HMRC have released a recorded webinar about VAT on private school fees — what you need to do, and when and how to register.
It covers:
EU Member States (MS) recently agreed the much-discussed ViDA package. Since Brexit, this does not directly affect the UK, however, it is an important pointer to the future and where we are all heading, so it will impact the UK in some ways.
The ViDA package (or a version of the finalised package) was first discussed in 2022 and has gone through a tortuous process before all MS agreed it.
What is ViDA?
ViDA aims to tackle what have been identified as three main challenges:
The new system introduces real-time digital reporting for cross-border trade, based on e-invoicing. It will give MS the information they need to increase the fight against VAT fraud, especially carousel fraud. The VAT Gap – the difference between expected and actual VAT revenue, has been widening across the EU over a number of years.
It is said that the move to e-invoicing will help reduce VAT fraud by up to €11 billion a year and bring down administrative and compliance costs for EU businesses by over €4.1 billion per year over the next ten years. It should ensure that existing national systems converge across the EU, and this should pave the way for EU countries that wish to introduce national digital reporting systems for domestic trade.
More on e-invoicing here.
Technological and business developments, especially in e-commerce, mean that VAT rules have struggled to keep pace. Under the new rules, platforms facilitating supplies in the passenger transport and short-term accommodation sectors will become responsible for collecting and remitting VAT to tax authorities when their users do not, for example because they are a small business or individual providers.
This will ensure a uniform approach across all MS and contribute to a level playing field between online and traditional short-term accommodation and transport services. It will also simplify life for SMEs who currently need to understand and comply with the VAT rules, often in different EU countries.
Building on the already existing VAT One Stop Shop (OSS) model for e-commerce, the package allows more businesses selling to consumers in another MSs to fulfil their VAT obligations via an online portal in one EU country. Further measures to improve the collection of VAT include making the Import One Stop Shop (IOSS) mandatory for certain platforms facilitating sales by persons established outside the EU to consumers in the EU.
Commentary
Many countries worldwide already have versions of e-invoicing and real-time reporting or plan to introduce them. Businesses operating in the EU will need to consider how the new rules impact them and what changes are needed for; systems, procedures, tax declarations, along with the commercial implications.
ViDA should result in a more harmonised VAT system and the UK will need to keep in step in order to avoid becoming even more of a commercial outlier.
The UK has also confirmed a consultation on e-invoicing so lessons which can be taken from ViDA will undoubtably inform the UK process.
This document provides an overview of VAT statistics and covers; VAT receipts in the UK (including home and import VAT). It also contains statistics and analysis on the VAT business population and registrations.
The Headlines
Children’s clothes are zero-rated. These include; hats, caps, braces, belts, garters and scarves, but not earmuffs – which are standard rated even if they are for children.
Latest from the courts
In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Procurement International Ltd (PIL) the issue was whether the movement of goods constituted a zero-rated export.
Background
Both parties essentially agreed the facts: The Appellant’s business is that of a reward recognition programme fulfiller. The Appellant had a catalogue of available products, and it maintained a stock of the most ordered items in its warehouse. PIL supplied these goods to customers who run reward recognition programmes on behalf of their customers who, in turn, want to reward to their customers and/or employees (reward recipients – RR). The reward programme operators (RPOs) provide a platform through which those entitled to receive rewards can such rewards. The RPO will then place orders PIL for the goods.
A shipper collected the goods from PIL in the UK and shipped them directly to the RR (wherever located). The shipper provided the services of delivery including relevant customs clearances etc. on behalf of the Appellant. PIL had zero-rated the supply of goods sent to RRs located overseas. All goods delivered to RRs outside the UK are delivered duty paid (DDP) or delivered at place (DAP). As may be seen by Incoterms the Appellant remained at risk in respect of the goods and liable for all carriage costs and is responsible for performing or contracting for the performance of all customs (export and import) obligations. The Appellant was responsible for all fees, duties, tariffs, and taxes. Accordingly, the Appellant is responsible for, and at risk until, the goods are delivered “by placing them at the disposal of the buyer at the agreed point, if any, or at the named place of destination or by procuring that the goods are so delivered”.
Contentions
HMRC argued that in situations where the RPO was UK VAT registered, the appellant was making a supply of goods to the RPO at a time when the goods were physically located in the UK, and consequently there was a standard-rated supply. It issued an assessment to recover the output tax considered to be underdeclared.
PIL contended that there was a supply of delivered goods which were zero-rated when the goods were removed to a location outside the UK. It was responsible (via contracts which were accepted to reflect the reality of the transactions) for arranging the transport of the goods.
Decision
The FTT held that there was a single composite supplies of delivered goods, and these were a zero-rated supply of exported goods by PIL. The supplies were not made on terms that the RPOs collected or arranged for collection of the goods to remove them from the UK. The Tribunal found that the RPOs took title to the goods at the time they were delivered to the RR, and not before such that it was PIL and not the RPOs who was the exporter. This meant that the RPOs would be regarded as making their supplies outside the UK and would be responsible for overseas VAT as the Place Of Supply (POS) would be in the country in which it took title to the goods (but that was not an issue in this case).
The appeal was allowed, and the assessment was withdrawn.
Legislation
Domestic legislation relevant here is The VAT Act 1994:
Some paragraphs of VAT Notice 703 have the force of law which applies here, namely the sections on:
Commentary
The Incoterms set out in the relevant contracts were vital in demonstrating the responsibilities of the parties and consequently, who actually exported the goods. It is crucial when analysing the VAT treatment of transactions to recognise each party’s responsibilities, and importantly, when (and therefore where) the change in possession of the goods takes place.
Latest from the courts
The second-hands of time.
In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether the second-hand goods margin scheme (margin scheme) was applicable and whether HMRC’s assessments for £5,474,249 (later reduced to £5,004,595) of underdeclared of output tax were issued in best judgement.
Background
The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited (A&M) sold second-hand wristwatches with the majority of the sales properly accounted for via the margin scheme. However, from information obtained from Italian tax authorities in respect of supply chain fraud, HMRC issued the assessments on the basis that supplies of certain goods did not meet the conditions of the margin scheme so that output tax was due on the full value of the watches rather than the difference between the purchase and sale values. HMRC decided to penalise A&M because the errors were deliberate and prompted and subsequently to issue a PLN on the basis that such conduct was attributable to the director. A&M is a “High Value Dealer” for anti-money laundering purposes.
Contentions
Appellant
The appellant claimed that HMRC did not use best judgement on the grounds that:
so the assessments and penalties were invalid.
Whilst accepting that a best judgment challenge is a high bar A&M contended that the conduct and mindset of HMRC’s investigating and assessing officer was so unreasonable that it vitiated the whole assessment.
Respondent
HMRC contended that the assessments were based on best judgement and that its focus was not on the supply chain fraud claims (as claimed by A&M). Additionally, a previous inspection in 2014 had raised prior concerns which provided adequate grounds for the assessments. Moreover, A&M was aware of the terms of operation of the second-hand margin scheme and considered that A&M had wilfully misused the scheme in several regards. The scheme had been incorrectly used for goods purchased by way of intracommunity supplies – which had been imported with the appellant claiming input tax on the imports and then including them in the margin scheme. A&M wilfully failed to carry out due diligence on its suppliers.
Best Judgement
It may be helpful if we consider what the words “best judgement” mean. This was best described by Woolf J in Van Boeckel v CEC [1981] STC 290
“What the words ‘best of their judgement’ envisage, in my view, is that the commissioners will fairly consider all material before them and, on that material, come to a decision which is one which is reasonable and not arbitrary as to the amount of tax which is due. As long as there is some material on which the commissioners can reasonably act, then they are not required to carry out investigations which may or may not result in further material being placed before them.”
Technical
The second-hand margin scheme is provided for under The VAT Act 1994, Section 50A, The Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 and certain paragraphs of VAT Notice 718 which have force of law.
Decision
The appeal was dismissed. It was found that A&M deliberately rendered inaccurate VAT returns. The director of the company was aware both of how the margin scheme worked and that the terms of the scheme had to be complied with if a supply was to be taxed under the it. A&M was found to have acted deliberately in misusing the scheme by including ineligible supplies. A&M had been lax in the completion of its stock book, and it had not met the record-keeping requirements necessary to use the scheme for the relevant transactions. Additionally, some of its EU suppliers were not registered for VAT, a fact A&M did not take steps to discover, and so related purchases could not qualify for the scheme. Also, it was likely that some of the purchases were of new watches which made them ineligible for the margin scheme.
Re, evidence; the FTT found much of the A&M director’s evidence to have been self-serving and, in parts, evasive and that it did not consider that the integrity of HMRC could be impugned. The court determined that; the inspector was diligent and thorough, HMRC had legitimate concerns regarding A&M’s use of the margin scheme generally and specifically and there was a wider concern that the company was a participant in fraudulent supply chains. The FTT considered that the investigation was proportionately carried out considering these concerns and the assessments raised in exercise of best judgment.
Penalties and PLN
The case further considered penalties: whether the appellant’s conduct was deliberate (yes – appeal dismissed). Whether the Personal Liability Notice (PLN) [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] was appropriate for the conduct attributed to the director – whether his conduct led to penalty (yes – appeal dismissed).
Commentary
This case is a long read, but worthwhile for comments on; the margin scheme use, HMRC’s inspection methods, best judgement, evidence and MTIC amongst other matters.
Blocked VAT claims – an overview
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 mayaccept alternative evidence, however, they are not duty bound to do so (and rarely do unless the amount is minimal). So ensure that you always obtain and retain the correct documentation.
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.
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.
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
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.
This is always irrecoverable unless the client or customer being entertained belongs overseas. The input tax incurred on staff entertainment costs is however recoverable. A flowchart for recoverability in this area here.
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.
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.
The element of fuel costs used for personal use is blocked. There are three ways to treat input tax on fuel:
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 for Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) users
Even if a business obtains 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.
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 that business’ use. This may be because the purchase is for personal use, or by another business or for purposes not related to the claimant business.
This is not input tax and therefore is not claimable. However, there are exceptions for goods on hand at registration and which were purchased within four years of registration, and services received within six months of registration if certain conditions are met.
Input tax incurred on certain articles that are installed in buildings which are sold or leased at the zero rate is blocked.
Goods sold to a business under one of the VAT second-hand schemes will not show a separate VAT charge and no input tax is recoverable on these goods.
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.
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.
A business cannot reclaim VAT charged on goods or services that it has bought from suppliers in other EU 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 authorities in those States. Details here. 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.
There are special rules for reclaiming input tax using the Capital Goods Scheme, which means a business must spread the initial VAT claimed over a number of years.
VAT carousel fraud, also known as missing trader fraud or missing trader intra-community (MTIC) fraud, is a complex and highly sophisticated process used by organised criminals which involves defrauding governments of money that should be paid in VAT. It involves a series of transactions where goods are repeatedly bought and sold across borders, with the criminal acquiring goods free of VAT (exports of goods are tax free) and then reselling them with VAT added. The fraudster then does not pay output tax to the relevant authority, usually disappearing or closing the business without doing so. It mainly takes place in Europe, but also increasingly in South East Asia.
Round and round
If the goods are not sold to consumers (B2C) but rather, the transactions pass through a series of businesses. To perpetuate a carousel fraud, companies often create a number of sham shell companies to conceal the nature of the transactions in a complex web. The shell companies continue to trade with each other, and the transactions go round and round like a carousel. This can be almost endless. It is possible for the same goods to be traded many times between companies within the carousel fraud scheme network. Often, these transactions do not actually occur – the goods do not actually move from one party to another, but false invoices are issued.
It is common for these criminals to use the fraudulent money they have illegitimately obtained from other large scale illegal activities.
Innocent participants
Unfortunately, carousel fraud can involve innocent businesses. This often mean that these businesses suffer a VAT cost because HMRC will refuse to repay an input tax claim as the matching output tax was not paid by the missing trader. HMRC do this on the basis that the claimant knew, or should have known, that (s)he was involved in a VAT fraud (so perhaps not always so innocent).
Refusal to repay an input tax claim
This option is available to governments using the “Kittel” principle. This refers to a Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case – Axel Kittel & Recolta Recycling SPRL (C-439/04 and C-440/04) where it was held a taxable person must forego his right to reclaim input tax where “it is ascertained, having regard to objective factors, that the taxable person knew or should have known that, by his purchase, he was participating in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT”.
The right of input tax deduction may also be denied where the taxpayer could/should have guessed that their transactions involved VAT fraud.
Due diligence
It is crucial that businesses carry out comprehensive due diligence/risk assessment to avoid buying goods that have been subject to carousel fraud anywhere along the supply chain. It is not enough to avoid a refusal to repay input tax to say to HMRC that a business just “didn’t know” about a previous fraud. The scope of verification of a transaction will depend on its size, value, and the type of business, eg; whether it is a new or existing business partner. Transactions with regular suppliers should also be verified, although there should be be a lower risk of VAT fraud.
HMRC sets out in its internal manuals guidance on due diligence and risk assessment which is helpful. The following quote sets out the authorities’ overview:
“The important thing to remember is that merely making enquiries is not enough. The taxable person must take appropriate action based on the results of those enquiries. Therefore, for example, if the taxable person has undertaken effective due diligence/risk assessment on its supplier and that due diligence/risk assessment shows one or more of the following results in relation to the supplier:
and yet the taxable person still goes ahead and trades without making any further enquiries, this could lead to the conclusion that the due diligence/risk assessment was casually undertaken and of no value”.
Carousel VAT fraud investigations
HMRC carries out serious VAT investigations via the procedures set out in Public Notice 160 in cases where they have reason to believe dishonest conduct has taken place. These are often cases where larger amounts of VAT are involved and/or where HMRC suspect fraudulent behaviour. If a business is under investigation for carousel VAT fraud it will receive a letter from HMRC. The consequences of a carousel VAT fraud conviction are serious, and a recipient of such a letter is strongly advised to contact a specialist carousel fraud barrister immediately to provide expert legal guidance.
The Reverse charge (RC) mechanism
Governments take the threat of carousel VAT fraud very seriously and are continually implementing new measures to deter the schemes. The UK has introduced changes to the way that VAT is charged on mobile telephones, computer chips and emissions allowances to help prevent crime (it was common to use these goods and services in carousel fraud).
The RC mechanism requires the purchaser, rather than the supplier, to account for VAT on the supply via a self-supply. Therefore, the supplier does not collect VAT, so it cannot defraud the government.
The future
VAT policy is consistently updated, so businesses must be aware of these changes to ensure compliance. Technology is being progressively used to fight fraud, and again, businesses need to be aware of this and the obligation to upgrade their own technology to comply with, say; real time reporting, eInvoicing, and other innovations. Compliance technology is increasingly employed to detect inconsistent transactions which means that a business must be compliant, because if it isn’t it will be easier for the tax authorities to detect. Even if non-compliance is unintentional the exposure to penalties and interest is increased.
Latest from the courts
In the Lycamobile UK Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether VAT was chargeable on the supply of a “Plan Bundle” at the time when it was sold and by reference to the whole of the consideration that was paid for it, or whether VAT was instead chargeable only when, and only to the extent that, the allowances in the Plan Bundle were actually used. The time of supply (tax point) was important because not only would it dictate when output tax was due, but more importantly here, if the appeal succeeded, there would be no supply of the element of the bundle which was not used, so no output tax would be due on it.
Background
The Plan Bundles comprised rights to future telecommunication services; telephone calls, text messages and data (together, “Allowances”). There were hundreds of different Plan Bundles sold by the Appellant and the precise composition of those Plan Bundles varied.
Contentions
Lycamobile considered that that the services contained within each Plan Bundle were supplied only as and when the Allowances were used, so that the consideration which was received for each Plan Bundle would be recognised for VAT purposes only to the extent that the Plan Bundle was actually used. In the alternative, these supplies could be considered as multi-purpose vouchers such that output tax was not due when they were issued, but when the service was used. Very briefly, the contention was that it was possible that not all of the use would be standard rated in the UK.
Unsurprisingly, HMRC argued that that those services were supplied when the relevant Plan Bundle was sold (up-front) and output tax was due on the amount paid, regardless of usage.
Decision
The Tribunal placed emphasis on “the legal and economic context” and “the purpose of the customers in paying their consideration”.
It decided that the terms of the Plan Bundle created a legal relationship between Lycamobile and the customer. The Bundle was itself the provision of telecommunication services when sold. The customers were aware that they were entitled to use their Allowances and could decide whether to, or not. As a consequence, consumption was aligned with payment and created a tax point at the time of that payment. There was a direct link between those services and the consideration paid by the customer.
The Tribunal also considered the vouchers point. There were significant changes to the rules for Face Value Vouchers on 1 January 2019 (the supplies spanned this date), but the FTT found that the Plan Bundles were not monetary entitlements for future services under either set of rules, so the tax point rules for vouchers did not apply here.
The appeal was dismissed and HMRC assessments totalling over £51 million were upheld.
Commentary
Not an unexpected result, but an illustration of the importance of; tax points, legal and economic realities, and what customers think they are paying for. All important aspects in analysing what is being provided, and when.
HMRC has updated its guidance on how to pay Customs Duty, Excise Duties and VAT on imports from outside the UK.
The document covers, inter alia:
The update includes the removal of references to the Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) system, as all import declarations must now be made through the Customs Declaration Service.