Tag Archives: international-tax

VAT – Overseas Holiday Lets: A Warning

By Marcus Ward 16 January 2017

Do you, or your clients, own property overseas which you let to third parties when you are not using it yourself?

It is important to understand the VAT consequences of owning property overseas.

The position of UK Holiday Lets

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 £83,000 pa. and this is only likely if a number of properties are owned.

It should be noted that, unlike other types of rental of homes, holiday lettings are always taxable for VAT purposes.

Overseas Holiday Lets

Other EC Member States have nil thresholds for foreign entrepreneurs. This means that if any rental income is received, VAT registration is likely to be compulsory. Consequently, a property owner that rents out a property abroad will probably have a liability to register for VAT in the country that the property is located. Failure to comply with the domestic legislation of the relevant Member State may mean; payment of back VAT and interest and fines being levied. 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. This may be restricted if the home is used for periodical own use.

Given that every EC Member State has differing rules and/or procedures to the UK, it is crucial to check all the consequences of letting property overseas. Additionally, if any other services are supplied, eg; transport, this gives rise to a whole new (and significantly more complex) set of VAT rules.

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 local 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 if you are affected by this matter; we have the resources to advise and act on a worldwide basis.

www.marcusward.co

Crime doesn’t pay……..VAT. Is there tax on illegal activities?

By Marcus Ward 4 January 2017

A gentle introduction to VAT for the new year. A number of people have been surprised to find that crime does pay tax, thank you very much. It seems bad enough that the police should chase and catch you, put you in the dock and send you to prison, without finding that your first visitor is HMRC….

Dodgy perfume?

Goodwin & Unstead were in business selling counterfeit perfume. They were also up-front about what they were doing. Unstead claimed that “Everything I can carry in my vehicle, everything I trade in and sell, is a complete copy of the real thing. I do not sell goods as the real thing. In fact I sell my goods for a quarter of the original price. I am not out to defraud or con the public. I only appeal to the poseurs in life.”

The real manufacturers might have sued these men for passing off the product of their chemistry experiments in trademarked bottles, but it was HMRC who sent them to jail – for failing to register and pay VAT on their sales. The amount they should have collected was estimated at £750,000, which shows that they must have appealed to a great many poseurs.
.
If they had paid the VAT, Customs would have had no problem with them. Their customers must have been reasonably satisfied – if your counterfeit perfume smells something like the real thing, why worry?
They tried to get out of jail with an ingenious argument – if the sale of the perfume was illegal, surely there shouldn’t be VAT on it. It wasn’t legitimate business activity, so it wasn’t something that ought to be taxable. The European Court had no time for this. They pointed out that it would give lawbreakers an advantage over lawful businesses; they wouldn’t have to charge VAT. The judges suggested that maybe people would even deliberately break the law so they could get out of tax; in this case, the only thing that made the trade illegal was treading on someone’s trademark rights, and that was something that might happen at any time in legitimate businesses. The judges said that VAT would apply to any trade which competed in a legal marketplace, even if the particular sales broke the law for some reason. Counterfeit perfume is VATable because real perfume is too. Of course, Customs have traditionally had two main roles – looking for drug smugglers, and dealing with VAT-registered traders. They have generally treated both with much the same suspicion, but the ECJ made it clear in this case that the two sets of customers are completely separate.

“Personal” services?

Customers paid the escort £130, of which £30 was paid to the agency. VAT on £130 or VAT on £30?

The first hearing before the Tribunal went something like this (this may be using artistic licence, but the published summary implies it was so):

HMRC: “We think the VAT should be on £130 because the escorts are acting as agents of the escort business.”
Trader: “No, it’s just £30, the £100 belongs to the escort and is nothing to do with me.”
Tribunal chairman: “All right, tell me a bit about how the business operates.”
Customs: “No.”
Tribunal chairman: “What?”
Customs: “You don’t want to know.”
Tribunal chairman: “How can I decide whether the escorts are acting as agent or principals without knowing how the business operates?”
Customs: “Don’t go there, just give us a decision.”
Tribunal chairman: “Trader, you tell me how the business operates.”
Trader: “I agree with him, you don’t want to know.”
The Tribunal seems to have been a bit baffled by this. They were aware that Customs had a great deal more evidence which had been collected during the course of a thorough investigation, and they asked the parties to go away and decide whether they might let the Tribunal see a bit more of it so they could make a judgement rather than a guess.

What about drugs then?

It’s well-known that you are allowed to smoke dope in some establishments in Amsterdam, although the Dutch authorities are thinking about restricting this to Netherlands’ residents. They may find that such a rule contravenes the European Law on freedom of movement – under the EU treaty, you can’t be meaner to foreigners than you are to your own people just because they are foreign. That’s a nice idea, but individuals and governments keep trying it on. Anyway, the Coffeeshop Siberie rented space to drug dealers who would sell cannabis at tables for people to take advantage of the relaxed atmosphere. Presumably they are preparing to examine passports or local utility bills before making the sale, if only the Dutch are to be allowed to get stoned. Anyway, the Dutch authorities asked the coffee shop’s owners for VAT on the rent paid by the dealers, and the owners appealed to the ECJ. This time, surely, it was sufficiently illegal. Although the consumption of drugs was tolerated, it was still against the law, and it must therefore be not VATable.
The judges pointed out that the coffee shop was not actually selling drugs. They were just providing the space for other people to sell drugs. Although selling drugs was completely illegal, and there was no legitimate market in cannabis, renting space was a normal business activity. Renting space to someone who did something illegal with it was in the same category as the dodgy perfume sales in Goodwin & Unstead: it was a bit illegal, but not illegal enough. The VAT was still due.

Counterfeiting?

In a German case, the ECJ ruled that the importation of counterfeit money was outside the scope of VAT. The Advocate-General observed that a line must be drawn between, on the one hand, transactions that lie so clearly outside the sphere of legitimate economic activity that, instead of being taxed, they can only be the subject of criminal prosecution, and, on the other hand, transactions which though unlawful must nonetheless be taxed, if only for ensuring in the name of fiscal neutrality, that the criminal is not treated more favourably than the legitimate trader’.

So, there you have it, if you are of a criminal disposition, and you want to avoid VAT, funny money is the way to go. Please note, this does not constitute advice…..!

VAT – A Christmas Tale

By Marcus Ward 12 December 2016

Well, it is Christmas….

Dear Marcus

My business, if that is what it is, has become large enough for me to fear that HMRC might take an interest in my activities. May I explain what I do and then you can write to me with your advice? If you think a face to face meeting would be better I can be found in most decent sized department stores from mid September to 24 December.

First of all I am based in Greenland but I do bring a stock of goods, mainly toys, to the UK and I distribute them. Am I making supplies in the UK?

The toys are of course mainly for children and I wonder if zero rating might apply? I have heard that small T shirts are zero rated so what about a train set – it is small and intended for children. Does it matter if adults play with it?

My friend Rudolph has told me that there is a peculiar rule about gifts. He says that if I give them away regularly and they cost more than £150 I might have to account for VAT. Is that right?

My next question concerns barter transactions. Dads often leave me a food item such as a mince pie and a drink and there is an unwritten rule that I should then leave something in return. If I’m given Tesco’s own brand sherry I will leave polyester underpants but if I’m left a glass of Glenfiddich I will be more generous and leave best woollen socks. Have I made a supply and what is the value please? My feeling is that the food items are not solicited so VAT might not be due and, in any event; isn’t food zero-rated, or is it catering? Oh, and what if the food is hot?

Transport is a big worry for me. Lots of children ask me for a ride on my airborne transport. I suppose I could manage to fit 12 passengers in. Does that mean my services are zero-rated? If I do this free of charge will I need to charge air passenger duty? Does it matter if I stay within the UK? My transport is the equivalent of six horse power and if I refuel with fodder in the UK will I be liable for fuel scale charges? After dropping the passengers off I suppose I will be accused of using fuel for the private journey back home. Somebody has told me that if I buy hay labelled as animal food I can avoid VAT but if I buy the much cheaper bedding hay I will need to pay VAT. Please comment.

Can I also ask about VAT registration? I know the limit is £83,000 per annum but do blips count? If I do make supplies at all, I do nothing for 364 days and then, in one day (well night really) I blast through the limit and then drop back to nil turnover. May I be excused from registration? If I do need to register should I use AnNOEL Accounting? At least I can get only one penalty per annum if I get the sums wrong.

I would like to make a claim for input tax on clothing. I feel that my red clothing not only protects me from the extreme cold but it is akin to a uniform and should be allowable. These are not clothes that I would choose to wear except for my fairly unusual job. If lady barristers can claim for black skirts I think I should be able to claim for red dress. And what about my annual haircut? That costs a fortune. I only let my hair grow that long because it is expected of me.

Insurance worries me too. You know that I carry some very expensive goods on my transport. Play Stations, Mountain Bikes, i-pads and Accrington Stanley replica shirts for example. My parent company in Greenland takes out insurance there and they make a charge to me. If I am required to register for VAT in England will I need to apply the reverse charge? This seems to be a daft idea if I understand it correctly. Does it mean I have to charge myself VAT on something that is not VATable and then claim it back again?

Next you’ll be telling me that Father Christmas isn’t real……….

HAPPY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!

VAT – EC proposal for new rules for e-commerce and online businesses

By Marcus Ward 1 December 2016

The EC has announced measures to simplify VAT for e-commerce businesses in the EU. The proposals will purportedly allow consumers and businesses to buy and sell goods and services more easily online.

New VAT rules for sales and goods and services online

Currently, online traders have to register for VAT in all the Member States to which they sell goods. Often cited as one of the biggest barriers to cross-border e-commerce, these VAT obligations cost businesses around €8,000 for every EU country into which they sell. We are now proposing that businesses make one simple quarterly return for the VAT due across the whole of the EU, using the online VAT One Stop Shop. This system already exists for sales of e‑services such as mobile phone apps, and has been proven successful with more than €3 billion in VAT being collected through the system in 2015. Administrative burdens for companies will be reduced by a staggering 95%, giving an overall saving to EU business of €2.3 billion and increasing VAT revenues for Member States by €7 billion.

Simplifying VAT rules for micro-businesses and start-ups

A new annual threshold of €10,000 in online sales will be introduced under which businesses selling cross-border can continue to apply the VAT rules they are used to in their home country. This will make complying with VAT rules easier for 430,000 companies across the EU, representing 97% of all micro-business trading cross‑border. A second new yearly threshold of €100,000 will make life easier for SMEs when it comes to VAT, with simplified rules for identifying where their customers are based. The thresholds could be applied as early as 2018 on e‑services, and by 2021 for online goods. Other simplifications would allow the smallest businesses to benefit from the same familiar VAT rules of their home country, such as invoicing requirements and record keeping. The first point of contact will always be with the tax administration where the business is located and businesses will no longer be audited by each Member State where they have sales.

VAT fraud from outside the EU – Removal of Low Value Consignment (LVC) relief

Small consignments imported into the EU that are worth less than €22 are currently exempt from VAT. With around 150 million parcels imported free of VAT into the EU each year, the EC says that this system is open to massive fraud and abuse, creating major distortions against EU business. Firstly, EU businesses are put at a clear disadvantage since unlike their non-EU competitors, they are liable to apply VAT from the first eurocent sold. Secondly, imported high-value goods such as smartphones and tablets are consistently undervalued or wrongly described in the importation paperwork in order to benefit from this VAT exemption. The Commission has therefore decided to remove LVC relief

Equal rules for taxing e-books, e-newspapers and their printed equivalents

Current rules allow Member States to tax printed publications such as books and newspapers at reduced rates or, in some cases, super-reduced or zero rates. The same rules exclude e-publications, meaning that these products must be taxed at the standard rate. Once agreed by all Member States, the new set-up will allow (but not oblige) Member States to align the rates on e-publications to those on printed publications.

Action

Please contact us if any of the above affects your business or your client’s businesses.

VAT Snippet – e-supplies to Russia

By Marcus Ward 1 December 2016

New VAT rules for B2C supplies to Russian recipients

If your business, or your client’s business provide electronically supplied services to private consumers* in Russia new rules will require foreign (“non-established“) businesses to register and pay VAT on their supplies.

These rules will come into effect from 1 January 2017.

Supplies of such services will be subject to the Russian standard VAT rate of 15.25% of gross revenue.

For the purposes of this legislation electronically supplied services include (but are not limited to):

e-books
streaming of music and film
online access to games and download of games to electronic devices
services of social networking sites
cloud computing
hosting of websites
access to search engines
internet service providers
broadcasting of TV or radio channels
online advertising
data storage,
and other similar services

This definition broadly follows the definition for EU supplies.

Quarterly VAT returns will be required, however, there will be no right to recover input tax on these returns.

Place of belonging

As with any e-sales, it is important to have a procedure in place in order to establish the place of belonging of all customers as this will dictate what (if any) VAT is applicable, and to which authority payment should be made. In broader terms, the rules for Distance selling must also be adhered to. Guide here

* Russian definition of place of an individual customer – A “private consumer” is deemed to be in Russia if his/her living place is in Russia; or if he/she purchased the service by using a Russian bank (or a Russian electronic money operator), a network address registered in Russia, or a phone number with the Russia’s country code.

This follows an international trend as may be seen with similar developments here

If you are affected by this new VAT legislation, please contact us. We have a worldwide network which can take the pain out of international VAT compliance and avoid a business inadvertently triggering swingeing penalties and interest overseas. Please see further details of this service here

VAT Snippet – Australia GST

By Marcus Ward 21 November 2016

Changes to sales to Australia

If your business, or clients’ business, sell goods to customers in Australia, new rules will be introduced that will affect the tax on these supplies.

Draft legislation

From 1 July 2017 GST (Goods and Services Tax – the equivalent of VAT in Australia) will be applied to low value goods imported by Australian consumers. These sales have, hitherto, been tax free. There is a relief however, for sales below the GST turnover of $75,000 which will not attract GST. The reason for the introduction is to ensure that imports are not treated more favourably than domestic sales.

Changes for the EU too?

Interestingly, the EC is actively considering the introduction of similar rules for VAT on low value consignments and this may impact UK consumers and/or businesses (assuming, of course that the UK remains in the EU at that time…).

Assistance

We are able to advise on any cross-border transactions, both within and outside the EU. With our network of professional contacts and strategic partners here we provide a comprehensive tax service from one-off ad-hoc queries to day to day compliance issues around the world.

VAT Latest from the courts – more on agent or principal

By Marcus Ward 2 November 2016

Whether a business acts as agent or principal in respect of hotel accommodation

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Hotels4U.com Limited (H4U) further consideration was given to the relationship of parties in travel/accommodation services. This follows on from the recent Supreme Court case of Secret Hotels 2 Ltd which we considered here

Background

H4U entered into contracts with suppliers of hotel rooms and displayed details of the hotels on its website. Travellers and travel agents are able to book online, pay a deposit and receive a voucher which enabled them to occupy the relevant accommodation when presented to the hotel.

The FTT was required to decide whether H4U was acting as agent or principal in respect of these supplies made to travellers and travel agents. If acting as principal, output tax would be due via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS). If acting as agent, the place of supply (POS) would be outside the UK and no UK VAT would be due. We are aware that many of our clients are in a similar position so this decision will be important to them.

Decision

H4U contended that that its position was indistinguishable from the Secret Hotels 2 Ltd case such that it should be regarded as an agent. The FTT upheld this contention for most of the relevant transactions (based on contracts which contained sufficient evidence to enable the Tribunal to reach a decision in UK law) so H4U could be seen as acting as agent. H4U also argued that HMRC’s intention to seek a reference to the CJEU in respect of the interpretation of the EU Principal VAT Directive Article 306 on the meaning of “acting solely as an intermediary”’ (whether that is different from an agent in English law) was an attempt to re-argue the matter before the CJEU and should be resisted. The FTT stated that it was only considering the position under UK law.

Commentary

We understand that there are a number of similar ongoing appeals and this decision may be of benefit to them. It also underlines the fact that documentation, and how each party acts, is important in determining the relationship. No one piece of evidence on its own may be decisive but goes to form part of the overall picture. As always in agent/principal cases, it is crucial that the documentation accurately represents the actual transaction. Contracts can play a big part, as can the Terms & Conditions and wording on websites and advertisements. Broadly, as a starting point, it must be clear to the customer that an agent is acting on behalf of a named principal; without this information, HMRC will likely form the view that there is no agency arrangement and that the “intermediary” party is acting as an undisclosed agent (for all intents and purposes acting as principal). This means that any supply would be seen to be made to, and by the agent, such that (in this case) output tax would be due using TOMS.

Action

We shall have to wait and see whether HMRC is successful in making a reference on the possible distinction between the meaning of agent in UK and EC law.

In the meantime, any businesses which are involved in agency/principal relationships, not just in the travel field, may benefit from taking advice on whether their arrangements are affected by these two cases and whether there may be value in putting planning in place.

VAT – Latest from the courts: treatment of web-based introductions

By Marcus Ward 14 September 2016

First Tier Tribunal (FTT) – What intermediary services may be exempted?

Background

The provision of intermediary services (putting those who require a financial product in touch with those who provide them) is exempt from VAT if certain conditions apply. Broadly, the requirement is mainly the need to provide something more than just the introduction, eg; negotiation of credit. If a business acts as a mere conduit or in an advertising capacity its supplies will be standard rated.

The case

In the FTT case of Dollar Financial UK Limited TC05334 (Dollar) the applicant received web-based services from overseas The Reverse Charge was applied to these supplies (details of the Reverse Charge here). Dollar provides “payday loans” which are themselves exempt from VAT. As Dollar was unable to recover all of the VAT on the Reverse Charge it represented a VAT cost to the business. However, if the supplies were exempt there would be no need to apply the Reverse Charge and so the loss would be avoided.

The FTT was required to consider what precisely the suppliers (so called lead generators) provided to Dollar in return for a commission based on the value of the loan. The lead generators operated websites which are mainly comparison sites and which referred potential borrowers to loan providers such as Dollar. HMRC formed the view that these services did not amount to intermediary services and hence were subject to the Reverse Charge.

The FTT ruled that there were differences between the two examples of services received by Dollar. In one example it was decided that despite;

there being no legal relationship between the lead generator and the potential borrower
that the leads were sold to the lender offering the best commission
that the assessment for loan suitability was quick, only involved only a few basic checks, and did not require any judgment or discretion, and
that only 1% of the introductions resulted in offers of loans to borrowers,

the appellant was acting as more than a mere conduit or in an advertising capacity, and was providing exempt introductory services. Consequently, there was no need to apply the Reverse Charge.

In the other example, the Tribunal considered that a single supply of online chat assistance was more akin to an outsourced, principally back-office function which did not amount to intermediary services and was therefore standard rated such that Dollar must apply the Reverse Charge.

Commentary

This case demonstrates the need to identify precisely what is being provided by a business’ suppliers and to review contracts intently. A small change in the circumstances between one supply and another may result in different VAT treatment. This is a comprehensive judgement and it is worth reading in its entirety if a business is involved in these type of transactions. We recommend that advice is sought by those businesses which could be affected by this case; either as supplier or recipient.

Egypt introduces VAT

By Marcus Ward 9 September 2016

New VAT regime in Egypt

From 8 September 2016 Egypt has introduced VAT to replace its existing sales Tax.

The standard rate for the year ending 30 June 2017 is 13% and it is anticipated the rate from 1 July 2017 will be increased to 14%.

Any business carrying out transactions with Egyptian customers, or in Egypt itself, will need to review their operations to ensure compliance with the new regime.

We can assist with such a review which will need to consider; reporting systems, documentation, processes, budgeting, and contracts etc

VAT Latest from the courts – what is an economic activity by a charity?

By Marcus Ward 5 September 2016

In the VAT case of Longridge on the Thames (Longbridge) here the Court of Appeal considered previous decisions at the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and Upper Tribunal (UT) on whether Longbridge carried on an economic activity. This is an important case as it goes some way in determining the meaning of “business” in light of the term “economic activity” used in EC legislation. The term “business” is only used in UK legislation, The Principal VAT Directive refers to “economic activity” rather than business, and since UK domestic legislation must conform to the Directive both terms must be seen as having the same meaning. Since the very first days of VAT there have been disagreements over what constitutes a “business”. I have previously commented on this matter here

Background

Longbridge is a charity. It uses volunteers to provide boating activities (mainly to young people) on the Thames. The fees charged by Longbridge were often at below cost and the charity relied on donations to continue its operations. It constructed a new building and sought VAT zero rating of these costs on the basis that the building was to be used for non-business purposes. Consequently, it was crucial to the relief claimed that the charity was not carrying out a business in VAT terms. The FTT and the UT found that the charity’s “predominant concern” was not to make supplies for a consideration and therefore it was not in business. These findings were based on long standing case law, the most salient being; Lord Fisher and Morrison’s Academy Boarding Houses Association. Lord Fisher set out a series of tests which HMRC rely on to determine whether a business exists – considered here and here

Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed HMRC’s appeal. It decided that Longridge was carrying on an economic activity and therefore the construction of the new building could not be zero rated. The decision is worth considering in full, however, the court held that there was a “direct link” between the fees paid and service the recipients received, even if it was subsidised in certain instances and that Longbridge was furthering its charitable objectives. The requirement for a direct link was clearly demonstrated in The Apple and Pear Development Council case. The establishment of the direct link meant that Longridge was carrying in business (in UK law).

Commentary

The important test for whether an economic activity is being carried on is now; the direct link between payment and service. There is no longer the requirement to consider the test of “predominant concern” and in fact it was stated in the decision by the judges that this test is “unhelpful and may be misleading.” We must now ignore; the motive of the provider of the service, its status as a charity, the amount charged, whether subsidies are received by the charity, and whether volunteers are involved in the relevant activities.

This is a very big change in the analysis of whether a business exists and basically means that previous cases on this matter were wrongly decided. It brings the UK into line with the EC on the definition of an economic activity and therefore provides clarity on this matter – which has long been an area which has desperately required it.

It means that, unless the decision is reversed at the Supreme Court, we say goodbye to the unloved Lord Fisher tests. However, this may be very bad news for charities and not for profit entities that have relied on these tests to avoid VAT registration and charging VAT on their supplies. It is likely that many more charities will be dragged into the VAT net. It remains to be seen whether this case will trigger a renewed targeting effort on charities by HMRC, but what is clear is that charities need to be conscious of this new turn of events and consider their position. We strongly recommend that any bodies which have had previous discussions with HMRC on this point and any entity which is affected by this decision take professional advice immediately.