Tag Archives: input-tax

VAT: DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – The Dunne case

By Marcus Ward 6 February 2023

Latest from the courts

The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Daniel Dunne demonstrates the fact that the details of the construction are very important when making a claim under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme (the scheme)

Background

Mr Dunne applied for planning permission (PP) for a rear extension to his existing house, which was granted. After completion of the building works a Building Control Completion Certificate was issued which described the relevant works as “construction of a single storey extension to the rear” of the property. The appellant submitted a scheme claim which HMRC rejected.

Technical

Superficially, the legislation covering the scheme: The VAT Act 1994 section 35 states, as relevant:

“(1) Where—

(a) a person carries out works to which this section applies,

(b) his carrying out of the works is lawful and otherwise than in the course or furtherance of any business, and

(c) VAT is chargeable on the supply. or importation of any goods used by him for the purposes of the works,

the Commissioners shall, on a claim made in that behalf, refund to that person the amount of VAT so chargeable.

(1A) The works to which this section applies are—

- the construction of a building designed as a dwelling or number of dwellings…
- The notes to Group 5 of Schedule 8 shall apply for construing this section as they apply for construing that Group.

The notes to Group 5 of Schedule 8 state, as relevant:

…(2) A building is designed as a dwelling or a number of dwellings where in relation to each dwelling the following conditions are satisfied—

(a) the dwelling consists of self-contained living accommodation;

(b) there is no provision for direct internal access from the dwelling to any other dwelling or part of a dwelling;

c) the separate use, or disposal of the dwelling is not prohibited by the term of any covenant, statutory planning consent or similar provision; and

(d) statutory planning consent has been granted in respect of that dwelling and its construction or conversion has been carried out in accordance with that consent….

…For the purpose of this Group, the construction of a building does not include—

(a) the conversion, reconstruction or alteration of an existing building; or

(b) any enlargement of, or extension to, an existing building except to the extent the enlargement or extension creates an additional dwelling or dwellings; or

(c)…, the construction of an annexe to an existing building…”

excludes a claim as the construction was an extension rather than a “dwelling”. The PP plans showed the extension as a square building connected to the existing residential property by a corridor.

However, Mr Dunne’s evidence was that although the initial plan had been for the rear extension to be attached to the existing property, the plans were changed so that it became a standalone detached building, unconnected to the existing property and the building is therefore a detached bungalow. He discussed the changes informally with the local authority building control, who agreed that he did not need to build the corridor connecting the building to the existing property. The fact that they had issued the planning certificate was, he contended, evidence that the building was compliant with the planning department requirements and so should be regarded as being PP for a dwelling.

HMRC contended that, even without the corridor, the PP was for an extension of the existing building and not for a separate dwelling. An extension is specifically precluded from being the construction of a building by note 16 of the notes to The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5. The construction was not in accordance with the planning consent given by the local authority and so the claim could not be accepted.

The respondents further submitted that the building could not be disposed of separately to the existing building and that although the building had a separate postal address this did not create a separate dwelling.

Decision

The FTT found that for a claim to succeed, it is not sufficient that a standalone building was created; the PP must be for a dwelling. The PP, as informally amended, was for the extension of an existing dwelling and not for the creation of a new dwelling.

The relevant PP correspondence did not contemplate, let alone confirm, that approval was given for a new dwelling. The agreed informal amendment, to remove the connecting corridor from the plans, cannot be interpreted to imply a grant of permission for a dwelling.

The statutory requirements for a claim include the requirement that PP has been granted in respect of a dwelling and that the construction is in accordance with that planning consent. It was found that PP (and its informal amendment) was granted for an extension and not a dwelling, and so it followed that appeal could not succeed.

Commentary

It is crucial for a claim to succeed that all of the conditions of the scheme are met. Any deviation will result in a claim being rejected. It is usually worthwhile having any claim reviewed professionally before submission.

Further

More information and Scheme case law here, here and here, here and here.

VAT: How claims are processed

By Marcus Ward 2 February 2023

Further to my article on repayment interest, I thought it may be helpful if I looked at how HMRC process repayment returns, and what can delay payments.

Once a business submits a repayment return it is subject to a number of set steps:

Step 1

HMRC records the date a return is submitted online via MTD.

Step 2

Automated credibility checks are applied to all claims. HMRC say that most returns pass these tests. If this is the case, they proceed immediately for payment.

Step 3

Credibility queries (or “pre-cred” queries) – returns that fail the automated tests are checked manually and are either resolved by the credibility team, or sent to officers to carry out further investigation.

Step 4

Returns sent for further checks – HMRC say that high priority is given to these verifications and any queries are handled with the minimum involvement of, or inconvenience to, a business. Experience insists that this is not always the case.

Step 5

Credibility queries are returned to the credibility team – results of the officer’s action, including any amendments required, are returned with a certificate detailing the amount of time taken and any official delay. Claims are passed for payment.

Step 6

Payment of the claim – once a claim has been accepted, repayment is made immediately. HMRC’s systems check whether repayment interest is applicable. If it is, the interest is paid automatically at the same time as the repayment.

Commentary

Most issues usually arise when returns show “unexpected” repayments – eg; a business regularly submitting payment returns submits an one-off claim, or when a first return shows a significant repayment. The pre-cred checks are undertaken to protect the revenue, that is; to ensure that the claim is valid before money is released. Normally, these checks involve a request for copies of purchase invoices, a telephone conversation, or a physical visit by an officer. Not unreasonably, the quantum of the claim impacts significantly the way HMRC handle it.

However, delays can occur on both sides. A business will have to reply to all HMRC requests timeously (and this is in its interest) but more often a claim will be ‘lost” in the system, or inspectors take an unacceptable time to deal with queries. I have one claim that is still in the system after being lodged in January 2021, despite us providing all information requested immediately.

Reasons for unexpected repayments

There are a number of reasons why a return may be an unusual repayment, which include, but are not limited to a:

large one-off VAT bearing purchase, eg; machinery, computer system, or land/property
premises refurbishment
concentration of professional/advisory fees
large export order
change in business structure
new line of business
change of a product’s liability
change of government policy
new product launch

VAT: New guidance on repayment interest

By Marcus Ward 2 February 2023

HMRC has published new guidance on repayment interest – in cases where HMRC is late in settling a repayment claim for overpaid VAT.

If HMRC is late in paying an amount representing a repayment, ie; when a return shows more input tax than output tax, or a claim is made for VAT previously overpaid, a business may be entitled to repayment interest on the VAT that it is owed. From 1 January 2023 repayment interest replaced the repayment supplement.

Amount of interest

Repayment interest is paid at the Bank of England base rate minus 1%, with a minimum rate of 0.5%.

Start date

VAT already paid to HMRC

The day after the later of these two dates:

when the VAT was paid to HMRC
the payment deadline for your accounting period

VAT not paid to HMRC

The day after the later of these two dates:

the payment deadline for the accounting period
when the VAT return or claim was submitted

End date

Repayment interest ends when HMRC either repays the VAT or sets it off against a different VAT or tax amount that is deemed to be owed.

Notes

any retrospective claims are subject to the unjust enrichment rules
repayment interest is not due if there are any outstanding VAT returns
HMRC will not pay interest on early payments of VAT
if payment on account businesses pay instalments that exceed VAT owed, repayment interest begins on the date the return was due
in cases where HMRC demand a VAT security, and it is not paid, no repayment interest will be due

VAT: Insurance partial exemption

By Marcus Ward 24 January 2023

HMRC has issued new guidance for the insurance sector. It will be relevant to those dealing with partial exemption for insurers, including business and HMRC when discussing how partial exemption applies in practice for an insurer.

The guidance is intended to help insurers agree a fair and reasonable partial exemption special method (PESM) with the minimum of cost and delay. It also helpfully sets out definitions of various insurance/reinsurance transactions and business structures.

Background

Insurance businesses usually make a mixture of exempt and taxable supplies and may also provide specified services to customers located outside of the UK which incur a right to recover input tax.

When determining how to calculate the recoverable elements of input tax, the starting point is with the standard partial exemption method, as defined within The VAT Regulations 1995, regulation 101, but this will rarely be suitable for the insurance sector.

Many insurance businesses are complex organisations that provide many different services of differing liabilities to customers, often in different countries, using costs form suppliers around the world in different proportions. In addition, certain costs may have little relation to the value of the supplies for which they are incurred.

Therefore, most insurance businesses will need to apply to HMRC for approval to use a PESM.

Fair and reasonable

Partial exemption is the set of rules for determining recoverable input tax on costs which are used, or intended to be used, in making taxable supplies which carry a right of deduction. The first step is usually allocating costs which are directly attributable to taxable or exempt supplies. The balance (overhead input tax, or “the pot”) is required to be apportioned by either a standard method (The “standard method” requires a comparison between the value of taxable and exempt supplies made by the business) or a PESM.

A PESM needs be fair and reasonable, namely:

robust, in that it can cope with reasonably foreseeable changes in business
unambiguous, in that it can deal, definitively with all input tax likely to be incurred
operable, in that the business can apply it without undue difficulty
auditable, in that HMRC can check it without undue difficulty
fair, in that it reflects the economic use of costs in making taxable and exempt supplies

HMRC will only agree the use of a PESM if a business declares that it has taken reasonable steps to ensure the method is fair and reasonable. HMRC cannot confirm that a special method is fair and reasonable but will make enquiries based on an assessment of risk and will never knowingly approve an unfair or unreasonable special method.

Attribution of input tax

In the insurance sector, relatively few costs are either used wholly to make taxable or exempt supplies.

The VAT regulations (see above) require direct attribution to be carried out before cost allocation to sectors. However, direct attribution at this stage can cause difficulties where tax departments are unaware of how particular costs are used and have a large number of such costs to review.

It has therefore been agreed between HMRC and the Association of British Insurers that, whilst direct attribution must still take place, it need not always be the first step, and could, for some costs, follow the allocation stage. Methods could refer to direct attribution both pre- and post-allocation, so that costs are dealt with in the most appropriate way. The underlying principle is that the method must be both fair and reasonable.

Types of PESMs

The guidance gives the following examples of special methods:

sectors and sub-sectors
multi pot
time spent
headcount
values
number of transactions
floor space
cost accounting system
pro-rata
combinations of the above methods

with descriptions of each method.

VAT: TOGC and deliberate errors – The Apollinaire case

By Marcus Ward 19 December 2022

Latest from the courts

In the First -Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Apollinaire Ltd and Mr Z H Hashmi the issues were:

whether the appellant’s input tax claim was valid
were the director’s actions “deliberate”
was a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) appropriate?

Background

Mr Hashmi (the sole director of Apollinaire) asserted that he sold his business, Snow Whyte Limited to a Mr Singh as a going concern, together with the trading name “Benny Hamish”. The purchase price was never paid. He alleged that Mr Singh traded for approximately one month and then sold stock worth £573,756 to Apollinaire. The appellant submitted an input tax claim for the purchase of the goods. HMRC refused to make the repayment and raised penalties for deliberate errors. HMRC subsequently issued a PLN to Mr Hashmi.

Issues

Initially HMRC stated that Mr Singh may not have existed, that there was no sale of Snow Whyte Ltd by Mr Hashmi to Mr Singh and similarly, no sale back to Mr Hashmi. However, this submission was later amended to argue that Mr Hashmi controlled the movement of the stock at all times and that the issue was whether the transfer of stock from Snow Whyte Limited was a Transfer Of a Going Concern (TOGC), whether or not Mr Singh existed.

Mr Hashmi appealed, contending that the transactions took place as described to HMRC.

Decision

Unsurprisingly, given Mr Hashmi’s previous history of dissolving companies, but continuing to trade under the same name as those companies (listed at para 14 of the decision) and failing to submit returns and payments, the FTT accepted HMRC’s version of events. Further, there was insufficient evidence to support the transactions (if they took place) and the judge fund that the appellant’s evidence was not credible. If the events did take place, there was no input tax to claim as all the tests (where relevant here) for a TOGC (Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995, Regulation 5) were met:

the assets were sold as a business as a going concern
the assets were used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business
there was no break in trading
both entities traded under the same name
both entities operated from the same premises
both entities had the same employees and tills

The appeal was dismissed.

Penalties

The FTT further decided that HMRC’s penalties and PLN [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] were appropriate. The claim for input tax was deliberately overstated and that Mr Hashmi was the controlling mind of both entities and was personally liable as the sole company director of Apollinaire.

HMRC relied on case law: Clynes v Revenue and Customs[2016] UKFTT 369 (TC) which reads as follows:

“On its normal meaning, the use of the term indicates that for there to be a deliberate inaccuracy on a person’s part, the person must have acted consciously, with full intention or set purpose or in a considered way…

…Our view is that, depending on the circumstances, an inaccuracy may also be held to be deliberate where it is found that the person consciously or intentionally chose not to find out the correct position, in particular, where the circumstances are such that the person knew he should do so.”

Commentary

This case is a reverse of the usual TOGC disputes as HMRC sought to establish that there was no taxable supply so no VAT was due. It underlines that:

care should always be taken with applying TOGC treatment (or appreciating the results of failing to recognise a TOGC)
penalties for deliberate errors can be significant and swingeing
directors can, and are, held personally responsible for actions taken by a company

Claiming UK VAT from overseas

By Marcus Ward 28 November 2022

With news that HMRC is testing a new electronic submission portal – the Secure Data Exchange Service (SDES) system for overseas businesses to recover VAT incurred in the UK, I thought it timely to look at the process. Especially as the deadline is 31 December 2022 for VAT incurred between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2022.

The SDES is currently being tested. However, it is available to businesses to make claims, but during the testing period a claimant will need to email HMRC to request access.

Access to SDES request

Claimants wishing to use SDES, are required to email newcastle.oru@hmrc.gov.uk and should include:

‘SDES’ in the subject field
confirmation that the business would like to use the SDES
whether there is a Business Tax Account already set up

HMRC says it will contact the requestor within 15 calendar days to start the registration process and provide registration guidance.

Any queries on the registration process, may be addressed to the Overseas Repayment Unit on 0300 322 9279

If it goes wonky

HMRC states that during testing there may be times when SDES be stopped without notice. If it is stopped, claimants will be told by HMRC updating its online guidance. Further: If the service is stopped, it will not affect the claims that have already been submitted through it.

The alternative to claiming during testing is the good old-fashioned paper claims.

Claims in the UK

A non-UK based business may make a claim for recovery of VAT incurred in the UK. Typically, these are costs such as; employee travel and subsistence, service charges, exhibition costs, tooling, imports of goods, training, purchases of goods in the UK, and clinical trials etc.

Who can claim?

The scheme is available for any businesses that are:

not VAT registered in the UK
have no place of business or other residence in the UK
do not make any supplies in the UK

What cannot be claimed?

The usual rules that apply to UK business claiming input tax also apply to claims from overseas. Consequently, the likes of; business entertainment, car purchase, non-business use and supplies used for exempt activities are usually barred.

Amount

There is no maximum claim amount, but for most periods of less than twelve months a minimum of £130 of VAT must be claimed. For annual claims or for periods less than three months ending on 30 June, the VAT must be at least £16.

Process

The business must obtain a Certificate Of Status (CoS) from its local tax or government department to accompany a claim.

The CoS must be the original and contain the:

name, address and official stamp of the authorising body
claimants name and address
nature of the claimant’s business
claimant’s business registration number

The CoS is only valid for twelve months. Once it has expired you will need to submit a new CoS.

HMRC has previously announced (RCB 12 – 2018) that it is taken a firmer stance on what constitutes an acceptable CoS.

Claim form

The application form is a VAT65A and is available here Original invoices which show the VAT charged must be submitted with the claim form and CoS. Applications without a certificate, or certificates and claim forms received after the deadline are not accepted by HMRC. It is possible for a business to appoint an agent to register to enable them to make refund applications on behalf of that business.

Deadline

Claim periods run annually up to 30 June and must be submitted by 31 December of the same year. With the usual Christmas rush and distractions, it may be easy to overlook this deadline and some claims may be significant. Unfortunately, this is not a rapid process and even if claims are accurate and the supporting documents are in all in order the claim often takes some time to be repaid. Although the deadline is the end of the year HMRC say that it will allow an additional three months for submission of a CoS (only).

Payment

Refunds are made within six months of a “satisfactory application”.

Further information is available here HMRC guidance.

VAT: HMRC to end making payable orders to NETPs

By Marcus Ward 9 November 2021

HMRC will stop issuing payable orders to overseas non-established taxpayers (NETP – taxpayers who are registered for UK VAT but do not have a business address here). The system automatically issued a payable order if a NETP was due a repayment.

Background

HMRC has received notifications and complaints from taxpayers advising that they can no longer cash their payable orders in their country or their bank. The impact of Brexit and COVID19 has seen an increase in banks/countries no longer accepting payable orders. Consequently, HMRC were sending repayments to NETPs with the knowledge they may not be able to cash them.

New Gform

To address this issue HMRC has created a Gform that will enable NETPs to send their bank account information in order that the issue of a payable order can be avoided and a Clearing House Automated Payment System (CHAPS) payment made instead.

Access

HMRC systems do not currently have CHAPS functionality or the ability to store overseas bank information. However, once a NETP has completed the form, which is accessed via the Government Gateway HMRC will set a lock on the taxpayer’s record to prevent the payable order being automatically issued. NETPs will then receive their repayments directly into their bank account without the need to visit their bank to cash a payable order.

Information required

Information requested on the Gform will include:

VAT registration number
address
email address
bank account information
payable order information if necessary

VAT: HMRC Toolkits updated

By Marcus Ward 4 June 2020

HMRC has updated the following online toolkits for June 2020:

Input tax

Output tax and

Partial exemption

The Toolkits

These toolkits can be a useful resource. Although designed for agents and advisers, they can equally be of assistance to businesses when completing VAT returns. The contents are based on HMRC’s view of how tax law should be applied, so they should not be used as a substitute for proper professional advice. These toolkits set out areas of risk, provide general checklists, details of record keeping and links to HMRC information. Many find that these toolkits are more user friendly than “traditional” HMRC guidance and they address many contentious areas.

Overview

For a helpful general guide to input tax and checklist please see here. And an introduction to partial exemption here.

VAT – Input tax claims. Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 1 June 2020

Latest from the courts

In the recent First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Aitmatov Academy an otherwise unremarkable case illustrates the care required when making input tax claims.

The quantum of the claim was low and the technical issues not particularly complex, however, it underlined some basic rules for making a VAT claim.

Background

A doctor organised a cultural event at the House of Lords for which no charge was made to attendees. The event organiser as shown on the event form was the doctor. Aitmatov Academy was shown as an organisation associated with the event. It was agreed that the attendees were not potential customers of Aitmatov Academy and that the overall purpose of the event was cultural and not advertising.

Issues

HMRC disallowed the claim. The issues were:

HMRC contended that the expenses were not incurred by the taxpayer but by the doctor personally (the doctor was not VAT registered)
that if the VAT was incurred by the Academy, it was not directly attributed to a taxable supply
that if the VAT was directly attributed to a taxable supply, it was business entertaining, on which input tax is blocked

Decision

The FTT found that the Academy incurred the cost and consequently must have concluded that the Academy was the recipient of the supply, not the doctor.

However, the judge decided that the awards ceremony was not directly or indirectly linked to taxable supplies made or intended to be made by the Academy, and therefore that the referable input tax should not be allowed. Consequently, the court did not need to consider whether the event qualified as business entertainment.

On a separate point, the appellant contended that, as a similar claim had been paid by HMRC previously, she could not see the difference that caused input VAT in this case to be disallowed. The Tribunal explained that its role is to apply the law in this specific instance and as such it cannot look at what happened in an early case which is not the subject of an appeal.

Commentary

A helpful reminder of some of the tests that need to be passed in order for an input tax claim to be valid. I have written about some common issues with claims and provided a checklist. Broadly, in addition to the tests in this case, a business needs to consider:

whether there was actually a supply
is the documentation correct?
time limits
the VAT liability of the supply
the place of supply
partial exemption
non-business activity – particularly charity and NFP bodies
if the claim is specifically blocked (eg; cars, and certain schemes)

I have also looked at which input tax is specifically barred.

Finally, “entertainment” is a topic all of its own. I have considered what is claimable here in article which includes a useful flowchart.

As always, the message is; if a business is to avoid penalties and interest, if there is any doubt over the validity of a claim, seek advice!

The penalty regime……the dark side of VAT

By Marcus Ward 22 May 2020

VAT Penalties

I have made a lot of references to penalties in other articles over the years. So I thought it would be a good idea to have a closer look; what are they, when are they levied, rights of appeal, and importantly how much could they cost if a business gets it wrong?

Overview

Broadly, a penalty is levied if the incorrect amount of VAT is declared, either by understating output tax due, or overclaiming input tax, or accepting an assessment which is known to be too low.

Amount of penalty

HMRC detail three categories of inaccuracy. These are significant, as each has its own range of penalty percentages. If an error is found to fall within a lower band, then a lower penalty rate will apply. Where the taxpayer has taken ‘reasonable care,’ even though an error has been made, then no penalty will apply.

An error, when reasonable care not taken: 30%;
An error which is deliberate, but not concealed: 70%;
An error, which is deliberate and concealed: 100%.

Reasonable care

There is no definition of ‘reasonable care’. However, HMRC have said that they would not expect the same level of knowledge or expertise from a self-employed person, as from a large multi-national.

HMRC expect that, where an issue is unclear, advice is sought, and a record maintained of that advice. They also expect that, where an error is made, it is adjusted, and HMRC notified promptly. They have specifically stated that merely to adjust a return will not constitute a full disclosure of an error. Therefore, a penalty may still be applicable.

Notification

What the penalty is based on

The amount of the penalty is calculated by applying the appropriate penalty rate (above) to the ‘Potential Lost Revenue’ or PLR. This is essentially the additional amount of VAT due or payable, as a result of the inaccuracy, or the failure to notify an under-assessment. Special rules apply where there are a number of errors, and they fall into different penalty bands.

Defending a penalty

The percentage penalty may be reduced by a range of ‘defences:’

– Telling; this includes admitting the document was inaccurate, or that there was an under-assessment, disclosing the inaccuracy in full, and explaining how and why the inaccuracies arose;

– Helping; this includes giving reasonable help in quantifying the inaccuracy, giving positive assistance rather than passive acceptance, actively engaging in work required to quantify the inaccuracy, and volunteering any relevant information;

– Giving Access; this includes providing documents, granting requests for information, allowing access to records and other documents.

Further, where there is an ‘unprompted disclosure’ of the error, HMRC have power to reduce the penalty further. This measure is designed to encourage businesses to review their own VAT returns.

A disclosure is unprompted if it is made at a time when a person had no reason to believe that HMRC have discovered or are about to discover the inaccuracy. The disclosure will be treated as unprompted even if at the time it is made, the full extent of the error is not known, as long as fuller details are provided within a reasonable time.

HMRC have included a provision whereby a penalty can be suspended for up to two years. This will occur for a careless inaccuracy, not a deliberate inaccuracy. HMRC will consider suspension of a penalty where, given the imposition of certain conditions, the business will improve its accuracy. The aim is to improve future compliance and encourage businesses which genuinely seek to fulfil their obligations.

Appealing a penalty

HMRC have an internal reconsideration procedure, where a business should apply to in the first instance. If the outcome is not satisfactory, the business can pursue an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. A business can appeal on the grounds of; whether a penalty is applicable, the amount of the penalty, a decision not to suspend a penalty, and the conditions for suspension.

The normal time limit for penalties to four years. Additionally, where there is deliberate action to evade VAT, a 20 year limit applies. In particular, this applies to a loss of VAT which arises as a result of a deliberate inaccuracy in a document submitted by that person.

These are just the penalties for making “errors” on VAT returns. HMRC have plenty more for anything from late registration to issuing the wrong paperwork.

Even darker

There are even more severe penalties for deliberate acts, including significant terms of imprisonment. That is the subject of another article.

Assistance

My advice is always to check on all aspects of a penalty and seek assistance for grounds to challenge a decision to levy a penalty. We have a very high success rate in defending businesses against inappropriate penalties. It is always worth running a penalty past us.