Tag Archives: latest-vat-news

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: TOMS – negative margin permitted? The Square case

By Marcus Ward 31 January 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of The Squa.re Limited (TSL) the issue was whether unsold inventory or inventory sold at a loss could affect the calculation of the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS).

Background

TSL provided serviced apartments to travellers. The company leased accommodation from the owners of the properties who were frequently, if not exclusively, private individuals who were not registered for VAT.

These leases were often for an extended period, eg; annual leases, such that the appellant is committed under the terms of the lease even where the accommodation cannot then be on supplied or not supplied for a profit.

The Issue

The issue was whether TOMS operated in such a way as to permit a negative calculation resulting in repayment to the appellant. HMRC issued an assessment because, while they accepted that there may be a zero margin on a TOMS supply, they considered that a negative margin was not permitted by the scheme. TSL maintained that a repayment of overdeclared output tax was appropriate if a loss was made (an “overall negative margin”) as TOMS does not exclude the possibility of a negative margin.

The dispute between the parties was a technical one only and concerned the interpretation of the statutory provisions implementing TOMS into UK law.

Legal

The domestic implementation of the TOMS is authorised by The Value Added Tax Act 1994, Section 53 and found in Value Added Tax (Tour Operators’) Order 1987 (SI1987/1806). Guidance is provided via Notice 709/5 and Sections 8 to 13 have the force of law.

Decision

The Tribunal determined that it was clear from the legislation that the taxable amount is concerned with the supply made, and not the VAT incurred on the various cost components. Under normal VAT accounting the output tax charged on supplies is calculated by reference to the consideration received by the supplier from the customer. There can realistically be no concept of negative consideration.

The FTT considered that there is no basis inherent within TOMS which would permit a calculation of a negative sum. There had been a supply (of a designated travel service) for a consideration, and it is the taxable amount of that supply which was to be determined. A negative taxable amount is a “conceptual impossibility”. A negative margin arises as a consequence of a lack of profitability, but VAT is a transaction tax and not a tax on profit.

When sold at a loss where the total calculation resulted in a negative margin the annual sum due by way of output tax would be nil (not a repayment).

Where the accommodation is not sold at all, the FTT noted that this cost represented a cost of doing business but, on the basis that there has been no onward supply, there is no supply which meets the definition of a designated travel service. The relevant accommodation is not for the direct benefit of any traveller so there is no supply and TOMS is irrelevant.

Whilst the FTT considered that were it the case that identified costs incurred in buying in goods and services which are not then the subject of an onward supply should be excluded from TOMS calculations, costs associated with the block booking of accommodation of the type incurred by TSL were to be included. Where such costs exceed the value obtained by onward supply, the negative margin forms part of the annual calculation. However, where the global calculation results in a negative margin the tax due for the year under TOMS is nil and there was no basis for a repayment to TSL.

There was no basis on which to permit an overall TOMS negative margin and the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Another demonstration of the complexities of TOMS and the potential pitfalls.

It may be useful to note that input tax claims are not permitted in TOMS calculations, however, any VAT incurred on any bought in, but unsold, services would not be excluded from recovery as there is no TOMS supply. The input tax on unsold inventory was a general cost of doing business and, as such, recoverable in the normal way. Consequently, there may be circumstances for businesses using TOMS where input tax incurred on unsold elements may be claimed outside of TOMS

A VAT Did you know?

By Marcus Ward 30 January 2023

Children’s clothing made from the skin of goats is zero rated, but only if not made from Yemen, Mongolian or Tibetan goats.

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.

A VAT Did you know?

By Marcus Ward 19 December 2022

Chocolate body paint is zero rated, but a bar of chocolate is standard rated.

VAT: Business or non-business? The Towards Zero Foundation case

By Marcus Ward 16 August 2022

Latest from the courts

In the The Towards Zero Foundation First Tier Tribunal case the issue was whether part of the appellant’s activities could be “stripped out”, classified as non-business, and therefore result in a loss of input tax.

This case follows a long succession of recent cases on the distinction between business (economic activity) and non-business. I have considered these in other articles:

Northumbria Healthcare

Wakefield College (referred to at this Tribunal)

Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft

Healthwatch Hampshire CIC

Pertempts Limited

and new HMRC guidance on the subject.

VAT attributable to non-business activities is not input tax and cannot be reclaimed. However, if the non-business activity is part of wider business activities then it may be recovered as input tax.

Background

The Appellant is a charity. Its primary objective is to achieve zero road traffic fatalities principally through the operation of New Car Assessment Programmes (NCAP) – testing car safety.

When it received money as consideration for carrying out the testing, it was agreed by all parties that that this represented economic activity.

As part of this activity, the charity purchased new cars (so called “mystery shopping” exercises) and carried out tests at its own expense. In this start-up phase for an NCAP it is necessary to test vehicles without manufacturer support as the independence of the testing programme is critical in order to establish consumer credibility.

The results of the tests (usually giving rise to substandard or unsatisfactory outcomes) are published and the Appellant generates publicity of the results through social media, news coverage, trade press etc. These results inform and influence customer buying behaviour which in turn drives manufacturers to improve the safety features.

As the market sophistication increases the NCAP star ratings for vehicles are used by the manufacturers in promotion of its vehicles.

The aim of the Appellant is for each jurisdictional NCAP to ultimately become self-funding through manufacturer testing fees.

Contentions

HMRC argued that when the appellant carried out tests on purchased vehicles this should be recognised as a specific activity which could not be a business as it generated no income – the tests should be considered in isolation. Consequently, the input tax which was recovered was blocked and an assessment was issued to disallow the claim.

The Foundation contended that it published the results of those tests, and this resulted in the commercial need for manufacturers to improve safety standards by way of commissions for further research. This research was funded by the car makers and was therefore economic activity. The “free” testing needed to be undertaken so as to create a market for manufacturer funded testing – the initial testing was just one element of the overall taxable supply. Consequently, all residual input tax incurred is attributed to its taxable business activities and fully recoverable.

Decision

The FTT found that it was clear that manufacturers would not proactively seek to have vehicles tested without an initial unfavourable baseline assessment. If the free testing had been a genuinely independent activity HMRC would be correct, but the evidence did not support this analysis. It found that the provision of free testing was an inherent and integral part of the appellant’s business activity.

This being the case there was no reason to attribute any VAT to non-business activities, and the input tax weas fully claimable.

Commentary

Another reminder, if one were needed, of the importance of correctly establishing whether the activities of a body (usually charities, but not exclusively) are business or non-business. The consequences will affect both the quantum of output tax and claiming VAT on expenditure. More on the topic here.

The decision was as anticipated, but this case illustrates HMRC’s willingness to challenge (often unsuccessfully) VAT treatment in similar situations.

VAT: The meaning of “business” and “non-business”- New guidance

By Marcus Ward 15 June 2022

HMRC has issued new guidance: Revenue and Customs Brief 10(2022) on how to determine if an entity carries out business or non-business (NB) activities. This goes to the core of the tax and establishes whether a person:

is registerable for VAT
charges output tax
can recover input tax

It mainly affects charities, NFP, an organisation which receives grants or subsidies and entities which are carrying out NB activities.

Previous tests

Since 1981 previous cases (mainly Lord Fisher and Morrison’s Academy) have set out the following business tests:

Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
Are the taxable supplies that are being made of a kind which, subject to differences of detail, are commonly made by those who seek to profit from them?

Changes

The guidance states that the ‘predominant concern’ is now irrelevant. The focus is on whether there is a direct link between the services the recipient receives, and the payment made rather than on the wider context of the organisation’s charitable objectives or motive. This is as a result of the Longbridge case.

I often think it helps if a person bears in mind here the comment in the EC case of Tolsma translated as: “…the question is whether services carried on by [a person] were carried on for the payment or simply with the payment”.

There is now a two-part test derived from the Wakefield College Court of Appeal case.

Test One:

The activity results in a supply of goods or services for consideration. This requires a legal relationship between the supplier and the recipient. The initial question is whether the supply is made for a consideration. An activity that does not involve the making of supplies for consideration is not a business activity.

Test Two:

The supply is made for the purpose of obtaining income therefrom (remuneration)

More on the definition of taxable supply here.

Where there is a direct or sufficient nexus between the supplies provided and the payments made, the activity is regarded as business (a taxable supply). The Wakefield case made a distinction between consideration and remuneration. Simply because a payment is received for a service provided does not itself mean that the activity is business. For an activity to be regarded as economic it must be carried out for the purpose of obtaining income (remuneration) even if the charge is below cost.

HMRC states that although it will no longer apply the above Lord Fisher tests, it accepts that they “can be used as a set of tools designed to help identify those factors which should be considered.” So Lord Fisher lives on in some form.

Further information

More detail is provided by HMRC in the updated Internal Guidance VBNB10000

Further reading

The following articles consider case law and other relevant business/NB issues:

Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft

Healthwatch Hampshire CIC

Pertempts Limited

VAT: Is dog grooming taught in schools? The Dogs Delight case

By Marcus Ward 15 February 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Julie Lalou t/a Dogs Delight First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether the teaching of dog grooming qualified as private tuition and was therefore exempt.

Background

The Appellant operated a business providing dog grooming and dog grooming courses. The appeal was concerned only with the supplies of dog grooming tuition as it was accepted that dog grooming in itself is taxable.

Technical

The sole issue in dispute in this appeal was whether the supplies fall within the private tuition exemption as for provided by The Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, item 2 “The supply of private tuition, in a subject ordinarily taught in a school or university, by an individual teacher acting independently of an employer”.

HMRC’s view was that “to be eligible for exemption dog grooming would need to be a course that is ‘ordinarily’ taught in schools and universities which it is not…”

The appellant wrote to HMRC giving a list of seven “local Colleges and Universities where the Level 3 Dog Grooming Diploma is ordinarily taught”. The appellant went on to state “There are many more within the UK” which were said to represent around 30% of English colleges. Further it was stated that the business was a City & Guilds approved centre and that the courses were not recreational.

Decision

It was accepted that the courses that the appellant taught involved her making supplies of tuition in that she transferred to her students skills and knowledge.

But, unsurprisingly, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant had failed to demonstrate that dog grooming is taught at a wide number of schools and universities

The court also determined that the appellant needed to provide some evidence of whether dog grooming was taught at schools and universities in the EU (again, something she had failed to do).

Commentary

The exemption for private tuition is fraught with complexities and the amount of case law on the subject is significant, which indicates the difficulties in analysing the VAT position. An example here. It is important to establish what is being provided and that research is carried out to consider the degree of ubiquity of the subject in education. A general guide to education here. The phrase “ordinarily taught” is rather nebulous and it would be prudent to obtain as much evidence as possible that a subject is s commonly or ordinarily taught in schools and universities if a supply is treated as exempt.

VAT Grouping – As you were

By Marcus Ward 21 July 2021

HMRC published a call for evidence last year in respect of the VAT group registration provisions, specifically:

the establishment provisions
compulsory VAT grouping
grouping eligibility criteria for businesses currently not in legislation, including limited partnerships

The call for evidence was used to gather information and views on the current UK rules, and on provisions that have been adopted by other countries.

Background

VAT grouping is a facilitation measure by which two or more eligible persons can be treated as a single taxable person for VAT purposes. Eligible persons are bodies corporate, individuals, partnerships and Scottish partnerships, provided that certain conditions are satisfied. Bodies corporate includes all types of companies and limited liability partnerships. From 1 November 2019, grouping is additionally available for all entities, including; partnerships, sole traders and Trusts in certain cases. We consider the pros and cons of VAT grouping here.

Outcome

HMRC state that it was clear from the responses how valuable UK VAT grouping is to businesses and it is appreciated that businesses require certainty following Brexit and the impact of Covid 19. The call for evidence prompted a substantial number of responses that were generally in favour of maintaining current practices. It also set out evidence on why changes to the provisions on VAT grouping would impact business growth and international competitiveness.

Consequently, HMRC has decided that there will be no changes to the VAT grouping rules.

* a sigh of relief *

With everything else going on in the VAT world, a little continuity is welcome.