Tag Archives: FTT

VAT: More on agent/principal – Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 3 July 2017

Lowcost Holidays Ltd

There is a very important distinction in VAT terms between agent and principal as it dictates whether output tax is due on the entire amount received by a “middle-man” or just the amount which the middle-man retains (usually a commission). It is common for the relationship between parties to be open to interpretation and thus create VAT uncertainty in many transactions.

It appears to me that this uncertainty has increased as a result of the growing amount of on-line sales and different parties being involved in a single sale.

By way of background, I looked at this issue at the end of last year here

The case

On a similar theme, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Lowcost Holidays Ltd the issue was whether the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) applied to Lowcost’s activities.

Background

Lowcost was a travel agent offering holiday accommodation in ten other EU Member States, and other countries outside the EU, for the most part to customers based in the UK. The issue between the parties is whether Lowcost provided holiday accommodation to customers as a principal, dealing in its own name, under article 306 of Directive 2006/112, the Principal VAT Directive and therefore came within TOMS or whether it acted solely as an intermediary or agent (in which case TOMS would not apply and the general Place Of Supply rules apply).

Decision

The FTT found in favour of the appellant. HMRC had argued that Lowcost was buying and selling travel and accommodation as principal, however, the FTT decided that the contracts which Lowcost entered into with; hotels, transport providers and holidaymakers were clear that the arrangement was for the appellant acting as agent. The helpful Supreme Court case of SecretHotels2 (which I commented on here) was applied in this case. The main point being that the nature of a supply is to be determined by the construction of the contract – unless it is a ‘sham’ and great weight was given to the terms of Lowcost’s contracts rather than what HMRC often call the “economic reality”. Specifically highlighted to the court was the fact that Lowcost set the prices for the holidays, which HMRC pointed out would be inconsistent with an agency arrangement. The FTT decided that this was outweighed by the actual terms of the contracts.

Consequently, as Lowcost acted as agent (for the providers of the services not the holidaymaker) the Place Of Supply was determined by reference to where the supply was received under the general rule. In this case, this is VAT free when the services were received by principals located outside the UK.

As with all TOMS and agent/principal matters it really does pay to obtain professional advice.

VAT: Latest from the courts – Brockenhurst College

By Marcus Ward 19 May 2017

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has released its decision in Brockenhurst College here

Unusually, it has gone against the Advocate General (AG) Kokott’s opinion (here) and concurs with previous decisions reached by the UK courts. This is good news for the taxpayer and other providers of educational services. The decision has been referred back to the Court of Appeal (CoA) for it to consider points such as the distortion of competition and the fulfilment of a separate function, however, it is likely that this will not affect the decision by the CJEU and HMRC’s appeal will be dismissed.

Background

The case considered two types of supply made by Brockenhurst College:

The supplies made from its restaurant, used for training chefs, restaurant managers and hospitality students. The claim was made on the basis that these were exempt supplies of education and not standard rated supplies of catering
Tickets for concerts and other live performances put on by students as part of their educational courses. These were similarly claimed to be exempt.

Students were enrolled in performing arts and catering and hospitality courses. As part of their course of study they were required to run a restaurant and stage live performances. Persons not enrolled on the relevant courses would pay for and attend these events. The services were usually supplied to a limited public including; parents, siblings, friends etc, and were supplied at a reduced cost as part of the practical element of the students’ education. The appellant argued that the experience was invaluable to their studies and should be regarded as ‘closely related’ to the principal supply of education. HMRC considered that the services in question were supplied to third parties in return for payment. Consequently, the services, whilst of benefit and practical experience to the students were separate VATable supplies made to third parties and the supplies cannot, therefore, be closely related to the supply of education to the student.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) concluded that the supplies in question were exempt as being closely linked to education because:

the College was an eligible body and so its principal supplies were exempt supplies of education
the supplies were integral and essential to those principal exempt supplies
the supplies were made at less than their cost
the supplies were not advertised to the general public. Instead, there was a database of local groups and individuals who might wish to attend the restaurant or performances
the supplies were not intended to create an additional source of income for the College

HMRC disagreed with the conclusion on the basis that the supplies were outside the education exemption because the students were not the beneficiaries of the supplies in question, but only benefitted from making them. HMRC appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT).

The UT rejected HMRC’s argument and agreed with the FTT. It held that the supplies were closely related to the exempt supplies of education because they enabled the students to enjoy better education. The requirement in the domestic law for the supplies to be for the direct use of the student was met because they were of direct benefit to him.

HMRC subsequently appealed to the CoA which referred it to the CJEU.

The AG’s opinion was that closely related transactions are to be regarded as independent supplies to the principal supply, but do not include the supply of restaurant or training services supplied to third parties who are not themselves receiving the principal supply of training. The third parties pay for their own consumption (of either the catering or performance) and do not pay for the provision of education. It is very rare that the CJEU makes a decision that goes against the AG’s opinion.

CJEU Decision

The CJEU ruled that activities consisting of students of a higher education establishment supplying, for consideration and as part of their education, restaurant and entertainment services to third parties, may be regarded as supplies closely related to the principal supply of education and accordingly be exempt from VAT – provided that those services are essential to the students’ education and that their basic purpose is not to obtain additional income for that establishment by carrying out transactions which are in direct competition with those of commercial enterprises liable for VAT, which it is for the national court to determine.

Action

We understand that there are a number of cases stood behind Brockenhurst. Any other colleges, FE, universities or other eligible bodies carrying out similar activities to Brockenhurst need to consider their tax position. It is possible that retrospective claims may be made, depending on specific circumstances. Treating such supplies as exempt may also impact on a body’s partial exemption position and could create business/non-business implications. This may also impact on activities like hairdressing, motor maintenance and beauty treatments which colleges provide on a similar basis to the activities in this instant case.

We are happy to discuss the implications of this case with you.

Latest from the courts: Excise Duty – against which party may an assessment be raised?

By Marcus Ward 19 October 2016

A little “light” relief from VAT. Indirect taxes extend to Customs and Excise Duties (as well as IPT and various other “lower profile” taxes) and we are able to assist with all of these.

In an interesting Excise Duty case; B & M Retail Limited (B & M) the Upper Tribunal were asked whether an assessment for Customs Duty due on wine and beer could be issued to an entity “down the chain” to an entity which was holding goods at a given time.

Background

HMRC detained the relevant the goods under The Customs & Excise Management Act 1979 (“CEMA”) Section 139 on the grounds that, in their judgment, on the balance of probabilities, Excise Duty had not been paid on the goods. Under B & M’s terms and conditions of business its suppliers were required to warrant that the sale of alcohol to B & M was on a “Excise Duty paid” basis.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decided that despite an HMRC investigation resulting in the fact that they were not satisfied that duty had been paid on the goods, B & M was not responsible for the duty (and subsequent penalties) as the goods had passed through other various entities before they reached the appellant. The decision was based on the fact that the duty point must have arisen before the goods reached B & M and consequently, the duty was payable by someone further up the supply chain and not simply by the entity which was holding the Excise Duty goods at the Excise Duty point.

Decision

However, the Upper Tribunal disagreed with the FTT and overturned the verdict. The Upper Tribunal stated that “… the recognition by HMRC that one or more other Excise Duty points must, in principle, have been triggered before B & M received the relevant goods did not preclude HMRC from assessing B & M for excise duty …”. The Upper Tribunal did, however, remit the case to the First Tier Tribunal to review the evidence to ensure that the assessment is in time and that, as a matter of fact, the Excise Duty due on the beer and wine remains unpaid.

Conclusion

It would appear that this decision currently gives HMRC the right to raise an assessment for duty and penalties anywhere along the supply chain when an entity is holding the goods, even though a “previous” entity may have been responsible for the payment. This is not * * polite cough * * small beer as the amount in question was £5,875,143 of duty and a penalty of £1,175,028. This is helpful to HMRC as, in this instant case, it would appear that entities further up the supply chain were either not registered, or became deregistered, making it more difficult for HMRC to recover the Duty due.

It is important for every importer to be clear about the Excise Duty position and to carry out detailed due diligence on the relevant shipment. It is now not possible to escape an assessment by demonstrating that a third party is responsible for the payment of the duty.

VAT – Latest from the courts: treatment of web-based introductions

By Marcus Ward 14 September 2016

First Tier Tribunal (FTT) – What intermediary services may be exempted?

Background

The provision of intermediary services (putting those who require a financial product in touch with those who provide them) is exempt from VAT if certain conditions apply. Broadly, the requirement is mainly the need to provide something more than just the introduction, eg; negotiation of credit. If a business acts as a mere conduit or in an advertising capacity its supplies will be standard rated.

The case

In the FTT case of Dollar Financial UK Limited TC05334 (Dollar) the applicant received web-based services from overseas The Reverse Charge was applied to these supplies (details of the Reverse Charge here). Dollar provides “payday loans” which are themselves exempt from VAT. As Dollar was unable to recover all of the VAT on the Reverse Charge it represented a VAT cost to the business. However, if the supplies were exempt there would be no need to apply the Reverse Charge and so the loss would be avoided.

The FTT was required to consider what precisely the suppliers (so called lead generators) provided to Dollar in return for a commission based on the value of the loan. The lead generators operated websites which are mainly comparison sites and which referred potential borrowers to loan providers such as Dollar. HMRC formed the view that these services did not amount to intermediary services and hence were subject to the Reverse Charge.

The FTT ruled that there were differences between the two examples of services received by Dollar. In one example it was decided that despite;

there being no legal relationship between the lead generator and the potential borrower
that the leads were sold to the lender offering the best commission
that the assessment for loan suitability was quick, only involved only a few basic checks, and did not require any judgment or discretion, and
that only 1% of the introductions resulted in offers of loans to borrowers,

the appellant was acting as more than a mere conduit or in an advertising capacity, and was providing exempt introductory services. Consequently, there was no need to apply the Reverse Charge.

In the other example, the Tribunal considered that a single supply of online chat assistance was more akin to an outsourced, principally back-office function which did not amount to intermediary services and was therefore standard rated such that Dollar must apply the Reverse Charge.

Commentary

This case demonstrates the need to identify precisely what is being provided by a business’ suppliers and to review contracts intently. A small change in the circumstances between one supply and another may result in different VAT treatment. This is a comprehensive judgement and it is worth reading in its entirety if a business is involved in these type of transactions. We recommend that advice is sought by those businesses which could be affected by this case; either as supplier or recipient.

VAT – Latest from the courts on multiple or composite supplies

By Marcus Ward 14 October 2015

In the seemingly endless and conflicting series of cases on whether certain supplies are multiple (at different VAT rates) or single, the latest decision from the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) this week doesn’t really clarify matters.

In Metropolitan International Schools

The Appellant provided distance learning courses. The courses in question included various trade courses, such as electrical and plumbing courses. One single price was charged for the courses. Customers were provided with manuals that described the particular subject matter on a step-by-step basis. The Appellant’s aim was that the manuals should be entirely comprehensive, and that the information contained in them would be all that was required to enable customers to master the particular subjects. There was no additional provision of classroom tuition. Tutor support was provided via phone calls or emails. No examinations were provided, nor any degrees, qualifications or diplomas. The courses were generally designed to prepare customers to take third party examinations.

Both the appellant and HMRC contended that the supply of distance learning courses was a single supply. Unsurprisingly, the appellant thought that the supply was of zero rated printed matter, and HMRC contended that it was a single supply of (non-exempt) education so all of the supply was standard rated.

Among others, the main point was whether the Appellant’s supplies of distance learning courses were single or multiple supplies and, assuming that the provision was of one single composite supply, whether that supply was a supply of zero-rated books coupled with ancillary services or standard-rated education (with the books being ancillary).

This meant that, if a single supply, it was necessary to consider which element was predominant.

The FTT held that the end result sought by customers from the supply made by the Appellant was to learn, and to accomplish that aim essentially by reading the vast amount of printed material. The Appellant’s essential supply was the sale of manuals and all of the other features of the supply were appropriately regarded as add-on ancillary functions. The Tribunal therefore held that there was only one single supply in the present case and that it took its nature from that of the principal supply, namely the zero-rated provision of books. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that there was one single supply of zero-rated books.

It should be noted that The Tribunal found it difficult to rationalise all of the relevant case law authorities and to arrive, with confidence, at the correct tests to apply in identifying the nature of the single supply. Indeed, the Tribunal observed that this decision may well lead to appeals to a higher court, and quite possibly a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union for guidance.

So… are we any further on with this matter? Not really.

VAT- Is the Upper Tribunal bound by High Court decisions?

By Marcus Ward 6 May 2015

Upper Tribunal versus High Court

In the recent case of Meena Seddon Settlement which involved Inheritance Tax, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) was required to decide whether the Upper Tribunal is bound by decisions made in the High Court. The FTT decision will doubtless affect VAT cases in the future.

It decided to follow a precedent set by the Upper Tribunal over an earlier decision by the High Court.

The taxpayer contended that the matter should be decided on the basis of a previous High Court decision. HMRC argued on the basis of a later Upper Tribunal decision. In normal circumstances, a later decision should take precedence over the earlier if both decisions have the same authority and have fully considered the previous judgments. However, if the taxpayer was correct to say that the Upper Tribunal was bound by precedents set by the High Court, the later decision could be disregarded as being wrong in law.

The FTT decided that it was the intention of Parliament that the Upper Tribunal was not bound to follow High Court precedents. This was notwithstanding the fact that a High Court could have a supervisory role over the Upper Tribunal in cases of judicial review. Therefore, it determined the case on the authority of the later Upper Tribunal decision in favour of HMRC.