Tag Archives: HMRC

VAT – Latest from the courts. More on separate and composite supplies and land exemption

By Marcus Ward 17 May 2016

TC05078 Blue Chip Hotels Ltd

This is a FTT case which considered the VAT analysis of a supply in two ways. The appellant was an hotel which offered a wedding “package”. The package comprised; a room which was licensed for civil wedding ceremonies, the hire of other rooms, catering, accommodation, car parking and the use of the grounds for photographs. The only activity carried out in the “wedding room” was the wedding ceremony itself. The hotel treated the hire of the wedding room as exempt and added VAT to the remainder of the package.

The two technical points were:

Was the supply of the wedding room a separate supply to the rest of the wedding package as advanced by the taxpayer, or was it one element of the overall package to which standard rating applied?, and;
If an independent supply, was it an exempt supply of land under VAT Act, Schedule 9, Group 1 as argued by the appellant?

Somewhat to the puzzlement of the Tribunal, HMRC had accepted that if the wedding room was supplied without any other element of the wedding package it could be treated as an exempt supply of land.

On the first point the Tribunal decided that the hire of the wedding room should be treated as a separate supply for VAT purposes. However, this was only relevant if the taxpayer could demonstrate that the provision of the wedding room was a supply of land.

On the second point, the issue was whether what the hotel supplied was more than the mere hire of the wedding room as a passive letting of land. The tribunal was of the view that an additional service was being provided, this being the service of a legal wedding ceremony which could be carried out only because of the licensed nature of the wedding room. That is; what was being paid for was the right to participate in a particular event, only part of which entailed the provision of the physical space in which that event occurred.

The Tribunal concluded that the supply of the wedding room could not be treated as an exempt supply of land via VAT Act, Schedule 9, Group 1, the provision of licensed premises in which a civil wedding could legally be carried out went beyond the passive letting of land and was outside the scope of the exemption.

This seems to go against the decision in Drumtochty Castle Ltd (TC2111) inter alia, where the Tribunal found that in similar circumstances to those in this instant case that what was being offered was a single package such that exemption could not be applied to certain elements. Although it may simply demonstrate that even subtle differences in the facts can result in a different VAT outcome. As previously observed in a number of these types of cases, it is crucial to analyse precisely what is being provided, even in cases where the VAT treatment has remained unchanged for a number of years. Case law develops at a very fast rate and legislation changes regularly, both of which can affect the tax position.

New approach to VAT inspections by HMRC

By Marcus Ward 16 May 2016

A VAT quickie.

We understand that HMRC are about to introduce new plans to change the way some VAT inspections are carried out.

The intention is that when a business is selected to an inspection, rather than arranging and visiting the business in the traditional way, initial contact will be made with the responsible person. At this point a short telephone questionnaire will take place. If this option is taken then it is possible that HMRC will reconsider the need for a full inspection. This appears to be along the lines of some pre-credibility processes. It is a pilot exercise and will be entirely voluntary for the taxpayer.

If this approach enables HMRC to focus on evasion and high risk business while reducing the burden for the majority of businesses who always try to be accurate with VAT declarations it is to be welcomed. We shall see how the pilot goes and whether this is rolled out to more businesses. HMRC expects that this will be a benefit for both them and taxpayers and it is to be hoped that this is the case.

We have no knowledge currently how “brief” the questionnaire will be and how much information and preparation will be required. However, it is likely that they will focus on industry specific questions rather than on processes and controls.

If contacted by HMRC our usual advice is to contact us to ensure everything is as it should be. This may avoid penalties and ensure any enquires are concluded smoothly.

VAT – Liability of works carried out under Permitted Development Rights

By Marcus Ward 10 May 2016

HMRC has clarified its views on the zero and reduced rating of conversion construction work carried out under Permitted Development Rights (PDRs).

Who is affected?

Builders and developers who convert non-residential buildings into dwellings for which individual statutory planning consent is not required because the development is covered by PDRs. Additionally, it applies to any person carrying out a similar conversion who will be making a claim for a refund of VAT under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme.

What are PDRs?

PDRs are a national grant of planning permission for particular types of development. They are intended to streamline the planning process by removing the need for a full planning application, therefore reducing the amount of information required.

What has changed?

To zero-rate the sale of all newly converted dwellings (from non-residential buildings) or to make a valid claim under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme, the converted building must meet the requirements of a building “designed as a dwelling”. One of these conditions is that the developer, builder or DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme claimant must be able to demonstrate that statutory planning consent has been granted for a dwelling and that its construction has been carried out in accordance with that consent. In addition, part of the conditions for some supplies of construction services to be eligible for the reduced rate of VAT of 5% for the conversion of a non-residential building into a dwelling requires individual statutory planning consent.

HMRC have announced that following the introduction of PDRs, individual statutory planning consent will no longer be required for some developments making the meeting of this condition difficult.

HMRC Brief 9 (2016) sets out that when certain conditions are met, zero rating and/or reduced rating where applicable is additionally available when converting non-residential buildings to dwellings when work is carried out under a PDR. This is in contrast to work undertaken via planning consent.

Relevant parties will still be required to provide evidence that the work has been undertaken legally and that it qualifies as a permitted development.

The full guidance is here

VAT – Spot The Ball – Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 9 May 2016

Is Spot The Ball a game? And if it is, is it a game of chance? (And therefore exempt from VAT).

In the case of IFX Investment Company Ltd & ORS the main issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) were wrong to hold that the appellants’ “Spot The Ball” competitions was exempt under the gaming exemption in Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9 Group 4. To fall within the gaming exemption, Spot The Ball must be a “game of chance” within the meaning of the Gaming Act 1968. The dispute was over the word “game” and the words “of chance”.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) considered whether the FtT decision in favour of the appellant that the supply was exempt or whether HMRC’s successful appeal to the Upper-tier Tribunal (UtT) should stand.

The court heard form the promoters that while there was an element of skill in determining roughly where the panel that decided where the ball should be would actually place it, the precise placement of the cross was essentially a matter of chance. HMRC insisted that the competitors were not “playing a game” as they advanced the argument that a “game” required interaction between the players. and therefore Spot The Ball could not be considered playing a game of chance such that the supply is standard rated.

The UtT deemed that Spot The Ball is “played” in “solitary isolation” and does not involve any interaction between competitors. The only contract is between the operator and the individual competitor. Additionally the act of placing a cross on the coupon was not “playing”

The CoA disagreed with the UtT’s decision and concluded that the FtT made a finding that Spot The Ball was a game of chance and there was no reason to disturb this decision. The FtT was correct to hold that there is no inter-player interaction rule. Previous case law clearly contemplates that there can be a game without the contestants being in communication with each other. Consequently, it restored the FtT’s decision and the supplies are exempt.

This case has brought home to me two (non-VAT) things; 1) That Spot The Ball is still around, and that 2) I always thought that one had to actually put a cross where the ball actually was, rather than where a judging panel thought the ball was likely to be. One lives and learns. I’m also constantly surprised that “the pools” still exist in these days of lotteries and lotto and other promotions.

Case here

VAT – Latest from the courts; use and enjoyment provisions

By Marcus Ward 25 April 2016

Telefonica Europe Plc and Telefonica UK Limited

The VAT Use and Enjoyment provisions set out an additional layer of rules which establish the place of supply of certain services. They apply to; telecommunications and broadcasting services; electronically supplied services (for business customers); hired goods; and hired means of transport. Broadly, effective use and enjoyment takes place where a recipient actually consumes the services, regardless of any contractual arrangements, payment, or beneficial interest. The intention of this provision is to correct instances of distortion which remain as a result of considering only where the provider and the customer belong. HMRC give the example of supplies such as telecommunications services which are actually consumed outside the EC, to be subject to UK VAT. Of course, the converse is that it would be distortive for there to be no EC VAT on such services where they are consumed in the UK.

In the Upper Tribunal case of Telefonica Europe Plc and Telefonica UK Limited the dispute involved the way in which the appellant calculated the value of its mobile telephone services which were used and enjoyed outside the EC (and thus UK VAT free). Over a number of years Telefonica had an agreement with HMRC whereby the amount of outside the EC supplies was calculated by reference to revenue, ie; comparing call, text and data income relating to non-EC supplies to total income.

HMRC subsequently formed the view that this method of calculation was distortive because higher charges were made to non-EC users than EC consumers. HMRC proposed a “usage methodology” which used call times, texts sent and volume of data used. As may be expected, this resulted in a lower percentage of supplies that were outside the scope of UK VAT thus increasing HMRC’s VAT take.

The appellant contended that the usage methodology was contrary to EC and UK VAT legislation. Not surprisingly, the UTT rejected this argument, deciding that Telefonica had not established that HMRC’s proposal was unlawful.

So then the outcome would be expected to be that the usage methodology should be used, but no. It was decided that the most accurate method would be one based on the time a customer has access to the network outside the EC; which differs from both the usage and revenue methods.

This type of dispute is quite common and also appears regularly in partial exemption situations. There are nearly always alternative ways to view apportionment calculations and it pays to obtain professional advice; not only to ensure that a fair result is achieved, but as assistance with negotiations (which may avoid having to go to Tribunal).

VAT Latest from the courts: Stocks Fly Fishery – single or multiple supply?

By Marcus Ward 19 April 2016

As many will know, there is a significant amount of case law concerning what may be treated as a composite supply at one VAT rate, and what are separate supplies at different VAT rates. The latest in this series is the First Tier Tribunal case of Stocks Fly Fishery

The appellant is a trout fishery in the Forest of Bowland. They argued that they supplied standard rated fishing and a distinct zero rated supply of fish for human consumption.

They provided two types of daily ticket which was required to fish the reservoir. The first was a sporting ticket, which entitled an angler to fish, but any fish caught must be returned to the water. The second was a take ticket which also enabled a person to fish but any fish caught (up to a certain number) may be taken away for food. A take ticket was more expensive than a sporting ticket. The more fish that were taken away, the more expensive the take ticket was. The taxpayer formed the opinion that it made two supplies; one of fishing which was agreed to be standard rated, and one of food for human consumption (the trout) which was zero rated. The value of the zero rated element was said to be the difference between the sporting ticket price and that of the take ticket.

The issue was whether the ability to take away the fish for food was a separate supply, or ancillary to the substantive supply of fishing.

The appellant cited Hughes v Pendragon Sabre Ltd (t/a Porsche Centre Bolton) while HMRC relied on Chalk Springs Fisheries (1987) (LON/86/706) Roger Cambrai Haynes (1988) (LON/87/624) and Card Protection Plan Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

As an observation, the chairman in the Chalk Springs Fisheries case stated “…No trout is, in my view, supplied to him at all. Instead the fisherman must go out and catch them, if he can.” This was obviously quite unhelpful to the appellant. Additionally, the chairman was obliged to follow the well-known Card Protection Plan case which sets out guidance on matters such as this.

Decision

The FTT decided that the essential feature of the transaction was fishing and the dominant motive of anglers going to the fishery was to fish, regardless of which type of ticket was purchased. Therefore, the right to fish had to be regarded as constituting the principal service and the right to kill and keep the trout fish, if caught, should be regarded as ancillary to that principal purpose. Therefore there was a single standard rated supply of fishing.

It is always worth reviewing whether supplies made by a business can, and ought, to be treated separately, or as a single bundle. The existence of such a massive amount of case law on this subject indicates that this issue will continue to run and run.

Please contact us should this matter raise any concerns or present a possible opportunity.

The VAT gap for 2014-15

By Marcus Ward 6 April 2016

What is the VAT gap?

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

In other words, VTTL – VAT receipts = VAT gap.

This is HMRC’s second estimate of the VAT gap for 2014-15 (£ billion) and may be summarised as:

Net VTTL £124.9

Net VAT receipts £111.4

VAT gap £13.5

VAT gap 10.8%

The previous year’s figures (2013-2014) estimated the VAT gap at £13.1 billion (11.1% of the VTTL).

The consumer expenditure data accounts for around two thirds of the VTTL. The remaining one third of the VTTL is comprised of government and housing expenditure data, and businesses making exempt supplies.

For those of a statistical nature, the methodology behind the figures is here

VAT – Latest from the courts: Frank A Smart & Son Limited

By Marcus Ward 4 April 2016

Recovery of input tax incurred on the purchase of Single Farm Payment Entitlement (SFPE) units.

HMRC often reject claims for input tax as they consider that they relate to non-business activities, or more nebulously the costs are not reflected in the prices of supplies made by the claimant (the so called “cost component” approach). This very helpful Upper Tribunal (UT) case provides insight into the logic applied by HMRC in reaching a decision to disallow a claim for VAT incurred.

This was a company which farmed land and also paid VAT on the purchase of SFPE units. These units entitled the company to receive benefits via the EC Single Farm Payment Scheme. HMRC contended that the receipt of the SFPE payments was non-business, or in the alternative, they were not a cost component of any taxable supply made by the farming company.

The UT refused HMRC’s appeal against the initial FT-T decision in favour of the appellant. It found that there was sufficient evidence that the purchase of the SFPE units (and the income which resulted in the acquisition of them) was not a separate activity to the farming supplies so the non-business argument did not apply. Further, the Chairman stated that “…it is unnecessary for the company to prove that the cost in question was actually built into the price charged for the supply”. Therefore the cost component contention put forward by HMRC also failed.

The Chairman’s comments appear to go against HMRC’s published guidance on “direct and immediate link with the taxable person’s business”, particularly in respect of holding companies.

If you are aware of any situation where HMRC have disallowed claims for input tax for either non-business or non-cost component reasons please contact us as this case may be of benefit.

Full decision here

VAT Self-billing. What is it? The pros and cons

By Marcus Ward 24 March 2016

Self-billing is an arrangement between a supplier and a customer. Both customer and supplier must be VAT registered. Rather than the supplier issuing a tax invoice in the normal way, the recipient of the supply raises a self-billing document. The customer prepares the supplier’s invoice and forwards a copy to the supplier with the payment.

If a business wants to put a self-billing arrangement in place it does not have to tell HMRC or get approval from them, but it does have to get its supplier or customer to agree to the arrangement and meet certain conditions.

The main advantage of self-billing is that it usually makes invoicing easier if the customer (rather than the supplier) determines the value of the purchase after the goods have been delivered or the services supplied. This could apply more in certain areas such as; royalties, the construction industry, Feed-In-Tariff, and scrap metal. A further benefit is that accounting staff will be working with uniform purchase documentation.

However, there is a high risk of errors, significant confusion and audit trail weaknesses. The wrong rate of VAT may easily be applied, documents can go missing, invoices may be raised as well as self-billing documents, the conditions for using self-billing may easily be breached (a common example is a supplier deregistering from VAT) and essential communication between the parties can be overlooked. As the Tribunal chairman in UDL Construction Plc observed: “I regard the self-billing procedure as a gross violation of the integrity of the VAT system. It permits a customer to originate a document which enables him to recover input tax and obliges his supplier to account for output tax. It goes without saying that such a dangerous procedure should be strictly controlled and policed.”

The rules

For the customer

You can set up self-billing arrangements with your suppliers as long as you can meet certain conditions, you’ll need to:

Enter into an agreement with each supplier
Review agreements with suppliers at regular intervals
Keep records of each of the suppliers who let you self-bill them
Make sure invoices contain the right information and are correctly issued. This means including all of the details that make up a full VAT invoice – details here

If a supplier stops being registered for VAT then you can continue to self-bill them, but you can’t issue them with VAT invoices (and you cannot claim any input tax). Your self-billing arrangement with that supplier is no longer covered by the VAT regulations.

The Agreement

A self-billing arrangement is only valid if your supplier agrees to put one in place. If you don’t have an agreement with your supplier your self-billed invoices won’t be valid VAT invoices – and you won’t be able to reclaim the input tax shown on them.

You’ll both need to sign a formal self-billing agreement. This is a legally binding document. The agreement must contain:

Your supplier’s agreement that you, as the self-biller, can issue invoices on your supplier’s behalf
Your supplier’s confirmation that they won’t issue VAT invoices for goods or services covered by the agreement
An expiry date – usually for 12 months’ time but it could be the date that any business contract you have with your supplier ends
Your supplier’s agreement that they’ll let you know if they stop being registered for VAT, get a new VAT registration number or transfer their business as a going concern
Details of any third party you intend to outsource the self-billing process to.

An example of an agreement here

Reviewing self-billing agreements

Self-billing agreements usually last for 12 months. At the end of this you’ll need to review the agreement to make sure you can prove to HMRC that your supplier agrees to accept the self-billing invoices you issue on their behalf. It’s very important that you don’t self-bill a supplier when you don’t have their written agreement to do so.

Records

If you are a self-biller you’ll need to keep certain additional records:

Copies of the agreements you make with your suppliers
The names, addresses and VAT registration numbers of the suppliers who have agreed that you can self-bill them

If you don’t keep the required records, then the self-billed invoices you issue won’t be proper VAT invoices.

Invoices

Once a self-billing agreement is in place with a supplier, you must issue self-billed invoices for all the transactions with them during the period of the agreement.

As well as all the details that must go on a full VAT invoice you will also need to include your supplier’s:

name
address
VAT registration number

All self-billed invoices must include the statement “The VAT shown is your output tax due to HMRC” and you must clearly mark each self-billed invoice you raise with the reference: ‘Self Billing’ (This rule has the force of law). Details required on invoice here

Input tax

You’ll only be able to reclaim the input tax shown on self-billed invoices if you meet all the record keeping requirements. When you can reclaim the input tax depends on the date when the supply of the goods or services takes place for VAT purposes. This is known as the the tax point, details here

For the supplier

If one of your customers wants to set up a self-billing arrangement with you, they will be required to agree to this with you in writing. If you agree, they’ll give you a self-billing agreement to sign.

The terms of the agreement are a matter between you and your customer, but there are certain conditions you’ll both have to meet to make sure you comply with VAT regulations:

Sign and keep a copy of the self-billing agreement
Agree not to issue any sales invoices to your customer for any transaction during the period of the agreement
Agree to accept the self-billing invoices that your customer issues
Tell your customer at once if you change your VAT registration number, deregister from VAT, or transfer your business as a going concern.

Accounting for output tax

The VAT figure on the self-billed invoice your customer sends you is your output tax.

You are accountable to HMRC for output tax on the supplies you make to your customer, so you should check that your customer is applying the correct rate of VAT on the invoices they send you. If there has been a VAT rate change, you will need to check that the correct rate has been used.

Tips

As a supplier, take care not to treat self-billed invoices as purchase invoices and reclaim the VAT shown as input tax
As a customer, carry out an instant check of VAT registration numbers here
As a supplier or customer regularly check that the conditions for self-billing continue to be met and ensure good communications
As a supplier or customer ensure that the documentation accurately reflects the relevant transactions and the correct VAT rate is applied
As a supplier or customer ensure that there is a clear audit trial and that all documentation is available for HMRC inspection
It is possible to use self-billing cross-border intra-EC, but additional rules apply.

VAT – New road fuel scale charges from 1 May 2016

By Marcus Ward 22 March 2016

If a VAT registered business purchases fuel for business use of its vehicles, but there is also private use of cars and other vehicles, an adjustment is required to ensure no VAT is claimed on the private consumption of fuel. This is called the VAT fuel scale charge

To make accounting for VAT on private use of fuel by car drivers a business may apply a VAT fuel scale charge, this adds back a fixed sum, per VAT period, to account of private consumption of fuel.

The scale charge is calculated according to a car’s CO2 emissions and the charge is added to Output VAT it reflects a charge for the private use of the fuel. The road fuel scale charges are amended at each Budget. The new rates come into effect from 1 May 2016 and may be found here

Businesses must use the new scale charges from the start of the next prescribed accounting period beginning on or after 1 May 2016.

Other Budget changes

Apart from the VAT registration limit being raised by £1,000 to £83,000 and the deregistration limit has been increased to £81,000 both with effect 1 April 2016, there were few VAT changes in the budget.