Tag Archives: HMRC

Incoterms. What are they, how can they be of use for VAT?

By Marcus Ward 3 August 2017

VAT – Cross border sales of goods

Incoterms stands for International Commercial Terms. These are published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and describe agreed commercial terms. These rules set out the responsibilities of buyers and sellers for the supply of goods under a contract. They are very commonly used in cross-border commercial transactions in order that both sides in a transaction are aware of the contractual position. They help businesses avoid costly misunderstandings by clarifying the tasks, costs and risks involved in the delivery of goods from sellers to buyers. The latest terms were published in 2010 and came into effect in 2011.

The use of Incoterms for assistance for VAT purposes

One of the most difficult areas of providing VAT advice is obtaining sufficient detailed information to advise accurately and comprehensively. Quite often advisers are given what a client believes to be the arrangements for a transaction. This may differ from the actual facts, or the understanding of the other party in the transaction.

Pragmatically, this uncertainty about the details may be increased if; a number of different people within an organisation are involved, it is a new or one-off type of transaction, there are language difficulties, or communication and documentation is less than ideal. In such cases, incoterms will provide invaluable information which gives clarity and certainty and usually give a sound basis on which to advise. This enables the adviser to establish the place of supply (POS) and therefore what VAT treatment needs to be applied.

So what is this set of pre-defined international contract terms?

They are 11 pre-defined terms which are subdivided into two categories:

Group 1 – Incoterms that apply to any mode of transport are:

EXW – Ex Works (named place)

The seller makes the goods available at their premises. This term places the maximum obligation on the buyer and minimum obligations on the seller. EXW means that a buyer incurs the risks for bringing the goods to their final destination. The buyer arranges the pickup of the freight from the supplier’s designated ship site, owns the in-transit freight, and is responsible for clearing the goods through Customs. The buyer is also responsible for completing all the export documentation.

Most jurisdictions require companies to provide proof of export for VAT purposes. In an EXW shipment, the buyer is under no obligation to provide such proof, or indeed to even export the goods. It is therefore of utmost importance that these matters are discussed with the buyer before the contract is agreed.

FCA – Free Carrier (named place of delivery)

The seller delivers the goods, cleared for export, at a named place. This can be to a carrier nominated by the buyer, or to another party nominated by the buyer.

It should be noted that the chosen place of delivery has an impact on the obligations of loading and unloading the goods at that place. If delivery occurs at the seller’s premises, the seller is responsible for loading the goods on to the buyer’s carrier. However, if delivery occurs at any other place, the seller is deemed to have delivered the goods once their transport has arrived at the named place; the buyer is responsible for both unloading the goods and loading them onto their own carrier.

CPT – Carriage Paid To (named place of destination)

The seller pays for the carriage of the goods up to the named place of destination. Risk transfers to buyer upon handing goods over to the first carrier at the place of shipment in the country of Export. The Shipper is responsible for origin costs including export clearance and freight costs for carriage to named place (usually a destination port or airport). The shipper is not responsible for delivery to the final destination (generally the buyer’s facilities), or for buying insurance. If the buyer does require the seller to obtain insurance, the Incoterm CIP should be considered.

CIP – Carriage and Insurance Paid to (named place of destination)

This term is broadly similar to the above CPT term, with the exception that the seller is required to obtain insurance for the goods while in transit. CIP requires the seller to insure the goods for 110% of their value.

DAT – Delivered At Terminal (named terminal at port or place of destination)

This term means that the seller covers all the costs of transport (export fees, carriage, unloading from main carrier at destination port and destination port charges) and assumes all risk until destination port or terminal. The terminal can be a Port, Airport, or inland freight interchange. Import duty/VAT/customs costs are to be borne by the buyer.

DAP – Delivered At Place (named place of destination)

The seller is responsible for arranging carriage and for delivering the goods, ready for unloading from the arriving conveyance, at the named place. Duties are not paid by the seller under this term. The seller bears all risks involved in bringing the goods to the named place.

DDP – Delivered Duty Paid (named place of destination)

The seller is responsible for delivering the goods to the named place in the country of the buyer, and pays all costs in bringing the goods to the destination including import duties and VAT. The seller is not responsible for unloading. This term places the maximum obligations on the seller and minimum obligations on the buyer. With the delivery at the named place of destination all the risks and responsibilities are transferred to the buyer and it is considered that the seller has completed his obligations.

Group 2 – Incoterms that apply to sea and inland waterway transport only:

FAS – Free Alongside Ship (named port of shipment)

The seller delivers when the goods are placed alongside the buyer’s vessel at the named port of shipment. This means that the buyer has to bear all costs and risks of loss of or damage to the goods from that moment. The FAS term requires the seller to clear the goods for export. However, if the parties wish the buyer to clear the goods for export, this should be made clear by adding explicit wording to this effect in the contract of sale. This term can be used only for sea or inland waterway transport.

FOB – Free On Board (named port of shipment)

FOB means that the seller pays for delivery of goods to the vessel including loading. The seller must also arrange for export clearance. The buyer pays cost of marine freight transport, insurance, unloading and transport cost from the arrival port to destination. The buyer arranges for the vessel, and the shipper must load the goods onto the named vessel at the named port of shipment. Risk passes from the seller to the buyer when the goods are loaded aboard the vessel.

CFR – Cost and Freight (named port of destination)

The seller pays for the carriage of the goods up to the named port of destination. Risk transfers to buyer when the goods have been loaded on board the ship in the country of export. The shipper is responsible for origin costs including export clearance and freight costs for carriage to named port. The shipper is not responsible for delivery to the final destination from the port (generally the buyer’s facilities), or for buying insurance. CFR should only be used for non-containerised sea freight, for all other modes of transport it should be replaced with CPT.

CIF – Cost, Insurance and Freight (named port of destination)

This term is broadly similar to the above CFR term, with the exception that the seller is required to obtain insurance for the goods while in transit to the named port of destination. CIF requires the seller to insure the goods for 110% of their. CIF should only be used for non-containerised sea freight; for all other modes of transport it should be replaced with CIP.

Allocations of costs to buyer/seller via incoterms

Summary Chart

VAT – Latest from the courts: Fleming claims

By Marcus Ward 26 July 2017

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of NHS Lothian Health Board “the Board” the judge was asked to consider whether the Board had a valid Fleming claim* in respect of certain laboratory services performed from 1974 to 1997. The relevant services were, inter alia; Nequas work, food-testing, water-testing, non-medical testing of samples, especially for public health, and research and development.

Decision

The appeal was rejected. Although the Tribunal accepted the considerable evidence and testimony from members of staff working for the Board during the relevant years, and had decided that the relevant supplies were subject to VAT (they were not exempt of non-business) unfortunately, there was insufficient documentary evidence to actually quantify the amount of input tax claimed. Of course, in order to recover input tax, it had to relate to taxable (business) supplies made by the appellant. The Tribunal was required to consider whether the business income of the laboratories could be calculated. The FTT considered that whilst the evidence was helpful in determining that taxable supplies were made, that evidence fell short of facilitating its quantification. While the business income was almost certainly significant, the Tribunal did not consider that it has been quantified satisfactorily for the whole period.

The appellant contended that a set percentage representing business income could be projected backwards to earlier VAT periods. The Tribunal did not consider such an approach “reasonable or acceptable” and that the timescale involved also undermined the likely accuracy of the process of extrapolation. (The Tribunal suggested that there is a need to have a verifiable percentage, calculated by reference to prime records at regular intervals. For example, it might well be acceptable in a 25 year period to have verifiable figures every five years, and if there is not significant variation, to use extrapolated figures for the intervening years). There was also uncertainty about the Board’s partial exemption position and how, historically, apportionment was carried out.

Commentary

This case demonstrates the difficulty of making retrospective claims that go back to the early 1970s, that’s over 40 years ago! It is to be expected that certain records may be absent and HMRC has previously agreed that the required information may be established by other methods, however, a claim has to be made on the basis of “something more concrete” than a backwards projection of a percentage figure calculated from more contemporary records. The judge gave an example of evidence that may be acceptable in these circumstances.

The outcome does seem somewhat unfair given the fact that all parties agree that VAT was overpaid due to an error made by HMRC, but the level of evidence required to support a Fleming claim has to be of a certain standard to be accepted.

As always in VAT – record keeping is of the utmost importance.

* Background to Fleming claims

Fleming claims’ are claims for underdeclared or overpaid VAT, potentially going back as far as the inception of VAT in 1973. They followed the House of Lords judgements in January 2008 in the cases of Fleming and Conde Nast (Fleming) which concerned the way that the three year time limit on making claims had been introduced. In Revenue and Customs Brief 07/08, published on 20 February 2008, claims were invited in respect of overpaid output tax for accounting periods ending before 1 May 1997. Subsequent legislation in the 2008 Finance Act limited the scope for making claims for these accounting periods by introducing a new transitional period ending 1 April 2009, before which any such claims had to be made.

VAT treatment of vouchers, gifts and discounts – How business promotions work

By Marcus Ward 17 July 2017

Business promotions are an area of VAT which continues to prove complex. This is further exacerbated by changes to the legislation at EC and domestic level and ongoing case law.

The VAT position is summarised here. Part of this commentary has been taken directly from HMRC guidance on the subject and is the most up to date authority on the matter. I thought it may be useful if the VAT treatment of various business promotion schemes is summarised in one place.

…I recall a statement from an old mentor of mine; “if you have a marketing department you have a VAT problem!”

Summary

Offer	How to charge VAT
Discounts	Charged on the discounted price (not the full price)
Gifts	Charged on the gift’s full value – there are some exceptions listed below
Multi-buys	Charged on the combined price if all the items have the same VAT rate. If not, VAT is ‘apportioned’ as mixed-rate goods
Money-off coupons, vouchers etc	No VAT due if given away free at time of a purchase. If not, VAT due on the price charged
Face value vouchers that can be used for more than one type of good or service (multi-purpose)	No VAT due, if sold at or below their monetary value
Face value vouchers that can only be used for one type of good or service (single-purpose)	VAT due on the value of the voucher when issued
Redeemed face value vouchers	Charged on the full value of the transaction at the appropriate rate of the goods provided in return for the voucher

Exceptions for gifts

There’s no VAT due on gifts given to the same person if their total value in a 12 month period is less than £50.

Free goods and services

You don’t have to pay VAT on things like free samples if they meet certain conditions.

Supplies	Condition to meet so no VAT due
Free samples	Used for marketing purposes and provided in a quantity that lets potential customers test the product
Free loans of business assets	The cost of hiring the asset is included in something else you sell to the customer
Free gifts	The total cost of all gifts to the same person is less than £50 in a 12 month period
Free services	You don’t get any payment or goods or services in return

Face value vouchers

Recent changes, radically alter the UK rules for face value vouchers. Face value vouchers are vouchers, tokens, stamps (physical or electronic) which entitle the holder to certain goods or services up to the value on the face of the vouchers from the supplier of those goods or services.

Examples of face value vouchers would include vouchers sold by popular group discount websites, vouchers sold by high street retailers, book tokens, stamps and various high street vouchers.

Single or multi-purpose

The most important distinction for face value vouchers is whether a voucher is a single purpose voucher or multi-purpose voucher. If it is a multi-purpose voucher then little has changed. If it is a single purpose voucher, however, HMRC will now charge VAT when it is issued.

Single purpose vouchers are vouchers which carry the right to receive only one type of goods or services which are all subject to a single rate of VAT. Multi-purpose vouchers are anything else. The differences can be quite subtle.

For example:

a voucher which entitles you to download an e-book from one seller will be a single purpose voucher. A voucher which entitles you to either books (zero rated) or an e-book download (standard rated) from the same seller will be multi-purpose
a voucher which entitles you to £10 of food at a restaurant which does not sell takeaways is probably single purpose, whereas if the restaurant has a cold salad bar and you can buy a take away with the voucher (or hot food) then it would be multi-purpose.

The above means that for single purpose vouchers VAT is due whether the voucher is actually redeemed or not; which seems an unfair result. There is no way to reduce output tax previously accounted for if the voucher is not used.

The situations set out above are often further complicated when three or more parties are involved, but that’s a detailed article for another day….

Is the Upper Tribunal bound by High Court decisions?

By Marcus Ward 11 July 2017

Upper Tribunal versus High Court

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

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

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

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

VAT: Latest from the courts – extent of exemption for financial services

By Marcus Ward 5 July 2017

Coinstar Limited

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Coinstar Limited the issue was whether the services Coinstar provided were exempt supply of financial services via Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, 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.”

Background

I’ve no doubt that you’ve seen those kiosks with machines in supermarkets into you which you tip your bag full of loose change in return for a voucher. The voucher can then be redeemed at the checkout against the supermarket bill. Coinstar provides this service and charges 9.9% of the value of the coins inserted into the machine. HMRC considered this to be a table service of “coin counting”, while Coinstar claimed that it was an exempt supply under the above legislation.

Decision

The UT affirmed the decision of the First Tier Tribunal and dismissed HMRC’s appeal, ruling that Coinstar was providing an exempt financial service. The Transaction was not a coin counting service, but a service of exchanging a less convenient means of exchange into a more convenient one which was provided in return for the 9.9% fee. This involved a change in the legal and financial status of the parties such that the exemption applied.

Commentary

Another case which demonstrates the fine line between exemption and taxable treatment of “financial” services. HMRC’s argument here was that this was a single supply of coin counting (which is outside the exemption) but clearly, a person emptying their big pots of change into the machine did not want it to be simply counted, the aim was to obtain a voucher in return for the shrapnel (or, if feeling philanthropic, there is an option to donate the coins to charity – for which Coinstar made no charge). It is fair to observe that just because a supply may be “financial” in nature it is not automatically exempt. It pays to check the liability of such services because, as may be seen, HMRC often attack exempt treatment. I have recently had to untangle a position where there was doubt about whether an online service amounted to exempt intermediary service. HMRC ultimately agreed that exemption applied in this case, but that was not their starting point.

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

By Marcus Ward 3 July 2017

Lowcost Holidays Ltd

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

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

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

The case

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

Background

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

Decision

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

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

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

VAT – Extent of healthcare exemption. Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 26 June 2017

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) the case of The Learning Centre (Romford) Ltd (TLC) the exemption for healthcare was considered.

Background

The appellant provides day-care to vulnerable adults with learning difficulties (referred to as students). Both directors have relevant qualifications and a great deal of experience in providing the care which the company provides. The taxpayer provided their students with education, activities, and entertainment during working hours Monday to Friday, providing meals and, where required, assistance with eating, administering medication, and personal care. They also provided the transport to bring the students to and from their homes and the facility. The education provided was geared towards teaching the students independent living.

While HMRC accepted that what the appellant provided was ‘welfare services’ within the meaning of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7 Item 9 and Note (6), exemption applied only where it was supplied by a specified type of entity. Those entities are:

1) A charity

2) A state-regulated private welfare institution or agency, or

3) A public body.

The appellant was not a charity: it was a company which ran the business for profit. As a privately owned company, it was not a public body either. The only possible category for the appellant was ‘a state-regulated private welfare institution or agency’ and HMRC did not accept that the appellant fell within that category. Day-care is not regulated in England and as a consequence HMRC decided it is not covered by the exemption.

Decision

The FTT found for the appellant. It was noted that day-care is regulated in Scotland and it would be a breach of fiscal neutrality if the VAT treatment of day-care was different North and South of the border. TLC could rely on the direct effect of the Principal VAT Directive and, as a consequence, could treat its supplies as exempt and deregister from VAT.

Commentary

It was a logical decision, however, logic does not always play a part in VAT…. It sought to level a playing field that was far from that. If the decision had been in favour of HMRC the VAT treatment would have been different if the supply had been made:

in other areas of the UK
by the Local Authority
by a charity

contrary to EC law.

There are many businesses which provide similar services and it is imperative that they review their VAT position immediately. We can assist with this.

VAT – Business Entertainment Flowchart. What input tax may I recover?

By Marcus Ward 26 June 2017

VAT – Recovery of input tax incurred on entertainment

One of the most common questions asked on “day-to-day” VAT is whether input tax incurred on entertainment is claimable. The answer to this seemingly straightforward question has become increasingly complex as a result of; HMRC policy, EC involvement and case law.

Different rules apply to entertaining; clients, contacts, staff, partners and directors depending on the circumstances. It seems reasonable to treat entertaining costs as a valid business expense. After all, a business, amongst other things, aims to increase sales and reduce costs as a result of these meetings. However, HMRC sees things differently and there is a general block on business entertainment. It seems like HMRC does not like watching people enjoying themselves at the government’s expense!

If, like me, you think in pictures, then a flowchart may be useful for deciding whether to claim entertainment VAT. It covers all scenarios, but if you have a unique set of circumstances or require assistance with some of the definitions, please contact me.

We have recently carried out a series of presentations, which, amongst other subjects, covered business entertainment. Should you require VAT training or presentations, don’t forget our comprehensive service here which can be tailored to your needs.

VAT -Business Entertainment Flowchart

Download here: VAT Business Entertainment Input tax recovery flowchart

VAT: Is the card game bridge a sport?

By Marcus Ward 21 June 2017

Latest from the courts: Advocate General’s (AG) opinion* on the English Bridge Union (EBU) case.

Certain supplies of services closely connected to sport are exempt from VAT. Consequently the EBU (a non‐profit making membership‐ funded organisation committed to promoting the game of duplicate bridge) appealed to the ECJ wanting certain fees paid to it to be exempt. HMRC consider that contract bridge is not a sport so that output tax was due on the supply. This view was supported by the First Tier and Upper Tribunals. So, the simple question is: Is bridge a sport? The ECJ hearing has come about due to a referral from the British courts in reference to how it should be applied to bridge.

The AG has looked at how the term “sport” should be defined. As a starting point, it is clear that games such as football, cricket, tennis and squash are sport. However, this does not mean that activities which are less strenuous cannot be a sport, and the examples of archery and badminton were given. The AG was also of the view that sport does not need to include any physical element, meaning that any activity which is characterised by:

competition
an effort to overcome a challenge or obstacle
results in physical or mental wellbeing

may qualify as a sport.

In connection with contract bridge; as a card game it:

is dependent on skill and training rather than luck
requires considerable mental effort and training to compete at an international level
is recognised by the International Olympic Committee as a sport

such that the AG concluded that bridge can indeed be defined as a sport.

This, if followed by the ECJ, means that the EBU will be due a refund of output tax declared on competition entry fees charged to its members.

The EBU has always maintained that bridge is a sport and point to the UK Charity Commission which recognises bridge as a sport. It adopted Parliament’s most recent definition in the Charities Act, updated by Parliament in 2011, which specifically included Mind Sports in the definition of ‘sport’, stating that sports are “activities which promote health or wellbeing through physical or mental skill or exertion”. Additionally, bridge is seen as an excellent way of improving mental acuity and delaying the onset of dementia, and the social and partnership aspects of bridge are of great benefit to those who may otherwise become isolated.

We now await the court’s decision on whether one needs to wear shorts and get sweaty to be participating in sport.

* The most important work performed by the Advocates General is to deliver a written Opinion, named “reasoned submission”. The role of the Advocate General is to propose an independent legal solution. It is important to note that the Court is not obligated to follow the Opinion delivered by the Advocate General. Even though the Opinion does not bind the Court it has an impact on the decision in many cases, and in fact, in most cases the ECJ follows it.

VAT – Are overpayments subject to output tax?

By Marcus Ward 19 June 2017

This was the question considered by the Upper Tribunal (UT) in the case of National Car Parks Limited

Latest from the courts

We’ve all been there. We’ve found a NCP pay and display car park and want to park for one hour. We find a free space and go to the pay and display ticket machine. In this example, the prices stated on the tariff board next to the pay and display ticket machine are: Parking for up to one hour – £1.40. Parking for up to three hours – £2.10. The pay and display ticket machine states that change is not given but overpayments are accepted.

Guess what? As usual, we find that we don’t have the right money and only have a pound and a fifty pence piece, so we have to put them both in the machine. The machine meter records the coins as they are fed into the machine, starting with the pound coin. When the fifty pence piece has been inserted and accepted by the machine, the machine flashes up ‘press green button for ticket’ which we customer do. The amount paid is printed on her ticket, as is the expiry time of one hour later and we wander off to attend our business.

So, is VAT due on the overpayment of 10p?

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) said “yes”. It held that the excess payments made by the customer to NCP were not voluntary because the customer was required to pay at least the amount specified in order to park their vehicle and, if the customer did not have the correct change, the customer was required to pay an additional amount in order to obtain the right to park. The only sense in which the payment could be said to be “voluntary” is that the customer could decide not to buy a ticket which would mean not parking the car and having to go elsewhere. The taxpayer then appealed to the UT.

Law

Article 2(1)(c) of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD) provides that supplies of services for consideration within the territory of a Member State by a taxable person acting as such are subject to VAT. Article 73 of the PVD provides: “In respect of the supply of goods or services… the taxable amount shall include everything which constitutes consideration obtained or to be obtained by the supplier, in return for the supply, from the customer or a third party, including subsidies directly linked to the price of the supply.” The provisions of the PVD have been implemented in UK law by the Value Added Tax Act 1994. Section 5(2)(a) of the VAT Act 1994 defines ‘supply’ to include all forms of supply but not anything done otherwise than for a consideration and section 19(4) provides: “Where a supply of any goods or services is not the only matter to which a consideration in money relates, the supply shall be deemed to be for such part of the consideration as is properly attributable to it.”

Decision

The UT agreed with the FTT, and so the taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed. A distinction was made between these overpayments and optional payments such as tips (which are VAT free). It was stated that the PVD seeks to identify what consideration was received by NCP, not whether the customer could have obtained the same service for less. NCP retained the £1.50 in return for providing the car parking and this was consequently the value of the service provided.

Commentary

We have recently dealt with a number of cases which dealt with the topic of valuation and have been successful in obtaining a refund of overpaid VAT. Unfortunately for the appellant in this case, it seems that there was little chance of success and they didn’t get to keep all of value of the overpayments. All those 10ps add up…