Latest from the courts

In the Taylor Pearson (Construction) Ltd (TPCL) First Tier Tribunal (FFT) case the issue was whether input tax incurred on professional fees in respect of tax planning and the issue of new (E Class) shares to directors was for business purposes or for the benefit of the directors in their personal capacity.

Background 

The overall issue in this appeal was whether the company was entitled to deduct input VAT in relation to services provided by tax advisers as to how the company might reduce its tax and NIC liabilities in rewarding its directors and reduce the income tax liabilities of the directors. There are two specific issues:

1. Whether the services supplied were used for the purpose of the company’s business within the meaning of VATA 1994, section 24.
2. Whether the services supplied do not have a direct and immediate link with taxable output supplies because they have a direct and immediate link with exempt supplies, being the issue of share capital in the company.

HMRC argued that this appeal is similar to Customs and Excise Commissioners v Rosner [1994] STC 228 and Finanzamt Köln-Nord v Becker (Case C-104/12) in which input VAT incurred in defending the sole trader or individual employees personally, in criminal proceedings entirely unconnected to the business, was held not to be deductible.

Another issue, which was dealt with fairly perfunctory, was whether the issue of new shares was a supply for VAT purposes to which an element of the input tax could be attributed. As per the Kretztechnik ECJ case and subsequent HMRC guidance – the issue of shares was not a supply and the company was entitled to recover the associated input tax to the extent that its business activities generated taxable supplies (business of making supplies of construction goods and services in TPCL’s case).

Decision

In respect of whether the expenditure was for the benefit of the business, the judge stated that “...The advice in question was provided to the company and although the directors were significant beneficiaries of the arrangements that was entirely in their capacity as directors and employees of the company and not in any personal capacity.”

Further:

“…HMRC argued that the incentivisation of employees did not have a direct and immediate link with the purposes of the business   I do not consider that this argument has any merit whatsoever and do not understand why HMRC put it forward. This concerns me.” 

It is no wonder that the judge commented on this. This appeal was completely on all fours with the FTT case of Doran Bros (London) which HMRC did not appeal.

Consequently, it was decided that:

1. the services were used for the purposes of the company’s business, and
2. they did not have a direct and immediate connection with the issue of share capital.

The appeal was therefore allowed.

Commentary

It was a surprising decision by HMRC to take this to FTT. Case law in respect of Kretztechnik is well established and the purpose to which the funds created by a new share issue were put appears irrelevant. I also find it difficult to see how HMRC could ignore Doran Bros which was very clear and on all fours with this case, while referencing cases in which companies defended its directors against accusations of wrongdoings. In this case, the business purpose was to reward and incentivise TPCL’s directors.

This can be a difficult area of the tax and HMRC’s approach in this case demonstrates that it is prepared take these cases as far as possible. It is nearly always the case that VAT incurred on expenditure which is designed to increase staff morale and performance is a business expense.