Tag Archives: HMRC

VAT: Adecco Court of Appeal case. Agent or principal?

By Marcus Ward 6 August 2018

Latest from the courts

In the recent Court of Appeal (CA) case of Adecco here the issue was whether the services provided by Adecco – an employment bureau which supplied its clients with temporary staff (temps) were by way of it acting as principal or agent.

Background

Details of the issues as considered in the FTT and UT were covered here

Overview

As is often the case in these types of arrangements, there are some matters that point towards the appellant acting as agent, and others indicating that the proper VAT treatment is that of principal. The important difference, of course, being whether output tax is due on the “commission” received by Adecco or on the full payment made to it (which includes the salaries of the relevant workers).

Decision

The CA decided that the supply of temporary staff by Adecco was as principal and consequently, VAT was due on the full amount received, not just the commission retained.

Reasoning

The CA focussed on the contractual position. Among the reasons provided for this decision were as follows (I have somewhat summarised). I think it worthwhile looking in some detail at these:

There was no question of the temps having provided their services under contracts with the clients: no such contracts existed. The contractual position must be that the temps’ services were provided to clients in pursuance of the contracts between Adecco and its clients and Adecco and the temps.
Although the contract between Adecco and a temp referred to the temp undertaking an assignment “for a client” and providing services “to the client”, it also spoke of the client requiring the temp’s services “through Adecco” and of the temp being supplied “through Adecco”.
While temps were to be subject to the control of clients, that was something that the temps agreed with Adecco, not the clients. The fact that the contract between Adecco and a temp barred any third party from having rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 confirms that the relevant provisions were to be enforceable only by Adecco, which, on the strength of them, was able to agree with its clients that the temps should be under their control. Adecco can fairly be described as conferring such control on its clients. (Broadly; the employment regulations required Adecco to treat itself as a principal with the result that that it could not therefore treat itself as an agent).
Adecco paid temps on its own behalf, not as agent for the clients.
Adecco by did not drop out of the picture once it had introduced a temp to a client. It was responsible for paying the temp (and for handling national insurance contributions and the like) and had to do so regardless of whether it received payment from the client Adecco also enjoyed rights of termination and suspension. It is noteworthy (as the UT said) that the contract between Adecco and a temp proceeded on the basis that a temp’s unauthorised absence could “result in a breach of obligations which we owe to the client”.
Adecco did not perform just administrative functions in relation to the temps. The temps, after all, were entitled to be paid by Adecco, not the clients.
Adecco charged a client a single sum for each hour a temp worked. It did not split its fees into remuneration for the temp and commission for itself.
The fact that Adecco had no control over a temp in advance of his taking up his assignment with the client did not matter.
Adecco undoubtedly supplied the services of employed temps to its clients.
In all the circumstances, both contractually and as a matter of economic and commercial reality, the temps’ services were supplied to clients via Adecco. In other words, Adecco did not merely supply its clients with introductory and ancillary services, and VAT was payable on the totality of what it was paid by clients.

Action

Clearly this was not the outcome the appellant desired, and it may impact similar arrangements in place for other businesses. Although found on the precise nature of the relevant contracts, the outcome of this case is not limited to employment bureaux and similar but must be considered in most cases where commission is received by an “agent”. These may include, inter alia; taxi services, driving schools, transport, travel agents, training/education, online services, repairs, warrantee work and many other types of business. It is crucial that contracts are regularly reviewed the ensure that the appropriate VAT treatment is applied and that they are clear on the agent/principal relationship. If there is any doubt, please contact us as it is often one of the most ambiguous areas of VAT.

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 – Making Tax Digital (MTD) Update

By Marcus Ward 17 July 2018

Time moves on and HMRC has published further information on MTD. I outlined the basics of MTD here

The recent publication lists software suppliers which HMRC say have both:

tested their products in HMRC’s test environment
already demonstrated a prototype of their software to HMRC

HMRC will update this list as testing progresses. We advise to check with your existing software supplier to see if they will be supplying suitable software for the pilot, or contact one listed below in the HMRC publication:

Background

HMRC state that more than 130 software suppliers have told them that they are interested in providing software for MTD for VAT. Over 35 of these have said they will have software ready during the first phase of the pilot in which HMRC is testing the service with small numbers of invited businesses and agents. The pilot will be opened up to allow more businesses and agents to join later this year.

Good luck everyone!

Beyblades – a Customs Duty case

By Marcus Ward 17 July 2018

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal (CA) case of Hasbro European Trading BV (Hasbro) the issue was whether Customs Duty (CD) was due on the import of Beyblades. If they fall within the definition of a toy CD is payable at 4.7%. However, if they are more accurately classified as a game they are treated as duty free – so a significant difference in import cost dependent on what, superficially, appears to be a somewhat question of semantics.

Beyblades

For the purposes of the case, it is important to understand what a Beyblade is and how it is used.

Beyblade is the brand name for a line of spinning tops originally developed and manufactured by Tomy in Japan. The main novelty is that they are a series of items which are customisable, with interchangeable parts. A Beyblade is set in motion by means of a rip-cord powered launcher.

A “game” is played with two players. Each player is allowed a number of Beyblades to choose from during a match. Players may use any parts available to them to make their Beyblades), but may not switch parts once a match has started. The first player to reach seven points wins. Points are awarded to the player based on how their Beyblade knocks out the opponent’s

One point is awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade stops spinning
One point is awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade is knocked out of the stadium or into a pocket on the edge of the ring
Two points are awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade breaks during a game

The Arguments

The case concerned the classification of Beyblades’. The appellant, Hasbro contended that Beyblades are correctly classified as “articles for … table or parlour games” under heading 9504 of the Combined Nomenclature. In contrast, HMRC maintained that Beyblades should be classified as “other toys” under heading 9503, The First-tier Tribunal FTT and the Upper Tribunal (U’) both previously agreed with HMRC’s analysis.

Classification

There are “explanatory notes” to the Harmonised System (HSENNs). The CA ruled that the classification rule which prefers the most specific description does not apply at the level of the HSENs: they are an important guide to interpretation, but do not have force of law.

The Decision

The CA allowed the appeal and went against the decisions in the FTT and UT. The judge concluded that “In the circumstances, it seems to me to fall to us to decide which of the alternative headings provides the more specific description. In my view, it is heading 9504. As I see it, “articles for … parlour games” encompasses a more limited range of goods than “toys” and “more clearly identifies Beyblades”, particularly since, as I say, “articles for … parlour games” reflects the fact that Beyblades are meant to be used in games…”. The fact that Beyblades are used in a competitive scenario seems to have swung the decision which knocked out HMRC. Consequently, there was no CD payable as they fell to be duty free.

Commentary

It does beg the question; why did this issue need to get to the CA for the appellant to finally win (but of course, this isn’t the first case which has raised that question). Perseverance was clearly the key word here. If you are convinced that HMRC is wrong on ay matter, it really does pay to challenge any ruling.

VAT Reliefs for Charities. A brief guide.

By Marcus Ward 16 July 2018

Charities and Not For Profit entities – a list of VAT reliefs

Unfortunately, there is no “general” rule that charities are relieved of the burden of VAT.

In fact, charities have to contend with VAT in much the same way as any business. However, because of the nature of a charity’s activities, VAT is not usually “neutral” and often becomes an additional cost. VAT for charities often creates complex and time consuming technical issues which a “normal” business does not have to consider.

There are only a relatively limited number of zero rated reliefs specifically for charities and not for profit bodies, so it is important that these are taken advantage of. These are broadly:

- Advertising services received by charities
- Purchase of qualifying goods for medical research, treatment or diagnosis
- New buildings constructed for residential or non-business charitable activities
- Self-contained annexes constructed for non-business charitable activities
- Building work to provide disabled access in certain circumstances
- Building work to provide washrooms and lavatories for disabled persons
- Supplies of certain equipment designed to provide relief for disabled or chronically sick persons

There are also special exemptions available for charities:

- Income from fundraising events
- Admissions to certain cultural events and premises
- Relief from “Options to Tax” on the lease and acquisition of buildings put to non-business use
- Membership subscriptions to certain public interest bodies and philanthropic associations
- Sports facilities provided by non-profit making bodies

Although treating certain income as exempt from VAT may seem attractive to a charity, it nearly always creates an additional cost as a result of the amount of input tax which may be claimed being restricted. Partial exemption is a complex area of the tax, as are calculations on business/non-business activities which fundamentally affect a charity’s VAT position.

The reduced VAT rate (5%) is also available for charities in certain circumstances:

- Gas and electricity in premises used for residential or non-business use by a charity;
- Renovation work on dwellings that have been unoccupied for over two years;
- Conversion work on dwellings to create new dwellings or change the number of dwellings in a building;
- Installation of mobility aids for persons aged over 60.

I strongly advise that any charity seeks assistance on dealing with VAT to ensure that no more tax than necessary is paid and that penalties are avoided. Charities have an important role in the world, and it is unfair that VAT should represent such a burden and cost to them.

Small businesses/start ups: Should I register for VAT voluntarily?

By Marcus Ward 6 July 2018

Why?

OK, so why would a business choose to VAT register when it need not? Let’s say its turnover is under the VAT registration limit of £85,000, isn’t it just best to avoid the VATman if at all possible?

Planning

This is not an article which considers whether a business MUST register, but rather it looks at whether it is a good idea to register on a voluntary basis if it is not compulsory. The first time a business would probably consider VAT planning.

Decision

As a general rule of thumb; if you sell to the public (B2C) then probably not. If you sell to other VAT registered businesses (B2B) then it is more likely to be beneficial.

If you sell B2B to customers overseas it is almost certain that VAT registration would be a good thing, as it would if you supply zero rated goods or services in the UK. This is because there is no output tax on sales, but full input tax recovery on costs; VAT nirvana! A distinction must be made between zero rated supplies and exempt supplies. If only exempt supplies are made, a business cannot register for VAT regardless of level of income.

Compliance

Apart from the economic considerations, we have found that small businesses are sometimes put off VAT registration by the added compliance costs and the potential penalties being in the VAT club can bring. Weighed against this, there is a certain kudos or prestige for a business and it does convey a degree of seriousness of a business undertaking. It may also make life simpler (and reduce costs) if a business buys goods or services from other EC Member States. We also come across situations where a customer will only deal with suppliers who are VAT registered.

The main issue

The key to registration is that, once registered, a business may recover the VAT it incurs on its expenditure (called input tax). So let us look at some simple examples of existing businesses for comparison:

Examples

Example 1

A business sells office furniture to other VAT registered business (B2B).

It buys stock for 10,000 plus VAT of 2,000

It incurs VAT on overheads (rent, IT, telephones, light and heat etc) of 2,000 plus 400 VAT

It makes sales of 20,000.

If not registered, its profit is 20,000 less 12,000 less 2400 = 5600

If VAT registered, the customer can recover any VAT charged, so VAT is not a disincentive to him.

Sales 20,000 plus 4000 VAT (paid to HMRC)

Input tax claimed = 2400 (offset against payment to HMRC)

Result: the VAT is neutral and not a cost, so profit is 20,000 less 12,000 = 8000, a saving of 2400 as compared to the business not being registered. The 2400 clearly equals the input tax recovered on expenditure.

Example 2

A “one-man band consultant” provides advice B2B and uses his home as his office. All of his clients are able to recover any VAT charged.

He has very little overheads that bear VAT as most of his expenditure is VAT free (staff, train fares, use of home) so his input tax amounts to 100.

He must weigh up the cost (time/admin etc) of VAT registration against reclaiming the 100 of input tax. In this case it would probably not be worthwhile VAT registering – although the Flat Rate Scheme may be attractive, please see article here

Example 3

A retailer sells adult clothes to the public from a shop. She pays VAT on the rent and on the purchase of stock as well as the usual overheads. The total amount she pays is 20,000 with VAT of 4000.

Her sales total 50,000.

If not VAT registered her profit is 50,000 less 24,000 = 26,000

If VAT registered she will treat the value of sales as VAT inclusive, so of the 50,000 income 8333 represents VAT she must pay to HMRC. She is able to offset her input tax of 4000.

This means that her profit if VAT registered is 50,000 less the VAT of 8333 = 41,667 less the net costs of 20,000 = 21,667.

Result: a loss of 4333 in profit.

As may be seen, if a business sells to the public it is nearly always disadvantageous to be voluntarily VAT registered. It may be possible to increase her prices by circa 20%, but for a lot of retailers, this is unrealistic.

Intending traders

If a business has not started trading, but is incurring input tax on costs, it is possible to VAT register even though it has not made any taxable supplies. This is known by HMRC as an intending trader registration. A business will need to provide evidence of the intention to trade and this is sometimes a stumbling block, especially in the area of land and property. Choosing to register before trading may avoid losing input tax due to the time limits (very generally a business can go back six months for services and four years for goods on hand to recover the VAT). Also cashflow will be improved if input tax is recovered as soon as possible.

Action

Careful consideration should be given to the VAT status of a small or start-up business. This may be particularly relevant to start-ups as they typically incur more costs as the business begins and the recovery of the VAT on these costs may be important. In most cases it is also possible to recover VAT incurred before the date of VAT registration.

This is a basic guide and there are many various situations that require further consideration of the benefits of voluntary VAT registration. We would, of course, be pleased to help.

VAT – Top 10 Tips for small businesses and start ups

By Marcus Ward 5 July 2018

VAT Basics

Small business and start ups have a lot of things to think about – VAT being just one. However, failure to consider VAT can lead to difficulties and penalties. So here are some pointers for new and/or growing bushiness:

Plan ahead and know when to register for VAT
Make contact with your advisers
Monitor your turnover so that you know when you are approaching the VAT registration threshold
Keep your records up-to-date and check accounting documents
Speak to us if things go wrong or there’s something you don’t understand
Deal with VAT enquiries or HMRC’s requests for information promptly
Manage the VAT within your business cashflow
Don’t worry if Customs make contact with you
Right tax – right time
If you are not happy with Customs’ behaviour or have received an unhelpful or incorrect ruling; challenge it.

The overall message is; talk to a professional at an early stage. Timing is very important for VAT and you usually only have one chance to get it right.

Finally, regarding the first point – it may benefit a business to VAT register before it is required to (a so-called voluntary registration). I shall look at that in more depth in my next article.

New RCB 5 – VAT treatment of goods supplied on approval

By Marcus Ward 25 June 2018

Goods supplied on approval

Meaning

Goods supplied on approval is an arrangement under which items of durable nature are provided to a prospective customer for a pre-purchase trial. These items are returnable after a specified period in re-saleable condition if not accepted for purchase.

New publication

HMRC has announced via Revenue and Customs Brief 5 (2018) “RCB 5” changes to the way goods supplied on approval are treated for VAT purposes.

The broad thrust of RCB 5 is that, in HMRC’s opinion, taxpayers are using the rules for goods supplied on approval when this treatment is inappropriate.

The goods supplied on approval rules

Output tax is due at the end of the approval period. That is, tax is deferred until a time the goods are adopted (if they are). These rules are distinct from a supply of goods with a subsequent right to return them. In these cases the tax point is when title passes.

Sale on approval was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Littlewoods Organisation plc (VTD 14977). The Tribunal held that goods were supplied on approval where there is no contract of sale unless, and until, the recipient concerned adopted or was deemed to have adopted the goods. The judge in that case decided that Littlewoods did not supply goods on approval. This case appears to have triggered an HMRC initiative to look at the number of businesses which may be incorrectly deferring output tax by using these rules. It concluded that a lot fewer taxpayers were actually providing goods on approval than previously thought.

Technical

The basic tax point for a supply of goods in these situations is determined by the VAT Act 1994 section 6(2) (c) which applies in the case of goods on approval. It delays the basic tax point until the time when the goods are adopted by the customer or twelve months from the date they were originally despatched, whichever is the earlier

Section 6(2)

(2) … a supply of goods shall be treated as taking place –

(a) if the goods are to be removed, at the time of the removal;

(b) … ;

(c) if the goods (being sent or taken on approval or sale or return or similar terms) are removed before it is known whether a supply will take place, at the time it becomes certain that the supply has taken place or, if sooner, 12 months after the removal.

The guidance

HMRC has published the RCB to provide guidance on how businesses should review their transactions in order to establish whether they are using sale on approval treatment correctly.

Indicators of goods supplied on approval

Whether or not goods are supplied on approval will depend on the facts in each case and will require consideration of a number of indicators which will have to be carefully weighed against each other. Relevant indicators include the following factors but they are not exhaustive.

The terms and conditions of trading, and all contractual terms applying.
The time when title in the goods passes to the buyer.
The time at which the buyer has the right to dispose of the goods as owner.
The view presented to the customer in marketing literature, order forms, delivery notes, statements etc.
The rights of the customer to return unwanted goods.
The terms of any supply of credit finance provided with the goods.
The time when payment for the goods is demanded.
The time when payment for the goods is received.
The time when the buyer assumes responsibility for the upkeep and insurance of the goods.
Anything the buyer does to signify his adoption of the goods.
The calculation of the minimum payment due for goods delivered.
The time when a sale is recognised in the financial accounts of the business.

(these indicators are not featured in RCB 5).

Deadline

HMRC state that from 18 September 2018 all business must change their accounting systems and accurately apply the appropriate VAT treatment. However, no action will be taken for past inaccuracies and taxpayers will not be required to make any changes to records or declarations.

Delivery charges

In normal circumstances, the fee charged for delivery follows the VAT liability of the goods being supplied (it is a single supply of delivered goods). However, the RCB somewhat controversially, states that when goods are supplied on approval the delivery charge is not ancillary. HMRC conclude that as delivery occurs before the customer or the supplier know whether there will be a supply of goods, delivery is an aim in itself, represents a separate, independent supply and is not dependent upon the supply of goods. The purpose of the delivery service is to facilitate the customer inspecting the goods to decide whether or not they wish to purchase them. This is always a standard rated supply and consequently, output tax is due on this fee, whether or not the goods are adopted (and with a tax point prior to adoption or return). I expect that this analysis will be challenged at some point as it does not, in my mind, sit comfortably with previously decided case law.

Action

Businesses which consider themselves to be supplying goods on approval (usually mail order businesses) need to review their terms and manner of trading to identify whether that is indeed the case. Consideration must be given to the above indicators, the ruling in the Littlewoods case and the information in RCB 5. If what is being provided falls outside the definition of a supply on approval, the necessary changes are required in order to recognise a sale at an earlier time. Even if goods are supplied on approval, the VAT treatment of delivery charges need to be reconsidered and adjusted if need be. We can assist if required.

The VAT gap rises

By Marcus Ward 20 June 2018

In the latest figures released by HMRC the amount of unpaid tax has increased by circa £1 billion.

What is the tax gap?

The VAT gap is the difference between the amount of VAT that should, in theory, be collected by HMRC, against what is actually collected. The ‘VAT total theoretical liability’ (VTTL) represents the VAT that should be paid if all businesses complied with both the letter of the law and HMRC’s interpretation of the intention of Parliament in setting law, referred to as the spirit of the law below.

Summary

Here is an overview of the figures which are for the year 2016-17:

The VAT gap is estimated to be £11.7 billion in which equates to 8.9% of net VAT total theoretical liability. HMRC report that there has been a long-term reduction between 2005-06 and 2016-17 for the VAT gap (12.5% to 8.9%). The information is provided by The Office for National Statistics, National Accounts Blue Book 2017 and Consumer Trend.

MTIC

The Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) fraud estimate reduced to less than £0.5 billion in 2016-17, from between £0.5 billion and £1 billion in 2015-16.. VAT debt has been fairly stable since 2011-12. It is estimated at £1.5 billion in 2016-17. Around 70% of the VAT total theoretical liability in 2016-17 was from household consumption. The remaining gap was from consumption by businesses making exempt supplies and from the government and housing sectors. Around half of household VAT-able expenditure was from restaurants and hotels, transport and recreation and culture.

VAT debt

The contribution of debt to the VAT gap is defined as the amount of VAT declared by businesses but not paid to HMRC. The VAT gap showed a peak at 12.6% in 2008-09, which was partly because the recession caused an increase in VAT debt from £0.9 billion in 2007-08 to £2.4 billion in 2008-09. VAT debt has been fairly stable since 2011-12. It is estimated at £1.5 billion in 2016-17.

Avoidance

VAT avoidance is another component of the VAT gap. HMRC say that avoidance is artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce a tax advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. VAT avoidance is estimated at £0.1 billion in 2016-17.

Other indirect taxes

The overall excise tax gap is estimated to be £4.1 billion (£3.1 billion in excise duty and £1 billion in VAT). This is analysed as:

£2.5 billion tobacco tax gap, with associated losses in tobacco duty (£1.9 billion) and VAT (£0.5 billion )
£1.3 billion alcohol tax gap, with associated losses in alcohol duty (£0.9 billion) and VAT (£0.4 billion)
£150 in GB diesel duty and associated VAT
£40 in Northern Ireland (NI) diesel duty and associated VAT
£170 in other excise duties

Overall tax gap

The report indicates that small businesses were most likely to be underpaying tax generally. They accounted for £13.7 billion of last the overall tax gap. Large businesses had underpaid £7 billion and medium-sized businesses £3.9 billion.

The tax gap for Income Tax, National Insurance and Capital Gains Tax was 4.2%. Along with VAT there has been a long-term downward trend in the Corporation Tax gap. This has reduced from 12.4% in 2005/06 to 7.4% last year.

It appears that the days of large tax avoidance schemes have passed and HMRC is now concentrating on compliance mistakes and routine errors. HMRC is also increasingly challenging legal interpretations of tax law in order to recover more tax. Please see here for further details on HMRC’s approach.

What causes the tax gap?

The behaviour giving rise to the gap are as follows:

£5.9 billion – failure to take reasonable care
£5.4 billion – criminal attacks
£5.3 billion – legal interpretation
£5.3 billion – evasion
£3.4 billion – non-payment
£3.2 billion – error
£3.2 billion – hidden economy
£1.7 billion – avoidance

VAT: Construction industry – the new Reverse Charge

By Marcus Ward 11 June 2018

Builders will soon be required to charge themselves VAT.

HMRC has published an important new draft Statutory Instrument (SI) for technical consultation with a draft explanatory memorandum and draft tax information and impact note. The new rules are likely to be introduced in the autumn.

This sets out more details of the intended Reverse Charge (RC) for construction services. The draft legislation will make supplies of standard or reduced rated construction services between construction or businesses subject to the domestic RC, which means that the recipient of the supply will be liable to account for VAT due, instead of the supplier.

What supplies does the intended legislation cover?

The RC will apply to, inter alia:

construction, alteration, repair, extension, demolition or dismantling of buildings or structures
work on; walls, roadworks, electronic communications apparatus, docks and harbours, railways, pipe-lines, reservoirs, water-mains, wells, sewers, or industrial plant
installation in any building or structure of systems of heating, lighting, air-conditioning, ventilation, power supply, drainage, sanitation, water supply or fire protection
internal cleaning of buildings and structures, so far as carried out in the course of their construction, alteration, repair, extension or restoration
painting or decorating the internal or external surfaces of any building or structure
services which form an integral part of the services described above, including site clearance, earthmoving, excavation, tunnelling and boring, laying of foundations, erection of scaffolding, site restoration, landscaping and the provision of roadways and other access works.

What is not covered?

These are some supplies which are not covered by the draft SI

drilling for, or extraction of, oil or natural gas
extraction of minerals and tunnelling or boring, or construction of underground works, for this purpose
manufacture of building or engineering components or equipment, materials, plant or machinery, or delivery of any of these things to site
manufacture of components for systems of heating, lighting, air-conditioning, ventilation, power supply, drainage, sanitation, water supply or fire protection, or delivery of any of these things to site
the professional work of architects or surveyors, or of consultants in building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration or in the laying-out of landscape
signwriting and erecting, installing and repairing signboards and advertisements
the installation of seating, blinds and shutters or the installation of security.

Please note that neither of the lists above are exhaustive.

Further details

The rules do not apply to supplies to the end user (consumer) eg; retailers and landlords, but rather to other construction businesses which then use them to make a further supply. There are no de minimis limits, but the RC will not apply to associated businesses.

Deadline

Before these new rues come into effect, HMRC have asked for comments before 20 July 2018.

Why the new rules?

Briefly, the SI is intended to avoid Missing Trader Fraud (MTF). The rules avoids suppliers charging and being paid VAT, but failing to declare or pay this over to the government. HMRC has identified the building trade as an area where there has been considerable tax leakage in the past.

Technical

As a general rule, it is the supplier of goods or services who is required to account for VAT on those supplies. However, the VAT Act 1994, section 55A requires the recipient, not the supplier, to account for and pay tax on the supply of any goods and services which are of a description specified in an order made by the Treasury for that purpose.

Action

It is prudent to check whether you, or your clients’ businesses will be affected by the intended SI. If so, plans need to be put in place; whether as a supplier or recipient, to ensure that VAT is not charged incorrectly (supplier) and the RC is applied correctly (recipient). It is likely that output tax incorrectly shown on an invoice will be due to HMRC, but will not be recoverable by the recipient and the omission of levying the RC will lead to penalties.

Please contact us if you have any queries or require further information.