Tag Archives: HMRC

VAT: Latest from the courts – Are loan administration services exempt?

By Marcus Ward 1 May 2018

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Target Group Limited (Target) the appeal was against a decision by HMRC that loan administration services supplied by Target to a UK bank, Shawbrook Bank Limited (Shawbrook) were standard rated.

Background

Target contracted with Shawbrook to provide services related to loans provided by Shawbrook to its customers in the course of its lending business. Target’s description of its services was “loan account administration services” which amounted to Shawbrook outsourcing the management of the loans to Target. The services that Target provided covered the entire lifecycle of the loans, apart from the making of the initial loan. Target established loan accounts using its own systems, communicates with borrowers as an undisclosed agent of Shawbrook, and dealt with payments by borrowers and all administrative issues that arose. Target had limited discretion. The terms of the loans, including interest rates, were set by Shawbrook. Although Target is involved in dealing with arrears, any enforcement action would be a decision for Shawbrook. Specifically, the contract described Target as being “a provider of loan origination and account operation services” which “performs activities including the functions of: payment processing and servicing and portfolio management services”

Issue

It was accepted that Shawbrook made the loans (not Target) and that the services provided by Target were to Shawbrook and comprised a single (composite) supply for VAT purposes, rather than multiple supplies. Details of the definition between the two types of supply have been hot news in the VAT world for some time. My commentary on relevant recent case law here here here here here and here

The issue was the precise nature of the supplies and whether they qualified for exemption. The areas of dispute included whether Target’s supplies were excluded from exemption as debt collection, and whether the loan accounts fall to be treated as current accounts.

Target’s case was that the principal supply it made to Shawbrook related to payments and transfers in the same way as in the Electronic Data Services Ltd (EDS) case, which related to similar customer-facing loan administration services. (EDS provided loan arrangement and execution services to banks in relation to the granting of personal loans. The services included the provision of a staffed call centre, the printing and despatch of loan agreement documentation, the transfer of funds via the BACS system on the release of loans and the administrative work related to handling loan accounts and repayments). In the alternative, the principal or core supply relates to the operation of accounts (specifically, current accounts), or amounts to transactions concerning debts.

Technical

Article 135(1)(d) of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC (the Principal VAT Directive, or “PVD”) requires Member States to exempt the following transactions: “transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit and current accounts, payments, transfers, debts, cheques and other negotiable instruments, but excluding debt collection;”

This is transposed into UK legislation via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, items 1 and 8:

“Item 1. The issue, transfer or receipt of, or any dealing with, money, any security for money or any note or order for the payment of money. …

Item 8. The operation of any current, deposit, or savings account.”

Decision

It was decided that Target’s supplies did not qualify for exemption and they therefore fell to be standard rated. What was fatal to the appellant’s case was the fact that there was an absence of any involvement in the initial loan. Consequently, although it was possible to view the services as “transactions concerning payments” they fell within the debt collection definition and accordingly were not exempt. The judge also ruled that the supplies may be loan accounts, these did not qualify as an exempt operation of a current account.

Commentary

Of course, this decision was important for the recipient of the supply (Shawbrook) as well as Target. Because its supplies were exempt, the VAT on the outsourcing expenditure would be irrecoverable thus creating an extra 20% cost.

This case once again demonstrates that even the smallest variation of facts can produce an unexpected VAT outcome. Care must be taken to analyse precisely what is being provided. Financial Services is a minefield for VAT and it is certainly one area that assumptions of the VAT treatment should be avoided and timely advice sought.

Picture: A loan arranger (apologies)

Tax Tribunal backlog continues to increase

By Marcus Ward 26 April 2018

Both the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) which both hear VAT cases, report an increase in the number of cases waiting to be heard. In the case of the FTT the increase is 507 last year which means 28,521 cases are outstanding. The increase of UT cases outstanding is around 40%.

These are not all VAT cases and it is likely that the backlog is predominantly caused by

HMRC’s increased willingness to attack what they see as tax avoidance and evasion (see here)
More businesses being prepared to go to court
HMRC’s determination to “win on every point” rather than, perhaps, seeking a negotiated settlement, and
The increasing complexity of cases heard.

This backlog works in HMRCs favour as in the majority of cases the disputed tax must be paid before a hearing can take place. Delays may also cause anxiety and the burden of devoting resources to appeals which may cause the applicant to withdraw. It is not usually an inexpensive process to go to court and some cases can take a number of years to resolve.

In the current climate, it is more important than ever to challenge HMRC’s decisions. We have found that in the majority of cases we have been able to reduce HMRC assessments, in many cases, to zero. We always work on the basis that it is very important to try to resolve matters with HMRC before going to Tribunal. This is an increasingly difficult task given the political pressure on HMRC to reduce the tax gap (the difference between the amount of tax that should, in theory, be collected by HMRC, against what is actually collected) and the seemingly common tactic of HMRC becoming “entrenched” and being unprepared to shift their position.

Please contact us if you have a dispute with HMRC or are being challenged on any technical points. It is better to deal with these as soon as possible to avoid going to court.

VAT: Longer prison sentences for tax fraud

By Marcus Ward 16 April 2018

The latest figures from the Ministry of Justice show that for fraud offences including; VAT, Excise Duty, and Custom Duty the average length of custodial sentences has increased by around 25%. The average sentence is now four years one month, up from three years three months as the government clamps down on tax evasion.

Why longer in jail?

It is thought that the reasons for this are that:

HMRC is demanding longer sentences
HMRC is pursuing an increasing number of suspected fraudsters
HMRC is devoting more resources to carrying out investigations
CPS has been pushing for tax frauds to be considered as a more serious offence (which, obviously, carry longer sentences).

Criminal prosecution has also increased enormously as a result of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office being incorporated with the CPS. HMRC is no longer just interested in getting the VAT, it wants prosecutions, the convictions….and the tax. A person criminally prosecuted for evasion does not escape paying the tax and they will be chased for it. A fraudster may be prosecuted under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Money Laundering Act 2007.

More resources

The news comes as companies including Amazon and eBay have agreed to give their data to HMRC in an effort to crack down on VAT evasion by overseas retailers. The deal will mean the companies will provide merchant’s data to tax officials so that fraudulent trends can be spotted.

HMRC have also been using increasingly technical procedures on data which was previously unavailable to them – details here

Naming and shaming

In addition, HMRC also publish details of people who deliberately “get their tax affairs wrong”. The current list is here

What is evasion, and what is the difference between that and avoidance?

I am often asked about the distinction between avoidance and evasion. Broadly, the difference between avoidance and evasion is legality. Tax avoidance is legally exploiting the tax system to reduce current or future tax liabilities by means not intended by Parliament. It often involves artificial transactions that are contrived to produce a tax advantage. Tax avoidance is not the same as tax planning or mitigation.

Tax evasion is to escape paying taxes illegally. This is usually when a person misrepresents or conceals the true state of their affairs to tax authorities, for example dishonest tax reporting.

Technical

The relevant legislation covering the offences of fraudulent evasion of VAT is under section 72(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, furnishing false information under section 72(3) and committing evasion over a period under section 72(8). Section 72(8)(b) sets out that the offence is subject to”…imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years…”.

Summary

The message is clear; after being criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for not have a clear strategy for dealing with tax fraud and not pursuing criminal prosecution in enough cases HMRC has demonstrated that it is prepared to go after more businesses and individuals and put more resources into detecting and prosecuting fraudulent activities.

Sleep tight

We always recommend full disclosure to HMRC, it is preferable to sleep at night (rather than trying to sleep in a prison cell). Of course, the very best course of action is not to commit tax fraud…

VAT Inspections – How do HMRC choose who to visit?

By Marcus Ward 13 April 2018

Big Brother is watching you…

It always used to be the case that “Control Visits” aka VAT inspections were decided by a business’s

turnover
VAT complexity
business complexity
structure
compliance history
previous errors

The more ticks a business gets the more inspections it will receive. Consequently, a business with a high turnover (a “Large Trader”) with many international branches providing complicated financial services worldwide which has failed to file returns by the due date and has received assessments in the past will be inspected almost constantly. Tick only a few of the boxes and a sole trader with a low turnover building business will still generate HMRC interest if it has received assessments in the past or is constantly late with its returns.

These visits are in addition to what is known as “pre-credibility” inspections (pre-creds). Pre-creds take place in cases where a business has submitted a repayment claim. HMRC will check whether the claim is valid before they release the repayment. These may be done via telephone, email, or in person, and may lead to a full blown inspection.

In addition, there was always a random element with inspections generated arbitrarily. The usual cycles were: six monthly, annually, three yearly, five yearly, or less frequently. On occasions, the next inspection would depend on the previous inspector’s report (they may, for instance, have recommended another inspection after a future event has occurred).

The Connect System

Although elements of the above “tests” may still apply, many inspections now are based on intelligence obtained from many sources. The main resource is a data system which HMRC call “Connect”. This system feeds from many bases and forms the basis of many decisions made by HMRC. Instead of HMRC relying on information provided by businesses on VAT returns, Connect draws on statistics from myriad government and corporate sources to create a profile of each VAT registered business. If this data varies from that submitted on returns it is more likely that that business will be inspected. As an example: HMRC obtains anonymised information on all Visa and MasterCard transactions, enabling it to identify areas of likely VAT underpayments which it can then target further. Other sources of information are: Online marketplaces – websites such as eBay and Gumtree can be accessed to identify regular traders who may not be VAT registered.

The Connect system can also examine public social media account information, such as; Twitter, Facebook and Instagram using sophisticated mechanisms along with being able to access individual’s digital information such as web browsing and emails.

It is understood that less than 10% of all inspections are now random.

The £100 million plus Connect project is, and will be, increasingly important as HMRC is losing significant resources; particularly well trained and experienced inspectors. With many local VAT offices closing there is also a concern on the ground that a lot of “local knowledge” of businesses has been lost.

Big Brother really is watching you…. And if you are on the receiving end of an inspection, there is a circa 90% chance that there is a reason for it!

For information on how to survive a VAT inspection, please see here

I always suggest that if notification of an impending inspection is received a pre-visit review is undertaken to identify and deal with any issues before HMRC arrive and levy penalties and interest.

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.