Tag Archives: HMRC

VAT – What is Reasonable Care?

By Marcus Ward 12 April 2018

What is reasonable care and why is it so important for VAT?

HMRC state that “Everyone has a responsibility to take reasonable care over their tax affairs. This means doing everything you can to make sure the tax returns and other documents you send to HMRC are accurate.”

If a taxpayer does not take reasonable care HMRC will charge penalties for inaccuracies.

Penalties for inaccuracies

HMRC will charge a penalty if a business submits a return or other document with an inaccuracy that was either as a result of not taking reasonable care, or deliberate, and it results in one of the following:

an understatement of a person’s liability to VAT
a false or inflated claim to repayment of VAT

The penalty amount will depend on the reasons for the inaccuracy and the amount of tax due (or repayable) as a result of correcting the inaccuracy.

How HMRC determine what reasonable care is

HMRC will take a taxpayer’s individual circumstances into account when considering whether they have taken reasonable care. Therefore, there is a difference between what is expected from a small sole trader and a multi-national company with an in-house tax team.

The law defines ‘careless’ as a failure to take reasonable care. The Courts are agreed that reasonable care can best be defined as the behaviour which is that of a prudent and reasonable person in the position of the person in question.

There is no issue of whether or not a business knew about the inaccuracy when the return was submitted. If it did, that would be deliberate and a different penalty regime would apply, see here It is a question of HMRC examining what the business did, or failed to do, and asking whether a prudent and reasonable person would have done that or failed to do that in those circumstances.

Repeated inaccuracies

HMRC consider that repeated inaccuracies may form part of a pattern of behaviour which suggests a lack of care by a business in developing adequate systems for the recording of transactions or preparing VAT returns.

How to make sure you take reasonable care

HMRC expects a business to keep VAT records that allow you to submit accurate VAT returns and other documents to them. Details of record keeping here

They also expect a business to ask HMRC or a tax adviser if it isn’t sure about anything. If a business took reasonable care to get things right but its return was still inaccurate, HMRC should not charge you a penalty. However, If a business did take reasonable care, it will need to demonstrate to HMRC how it did this when they talk to you about penalties.

Reasonable care if you use tax avoidance arrangements*

If a business has used tax avoidance arrangements that HMRC later defeat, they will presume that the business has not taken reasonable care for any inaccuracy in its VAT return or other documents that relate to the use of those arrangements. If the business used a tax adviser with the appropriate expertise, HMRC would normally consider this as having taken reasonable care (unless it’s classed as disqualified advice)

Where a return is sent to HMRC containing an inaccuracy arising from the use of avoidance arrangements the behaviour will always be presumed to be careless unless:

The inaccuracy was deliberate on the person’s part, or
The person satisfies HMRC or a Tribunal that they took reasonable care to avoid the inaccuracy

* Meaning of avoidance arrangements

Arrangements include any agreement, understanding, scheme, transaction or series of transactions (whether or not legally enforceable). So, whilst an arrangement could contain any combination of these things, a single agreement could also amount to an arrangement. Arrangements are `avoidance arrangements’ if, having regard to all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to conclude that the obtaining of a tax advantage was the main purpose, or one of the main purposes of the arrangements.

NB: We at Marcus Ward Consultancy do not promote or advise on tax avoidance arrangements and we will not work with any business which seeks such advice.

Using a tax adviser

If a business uses a tax adviser, it remains that business’ responsibility to make sure it gives the adviser accurate and complete information. If it does not, and it sends HMRC a return that is inaccurate, it could be charged penalties and interest.

None of us are perfect

Finally, it is worth repeating a comment found in HMRC’s internal guidance “People do make mistakes. We do not expect perfection. We are simply seeking to establish whether the person has taken the care and attention that could be expected from a reasonable person taking reasonable care in similar circumstances…”

VAT – Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) A Brief Guide

By Marcus Ward 11 April 2018

VAT and TOMS: Complex and costly

Introduction

The tour operators’ margin scheme (TOMS) is a special scheme for businesses that buy in and re-sell travel, accommodation and certain other services as principals or undisclosed agents (ie; that act in their own name). In many cases, it enables VAT to be accounted for on travel supplies without businesses having to register and account for VAT in every EU country in which the services and goods are enjoyed. It does, however, apply to travel/accommodation services enjoyed within the UK, within the EU but outside the UK, and wholly outside the EU.

Under the scheme:

VAT cannot be reclaimed on margin scheme supplies bought in for resale. VAT on overheads outside the TOMS can be reclaimed in the normal way.
A UK-based tour operator need only account for VAT on the margin, ie; the difference between the amount received from customers and the amount paid to suppliers.
There are special rules for determining the place, liability and time of margin scheme supplies.
VAT invoices cannot be issued for margin scheme supplies.
In-house supplies supplied on their own are not subject to the TOMS and are taxed under the normal VAT rules. But a mixture of in-house supplies and bought-in margin scheme supplies must all be accounted for within the TOMS.
No VAT is due via TOMS on travel/accommodation/tours enjoyed outside the EU.

Who must use the TOMS?

TOMS does not only apply to ‘traditional’ tour operators. It applies to any business which is making the type of supplies set out below even if this is not its main business activity. For example, it must be used by

Hoteliers who buy in coach passenger transport to collect their guests at the start and end of their stay
Coach operators who buy in hotel accommodation in order to put together a package
Companies that arrange conferences, including providing hotel accommodation for delegates
Schools arranging school trips
Clubs and associations
Charities.

The CJEC has confirmed that to make the application of the TOMS depend upon whether a trader was formally classified as a travel agent or tour operator would create distortion of competition. Ancillary travel services which constitute ‘a small proportion of the package price compared to accommodation’ would not lead to a hotelier falling within the provisions, but where, in return for a package price, a hotelier habitually offers his customers travel to the hotel from distant pick-up points in addition to accommodation, such services cannot be treated as purely ancillary.

Supplies covered by the TOMS

The TOMS must be used by a person acting as a principal or undisclosed agent for

‘margin scheme supplies’; and
‘margin scheme packages’ ie single transactions which include one or more margin scheme supplies possibly with other types of supplies (eg in-house supplies).

‘Margin scheme supplies’ are those supplies which are

bought in for the purpose of the business, and
supplied for the benefit of a ‘traveller’ without material alteration or further processing

by a tour operator in an EU country in which he has established his business or has a fixed establishment.

A ‘traveller’ is a person, including a business or local authority, who receives supplies of transport and/or accommodation, other than for the purpose of re-supply.

Examples

If meeting the above conditions, the following are always treated as margin scheme supplies.

Accommodation
Passenger transport
Hire of means of transport
Use of special lounges at airports
Trips or excursions
Services of tour guides

Other supplies meeting the above conditions may be treated as margin scheme supplies but only if provided as part of a package with one or more of the supplies listed above. These include

Catering
Theatre tickets
Sports facilities

Of course, who knows how Brexit will impact TOMS. It may be that UK businesses will be unable to take advantage of this easement and will be required to VAT register in every Member State that it does business * shudder *

This scheme is extremely complex and specialist advice should always be sought before advising clients.

New VAT Road Fuel Scale Charges from 1 May 2018

By Marcus Ward 28 March 2018

HMRC have announced new figures for the valuation of Road Fuel Scale Charges.

These are used to calculate how much VAT is payable to HMRC on fuel if a person uses a business car for private purposes. This avoids having to keep detailed mileage records.

A summary here:

Description of vehicle: vehicle’s CO2 emissions figure	VAT inclusive consideration for a 12 month prescribed accounting period (£)	VAT inclusive consideration for a 3 month prescribed accounting period (£)	VAT inclusive consideration for a 1 month prescribed accounting period (£)
120 or less	562	140	46
125	842	210	70
130	900	224	74
135	954	238	79
140	1,013	252	84
145	1,067	266	88
150	1,125	280	93
155	1,179	295	98
160	1,238	309	102
165	1,292	323	107
170	1,350	336	111
175	1,404	351	116
180	1,463	365	121
185	1,517	379	125
190	1,575	393	130
195	1,630	407	135
200	1,688	421	140
205	1,742	436	145
210	1,801	449	149
215	1,855	463	154
220	1,913	477	159
225 or more	1,967	491	163

HMRC have made a simple tool available for these calculations (which will now have to be updated…..).

VAT: Latest from the courts – option to tax, TOGC and deposits

By Marcus Ward 26 March 2018

Timing is everything

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Clark Hill Ltd (CHL) illustrates the detailed VAT considerations required when selling property. Not only are certain actions important, but so is timing. If a business is one day late taking certain actions, a VAT free sale may turn into one that costs 20% more than anticipated. That is a large amount to fund and will obviously negatively affect cashflow and increase SDLT for the buyer, and may result in penalties for the seller.

The case considered three notoriously difficult areas of VAT, namely: the option to tax, transfers of going concerns and deposits.

Background

CHL owned four commercial properties which had opted to tax. CHL sold the freehold of these properties with the benefit of the existing leases. As a starting point VAT would be due on the sale because of the option. However, the point at issue here was whether the conditions in Article 5 of the Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 were met so that the sale could be treated as a transfer of a business as a going concern (TOGC) and could therefore be treated as neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services for VAT purposes, ie; VAT free. The point applied to two of the four sales. The vendor initially charged VAT, but the purchasers considered that the TOGC provisions applied. CHL must have agreed and consequently did not charge VAT. HMRC disagreed with this approach and raised an assessment for output tax on the value of the sale.

TOGC

In order that a sale may qualify as a TOGC one of the conditions is that; the assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part. It is accepted that in a property business transfer, if the vendor has opted to tax, the purchaser must also have opted by the “relevant date”. If there is no option in place at that time HMRC do not regard it as “the same kind of business” and TOGC treatment does not apply.

Relevant date

If the purchaser opts to tax, but, say, one day after the relevant date, there can be no TOGC. The relevant date in these circumstances is the tax point. Details of tax points here

Basically put, a deposit can, in some circumstances, create a tax point. In this case, the purchaser had paid a deposit and, at some point before completion of the transfer of the property, the deposit had been received by the seller or the seller’s agent. The seller notified HMRC of the option to tax after a deposit had been received (in two of the relevant sales). The issue here then was whether a deposit created a tax point, or “relevant date” for the purposes of establishing whether the purchaser’s option to tax was in place by that date.

Decision

The judge decided that in respect of the two properties where the option to tax was not notified until after a deposit had been paid there could not be a TOGC (for completeness, for various other reasons, the other two sales could be treated as TOGCs) and VAT was due on the sale values. It was decided that the receipt of deposits in these cases created a relevant date.

Commentary

There is a distinction between opting to tax and notifying that option to HMRC which does not appear to have been argued here (there may be reasons for that). However, this case is a timely reminder that VAT must be considered on property transactions AND at the appropriate time. TOGC is an unique situation whereby the seller is reliant on the purchaser’s actions in order to apply the correct VAT treatment. This must be covered off in contracts, but even if it is, it could create significant complications and difficulties in obtaining the extra payment. It is also a reminder that VAT issues can arise when deposits are paid (in general) and/or in advance of an invoice being issued.

We recommend that VAT advice is always taken on property transactions ad at an early stage. Not only can situations similar to those in this case arise, but late consideration of VAT can often delay sales and can even cause such transactions to be aborted.

VAT: Are digital newspapers newspapers?

By Marcus Ward 14 March 2018

Are digital newspapers zero rated?

Background

A long running argument has reached the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) in the case of The News Corp case. The issue was whether digital versions of newspapers should share similar VAT treatment to traditional paper newspapers (in this case; The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and The Sun On Sunday) and therefore be zero rated.

Arguments

The contention by the appellant was that the digital editions of the titles are “newspapers” on the basis that they are the digital equivalent of the daily editions produced on ordinary newspaper printing paper (“newsprint”). In respect of the process of news-gathering and journalism, there is no distinction between the newsprint and digital editions. Content is produced by a single newsroom under a single editor. The website and tablet editors sit within the newsroom team and are part of the journalistic process. Thus, the manner in which the newsprint and digital editions are compiled is identical until the point at which the content is laid out for transposition onto the physical or digital medium. There was, therefore, essentially no difference in the journalistic content or news teams for the newsprint and digital editions. It was also submitted that Item 2 Group 3 of Schedule 8 of VATA 1994 (below) should be interpreted purposively. The purpose of the provision was to promote literacy, the dissemination of information and democratic accountability. There was, however, a further principle of statutory interpretation which formed an important part of the appellant’s case. This principle was that legislation once enacted had to be kept up-to-date with, technological advances so that a statutory provision is “always speaking”. This was important in the present case because digital editions of newspapers did not exist in 1973 when VAT was introduced.

HMRC argued simply, that they do not fall within the definition of “newspapers” which is confined to newsprint newspapers.

Decision

Unsurprisingly, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that digital newspapers are not covered by the zero rating provision at VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 3, which zero rates, inter alia, “newspapers” (Item 2). Group 3 provides as follows:

“Group 3—Books, etc
Item No
1 Books, booklets, brochures, pamphlets and leaflets.
2 Newspapers, journals and periodicals.
3 Children’s picture books and painting books.
4 Music (printed, duplicated or manuscript).
5 Maps, charts and topographical plans.
6 Covers, cases and other articles supplied with items 1 to 5 and not
separately accounted for…”

This relief clearly relates to physical goods. Consequently, it was necessary to determine whether digital newspapers are goods or services (which would not be covered by Group 3). It was decided that the supply in question was of “electronically supplied services” and this fact was fatal to the appellant’s case. Therefore the standard rate applied if the place of supply of the services was in the UK.

The judge further noted (on the “always speaking” point) that EC legislation contains a “standstill” date of 1 January 1991 with regard to zero rating by EU Member States. Thus, the CJEU held that the scope of zero rating provisions cannot be extended beyond their 1991 limits and that they must be interpreted strictly. In the judge’s view, to extend Item 2 Group 3 beyond the supply of goods (newsprint newspapers) to cover the supply of services (digital newspapers) would be an impermissible expansion of the zero rating provisions.

So the answer is; digital newspapers are not newspapers.

VAT: Fulfilment Businesses – HMRC announce new rules

By Marcus Ward 12 March 2018

The Fulfilment Businesses (Approval Scheme) Regulations 2018

New regulations come into place on 1 April 2019 which will affect fulfilment businesses (entities which carry out the process of taking an order and executing it by making it ready for delivery to its intended customer, usually involving warehouse pickup, packaging, labelling, etc). These are known as The Fulfilment Businesses (Approval Scheme) Regulations 2018 and apply to businesses distributing goods to customers in the UK on behalf of suppliers based in countries outside the EU (third countries). The regulations set out that such businesses will be required to be approved by HMRC in order to carry on its activities. Voluntary registration will begin from 1 April 2018.

The rules cover:

how to register
how and when to make an application for approval
the obligations under the scheme (which include the requirement to carry out due diligence in respect of the third party suppliers and verifying a third country customer’s VAT registration number)
and, as always with VAT; the penalties for breaches of the regulations

The Finance (No. 2) Act 2017, section 49(1) provides that a person may not carry on a third country goods fulfilment business otherwise than in accordance with an approval given by the HMRC. A person carries on a third country goods fulfilment business if they meet the test set out in section 48 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017 . This test may be summarised as:

a person carries on a third country goods fulfilment business if the person, by way of business;
- stores third country goods which are owned by a person who is not established in a Member State, or
- stores third country goods on behalf of a person who is not established in a Member State,

at a time when the conditions below are met in relation to the goods.

The conditions are that:

there has been no supply of the goods in the United Kingdom for the purposes of VATA 1994, and
the goods are being offered for sale in the United Kingdom or elsewhere

Usually, but not always, these are goods purchased online. Goods are “third country” goods if they have been imported from a place outside the EU.

These regulations follow on from measures announced in 2016 which state that HMRC will direct certain representatives for overseas businesses to appoint a VAT representative with joint and several liability for online marketplaces. The measures enable HMRC to hold an online marketplace jointly and severally liable for the unpaid VAT of an overseas business that sells goods in the UK via that online marketplace.

These measures further strengthen HMRC’s hand in an area which they consider a substantial amount of VAT is lost to them.

Please contact us if these new rules affect you or your clients.

VAT: Making Tax Digital (MTD) New Regulations

By Marcus Ward 5 March 2018

The regulations for MTD have been published. These are known as The Value Added Tax (Amendment) Regulations 2018 and full details are available here

The Regulations set out that businesses to which the Regulations apply (see below) will be required to retain electronic records using functional compatible software and submit VAT returns via an Application Programming Interface (API) platform. HMRC has previously announced that acceptable software will include spreadsheets, but these will be required to be used in specific ways.

We are yet to see precise details of the relevant software and API platform, but it makes sense for VAT registered businesses to consider the implications of MTD and to plan for its introduction. 1 April 2109 seems a way off, but as always, it’s best not to wait until the last minute. We expect more information in the coming months and we will endeavour to keep you up to date.

Background

MTD for VAT will come into effect from 1 April 2019. From that date, businesses with a turnover above the VAT threshold (currently £85,000) will have to:

keep their records digitally (for VAT purposes only), and;
provide their VAT return information to HMRC through MTD functional compatible software

What is compatible software?

The VAT Notice defines “functional compatible software” as “a software program or set of compatible software programs the functions of
which include—recording and preserving electronic records in an electronic form; providing to HMRC information from the electronic
records and returns in an electronic form and by using the API platform; and receiving information from HMRC using the API platform in
relation to a person’s compliance with obligations under these Regulations which are required to be met by use of the software”.

Submission to HMRC may be either through linking/bridging software or via API enabling the spreadsheets to access HMRC APIs and report data to HMRC systems.

What HMRC say about MTD

MTD was introduced with the following comments:

“The government recognises that the majority of businesses want to get their tax right, but the latest tax gap figures published by HMRC show that too many otherwise compliant businesses find this hard, even some who use an agent to help them. As a result over £8 billion a year in tax is lost from avoidable taxpayer errors. This not only costs the public purse, it also causes businesses cost, uncertainty and worry when HMRC is forced to intervene to put things right.

HMRC wants to do more to help businesses get their tax right and MTD is a very important step in that direction. It will help businesses steer clear of avoidable errors, and give them a clearer view of their tax position in-year.

Businesses (including self-employed and landlords) will keep records of their income and expenditure digitally, and send summary updates quarterly to HMRC from their software (or app).

MTD will bring the tax system into line with what businesses and individuals now expect from other online service providers: a modern digital experience

MTD will help businesses get their tax and NICs right first time. That will reduce the likelihood of errors, giving businesses greater certainty

MTD is anticipated to take out around 10% of error on an ongoing basis, and give businesses a clearer view of their tax position in-year, enabling them to plan to meet their tax obligations at minimum cost and minimum disruption…”

Please contact us if you have any queries or would like to discuss MTD.

VAT – Latest on the Nesquik case

By Marcus Ward 23 February 2018

Latest from the courts

I covered the Nesquik first Tier Tribunal (FTT) case here Well, legal matters have since moved on and the case reached the Upper Tribunal (UT) recently. Nestlé UK Limited the manufacturer of Nesquik appealed against the FTT’s decision that its fruit flavoured products are subject to 20% VAT despite the chocolate flavour being zero rated.

Unfortunately for Nestlé , the UT decision went against it and banana and strawberry Nesquik remains standard rated. Similar contentions (to those in the FTT case) were advanced by the taxpayer, however the UT dismissed Nestlé’s appeal.

The Tribunal recognised that there is not currently a logical and consistent regime which applies to VAT on food (there is a long list of examples which include gingerbread men, smoothies, various types of crisps, not to mention Jaffa cakes….). I think most advisers could not agree more with the judge and I echo the comments I made after the FTT case: the entire legislation relating to food needs a complete overhaul.

Full details of the case here

Digitisation of the VAT Retail Export Scheme – Update

By Marcus Ward 23 February 2018

What is the VAT Retail Export Scheme (VAT RES)?

The VAT RES allows:

overseas visitors (generally, persons who live outside the EC) to receive a refund of VAT paid on goods exported to destinations outside the EC
retailers to zero-rate goods sold to entitled customers when they have the necessary evidence of export and have refunded the VAT to the customer

Such treatment is subject to a number of conditions:

the customer must be entitled to use the scheme
the goods must be eligible to be purchased under the scheme*
the customer must make the purchase in person and complete the form at the retailer’s premises in full
the goods must be exported from the ECby the last day of the third month following that in which the goods were purchased
the customer must send the retailer or the refund company evidence of export stamped by Customs on an official version of Form VAT 407, an approved version of Form VAT 407 or an officially approved invoice
the retailer or the refund company must not zero-rate the supply until the VAT has been refunded to the customer

Typically, a retailer will charge UK VAT to an overseas visitor until the visitor has returned the appropriate documentation which has been suitably stamped at the port of departure from the UK.

* Certain goods are excluded from VAT RES. These include; motor vehicles for personal export, boats sold to visitors who intend to sail them to a destination outside the EC, goods over £600 in value exported for business purposes, goods exported as freight or unaccompanied baggage, unmounted gemstones, bullion, goods consumed in the UK and goods purchased by mail order including those purchased over the Internet. (This list is not exhaustive).

Full details of VAT RES scheme here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-704-vat-retail-exports/vat-notice-704-vat-retail-exports

VAT RES is a voluntary scheme and retailers do not have to operate it. Those who do must ensure that all the conditions set out in the above notice are met. In certain areas (such as the West End of London) businesses which offer VAT RES have a commercial/price advantage over those shops which do not.

So what is new?

HMRC has recently (this month) provided an update on their project to digitise the VAT RES system, to improve the efficiency for both retailers and travellers, and also to help reduce fraud. Details here

https://www.att.org.uk/sites/default/files/180213%20VAT%20Retail%20Export%20Scheme.pdf

We are able to advise further on this matter if required.

VAT: Latest from the courts – Hastings Insurance Place Of Supply

By Marcus Ward 22 February 2018

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Hastings Insurance the issue was where was the place of supply (POS) of services?

The POS rules determine under which VAT regime the supply is treated, whether the associated input tax may be recovered and how the services are reported. Consequently, determining the POS for any supply is vitally important because getting it wrong may not only mean that tax is overpaid in one country, but it is not declared in the appropriate country so that penalties and interest are levied. Getting it wrong also means that the input tax position is likely to be incorrect; meaning that VAT can be over or underclaimed. The rules for the POS of services are notoriously complicated and even subtle differences in a business’ situation can produce a different VAT outcome.

Background

Hastings is an insurance services company operating in the UK. The appeal relates to whether the appellant was able to recover input tax it incurred in the UK which was attributable to supplies of; broking, underwriting support and claims handling services made to a Gibraltar based insurance underwriter (Advantage) which supplied motor insurance to UK customers through Hastings. In order to obtain credit for the relevant input tax, the supply to Advantage must have a POS outside the EU, eg: the recipient had a place of belonging in Gibraltar and not the UK. HMRC argued that Advantage belonged in the UK so that the input tax could not have been properly recoverable. Consequently, the issue was where Advantage “belonged” for VAT purposes.

The POS rules set out where a person “belongs”.

A taxable person belongs:

where it has a business establishment, or;
if different, where it has a fixed establishment, or;
if it has both a business establishment and a fixed establishment (or several such establishments), where the establishment is located which is most directly concerned with the supply

Further details on this point are explained here

Contentions

It was not disputed that Advantage had a business establishment in Gibraltar. The question was whether it also had a fixed establishment in the UK and, if so, whether the supplies of services were made to that fixed establishment rather than to its business establishment in Gibraltar. HMRC contended that Advantage had a fixed establishment in the UK which was “more directly concerned with the supply of insurance” such that the POS was the UK. This was on the basis that Advantage had human and technical resources in the UK which were actually used to provide its services to UK customers. Hastings obviously argued to the contrary; that Advantage had no UK fixed establishment and that services were supplied to, and by, Advantage in Gibraltar.

Technical

It may be helpful to look briefly at CJEU case law which considered what an establishment other than a business establishment is. It is: “characterised by a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources”, where looking at the location of the recipient of the supply, “to enable it to receive and use the services supplied to it for its own needs” or, where looking at the location of the supplier, “to enable it to provide the services which it supplies”.

Decision

The FTT concluded that the input tax in dispute is recoverable because it was attributable to supplies made to Advantage on the basis that it belonged outside the EU (as interpreted in accordance with the relevant EU rules and case law). After a long and exhaustive analysis of the facts the summary was;

The appellant’s human and technical resources, through which it provided the services to Advantage, did not comprise a fixed establishment of Advantage in the UK, whether for the purposes of determining where Advantage made supplies of insurance or where the appellant made the supplies of its services.
Even if, contrary to the FTT’s view, those resources comprised a fixed establishment in the UK, there is no reason to depart from the location of Advantage’s business establishment in Gibraltar as the place of belonging/supply in the circumstances of this case.

Summary

If this case affects you or your clients it will be rewarding to consider the details of the arrangements which are helpfully set out fully in the decision. This was, in my opinion, a borderline case which could have been decided differently quiet easily. A significant amount of the evidence produced was deemed inadmissible; which is an interesting adjunct to the main issue in itself. Whether HMRC take this matter further remains to be seen. It is always worthwhile reviewing a business’ POS in depth and we are able to assist with this.