, whilst direct attribution must still take place, it need not always be the first step, and could, for some costs, follow the allocation stage. Methods could refer to direct attribution both pre- and post-allocation, so that costs are dealt with in the most appropriate way. The underlying principle is that the method must be both fair and reasonable.

Types of PESMs

The guidance gives the following examples of special methods:

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

with descriptions of each method.

VAT: HMRC Toolkits updated

By Marcus Ward 4 June 2020

HMRC has updated the following online toolkits for June 2020:

Input tax

Output tax and

Partial exemption

The Toolkits

These toolkits can be a useful resource. Although designed for agents and advisers, they can equally be of assistance to businesses when completing VAT returns. The contents are based on HMRC’s view of how tax law should be applied, so they should not be used as a substitute for proper professional advice. These toolkits set out areas of risk, provide general checklists, details of record keeping and links to HMRC information. Many find that these toolkits are more user friendly than “traditional” HMRC guidance and they address many contentious areas.

Overview

For a helpful general guide to input tax and checklist please see here. And an introduction to partial exemption here.

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: 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: Crowdfunding – What is taxable?

By Marcus Ward 9 April 2020

What is crowdfunding?

Crowdfunding is the practice of funding a project or venture by raising many small amounts of money from a large number of people, typically via the internet on specifically designed platforms and is an alternative to traditional ways of raising finance. The model is usually based on three parties: the project initiator who proposes the idea or project to be funded, individuals or groups who support the idea, and a moderating organisation (the “platform”) that brings the parties together to launch the idea.

VAT Treatment

The VAT treatment of supplies that might potentially be made is no different to similar financing arrangements, for example; sponsorship, donations and investments made through more traditional routes. Whether a recipient of crowdfunding is liable to charge and pay VAT depends on the facts in each case.

Examples

Donations

where nothing is given in return for the funding, it will be treated as a donation and not liable to VAT – the position is the same where all that the funder receives is a bare acknowledgement, such as a mention in a programme or something similar

Goods and/or services

where the funder receives goods or services that have a real value associated with them, for example; clothing, tickets, DVDs, film viewings, output tax will be due

Combination

where the payment is for a combination of the two examples above, if it is clear that the donation element is optional then that part of the sponsorship can be treated as a non-taxable donation and the supply will be taxable. If a donation element cannot be carved out, it is likely that all of the payment will be considered as VATable

Investment

where the funding takes the form of an investment where the funder is entitled to a financial return such as; interest, dividends or profit share, any payment due to the funder is unlikely to be liable to output tax, The reason why most of these arrangements are outside the scope of VAT is that the provision of capital in a business venture is not seen as a supply for VAT purposes

Royalties

if the arrangement is that the funder receives royalties based on a supply of intellectual property or some other similar benefit the payment is likely to be consideration for a taxable supply and output tax will be due

VAT registration

If income from the sources above which are deemed to be subject to VAT exceeds the VAT registration limit (currently £85,000 in any twelve-month period) the person, in whichever legal identity, such as; individual, company, partnership, Trust etc will be liable to register for VAT. If income is below this limit, it will be possible, but not mandatory to VAT register. The benefits of voluntary registration here.

Input tax recovery

If VAT registered, any input tax incurred on costs relating to crowdfunding is usually recoverable (see here for exceptions). However, if the costs relate to donations or some types of investment then input tax claims are specifically blocked as they would relate to non-business activities.

Commentary

There can be difficulties in establishing the tax liability of crowdfunding and in a broader sense “sponsorship” in general. However, experience insists that the biggest issue is initially identifying that there may be a VAT issue at all. If you, or your clients are involved in crowdfunding, or have sponsors, it would be prudent to review the VAT treatment of the activities.

VAT treatment of coronavirus grants

By Marcus Ward 6 April 2020

HMRC has announced that it will be providing assistance for the self-employed affected by coronavirus by way of support grants.

Flat rate scheme (FRS) treatment

The FRS applies to all income received by a business (even exempt and zero rated) however, because the grant is not a supply for VAT purposes – because nothing is done in consideration for the payment, income from this source is not covered by the FRS. Consequently no output tax is due on the receipt of these payments and the value should not appear on VAT returns.

This is also the case for any businesses not operating the FRS.

Input tax

In either case, the receipt of a grant should not affect the businesses’ ability to recovery input tax.

Budget 2020 – VAT implications

By Marcus Ward 11 March 2020

A summary of how the 2020 budget changes VAT rules:

e-publications

Zero rating will apply to e-publications from 1 December 2020. This brings e-publications in line with traditional printed matter. The zero rate will apply to:

e-books
e-newspapers
e-magazines
academic e-journals

Presumably, this brings an end to HMRC’s arguments set out in the News Corp case.

Postponed Accounting

From 1 January 2021 postponed accounting will apply to all imports of goods, including those from the EU. This will provide an important boost to those VAT registered UK businesses which are integrated in international supply chains as they adapt to the UK’s position post Brexit.

Sanitary products

From 1 January 2021 the zero rate will apply to women’s sanitary products. This is calculated to save the average women £40 over her life.

Consultation

A consultation paper will be published to gather views on the potential approach to duty and tax-free goods policy post Brexit.

Cross-border goods policy

An informal consultation process will be launched in spring 2020 on the VAT and Excise treatment of goods crossing UK borders after Brexit.

Fund management

As announced on 4 March 2020 the government is legislating to clarify when fund management services are exempt from VAT.

Financial services

An industry working group will be set up to review how financial services are treated for VAT purposes. Presumably how Brexit will affect such services.

“Quick Fixes” Directive

Legislation will be introduced to simplify rules for the VAT treatment of intra-EU movements of call-off stock, allowing businesses to delay accounting for VAT until the goods are called-off.

Partial Exemption

Following the recent call for evidence on the simplification of the VAT rules on Partial Exemption and the Capital Goods Scheme, the government has said it will continue to engage with businesses in relation to their responses and will publish a response in due course.

Commentary

These proposed measures will be broadly be welcomed by business. Especially those in relation to e-publications and Postponed Accounting. It was widely expected that HMRC would lose its argument that e-publications and hard copy publications should be treated differently in any case. Postponed Accounting takes us back to the pre-1990s era. It looks very much like this means a “No-Deal” and although Postponed Accounting may be an easement for some aspects, it remains unnecessary if an agreement with the EU can be reached. However, there appears to be no political will nor appetite to reach such an agreement, so business suffers.

VAT: Extent of exemption for healthcare. The X-GmbH CJEU case

By Marcus Ward 10 March 2020

Latest from the courts

In the CJEU case of X, a German business, the issue was whether services provided by telephone could be treated as exempt. The decision is not available in English in the link above, so thanks to Google translate and very rusty schoolboy language skills!

Background

X provided a healthcare hotline to people covered by certain insurance. The types of services carried out where in respect of medical issues; medical advice, answers to queries, explanations of possible diagnoses and treatments, and patient support programmes for certain conditions. The service was provided by suitably qualified nurses, medical staff and doctors.

The issue

Was this service exempt from VAT as personal care considering it was “support” provided by telephone? He relevant legislation is Article 132(1)(c) of the VAT Directive. A separate issue was whether the staff required additional proof of their professional qualifications to qualify as an exempt service by telephone. The advice was provided via a computer assisted assessment, using targeted questions allowing X to assess the patient’s situation and to advise accordingly. Consequently, there was a degree of automation involved.

The German authorities considered that the supplies fell short of the exemption and raised assessments for output tax due on the services.

Decision

The CJEU has ruled that personal care is not dependent on where it is carried out and there is no bar to it being conducted by telephone. X contended that its services were directly connected with illness and was medical care and, as a result of its activities, the cost of subsequent treatment was reduced.

The court established that the supply was exempt if it met two tests:

it must be a service of personal care, and
it must be carried out within the framework of the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions as defined by the Member State concerned

Therefore, healthcare services carried out by telephone may fall within the exemption, but only if they meet all the conditions for applying this exemption. The test was not how the services were delivered.

Whether X’s services met the exemption conditions depended on case law and whether they were to;

diagnose, treat and cure illnesses or health anomalies
protect (including maintaining or restoring) the health of individuals.
explain diagnosis and therapies
propose modifications to treatments and medication

Such services were likely to have a ‘therapeutic purpose’. However, simply; directing patients to factsheets, providing specialists’ contact details and communicating information is insufficient to qualify for exemption and would be regarded as of a (taxable) administrational nature.

Summary

The services provided by telephone, consisting of providing advice on health and illness, were likely to be exempt, if they pursue a ‘therapeutic aim’. However, this was for the German referring court to verify. On the “additional qualifications” point, EU law does not define medical professions, so it is the responsibility of each Member State to determine the necessary qualifications. In the UK, these qualifications are set out at VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 7, item 1 (mainly; registered or enrolled as a doctor, optician, osteopath, chiropractor, nurse or midwife). It was decided that Article 132(1)(c) does not require that those X’s staff which provide telephone services to obtain additional professional qualifications.

Commentary

There is often significant uncertainty when businesses provide “healthcare”, This has mainly manifested in questions of whether staff or medical services are actually provided (and in more wide-ranging cases, whether the provision of staff is by way of agent or principal). However, with technology moving faster than ever, it is helpful to have these guidelines and the understanding that it is not just “old-fashioned” medical services which are covered by the exemption.

VAT: Interaction of Clawback and the Capital Goods Scheme – The Stichting Schoonzicht case

By Marcus Ward 10 March 2020

Latest from the courts

The difference between intended use and first actual use of an asset.

In the Dutch case of Stichting Schoonzicht (C‑791/18) the AG was asked to provide an opinion on the interaction between clawback and the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) via Directive 2006/112/EC, Articles 185 and 187. Details of the CGS here. In the UK clawback is set out in The General Regulations 1995, Reg 108.

Background

Stichting Schoonzicht constructed a number of apartments which it intended to sell on completion. This would have been a taxable supply and afforded full input tax recovery on the costs incurred on the development. Unfortunately, due to market conditions, the business was unable to find buyers at the appropriate sale price. Therefore, a decision was made to let some of the flats on a short-term basis until the market picked up. This was done and created an exempt supply. The intention to make taxable supplies remained, but in the meantime, exempt supplies had actually been made. This could affect the original input tax claim. Details of partial exemption here.

Technical

The Dutch referring court entertained doubts about the compatibility of the ‘first-use full adjustment’ requirement provided for under Netherlands law and the CGS.

So the issue was whether the CGS (Article 187 of the VAT Directive) applied such that any required adjustments to the initial input tax claim could be made via a CGS calculation, or whether, as the Dutch authorities contended, there should be a one-off clawback of the input tax previously claimed.

Decision

In the AG’s opinion, the Dutch tax authorities could clawback 4/7 of the input tax on the construction (as four of the flats were let and three remained unoccupied). The AG decided that the CGS could co-exist with clawback and that EU Member States are allowed to adjust the initial deduction of input tax using clawback where actual use varies from intended use. A distinction was made between clawback and the CGS. The CGS is intended to adjust input tax claims as a result of fluctuations in the taxable use of capital assets over a period of time (ten years for buildings in the UK).

Commentary

In the UK, there are published easements for input tax recovery in similar circumstances: “VAT: Partial Exemption – adjustments when house builders let their dwellings”. However, this is an interesting AG opinion, is worth a read and it will be interesting to see how this develops. However, with prior planning, this situation may be avoided in the UK (where new house sales are zero rated).