Tag Archives: HMRC

VAT Latest from the courts – importance of invoicing requirements

By Marcus Ward 16 March 2016

In the recent case of Gradon Construction Ltd the validity of invoices was considered and whether input tax could be recovered in respect of them.

HMRC disallowed a claim for input tax on the basis that the supplier had retrospectively deregistered on a date prior to the date shown on the invoices. The Tribunal decided that this was not a reason to disallow the claim. However, it decided that the claim should be disallowed on the grounds that the invoices did not contain a description sufficient to identify the goods or services supplied, nor did they provide the quantity of the goods or the extent of the services as required by legislation. Consequently, the documents did not meet the requirements of a valid tax invoice with the result that the recipient could not recover the amount on the documents which purported to be VAT. HMRC has the discretion to accept alternative evidence in lieu of an invoice, but in this case the Tribunal decided that HMRC acted reasonably in not accepting any other documentation, so the recipient of the supply could not recover the input tax.

This case again highlights the crucial importance of primary documentation when it comes to VAT. A full guide to invoices here

Information on input tax that it is not possible to claim here https://www.marcusward.co/what-vat-cant-you-claim-2/

It is crucial that a business’ invoices meet all the requirements, and that a procedure is in place to check the validity of invoices received in order to determine whether the input tax is claimable, or whether the invoice issuer should be contacted so that a valid tax invoice may be obtained.

Latest from the courts – More on VAT on food and drink

By Marcus Ward 14 March 2016

OK, so most people are aware of the Jaffa Cake case and the appeals relating to smoothies and the VAT oddities that are thrown up by chocolate foods and fruit drinks. The latest in what many view to be a ridiculous situation is the Nestlé UK Limited case concerning Nesquik powder.

Nestlé appealed against HMRC’s decision not to repay over £4 million in VAT accounted for on the sale of strawberry and banana flavoured Nesquik powder. Nestlé formed the view that the powder which is used to flavour milk, should be zero rated in the same way that the chocolate flavoured powder and ready to drink milk based drinks it produces are.

The First Tier Tribunal found in favour of HMRC and decided that the fruit flavoured powders were a “powder for the preparation of beverages” covered by the exception from zero-rating for such products and that they were not covered by the items overriding the exceptions to zero-rating, so they remained standard-rated; hence no retrospective claim for overdeclared output tax.

So, there is differing VAT treatment depending on what flavour the Nesquik powders are, and between ready to drink products and ones where the customer has to mix them his/herself.

Fortunately, VAT is completely logical and there are simply no traps for the unwary! My own view is that the legislation regarding food and drink is so convoluted and complex that it needs a complete rewriting. I appreciate that case law has caused the current situation, and this has not been helped by political tinkering (pasty tax anyone?) but clarity is long overdue. I strongly suggest that this is not the last food based case, and of course we have had them going back to the inception of VAT. Now, this chocolate hot cross bun……

Ten Questions every business should ask about VAT

By Marcus Ward 8 March 2016

1. Am I sure that a VAT inspection would not find any errors?

An inspection can result in significant assessments, penalties and interest, apart from a business becoming “known” to HMRC. Peace of mind is a valuable benefit for a business owner too!

2. Am I sure that I am reclaiming as much VAT as possible?

We often find that businesses miss out on recovering input tax, this clearly results in an actual cost.

3. Do I take full advantage all available VAT reliefs, customs exemptions and duty refund schemes?

Failure to do so will create a tax cost and may be putting a business in a less competitive position.

4. Am I up to date on the indirect tax developments in my key markets?

Indirect tax changes rapidly, and so does the market place. Being unaware of changes that affect you may result in VAT being overpaid, or penalties being levied if you have underdeclared tax. It may also put you at a competitive disadvantage.

5. Have I considered the impact of tax rate changes on my pricing and margin, and have I taken the necessary measures?

Budgeting is affected by VAT. Failure to consider indirect taxes may eat into profit.

6. Do I collect all the data about my customers and transactions that could be required by tax authorities?

As in many VAT circumstances, getting it wrong or missing something results in penalties.

7. Do I comply with all indirect tax requirements in the jurisdictions where I operate or where my customers belong?

VAT and GST does exist outside the UK and ignoring overseas indirect tax obligations may result in action being taken by foreign authorities which will prove to be very uncomfortable and expensive. It is important to understand the rules for indirect tax in each country/area you trade. Don’t get caught out.

8. Do I have the tools to analyse my indirect tax flows and data?

Allocating sufficient technical and human resources to VAT is important. Seeking professional advice at the appropriate time is also prudent.

9. Could changes in the way my business is structured or how transactions are organised improve my indirect tax position and/or reduce complexity?

Saving money and reducing tax complications must be near the top of every business’ wish list. Seeking professional advice on structuring a business or a transaction goes a long way to achieving this

10. Is my business using the right VAT scheme?

There are many special schemes that a business may use, from the Flat Rate Scheme to Margin Schemes. Most are optional, but some, like the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme are compulsory. Choose the wrong one, or being unaware of a beneficial scheme could cost.

It is important to constantly monitor a business’ VAT position. The nature of trade changes, technology changes, case law changes and the VAT rules are constantly in a state of flux. It is easy to assume that everything is alright because it has always been done that way, but there may be significant exposures and missed opportunities out there. We offer services from a basic healthcheck to a full technical review. A review will let you rest easy in your bed if nothing else!

What VAT CAN’T you claim?

By Marcus Ward 2 March 2016

The majority of input tax incurred by most VAT registered businesses may be recovered. However, there is some input tax that may not be. I thought it would be helpful if I pulled together all of these categories in one place:

Blocked VAT Claims

A brief overview

No supporting evidence

In most cases this evidence will be an invoice (or as the rules state “a proper tax invoice)” although it may be import, self-billing or other documentation in specific circumstances. A claim is invalid without the correct paperwork. HMRC may accept alternative evidence, however, they are not duty bound to do so (and rarely do). So ensure that you always obtain and retain the correct documentation.

Incorrect supporting evidence

Usually this is an invalid invoice, or using a delivery note/statement/pro forma in place of a proper tax invoice. To support a claim an invoice must show all the information set out in the legislation. HMRC are within their rights to disallow a claim if any of the details are missing. A full guide is here: https://www.marcusward.co/vat-invoices-a-full-guide/

Input tax relating to exempt supplies

Broadly speaking, if a business incurs VAT in respect of exempt supplies it cannot recover it. If a business makes only exempt supplies it cannot even register for VAT. There is a certain easement called de minimis which provide for recovery if the input tax is below certain prescribed limits. Input tax which relates to both exempt and taxable activities must be apportioned. More details of partial exemption may be found here: https://www.marcusward.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Partial-Exemption-Guide.pdf

Input tax relating to non-business activities

If a charity or NFP entity incurs input tax in connection with non-business activities this cannot be recovered and there is no de minimis relief. Input tax which relates to both business and non-business activities must be apportioned. Business versus non-business apportionment must be carried out first and then any partial exemption calculation for the business element if appropriate. More details here: https://www.marcusward.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Charities-and-Not-For-Profit-Entities-A-Brief-VAT-Guide.pdf

Time barred

If input tax is not reclaimed within four years of it being incurred, the capping provisions apply and any claim will be rejected by HMRC.

VAT incurred on business entertainment

This is always irrecoverable unless the client or customer being entertained belongs overseas. The input tax incurred on staff entertainment costs is however recoverable.

Car purchase

In most cases the VAT incurred on the purchase of a car is blocked. The only exceptions are for when the car; is part of the stock in trade of a motor manufacturer or dealer, or is used primarily for the purposes of taxi hire; self-drive hire or driving instruction; or is used exclusively for a business purpose and is not made available for private use. This last category is notoriously difficult to prove to HMRC and the evidence to support this must be very good.

Car leasing

If a business leases a car for business purposes it will normally be unable to recover 50% of the VAT charged. The 50% block is to cover the private use of the car.

A business using certain schemes

For instance, a business using the Flat rate Scheme cannot recover input tax except for certain large capital purchases, also there are certain blocks for recovery on TOMS users

VAT charged in error

Even if you obtain an invoice purporting to show a VAT amount, this cannot be recovered if the VAT was charged in error; either completely inappropriately or at the wrong rate. A business’ recourse is with the supplier and not HMRC.

Goods and services not used for your business

Even if a business has an invoice addressed to it and the services or goods are paid for by the business, the input tax on the purchase is blocked if the supply is not for business use. This may be because the purchase is for personal use, or by anther business or for purposes not related to the business.

VAT paid on goods and services obtained before VAT registration

This is not input tax and therefore is not claimable. However, there are exceptions for goods on hand at registration and services received within six months of registration if certain conditions are met.

VAT incurred by property developers

Input tax incurred on certain articles that are installed in buildings which are sold or leased at the zero rate is blocked.

Second hand goods

Goods sold to you under one of the VAT second-hand schemes will not show a separate VAT charge and no input tax is recoverable on these goods.

Transfer of a going concern (TOGC)

Assets of a business transferred to you as a going concern are not deemed to be a supply for VAT purposes and consequently, there is no VAT chargeable and therefore no input tax to recover.

Disbursements

A business cannot reclaim VAT when it pays for goods or services to be supplied directly to its client. However, in this situation the VAT may be claimable by the client if they are VAT registered. For more on disbursements see here: https://www.marcusward.co/disbursements-vat/

VAT incurred overseas

A business cannot reclaim VAT charged on goods or services that it has bought from suppliers in other EC States. Only UK VAT may be claimed on a UK VAT return. There is however, a mechanism available to claim this VAT back from the relevant VAT body in those States. However, in most cases, supplies received from overseas suppliers are VAT free, so it is usually worth checking whether any VAT has been charged correctly.

Input tax incurred on expenditure is one of the most complex areas of VAT. It also represents the biggest VAT cost to a business if VAT falls to be irrecoverable. It is almost always worthwhile reviewing what VAT is being reclaimed. Claim too much and there could well be penalties and interest, and of course, if a business is not claiming as much input tax as it could, this represents a straightforward cost.

The Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme (AWRS) – A Warning

By Marcus Ward 25 February 2016

The Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme (AWRS)

HMRC has introduced AWRS in order to tackle what it perceives to be significant alcohol fraud. If a business sells alcohol to another business it may need to apply to register for the scheme. HMRC will also, at the time of application, make a decision on whether the relevant person is “fit and proper” to trade wholesale. If it is not, it will be not be permitted to trade at all.

If a business is an existing alcohol wholesaler, or a person starts a new business before 1 April 2016, it is required to apply online for registration between 1 January 2016 and 31 March 2016. This is very important since new criminal and civil sanctions will be introduced for both wholesalers and trade buyers caught purchasing alcohol from non-registered wholesalers. Penalties for wholesalers trading without having submitted their application to HMRC will start from 1 April 2016. Penalties for trade buyers who buy alcohol from unregistered wholesalers will start from 1 April 2017. Any alcohol found in the premises of unregistered businesses may be seized whether or not the duty has been paid.

If a new business is started after 31 March 2016, it must apply for registration at least 45 days before it intends to start trading. It must wait until it gets approval from HMRC before it starts trading.

From 1 April 2017, if a business buys alcohol to sell from a UK wholesaler, it will need to check that whoever it buys from has registered with HMRC and has an AWRS Unique Reference Number (URN). HMRC will provide an online look up service so that trade buyers can ensure the wholesalers they buy from are registered

Who needs to apply to register for AWRS?

A business must apply for approval if it is established in the UK and supplies alcohol to other businesses at, or after, the point at which Excise Duty becomes due by either:

selling – this includes to other businesses as well as to the general public

arranging the sale

offering or exposing for sale

Reminder: If a business is affected by AWRS it will have to apply for it or face penalties for trading without approval.

This flowchart should be of assistance in determining whether a business is required to register for AWRS.

Exclusions to the scheme

If a business only sells alcohol to the general public and not to other businesses it will not need to apply

Also, the scheme doesn’t apply to individuals purchasing alcohol from retailers for their own use.

Businesses which are mainly retailers, but unknowingly or unintentionally make occasional trade sales of alcohol are excluded from AWRS. This can happen if the purchaser is unknown to a business and the only indication you might have that the purchase is being made for commercial purposes is if a tax invoice is requested. These sales are known as ‘incidental sales’.

Wholesale sales of alcohol between members of the same corporate group are excluded from the scheme and there is no need to register for AWRS to cover these sales (however, if wholesale sales are made outside of the corporate group the companies involved in those sales will need to register).

This incidental sales exemption decision making flowchart will be of assistance.

How to apply for registration

You should apply online using the AWRS service. You’ll need to have a Government Gateway ID to apply.

Pre-registration

We advise that a business prepares for registration by:

ensuring its business records are in order and accessible

reviewing its processes and supply chains to ensure that it is sourcing only legitimate alcohol

introducing a corporate due diligence policy and procedures to prevent involvement in the illicit market

We can assist with any aspect of this preparation.

Processing

HMRC has announced that because of the large number of applications which are expected, it might be several months before you’re given a decision. So a business has a tight deadline, but HMRC has excused itself from dealing with applications in a timely manner.

Post-application

When HMRC receive an application they will check it has been completed correctly. If it’s incomplete or unclear HMRC won’t process it until the missing details have been provided. HMRC will then look at whether the business is ‘fit and proper’ to trade wholesale.

If a business fails the ‘fit and proper’ test, HMRC will remove the right to trade in wholesale alcohol.

If approved by HMRC, a business will receive an AWRS unique reference number (URN). The format for the URN will be made up of 4 alpha characters and 11 numeric characters, such as: XXAW00000123456. From 1 April 2017 registered wholesalers will need to include this on wholesale sales invoices.

Another burden for businesses I am afraid, but it is understandable considering the likely amount of tax lost in alcohol fraud. Please contact us should you have any queries on this matter.

VAT – Latest from the courts – Holding companies management charges. Norseman Gold plc

By Marcus Ward 15 February 2016

The Norseman Gold plc case considered whether a holding company could recover input tax incurred on certain costs. This is turn depended on whether the holding company was making taxable supplies. Specifically; management charges to non VAT-grouped subsidiary companies.

The Upper Tribunal has recently released its decision. It upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision which confirmed that, although the management services in this case could have been considered as economic activities for VAT purposes, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Norseman was making, or intended to make, taxable supplies when the input tax was reclaimed. The UT found that “…vague and general intention that payment would be made …” for management services was insufficient to show a connection between the VAT incurred and taxable supplies. Consequently, HMRC’s assessments to recover the relevant input tax were upheld.

Importance

This case emphasises the importance of holding companies having appropriate processes and ensuring that proper documentation is in place to evidence, not only the intention to make taxable supplies of management charges, but that those charges were actually made to subsidiaries. It is also important to ensure that actual management of the subsidiaries take place, and a record of this management is retained. Simply making a charge to subsidiaries is insufficient if no services are actually supplied as this will not constitute an economic activity.

Often significant costs can be incurred by a holding company in cases such as acquisitions and restructuring. It is important that these costs are incurred by, and invoiced to the appropriate entity in order for the VAT on them to be recovered. Consideration must be given to how the input tax is recovered before it is incurred and the appropriate structure put in place.

Please contact me should you require further information on this point or would like to discuss the matter further.

VAT Latest from the courts; can HMRC impose a higher value on a supply?

By Marcus Ward 9 February 2016

VAT Latest from the courts – Whether Open Market Value applies

HMRC has the power to direct that Open Market Value (OMV) is applied to the value of certain supplies between connected parties – VAT Act 1994 Schedule 6, paragraph 1. This power is used to avoid situations where one party is unable to recover all of the input tax incurred on purchases. Usually, the direction is used when one party purchase goods and services at OMV, recovers full input tax and then supplies these goods and services to a connected party at a lower price, thus reducing the amount of input tax lost by the recipient party.

HMRC deemed this to be the position in Temple Retail Limited and Temple Finance Limited (TC04840) where “TRL” purchased goods and services and resupplied them to “TFL”. TFL was a company that was unable to recover all of its input tax as a result of partial exemption (it made supplies of exempt credit as it sold goods to consumers via HP agreements). HMRC was concerned that TRL and TFL had an opportunity to improve their aggregate input tax recovery by charging fees for certain services below OMV and consequently issued an OMV direction.

HMRC later issued TRL with assessments for under-declared output tax for not complying with the direction and this, inter alia, was the subject of the appeal by the taxpayer.

The FT Tribunal was satisfied that the majority of TRL’s fees charged to TFL were charged at OMV. However, The Tribunal decided that advertising services were not calculated at OMV and held that these services should be recalculated by reference to a method which it specified.

The case is a useful reminder of HMRC’s powers to substitute a stated value of a supply with what it believes to be OMV between connected parties. Business which are connected and provide exempt services need to be aware of the position and ensure that relevant supplies do not fall foul of the OMV direction rules. Care should be taken to document the values used and the reasons why they reflect the economic reality of the position in order to avoid a challenge from HMRC. OMV is often an area that creates differences of opinion and therefore disputes. Any structures which set out to deliberately reduce the value of supplies are likely to result in more serious actions from HMRC.

A definition of what constitutes connected parties is found here

If the case sets off any warning bells, please contact us as soon as possible.

VAT – Overseas Holiday Lets; a warning

By Marcus Ward 8 February 2016

It is important to understand the VAT consequences of owning property overseas. It may not be commonly known that the UK has the highest VAT threshold in the EC. This means that for many ‘sideline’ businesses such as; the rental of second or holiday properties in the UK, the owners, whether they are; individuals, businesses, or pension schemes, only have to consider VAT if income in relation to the property exceeds £82,000 pa. and this is only likely if a number of properties are owned.

However, other EC Member States have nil thresholds for foreign entrepreneurs meaning that if any rental income is received, VAT registration may be compulsory. Consequently, a property owner that rents out a property abroad will probably have a liability to register for VAT there. Failure to comply with the domestic legislation of the relevant Member State means; payment of back VAT and interest and fines being levied. It is also not a good idea to provoke the interest of overseas tax authorities. VAT registration however, does mean that a property owner can recover input tax on expenditure in connection with the property, eg; agent’s fees, repair and maintenance and other professional costs. Such claims may be restricted if the home is used for own use.

It should be noted that, unlike other types of rental of homes, holiday lettings are always standard-rated. Also, the letting of holiday homes is always treated as a business activity unless lettings are very infrequent. If lettings are a one-off or rare, evidence should be retained to evidence this fact. There is no set number of times a property can be let before it is treated as a business, and the interpretation may differ between different Member States. Details of taxable supplies and being in business here

Given that every EC Member State has differing rules to the UK, it is crucial to check all the consequences of letting property overseas.

A final word of warning; I quite often hear the comment “I’m not going to bother – how will they ever find out?”

If an overseas property owner based in the UK is in competition with local letting businesses, those businesses generally do not have any compulsion in notifying the authorities. In addition, I have heard of authorities carrying out very simple initiatives to see if owners are VAT registered. In many resorts, income from tourism is vital and this is a very important revenue stream for them so it is well policed.

Please contact us for further details. We have experience in dealing with overseas VAT matters on our clients’ behalf.

Monthly VAT Round-Up

By Marcus Ward 29 January 2016

We produce a free monthly email update on all VAT things great and small. It covers events for the last month and flags up significant changes as a result of changes to legislation, HMRC announcements and case law. It also looks at specific VAT issues that may affect a business.

Please contact us you would like to subscribe.

marcus.ward@consultant.com

07748 117935

Twitter: @mw_vat

Linked In; Marcus Ward

Linked In Group – Marcus Ward Consultancy VAT

VAT – Zero rating of charitable building; latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 25 January 2016

A recent case at the Upper Tribunal (UT): Wakefield College here considered whether certain use of the property disqualified it from zero rating.

Background

In order to qualify for zero rating a building it has to be used for “relevant charitable purpose”

This means that it is used otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a business. In broad terms, where a charity has a building constructed which it can show it will use for wholly non business purposes then the construction work will be zero rated by the contractor. This is the case even if there is a small amount of business activity in the building as long as these can be shown to be insignificant (which is taken to be less than 5% of the activities in the whole building) This so called de-minimis of 5% can be of use to a charity. In order for zero rating to apply the charity must issue a certificate to the builder stating the building will be used for non-business purposes.

Although the UT supported HMRC’s appeal against the F-tT decision there was an interesting comment made by the UT. The fact that students paid towards the cost of their courses (albeit subsidised) meant that business supplies were made, and the quantum of these fees exceeded the 5% de minimis meant that the construction works were standard rated. This decision was hardly surprising, however, a comment made by the Tribunal chairman The Honourable Mr Justice Barling Judge Colin Bishopp may provide hope for charities in a similar position to the appellant: he stated that it believed that the relevant legislation should be reconsidered, suggesting that;

“… it cannot be impossible to relieve charities of an unintended tax burden while at the same time protecting commercial organisations from unfair competition and preventing abuse …”.

In my view, it is worth considering the summing up in its entirety as it helpfully summarises the current position and provides some much sought after common sense in this matter:

“We cannot leave this appeal without expressing some disquiet that it should have reached us at all. It is common ground that the College is a charity, and that the bulk of its income is derived from public funds. Because that public funding does not cover all of its costs it is compelled to seek income from other sources; but its doing so does not alter the fact that it remains a charity providing education for young people. If, by careful management or good fortune, it can earn its further income in one way rather than another, or can keep the extent of the income earned in particular ways below an arbitrary threshold, it can escape a tax burden on the construction of a building intended for its charitable purpose, but if it is unable to do so, even to a trivial extent, it is compelled to suffer not some but all of that tax burden. We think it unlikely that Parliament intended such a capricious system. We consider it unlikely, too, that Parliament would consider it a sensible use of public money for the parties to litigate this dispute twice before the FTT and now twice before this tribunal. We do not blame the parties; the College is obliged to maximise the resources available to it for the pursuit of its charitable activities, just as HMRC are obliged to collect tax which is due. Rather, we think the legislation should be reconsidered. It cannot be impossible to relieve 16 charities of an unintended tax burden while at the same time protecting commercial organisations from unfair competition and preventing abuse”.

Action

If any charities, or charity clients have been denied zero rating on a building project, it will be worthwhile monitoring this development. Please contact us if you require further information.