So that’s what it’s called….. From HMRC guidance – “For the purposes of establishing the place of supply of services, stallion nominations (The right to nominate a mare to be covered by a stallion in one breeding season) and the covering of mares is treated as ‘work carried out on goods’.”
New 64-8 agent authorisation form
HMRC has issued a notice which states that, from 31 March 2022, businesses taking on new clients will need them to complete a new form 64-8 to give authorisation for them to deal with HMRC on their client’s behalf.
Existing clients do not need to re-authorise their current relationship.
Access
The new form will be available from 31 March 2022 and may be downloaded by searching for “Tax agents and advisers; authorising your agent” on GOV.UK. There is no direct link yet.
The new form is said to improve data protection and allows taxpayers to state which tax regime they want you to access. The form also includes new guidance for taxpayers and what data they are agreeing to share with their agent.
HMRC has published research which evaluates the impact of the introduction of Making Tax Digital (MTD) for VAT.
The report sets out that an additional circa £185 million of tax has been collected, according to its data. This is compared to the original estimate which was that an additional amount of £115 million of VAT would be received by the department.
For businesses above the registration threshold, the estimated additional tax revenue due to MTD is an average of £57 per business. This represents a 0.9% increase from the average amount estimated had the businesses not used MTD. HMRC says that this research provides “strong evidence that Making Tax Digital is achieving its objective of reducing the tax gap by reducing the amount of errors made when filing tax returns”.
MTD background
MTD aims to reduce the tax gap by helping businesses pay the right amount of tax. The tax gap is the difference between the theoretical amount of tax that should be paid and the actual tax receipts. The difference is caused by several reasons including avoidance, evasion, and calculation errors or failure to take reasonable care when filing returns.
MTD is intended to tackle the part of the tax gap which is caused by error and failure to take reasonable care. Businesses are required to keep records in digital form and file their VAT returns using software that directly extracts information from these digital records. This should improve accuracy and remove opportunities to make certain types of mistakes in preparing and submitting tax returns, particularly arithmetical and transposition errors.
Downside
All is not sweetness and light though. HMRC has been slammed by The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee which published a report that said that MTD for VAT cost far more than was predicted in HMRC’s impact assessments. The Committee also criticised HMRC, saying it “inadequately considered the needs and concerns of smaller businesses” and that HMRC has neglected its duty to support small businesses through the implementation of the controversial measures, suggesting it “will make life even more difficult” for them. In addition, the Committee said it “remained unconvinced” of the government’s logic used to justify the speed and rigidity with which the programme was being introduced.
I have looked at the Default Surcharge regime in detail here but as statistics show more business to be in default (which is probably accurately attributable, inter alia, to the pandemic) I consider how a penalty may be mitigated, by the provision of a “Reasonable Excuse”. HMRC has updated its internal guidance on Reasonable Excuse this month.
Specifically: HMRC state that “…where a person has not been able to meet an obligation on time due to the impact of COVID-19, HMRC will usually accept that they will have a reasonable excuse.”
What is a Default Surcharge?
The Default Surcharge is a civil penalty issued by HMRC to encourage businesses to submit their VAT returns and pay the tax due on time.
A default occurs if HMRC has not received your return and all the VAT due by the due date. The relevant date is the date that cleared funds reach HMRC’s bank account. If the due date is not a working day, payment must be received on the last preceding working day.
More on late returns here and on late payments here.
New rules forthcoming
It is noted that there is a new regime for penalties, details here although these changes have been delayed until 1 January 2023
Reasonable Excuse
If a business has a reasonable excuse for failing to pay on time, and it remedies this failure without unreasonable delay after the excuse ends, it will not be liable to a surcharge. The onus is on a business to satisfy HMRC that it has a Reasonable Excuse.
Definition
There’s no statutory definition of Reasonable Excuse and it will depend on the particular circumstances of a case. A Reasonable Excuse is something that prevented the business meeting a tax obligation on time which it took reasonable care to meet. There is a great deal of case law on this particular issue. Please contact us should there be doubt about a Reasonable Excuse.
What may count as a Reasonable Excuse?
HMRC give the following examples:
This list is not exhaustive.
What is NOT a reasonable excuse
Statute identifies two specific situations that are not a reasonable excuse:
There can be exceptions to these two exclusions. For example, an insufficiency of funds may be a reasonable excuse where the insufficiency is a result of events outside the person’s control.
HMRC also states that these situations would not normally be accepted, on their own, as a reasonable excuse:
Facts
HMRC will establish what facts the business believes gave rise to a Reasonable Excuse. The facts may include:
Case Law
Although not a VAT issue, in the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Christine Perrin [2018] UKUT 156 [TC], the judge provided guidance on how the Tribunal should approach a Reasonable Excuse defence. There are four steps:
Appeal
If HMRC refuse to accept an advance of a Reasonable Excuse and the Default Surcharge is maintained, there are two potential remedies:
If a business disagrees with a decision that it is liable to a surcharge or how the amount of surcharge has been calculated, it is possible to:
If you ask for a review of a case, a business will be required to write to HMRC within 30 days of the date the Surcharge Liability Notice Extension (SLNE) was sent. The letter should give the reasons why a business disagrees with the decision.
We are able to assist with all disputes with HMRC and have an enviable record of succeeding in having Default Surcharges removed.
HMRC has published a new Revenue and Customs Brief 2(2022) which replaces Revenue and Customs Brief 12 (2020): VAT early termination fees and compensation payments.
It introduces a revised policy on early termination payments and compensation fees. Following representations from industry the Brief issued in September 2020 was suspended in January 2021. HMRC has reviewed the policy in the light of those representations and is adopting a revised policy which will take effect from 1 April 2022. The new policy will result in fewer early termination payments being subject to VAT than in the 2020 guidance.
The new Brief also advises businesses that adopted the treatment outlined in Brief 12 (2020) on what action they should now take.
Background
Whether a payment is for a VAT supply depends on whether anything is being done in return for a consideration. Where a party agrees to do something in return for a fee there is a supply. How that fee is described does not affect whether there is a supply for VAT. What matters is whether something is done and if there is a direct link between what is done and the payment received, and reciprocity between the supplier and the customer (see VATSC05100).
Previous HMRC guidance stated that when customers are charged to withdraw from agreements to receive goods or services, these charges were not generally for a supply and were outside the scope of VAT.
Following the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgments in Meo (C-295/17) and most recently in Vodafone Portugal (C-43/19), it is evident that some of these charges are additional consideration for the supply of goods or services. Most early termination fees and some cancellation fees are therefore liable for VAT if the goods or services for which the fees have been paid are liable for VAT, even if they are described as compensation or damages.
The main impact of the revised policy is that fees charged when customers terminate a contract early will be regarded as further consideration for the contracted supply. For example, if a customer is charged a fee for exiting a mobile phone contract early, or if they terminate a car hire contract early, it will be liable for VAT.
The new guidance can be found at VATSC05910, VATSC05920 and VATSC05930.
Latest from the courts
In the Regency Factors plc Court Of Appeal (CoA) case the issue was the validity of the appellant’s claim for Bad Debt Relief (BDR) on amounts it had not received after the issue of an invoice.
Technical
BDR is a mechanism which goes some way to protect a business from payment defaulters. Under the normal rules of VAT, 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). The specific relief for unpaid VAT is via the BDR scheme.
A guide to BDR here.
Commentary on the Upper Tribunal (UT) hearing in this case here.
Background
In the CoA case the issue was whether the appellant met the conditions in The VAT General Regulations 1995, Reg 168 for claiming BDR via The VAT Act 1994, section 36.
Regency provided a factoring service to its clients for which it is paid a fee. VAT invoices for those fees were issued to clients when the invoices which are being factored are assigned to Regency for collection.
Regency appealed against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) which dismissed Regency’s appeal against VAT assessments made by HMRC to withdraw BDR which Regency had claimed in its VAT returns.
The UT held that the BDR claim was not valid because
Regency appealed against the decision of the UT on the second point.
Decision
The CoA decided that as Regency’s record keeping was insufficient to support a BDR claim. Specifically, although it did keep the records required by Regulation 168 (2), it did not keep a single VAT BDR account which is required by Regulation 168 (3). The ruling commented that this requirement was a legitimate feature of the scheme as it enables an inspector to check the claim easily. It is not acceptable for a claimant to simply have a pile of unsorted documents which may, or may not, evidence a valid claim.
The court also said that it was possible for HMRC to allow a discretionary claim (clearly, they did not use that discretion in this case) and that the legal requirement was not a barrier to Regency making a proper BDR claim. The appeal was dismissed.
“In short, Regency had the opportunity to prove its claim for bad debt relief in the FTT… but it failed to do so. It is not entitled to a second opportunity”.
Commentary
As always with VAT, accurate record-keeping is essential. As the tax is transaction based, it is vital to keep comprehensive evidence of those transactions and associated payments. Failure to do so may result in:
If Regency had taken “one step further” with its record keeping, BDR would have been paid by HMRC.
Further to my article on the new changes from next year, HMRC has published information on the rules of origin for trade between the UK and EU.
The Bulletin covers the rules of origin and the forthcoming changes to the requirement for supplier declarations to support proof of origin.
From 1 January 2022 the rules for selling to, and buying from, the EU will change.
HMRC have issued information about these changes.
Broadly, from 1 January 2022, businesses will no longer be able to delay making import customs declarations under the Staged Customs Controls rules that have applied during 2021. Most businesses will have to make declarations and pay relevant tariffs at the point of import. However, see details of Postponed Accounting.
Please also see a publication issued by the Cabinet Office which includes a Policy Paper on The Border Operating Model.
HMRC has issued two new documents which provide practical guidance for users of the One Stop Shop (OSS).
They cover how to pay the VAT due on an OSS return and how to use the service to submit an OSS VAT return if a business is registered for the OSS Union Scheme. A link has been added to allow a business to submit a OSS return directly.
HM Treasury has announced that government spending plans will be set out at the Spending Review on 27 October 2021 alongside an Autumn Budget.
The Spending Review will set out the plan for how public spending will be carried out over the next three years.