Tag Archives: first-tier-tribunal

VAT: What is an economic activity? The Pertemps’ case

By Marcus Ward 12 August 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Pertemps Limited the issue was whether the operation of the respondent’s salary sacrifice scheme to provide travel and subsistence payments to employees was a supply for VAT purposes and, indeed, whether it was an economic activity at all.

I have considered what is an economic activity (business) many times, examples here, here, here and here. It is a perennial VAT issue and goes to the very heart of the tax. EU legislation talks of economic activity, which is taken to be “business activity” in the UK. There is no legal definition of either economic or business activity so case law on this point is very important.

Background

Employees of the respondent were offered the option of;

being paid a salary, from which they would have to meet any travel and subsistence expenses, or
participating in Pertemps’ scheme where they would be paid their travel and subsistence expenses but receive a reduced salary.

The amount of the reduction was equal to the amount of the expense payment plus a fixed amount to defray the costs of running the scheme. The issue was whether the charge for using the scheme was taxable.

HMRC’s appeal against the FTT decision [2018] UKFTT 369 (TC) was based on the view that the scheme involved a taxable supply of services by Pertemps to its participating employees such that output tax was due of the fixed payments. The FTT concluded that Pertemps did supply services to the employees. but the supply was not within the scope of VAT because the operation of the scheme was not an economic activity. It allowed Pertemps’ appeal. The FTT also held that, if there had been a supply, it would have been exempt.

Decision

The UT decided that, although the FTT erred in law when it concluded that Pertemps made a supply of services to the employees who participated in the scheme, it was correct when it concluded that Pertemps was not carrying on any economic activity when it provided the scheme for employees. The charge only arose in the context of the employment relationship, and it could not be compared to an open market supply of accountancy services.

Therefore, HMRC’s appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Care should always be taken with salary sacrifice schemes. Some, but not all, sacrifices are subject to output tax. HMRC internal guidance on the subject here. This case is a helpful clarification on the matter of certain charges to staff. It also adds another layer to the age-old issue of what constitutes a business activity. VAT is only due on business supplies, and it is crucial to appreciate what is, and isn’t an economic activity. This is especially important in respect of charities and NFP bodies.

VAT: Evidence to claim input tax

By Marcus Ward 9 July 2019

Latest from the courts

Hot on the heels of my recent article here, a First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case has considered what evidence may be accepted for a claim for input tax.

The Wasteaway case contemplated whether HMRC’s disallowance of the appellant’s claim, (via The VAT Act 1994, section 73) for input tax was correct, or whether they should have allowed the claim based on alternative evidence of receiving the relevant supplies in lieu of missing tax invoices.

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, or should HMRC accept any other evidence to support a claim?

Background

It was stated that the invoices were lost during a time when the business was evicted from its premises. The judge formed the view that the appellant’s approach to record keeping was “slapdash”. Which isn’t a good starting point. HMRC issued an assessment because it was decided that the appellant had “not provided satisfactory evidence of the taxable supply to the business and its direct link to your onward taxable supply for discretion to be considered under Article 182 of the Principal VAT Directive. If no invoice, a pro forma invoice or a document stating ‘this is not a VAT invoice’ has been provided…” along with an offer to provide alternative evidence.

It was also discovered, during the inspection, that not only had output tax been underdeclared, but the appellant had a history of poor record keeping.

Decision

Despite the business providing; records of payments, in some cases weighbridge tickets, detailed bank statements, spreadsheets and Sage accounts information – which it was contended amounted to alternative documentary evidence, it was ruled that this was insufficient, so the assessment stood.

The lack of care in obtaining and retaining documents, poor accounting procedures such that output tax was understated and the past behaviour and history of the taxpayer meant that HMRC was not obliged to accept the proffered alternative evidence, The general unreliability of the records counted against the business and that HMRC acted in best judgement.

It was stated that HMRC were perfectly justified in requiring more detailed and convincing documentary evidence to replace the missing VAT invoices than the appellant provided. And the inspector could not be criticised for refusing to accept the extremely thin evidence supplied as an alternative to the missing VAT invoices.

Commentary

It is clear that every business must keep proper records and retain all documents, especially invoices. It was hardly surprising that failure to do that ensured that this appeal was dismissed. It also didn’t help that the appellant had a poor track record of accounting.

HMRC do have the discretion to accept alternative evidence, however, this is more likely if the relevant invoices have been genuinely misplaced, destroyed or not received. There is also the opportunity to go to the supplier and request a replacement invoice.

So, basically: Keep records properly or it will cost you!

VAT: Bad Debt Relief – The Total case

By Marcus Ward 1 July 2019

Latest from the courts

Bad Debt Relief (BDR) is often an area that creates disputes with HMRC. The legislation has changed over the years and the current rules are described here.

Background

Broadly speaking, under normal VAT rules, a supplier is required to account for output tax, even if the supply has not been paid for (however, the use of cash accounting or certain retail schemes removes the problem of VAT on bad debts from the supplier). BDR, as the names suggests, is intended to provide relief on the VAT element of a bad debt. Output tax previously claimed may be “reclaimed” by using the BDR mechanism.

The law which governs the claiming of bad debt relief is The VAT Act 1994, Section 36, and Section 26A which covers the repayment of input tax when a customer fails to pay for supplies received within six months of the relevant date, and The VAT Regulations 1995, Parts XIX, XIXA and XIXB.

Conditions for claiming bad debt relief

A business must have accounted for the VAT on the supplies and paid it to HMRC
It must have been written off the debt in its day to day VAT accounts and transferred it to a separate bad debt account
The value of the supply must not be more than the customary selling price
The debt must not have been paid, sold or factored under a valid legal assignment
The debt must have remained unpaid for a period of six months after the date of the supply

The case

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Total Catering Equipment Ltd [2019] TC 07184, heard on 4 June 2019, the issue was whether payments from customers which were diverted by a dishonest employee should be recognised as a payment for a supply of goods (no BDR available as the money was received then stolen) or whether the fact that the business did not actually receive the payment meant that a BDR was appropriate. Total supplied goods to customers, some of whom paid by credit or debit cards. The member of staff responsible for these transactions, set up a separate (from the business) bank account and fraudulently diverted customers; payments into his own account. A BDR claim was made by the appellant when the crime was discovered. The claim was refused by HMRC on the grounds that the employee had received payment “on behalf” of Total before making payment into his own account.

Decision

The judge found for the appellant. The appeal was allowed – it was decided that Total had never actually received payment for the goods supplied, so BDR was available. A distinction was made between the diversion of monies in this case (where the supplier was deemed to never had received the money) and a theft by an employee from, eg; a till or subsequent withdrawals from the business’ bank account (where a business would have received payment before the money was stolen).

Commentary

I have written about VAT and illegal activities here. There can be a fine line between taxable illegal activities and non-taxable illegal activities, and subtleties around tax points (time of supply) misrepresentation and consideration. If you, or your clients have been in the unfortunate position of being on the receiving end of crime, it would be adding insult to injury to have to account for tax on money you do not have. I would always advise that any demands from HMRC, or refusals to refund VAT should be properly reviewed.

VAT: Partial exemption, the N Brown case

By Marcus Ward 18 March 2019

Latest from the courts.

Partial exemption has always been, and probably always will be, the most complex and oft debated area of the tax.

Attribution

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of N Brown Group plc the issue was how to attribute input tax incurred on marketing. This included:

online
catalogues and leaflets
parcel packs
inserts in magazines and newspapers
direct mailings
advertisements in publications
TV advertisements
telemarketing
brand development
PR
celebrity endorsements
market research
photo shoots

Background

N Brown, as you may know, sells clothing and household goods online to the public. It has only a few retail stores so does not have the facility that a “bricks and mortar” retailer would have of displaying goods in its stores. It therefore has to incur significant marketing costs to bring its products to the attention of its customers and present them in an attractive way that encourages sales. The activities of the appellant include the sale of these goods, which is standard-rated for VAT purposes, and the provision of finance, which is exempt for VAT purposes. The finance element is the provision of credit which produces significant income from the interest on monthly balances which consumers do not pay off.

Issue

The issue was whether the input tax incurred on the marketing was attributable to the sale of goods which were advertised or, as HMRC contended; to both its taxable and exempt income (so that it was residual). If HMRC were correct an element of the input tax would fall to be irrecoverable via the appellants’ partial exemption calculation. HMRC’s position was that the input tax which N Brown incurred in respect of the marketing is residual because, although they did not seek to deny the existence of a “direct and immediate link” between the relevant goods and services and taxable supplies that the appellant made, they consider that there is also a direct and immediate link to the exempt credit provided.

Unsurprisingly, N Brown’s position was that the vast majority of goods and services received in connection with the marketing had a “direct and immediate link” only with taxable supplies that it made and so the relevant input tax was not residual and is therefore recoverable in full.

A subtle distinction, however, as £42 million of VAT was at stake, quite a vital one!

Technical

A general guide to partial exemption is available here

Broadly, a partially exempt business is required to attribute input tax incurred to three categories:

Taxable activities (here, the sale of goods) fully recoverable
Exempt activities (here the provision of credit) not recoverable
Non-attributable (residual) – input tax attributable to both taxable and exempt activities, or neither. This input tax must be apportioned either by the “standard method” or special method agreed with HMRC.

Decision

The judge found that there was a two-way relationship between the sale of the goods and the provision of credit terms. As a consequence, the input tax fell into the category of non-attributable (residual) even if the relevant advertisements made no mention of credit at all. It was also found that the standard method (used by HMRC) did not produce a reasonable outcome so the assessment issued by HMRC would need adjustment in the taxpayer’s favour. This required a different method to be devised and that certain elements of exempt income could be ignored in the calculation. I suspect that negotiations on an agreeable method might take some time…

Commentary

This case demonstrates that care is always required when costs are attributed to a business’ activities. This is especially important when the costs are significant. There tends to be a lot of “debate” with HMRC on such matters and slight nuances can affect attribution and thus the outcome of the calculation. It is an area which always requires specialised advice.

VAT: What’s hot and what’s not?

By Marcus Ward 4 February 2019

Latest from the courts

In the seemingly never-ending series of cases on hot/cold food comes the latest instalment in the Eat Limited (Eat) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case.

Issue

Via VAT Act 1994 Schedule 8, Group 1, the sale of certain food is zero rated. However, there is an exception for supplies in the course of catering. Anything coming within the definition of catering reverts to the general rule and is taxable at the standard rate.

The definition of catering includes “any supply of hot food for consumption off those premises…” Note 3 (b).

So, the issue here was whether grilled ciabatta rolls and breakfast muffins which were heated by Eat were hot… or not. HMRC decided that the relevant sales were the standard rated sale of hot food and disallowed a retrospective claim by Eat that they should have been correctly zero rated.

The issue here was whether the products had been heated for the purpose of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above ambient air temperature. In considering the purpose of the heating, the Tribunal needed to ascertain the common intention of Eat and the customer.

Background

Eat sells a range of hot and cold food and drink products through its outlets in the UK. The food and drink can either be consumed at the outlet or be taken away for consumption elsewhere.

The breakfast muffins are filled bread rolls. The rolls are supplied to the appellant by a bakery in a condition that enables Eat to finish baking the rolls at their outlets. The specification requires the rolls to be “pale and 90% baked”. The muffin is assembled at a central kitchen from various ingredients, bagged, and then distributed to Eat’s retail outlets. The ciabatta rolls are also supplied to Eat part-baked and a similar process applied. If a customer purchases a breakfast muffin or a ciabatta roll, the product is “finished-off” in the outlet’s grill.

For zero rating to apply, Eat had to prove that its intention and that of its customers, was that the breakfast muffins and grilled ciabatta rolls were not supplied to customers in order to be eaten “hot”.

The products are treated as “hot” if:

They have been heated for the purposes of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above the ambient air temperature; and
They are above that temperature at the time they are provided to the customer.

It was not disputed that the products were above ambient air temperature at the time they were provided to customers,

Case law

There has been considerable litigation on the meaning of hot food. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Sub One Limited (t/a Subway) (in liquidation) v 30 HMRC [2014] EWCA Civ 773 reviews the meaning of the legislation, and in particular whether the “purpose” test in the legislation should be construed objectively or purposively.

Submissions

Eat contended that the common intention of the parties was that the supply of the products was to be finished as being “fresh” rather than partially complete. Any residual heat in the products was merely incidental to that common intention.

HMRC submitted that it was part of the deal between Eat and its customers that the products should be sold hot (and obviously so). Further, that no customer seeks to enter into a bargain in a takeaway restaurant containing a term that the food he or she is to purchase is “to be finished as fresh rather than partially complete”. The customer either wants hot food or does not. Either the supplier proposes to supply hot food, or it does not. It was also noted that in Eat’s advertising (at the point of sale and on its website) that the products were described as “hot”

Decision

The judge decided that this was a “hopeless appeal” and that it was the common intention of Eat and its customers that the products were heated for the purpose of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above ambient air temperature. Further, that they were wrapped in foil-backed sheets that keep them warm. This showed an intention on the part of Eat that the products should be consumed whilst they were hot. So, they were hot and standard rated.

Commentary

Only in the world of VAT can something too hot to touch be treated as cold (as certain foods are). However, in this case common sense prevailed and not unsurprisingly, food which was sold hot was treated as hot food! There is a lesson here however. In such cases, the outcome depends on the precise facts of the relevant transactions and that it is unhelpful to make assumptions.

Now, about that proposed pasty tax…

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: Are sales from Student Union shops exempt?

By Marcus Ward 5 November 2018

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Loughborough Students’ Union (LSU) the issue was whether sales of certain goods from Student Union shops were exempt as being closely related to education. This case is a practical issue considering the exemption I set out recently here

The two issues before the UT were:

were the shops eligible bodies, and
were the sales closely related to education supplies?

Background

The appeal by LSU was against a decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissing its appeal against HMRC’s decision to deny its claim for repayment of output tax in respect of sales of; stationery, art materials and other items from the shops which LSU operates on campus.

Legislation

The legislation (where relevant to this case) is:

VAT Act 1994, Group 6, Item No 1, item 4

1 The provision by an eligible body of (a) education; …

4 The supply of any goods or services (other than examination services) which are closely related to a supply of a description falling within item 1 (the principal supply) by or to the eligible body making the principal supply…

Decision

Not surprisingly, the appeal was dismissed. because even if LSU was an eligible body (which the judge was doubtful about) the exemption only applied to an eligible body which itself provided education, which clearly LSU did not. Consequently, the supplies for which exemption was sought were not closely related to any principal supply. Further, the judge was not persuaded that even if the supplies were closely connected to education, that they were essential (as required) to education. Food, newspapers and household goods for eg, are “ends in themselves” and not ancillary to education; the education provided by the University would be just as good if the students did not buy these items from the LSU shops.

Commentary

The appeal seems to have been a long-shot and predictably, it failed. Care must always be taken with the VAT treatment of goods and services closely connected to education. This is an area I am often asked for an opinion on by schools, academies, colleges and universities and there is not one single one-size fits all answer.

Our offering to education bodies here

VAT: Valuation – interest free credit

By Marcus Ward 15 October 2018

Latest from the courts. The Dixon Carphone plc (Dixon) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case.

It considered the value of a retail sale where interest free credit was offered. Was it the amount paid by the consumer, or the amount actually received by Dixon after the deductions made by the credit supplier?

Background

The transactions which were the subject of this case are as follows:

a consumer purchases goods in a Dixon store and pays a deposit to Dixon
the balance of the cost of the purchase is funded by a loan, provided by a third-party loan company
the customer gives authority to the loan company to pay the money borrowed to Dixon
the customer loan is on favourable terms to the consumer as it is an interest free: “Buy Now, Pay Later” arrangement
the amount paid by the loan company to Dixon is a lower amount than that authorised by the consumer, following deduction of an amount described as a “Subsidy”.
the customer pays no interest on the amount borrowed if the full amount of credit is repaid by the customer within the “Pay Later” offer period.

Contentions

The appellant argued that the general rule, derived from the VAT Directive Article 73, is that the taxable amount is everything received by the supplier as consideration. In more complex cases, with more than one paying party, the consideration should be everything moving from each paying party and received by the supplier. Consequently, in these transactions there is a reduction in what was received by Dixon consequently, the taxable amount on which VAT should be calculated should be the amount received by Dixon from the loan company.

HMRC contended that output tax was due on the full selling price and that the other transactions did not impact the value of the supply.

Decision

As in a similar case which was decided at the CJEU: Primback Ltd C-34/99 ([2001] STC 803, The FTT decided that the loan company was providing the finance to the consumer who used the money to pay Dixon the full retail price of the goods. The loan company’s “Subsidy” did reduce the amount paid by the loan company directly to Dixon on behalf of the consumer, but this transaction did not affect the amount owed by the consumer for the goods.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Practical application

HMRC provide an example of the VAT treatment of interest free credit along the lines as follows:

Goods are sold for £600 on six months interest free credit terms. As far as the customer is concerned, (s)he merely pays six instalments of £100 to the loan company.

Under separate arrangements between a loan company and the retailer, the loan company makes a deduction from the amount forwarded to the retailer, which accordingly, received only £560, not the full amount of £600. HMRC regard this deduction as third-party consideration, paid by the retailer for the loan made to the customer, and that output tax on £600 is due. Because there is no consideration, in the form of interest, paid by the customer on an interest-free loan, there is no supply for VAT purposes.

Commentary

The value of retail sales has often been an issue in the VAT world, whether it be interest free credit, credit card charges, BOGOF, or “bumping” in the motor industry. Care should be taken when deciding the value of consideration to be used for output tax declarations and advice should be sought if there is any doubt. It appears that the issue of interest free credit has now been killed off, but with ingenious marketing ideas always being created, VAT must be considered at an early stage.

VAT – Zipvit Court of Appeal decision

By Marcus Ward 18 July 2018

Latest from the courts

The Zipvit Court of Appeal (CA) case here

Background

A full background of this long running case may be found here

In summary: It was previously decided that certain supplies made by Royal Mail (RM) to its customers were taxable. This was on the basis of the TNT CJEU case. RM had treated them as exempt. HMRC was out of time to collect output tax, but claims made by recipients of RM’s services made retrospective claims. These claims were predicated on the basis that the amount paid to RM included VAT at the appropriate rate (it was embedded in the charge) and that UK VAT legislation stipulates that the “taxable amount” for any supply, is the amount paid by the customer including any VAT included in the price. HMRC maintained that the absence of a VAT invoice showing that VAT was charged to Zipvit by RM, and giving details of the rate of tax and the amount charged, was fatal to Zipvit’s claim to recover input tax.

The decisions in the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) went against Zipvit so the appeal went to the CA.

Decision

The CA upheld the decisions in the previous courts. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the relevant VAT had been “due or paid” on the supplies received from RM. It further appeared that evidence which was not present at earlier hearings showed that the amounts paid were exclusive of VAT which meant that VAT was not embedded in the consideration paid.

Importance

In the words of the judge Lord Justice Henderson the appeal raised some important questions of principle in the law of VAT. They arise when supplies of goods or services, which were wrongly assumed by the parties to the relevant transactions and by HMR to be exempt from VAT at the time of supply, are later discovered to have been subject to the standard rate of tax when they were made, following a decision to that effect by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Where the recipient of those goods or services was itself a registered trader which made taxable supplies on which it accounted for output tax, the basic question is whether, once the true position has become known, the recipient is in principle entitled to recover as an input tax credit the tax element of the consideration which it paid for the original supplies. If so, does it make any difference if the supplier has failed to pay the tax which should have been paid on the original supplies, and if the recipient is in consequence unable to produce a tax invoice from the supplier showing the amount of the input tax which it seeks to recover?

So a fundamental tenet of VAT was considered, as well as the matter of this being the lead case behind which many others were stood. I understand that the quantum of claims submitted is circa £1 billion in total so there was a lot riding on this decision.

Commentary

In my view, this is an important case for the above technical reasons and the whole decision bears reading in order to understand some of the intricacies of a business claiming input tax.

VAT: Latest from the courts – Are loan administration services exempt?

By Marcus Ward 1 May 2018

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Target Group Limited (Target) the appeal was against a decision by HMRC that loan administration services supplied by Target to a UK bank, Shawbrook Bank Limited (Shawbrook) were standard rated.

Background

Target contracted with Shawbrook to provide services related to loans provided by Shawbrook to its customers in the course of its lending business. Target’s description of its services was “loan account administration services” which amounted to Shawbrook outsourcing the management of the loans to Target. The services that Target provided covered the entire lifecycle of the loans, apart from the making of the initial loan. Target established loan accounts using its own systems, communicates with borrowers as an undisclosed agent of Shawbrook, and dealt with payments by borrowers and all administrative issues that arose. Target had limited discretion. The terms of the loans, including interest rates, were set by Shawbrook. Although Target is involved in dealing with arrears, any enforcement action would be a decision for Shawbrook. Specifically, the contract described Target as being “a provider of loan origination and account operation services” which “performs activities including the functions of: payment processing and servicing and portfolio management services”

Issue

It was accepted that Shawbrook made the loans (not Target) and that the services provided by Target were to Shawbrook and comprised a single (composite) supply for VAT purposes, rather than multiple supplies. Details of the definition between the two types of supply have been hot news in the VAT world for some time. My commentary on relevant recent case law here here here here here and here

The issue was the precise nature of the supplies and whether they qualified for exemption. The areas of dispute included whether Target’s supplies were excluded from exemption as debt collection, and whether the loan accounts fall to be treated as current accounts.

Target’s case was that the principal supply it made to Shawbrook related to payments and transfers in the same way as in the Electronic Data Services Ltd (EDS) case, which related to similar customer-facing loan administration services. (EDS provided loan arrangement and execution services to banks in relation to the granting of personal loans. The services included the provision of a staffed call centre, the printing and despatch of loan agreement documentation, the transfer of funds via the BACS system on the release of loans and the administrative work related to handling loan accounts and repayments). In the alternative, the principal or core supply relates to the operation of accounts (specifically, current accounts), or amounts to transactions concerning debts.

Technical

Article 135(1)(d) of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC (the Principal VAT Directive, or “PVD”) requires Member States to exempt the following transactions: “transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit and current accounts, payments, transfers, debts, cheques and other negotiable instruments, but excluding debt collection;”

This is transposed into UK legislation via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, items 1 and 8:

“Item 1. The issue, transfer or receipt of, or any dealing with, money, any security for money or any note or order for the payment of money. …

Item 8. The operation of any current, deposit, or savings account.”

Decision

It was decided that Target’s supplies did not qualify for exemption and they therefore fell to be standard rated. What was fatal to the appellant’s case was the fact that there was an absence of any involvement in the initial loan. Consequently, although it was possible to view the services as “transactions concerning payments” they fell within the debt collection definition and accordingly were not exempt. The judge also ruled that the supplies may be loan accounts, these did not qualify as an exempt operation of a current account.

Commentary

Of course, this decision was important for the recipient of the supply (Shawbrook) as well as Target. Because its supplies were exempt, the VAT on the outsourcing expenditure would be irrecoverable thus creating an extra 20% cost.

This case once again demonstrates that even the smallest variation of facts can produce an unexpected VAT outcome. Care must be taken to analyse precisely what is being provided. Financial Services is a minefield for VAT and it is certainly one area that assumptions of the VAT treatment should be avoided and timely advice sought.

Picture: A loan arranger (apologies)