Children’s clothing made from the skin of goats is zero rated, but only if not made from Yemen, Mongolian or Tibetan goats.
Tag Archives: latest-vat-news
VAT: Insurance partial exemption
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?
Chocolate body paint is zero rated, but a bar of chocolate is standard rated.
VAT: Business or non-business? The Towards Zero Foundation case
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:
Wakefield College (referred to at this Tribunal)
Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft
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
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
VAT: Is dog grooming taught in schools? The Dogs Delight case
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
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.
New rules of origin for goods
Brexit update
HMRC has published updated, detailed guidance for the rules of origin for goods moving between the UK and EU.
It is important to understand the impact of the rules and how they impact a business. Specifically, to ensure advantage is taken of zero tariffs when dealing with cross-border goods. The rules apply to both imports and exports and clearly, incurring unnecessary tariffs is to be avoided if possible.
Background
The UK moved to trading based on a new Free Trade Agreement (FTA) – the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) between the UK and the EU post-Brexit.
To export tariff-free under the TCA, goods must meet the UK-EU preferential rules of origin. This means that there must be a qualifying level of processing in the country of export to access zero tariffs. This applies to EU origin goods imported and moving through the UK from a Member State to another EU Member State, as well as goods imported from the Rest of World.
These rules are set out in the TCA and determine the origin of goods based on where the products or materials (or inputs) used in their production come from. Their purpose is to ensure that preferential tariffs are only given to goods that originate in the UK or EU and not from third countries.
VAT: Treatment of transactions involving cryptoassets. New guidance
Further to my articles on cryptoassets and Bitcoin HMRC have published an updated Cryptoassets Manual CRYPTO40000 which sets out its interpretation of trading in cryptocurrencies.
It covers:
- economic activity
- supplies of tokens
- exchanges
- exemption
- value
- case law
- betting and gaming
- other taxes; CGT, CT, CTCG, Income Tax, NIC and Stamp Taxes
Any business dealing in any way with cryptoassets needs to understand the VAT and other tax implications of services to, and by it.
VAT: Exporting and importing businesses -prepare for Brexit
New rules from 1 January 2021.
GOV.UK has published new guidance from the Department for International Trade.
The guidance sets out what a business will need to do 1 January 2021. It will be updated if anything changes.
It covers:
Exporting to and importing from the EU
Exporting to and importing from non-EU countries
All business with goods crossing the new border will need to understand and prepare for the changes.