Tag Archives: FTT

VAT: Contact lens services – taxable or exempt? The Vision Direct case

By Marcus Ward 8 December 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Vision Dispensing Limited the issue was whether services linked to the online sale of prescription contact lenses were covered by the exemption at The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, group 7, item 1 (b) – the provision of medical care.

Generally speaking, opticians provide two types of supply

exempt medical care; sight tests, measuring and fitting
the standard rated supply of goods; spectacles, contact lenses, accessories etc

Almost always a customer pays a single amount which covers the services as well as the goods, so an apportionment is required. HMRC updated guidance on apportionment here.

Background

The Appellant “VDL” supplies services in connection with the online sale of contact lenses and this appeal was concerned with the question whether those supplies are subject to VAT at the standard rate.

The legislation provides for exemption for medical care by a person registered or enrolled in either of the registers of Ophthalmic Opticians or the register of Dispensing Opticians kept under the Opticians Act 1989. The exemption is also extended to persons who are not registered/enrolled under the Act but are directly supervised by a person who is so registered or enrolled.

VDL is a UK incorporated company and a member of the Vision Direct corporate group. VDL has a sister group company called Vision Direct BV (“VDBV”) which is based in The Netherlands. VDL operates a warehouse facility in the UK. Goods (contact lenses and other optical products) belonging to VDBV were stored in the warehouse and dispatched to purchasers by VDL, using its own workforce. VDL also employed customer assistants, who deal with a range of enquiries from customers. VDBV operates the website visiondirect.co.uk through which prescription contact lenses and other optical goods are supplied to UK customers. Customers purchasing prescription contact lenses or other optical products online enter two contracts; one with VDBV for the supply of contact lenses and one with VDL for the supply of dispensing services. There is also a contract between VDL and VDBV. VDL is not paid a fee by VDBV, its income comprises by the fee paid by customers.

The arguments

HMRC contended that there is little evidence to support that there was advice being provided to customs by VDL and consequently, there were serious questions about whether healthcare services are being supplied. The supplies fall short of a number of regulatory requirements and that the supplies described as dispensing services cannot properly be described as professional clinical advice or therapeutic care. HMRC stated that VDL has never seen a single customer. Clinical advice cannot be delivered in an impersonal or generic way.

HMRC pointed out that:

the website makes it clear that VDL does not provide advice on which customers can depend. Consequently, it cannot rely on the website as evidence of medical care
there is no direct link between the use of the website and payments to VDL. For there to be a supply, there must be a direct link between the supplier and the recipient

VDL contended that its dispensing services are superior to those available on the High Street. Contrary to HMRC’s case, it is able to identify multiple examples of clinical advice and the purpose of its supplies is to assist in the treatment of defective eyesight. All services are directly supervised by those with the appropriate qualifications.

Deliberation

The FTT was required to determine whether VDL’s services constituted medical care and were those services wholly performed or directly supervised by appropriate persons?

It was agreed that the advice does not need to be complex or personalised to be covered by the exemption as long as it contributes to the efficacy of the overall therapeutic process. The material provided on the website was comprehensive and covered the entire process from an eye test, the diagnosis of an eye defect, and then the selection, measuring and fitting of spectacles or lenses to the supply of those spectacles or lenses.

It was concluded by the FTT that the provision of the website was by VDBV as in the T&Cs VDBV operates it and owns the intellectual property rights to its content. Consequently, the provision of the website could not be part of the supply by VDL. VDL supplied the material or reviewed its content for VDBV pursuant to a contract between the two companies.

Decision

The FTT concluded that:

the quality, quantity, and nature of the optical information on the website was such that its provision could amount to medical care, but;
the information on the website is not provided by VDL (but by VDBV)
even if it were provided by VDL, the terms on which it is made available mean that it is not part of any supply made by VDL to customers and must be left out of account when it comes to characterising the supplies VDL does make
what VDL does do is choose the correct lenses and dispatch them. There is no element of medical care in VDL’s supply
there was little evidence as to how the opticians monitored the performance of the staff so that they could satisfy themselves that their performance was of a suitable standard, so it could not be said that there was direct supervision.

As a result, VDL did not provide medical care and in any case, the services were not wholly performed or directly supervised by appropriately qualified individuals so exemption could not apply

The appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Opticians have long produced VAT challenges since the cases of Leightons and Eye-Tech in the 1990s. Any businesses using a similar business model are advised to review the treatment of their supplies in light of this case.

VAT: Partial exemption – updated HMRC guidance

By Marcus Ward 17 October 2023

HMRC has published updated partial exemption guidance in Manual PE21500.

The main changes are in respect of updated case law, including the Royal Opera House Court of Appeal case dealing with the attribution of input tax.

In that case the CoA considered: the test of direct and immediate link, economic necessity, business/non-business, and chains of transactions.

A VAT Did you know?

By Marcus Ward 12 October 2023

We know that burying a deceased person is exempt, but exhumation is standard rated and we now know, thanks to the UK Funerals On-line Ltd FTT case, that the service of the repatriation of the body of a deceased person can be viewed as either an exempt supply of funeral services or a zero-rated supply of transport services.

This being the case, zero rating trumps exemption via of The VAT Act 1994, section 30(1).

VAT: Powers of HMRC – The Impact Contracting Solutions Limited UT case

By Marcus Ward 5 September 2023

Latest from the courts

In the Impact Contracting Solutions Limited (ICS) Upper Tribunal (UT) case the issue was whether HMRC had the power to cancel the VAT registration where that person has facilitated the VAT fraud of another ie; the scope of the “Ablessio” principle. It also illustrates the impact of EU cases on UK courts.

Background

ICS’s customers were temporary work agencies, and its suppliers were approximately 3,000 mini-umbrella companies (“MUCs”) which supplied labour. HMRC decided to cancel ICS’s VAT registration number with reliance on the principle in the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Valsts ienemumu dienests v Ablessio SIA (C-527/11) (“Ablessio”). HMRC considered that ICS was registered for VAT principally or solely to abuse the VAT system by facilitating VAT fraud, and that, in such circumstances, they were empowered by the principle in Ablessio to cancel the registration. In particular, HMRC considered that the arrangements between ICSL and the MUCs were contrived, with the effect that the MUCs failed properly to account for VAT on their supplies to ICS.

ICS appealed against HMRC’s decision to cancel its registration.

The Issues

Does the principle in Ablessio apply only to a party that has itself fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations, or does it similarly apply to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party?

If the Ablessio principle does apply to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party, is simple facilitation sufficient, or must it additionally be proved that:

(a) the facilitating party was itself dishonest, or

(b) the facilitating party knew that it was facilitating the fraud, and/or

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decided that Ablessio applies both to a party that has fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations and to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party. Further that simple facilitation by a party of the VAT fraud of another is not sufficient to apply the Ablessio principle. However, it is not necessary to prove that the facilitating party was itself dishonest. It must, however, be proved that the facilitating party knew or should have known that it was facilitating the VAT fraud of another party.

Decision

The appeal was rejected an the FTT’s decision was upheld. HMRC powers are not contrary to UK VAT legislation.

The application by HMRC of Ablessio is not contra legem or otherwise prohibited by the VAT legislation where it is applied to deregister a taxpayer who has either fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations or facilitated the VAT fraud of another party and at the relevant time has also made taxable supplies unconnected with such fraud or facilitation of fraud and which would result in a liability to be registered.

Ablessio applies to the deregistration by HMRC of a person as well as to a refusal by HMRC to register a person. It also provides for the deregistration of a person who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another, where the person to be deregistered knew or should have known that it was facilitating the VAT fraud of another.

Commentary

This decision was released this month and illustrates the ongoing influence of EU legislation and cases, “despite” Brexit

EU legislation does not, by itself, fall within the scope of retained EU law (see below). However, domestic legislation implementing EU rules forms part of EU-derived domestic legislation and is preserved in domestic law.

The VAT Act 1994 is not affected by Brexit because it is an Act of Parliament and, therefore, remains effective unless it is changed by Parliament.

Overview of the impact of EU legislation

Post-Brexit, the UK could have decided that UK courts should not be bound by EU case law. However, this would have resulted in a situation where the UK courts effectively had to begin with a blank piece of paper in deciding how a piece of retained EU law should be interpreted or applied. This approach would have resulted in considerable uncertainty for business over how retained EU law would operate. In order avoid this, section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provides that:

CJEU judgments made on or before 31 December 2020 are binding on UK courts
CJEU judgments made after that date are not binding, but the UK courts are free to have regard to them, so far as they are relevant to the matter before the court.

Going forward

Helpful guidance is provided in the e-Accounting Solutions vs Global Infosys case (not a VAT case).

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 means that the principle of EU-law conforming construction is a corollary of the supremacy of EU law (which is abolished under Section 3 of the Act) and will therefore no longer apply from 2024.

The principles of statutory construction under English Law require a purposive interpretation of legislation, whether or not EU law principles are engaged. This involves considering the context in which the legislation was made. Depending on the legislation concerned, this process may be guided by “external aids”. External aids referred to in the judgment include Explanatory Notes and Government White Papers, and could also presumably include references to Hansard where seen as appropriate by the courts. To the extent that domestic enactments were made for the purpose of implementing EU law, the EU law position is such an “external aid” and the UK law should be construed accordingly.

Where Parliament used the same language as the Directive, one may assume that it intended to mean the same – accordingly, the CJEU interpretation of Directive-terms informs the interpretation of the UK statute.

However, the statutory language remains paramount – “external aids”, to which EU law instruments are effectively downgraded in UK law from 2024, cannot displace unambiguous statutory language in UK enactments that is inconsistent with EU law.

VAT: Is a cosmetic treatment exempt medical care? The Illuminate Skin Clinics Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 12 July 2023

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: Business or non-business? The 3D Crowd CIC case

By Marcus Ward 4 July 2023

Latest from the courts

Business or non-business?

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of 3D Crowd CIC (3D) the issue was whether a donation of goods, with a subsequent intention to sell similar goods constituted a business activity such that input tax incurred in relation to it was recoverable.

Background

3D was formed at the beginning of the Covid 19 pandemic to produce face protection via the process of 3D printing. Such protection was in high demand, but there was a shortage of suitable products for healthcare workers. The appellant produced 130,000 face shields in the first six weeks of production; which was an admirable feat. However, it was not possible to sell this equipment without the appropriate accreditation. Consequently, to alleviate demand, 3D donated the PPE to the NHS.

By the time accreditation was given the demand for PPE had reduced so it was not possible to sell the 3D printed face coverings as initially intended.

Technical

The issue of business versus non-business has been a contentious issue in the VAT world from day one. This classification is important for two reasons. If an activity is a business (an economic activity) it could be subject to VAT and, as in this case, if an activity is non-business there is usually a restriction of input tax.

Contentions

3D said that input tax could be recovered on costs which involved no direct onward supply of goods or services, but which laid the groundwork for them. That is, the input tax could be attributed to an intended taxable supply, even though that intention was not fulfilled by circumstances outside its control.

HMRC argued that per Longbridge the correct test for determining whether an activity is a business activity is whether there is a direct link between the services or goods supplied and a payment received by the supplier. In this case, there was not so no input tax was reclaimable. HMRC also referred to the decision in Wakefield College, supporting the proposition that an activity is only a business activity if it results in the supply of goods or services for a consideration.

Decision

The FTT found that the VAT incurred on supplies made to 3D, constituted elements:

in connection with 3D seeking CE certification
related to general overheads
related to VAT incurred on materials bought to produce the PPE

Input tax incurred on the costs of accreditation is recoverable because these were incurred in order to sell PPE in the future and for no other purpose. The fact that these costs are not linked to a particular supply (and is in the nature of preparing the ground for future supplies) was irrelevant per The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, para 10.

The VAT incurred on the general overhead costs and on the costs of producing the PPE was incurred in part for business purposes and party for non-business (donations) and should be apportioned using a method agreed between 3D and HMRC.

Commentary

Another case highlighting the difficulty in identifying the distinction between business and non-business and the complexity of input tax attribution. The altruistic efforts of the CIC is to be admired, but such charitable (in the broad sense) activities do not always get their just reward in VAT terms.

VAT: Charity exemption for show admittance – The Yorkshire Agricultural Society case

By Marcus Ward 9 May 2023

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—

1. 1. that is organised for charitable purposes by a charity or jointly by more than one charity,
  2. whose primary purpose is the raising of money, and
  3. 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

By Marcus Ward 18 April 2023

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: TOMS – negative margin permitted? The Square case

By Marcus Ward 31 January 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of The Squa.re Limited (TSL) the issue was whether unsold inventory or inventory sold at a loss could affect the calculation of the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS).

Background

TSL provided serviced apartments to travellers. The company leased accommodation from the owners of the properties who were frequently, if not exclusively, private individuals who were not registered for VAT.

These leases were often for an extended period, eg; annual leases, such that the appellant is committed under the terms of the lease even where the accommodation cannot then be on supplied or not supplied for a profit.

The Issue

The issue was whether TOMS operated in such a way as to permit a negative calculation resulting in repayment to the appellant. HMRC issued an assessment because, while they accepted that there may be a zero margin on a TOMS supply, they considered that a negative margin was not permitted by the scheme. TSL maintained that a repayment of overdeclared output tax was appropriate if a loss was made (an “overall negative margin”) as TOMS does not exclude the possibility of a negative margin.

The dispute between the parties was a technical one only and concerned the interpretation of the statutory provisions implementing TOMS into UK law.

Legal

The domestic implementation of the TOMS is authorised by The Value Added Tax Act 1994, Section 53 and found in Value Added Tax (Tour Operators’) Order 1987 (SI1987/1806). Guidance is provided via Notice 709/5 and Sections 8 to 13 have the force of law.

Decision

The Tribunal determined that it was clear from the legislation that the taxable amount is concerned with the supply made, and not the VAT incurred on the various cost components. Under normal VAT accounting the output tax charged on supplies is calculated by reference to the consideration received by the supplier from the customer. There can realistically be no concept of negative consideration.

The FTT considered that there is no basis inherent within TOMS which would permit a calculation of a negative sum. There had been a supply (of a designated travel service) for a consideration, and it is the taxable amount of that supply which was to be determined. A negative taxable amount is a “conceptual impossibility”. A negative margin arises as a consequence of a lack of profitability, but VAT is a transaction tax and not a tax on profit.

When sold at a loss where the total calculation resulted in a negative margin the annual sum due by way of output tax would be nil (not a repayment).

Where the accommodation is not sold at all, the FTT noted that this cost represented a cost of doing business but, on the basis that there has been no onward supply, there is no supply which meets the definition of a designated travel service. The relevant accommodation is not for the direct benefit of any traveller so there is no supply and TOMS is irrelevant.

Whilst the FTT considered that were it the case that identified costs incurred in buying in goods and services which are not then the subject of an onward supply should be excluded from TOMS calculations, costs associated with the block booking of accommodation of the type incurred by TSL were to be included. Where such costs exceed the value obtained by onward supply, the negative margin forms part of the annual calculation. However, where the global calculation results in a negative margin the tax due for the year under TOMS is nil and there was no basis for a repayment to TSL.

There was no basis on which to permit an overall TOMS negative margin and the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Another demonstration of the complexities of TOMS and the potential pitfalls.

It may be useful to note that input tax claims are not permitted in TOMS calculations, however, any VAT incurred on any bought in, but unsold, services would not be excluded from recovery as there is no TOMS supply. The input tax on unsold inventory was a general cost of doing business and, as such, recoverable in the normal way. Consequently, there may be circumstances for businesses using TOMS where input tax incurred on unsold elements may be claimed outside of TOMS

VAT: TOGC and deliberate errors – The Apollinaire case

By Marcus Ward 19 December 2022

Latest from the courts

In the First -Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Apollinaire Ltd and Mr Z H Hashmi the issues were:

whether the appellant’s input tax claim was valid
were the director’s actions “deliberate”
was a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) appropriate?

Background

Mr Hashmi (the sole director of Apollinaire) asserted that he sold his business, Snow Whyte Limited to a Mr Singh as a going concern, together with the trading name “Benny Hamish”. The purchase price was never paid. He alleged that Mr Singh traded for approximately one month and then sold stock worth £573,756 to Apollinaire. The appellant submitted an input tax claim for the purchase of the goods. HMRC refused to make the repayment and raised penalties for deliberate errors. HMRC subsequently issued a PLN to Mr Hashmi.

Issues

Initially HMRC stated that Mr Singh may not have existed, that there was no sale of Snow Whyte Ltd by Mr Hashmi to Mr Singh and similarly, no sale back to Mr Hashmi. However, this submission was later amended to argue that Mr Hashmi controlled the movement of the stock at all times and that the issue was whether the transfer of stock from Snow Whyte Limited was a Transfer Of a Going Concern (TOGC), whether or not Mr Singh existed.

Mr Hashmi appealed, contending that the transactions took place as described to HMRC.

Decision

Unsurprisingly, given Mr Hashmi’s previous history of dissolving companies, but continuing to trade under the same name as those companies (listed at para 14 of the decision) and failing to submit returns and payments, the FTT accepted HMRC’s version of events. Further, there was insufficient evidence to support the transactions (if they took place) and the judge fund that the appellant’s evidence was not credible. If the events did take place, there was no input tax to claim as all the tests (where relevant here) for a TOGC (Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995, Regulation 5) were met:

the assets were sold as a business as a going concern
the assets were used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business
there was no break in trading
both entities traded under the same name
both entities operated from the same premises
both entities had the same employees and tills

The appeal was dismissed.

Penalties

The FTT further decided that HMRC’s penalties and PLN [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] were appropriate. The claim for input tax was deliberately overstated and that Mr Hashmi was the controlling mind of both entities and was personally liable as the sole company director of Apollinaire.

HMRC relied on case law: Clynes v Revenue and Customs[2016] UKFTT 369 (TC) which reads as follows:

“On its normal meaning, the use of the term indicates that for there to be a deliberate inaccuracy on a person’s part, the person must have acted consciously, with full intention or set purpose or in a considered way…

…Our view is that, depending on the circumstances, an inaccuracy may also be held to be deliberate where it is found that the person consciously or intentionally chose not to find out the correct position, in particular, where the circumstances are such that the person knew he should do so.”

Commentary

This case is a reverse of the usual TOGC disputes as HMRC sought to establish that there was no taxable supply so no VAT was due. It underlines that:

care should always be taken with applying TOGC treatment (or appreciating the results of failing to recognise a TOGC)
penalties for deliberate errors can be significant and swingeing
directors can, and are, held personally responsible for actions taken by a company