Tag Archives: marcus-ward-co

Excise Duty: Your Christmas drink of choice, or perhaps not

By Marcus Ward 17 December 2018

Advocate General (AG) Manuel Sanchez-Bordona has released his opinion in the Bene Factum case (The link is to Lithuanian, so you ‘may” need to translate…).

A curious matter and one which brings into focus the drinking habits of people across the EU. Now, as those who know me will be aware, I am not adverse to a good single malt, nor a decent claret, but I do wonder sometimes where people draw the line.

Background

It transpires that in Lithuania people who choose not to drink, or cannot afford, even the cheapest alcoholic items have turned to drinking perfume and mouthwash which contain isopropyl alcohol. This has a similar effect on the human body to what most people would regard as being from more usual beer, wine or spirits etc. Sounds delicious eh?

Issue

The issue was whether these products where subject to Excise Duty, or, as the appellant contended, they were duty free as cosmetic products.

Decision

The AG found that isopropyl alcohol is almost unpalatable to most people. The fact that Bene Factum held out, advertised and marketed to people to drink the products did not affect the fact that the main purpose of the goods was for their use as cosmetics and mouthwash. What must be considered is Excise Duty depends on an objective classification to determine whether it is intended for human consumption. This classification is not affected by the fact that Bene Factum actively encouraged people to drink these products rather than use them for cosmetic purposes.

Consequently, the goods where not subject to Excise Duty. Good news for Lithuanian alcohol connoisseurs! It remains to see if the court follows this opinion, in most cases they do, but one never knows.

Commentary

If there is anybody out there who is getting ready for their Christmas party, looks at some cosmetic products and considers taking a swig, I make the following comments:

Probably best to stick supermarket own brand booze if money is an issue
I expect that these things taste absolutely terrible (although I have not sampled them)
I tend to stick to things that are to be applied externally doing just that with them without ingestion
If you can’t decide whether to gargle with something or drink it, I counsel spitting it out
If these goods come to the UK, at least they will be even cheaper being duty free. I am not sure that is a good thing.

UCC extension of time to implement systems

By Marcus Ward 5 March 2018

The Union Customs Code (UCC) is part of the modernisation of customs and serves as the new framework regulation on the rules and procedures for customs throughout the EU.

On 2 March 2018, the EC proposed that Customs authorities and economic operators be allowed to continue using already existing systems for the completion of certain customs formalities until 2025 at the latest. While most of the new or upgraded electronic systems that are necessary to apply the provisions of the UCC will be operational by 2020, some electronic systems may not be fully completed until 2025. Therefore this proposal would ensure that, in the case of the small number of customs formalities to be managed by the electronic systems that will not be completed by 2020, already existing electronic systems or paper-based procedures can continue to be used until the new systems are ready.

Full details of the latest proposals here

More on the background of how UCC affects UK importers and exporters here

VAT Latest from the courts – Application of Capital Goods Scheme

By Marcus Ward 10 November 2016

Should the costs of a phased development be aggregated, and if so, do the anti-avoidance provisions apply?

In the case of Water Property Limited (WPL) the First Tier Tribunal was asked to consider the application of; the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) and the anti-avoidance provisions set out in the VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10, para 12.

A helpful guide to the CGS is here

Background

WPL purchased land and buildings formerly used as a public house, subject to planning permission to convert the ground floor into a children’s day care nursery and the upper floor into residential flats. The planning permission was subsequently granted. WPL paid £210,000 plus £37,500 VAT on the acquisition of the ex-pub in March 2013. The children’s nursery business was kept separate from the property development business to enable the children’s nursery business to be sold at a date in the future and for the leasehold reversion to be retained as an investment by WPL. The value of the building contract for the nursery was £209,812.34 including VAT. The value of the contract for the residential flats was £161,546.42 including VAT. The consideration for the acquisition and each phase of development was below £250,000 (the threshold at which land and buildings become CGS items) but combined, they exceeded the £250,000 limit. WPL exercised an option to tax on the property and entered into a lease with Smile Childcare Limited (SCL). SCL was established to carry on a business of the provision of nursery care for infant children. It was jointly owned by Mr and Mrs Waters. Mrs Waters as the operator of the children’s nursery.

WPL recovered input tax on costs incurred in respect of the nursery, but not the flats. It was accepted by the appellant that SCL and WPL were “connected” within the meaning of VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10, para 13 and that the activity of carrying on the business of a nursery was an exempt activity.

Issue

HMRC formed the view that the option to tax should be disapplied by virtue of the anti-avoidance legislation meaning that no input tax was recoverable. This is because the property was, or was intended to become, a CGS item and the ‘exempt land test’ is met. This test is met if, at the time the grant is made, the grantor, or a person connected with the grantor expects the land to be used for an exempt purpose.

So the issue was whether the land constituted a CGS item. That is, whether the value of the two elements forming the phased development should be aggregated.

Decision

The FTT allowed the taxpayer’s appeal against HMRC’s decision. It was decided that the acquisition and development costs were financed through different means; there were separate contracts for each phase; there was no overlap in the works* and HMRC had not identified any evasion, avoidance or abuse and considered that the costs did not need to be aggregated. In addition, it was concluded that WPL had relied on HMRC guidance in determining that there was no requirement to aggregate the cost of the phased development provided that there was no overlap in time.

As a consequence, as each part of the development fell below the £250,000 limit, there were no CGS items. Therefore the fact that the parties were connected was irrelevant and the anti-avoidance provisions did not apply such that the option to tax could not be disapplied meaning that the recovery of the input tax was appropriate. The Chairman also commented that the appellant had a legitimate expectation to rely on the guidance provided by HMRC (in this case the provision of a copy of Public Notice 706/2).

Commentary

There is often uncertainty on the VAT position of land and property developments of this kind, and the interaction with the CGS is rarely straightforward. This is not helped by HMRC’s interpretation of the rules.

Action

If any business or advisers with clients which have been;

forced to use the CGS as a result of aggregation
subject to the application of the anti-avoidance provisions
assessed despite relying on HMRC’s published guidance

they should seek advice and review their position. We can advise in such circumstances.

* As per PN 706/2 Para 4.12 as follows

“What if the refurbishment is in phases?

If you do this you will need to decide whether the work should be treated as a whole for CGS [capital goods scheme] purposes or whether there is more than one refurbishment. If you think that each phase is really a separate refurbishment then they should be treated separately for CGS purposes. Normally there is more than one refurbishment when:

· There are separate contracts for each phase of work, or;

· A contract where each phase is a separate option which can be selected, and;

· Each phase of work is completed before work on the next phase starts…”

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.

VAT Latest from the courts; can HMRC impose a higher value on a supply?

By Marcus Ward 9 February 2016

VAT Latest from the courts – Whether Open Market Value applies

HMRC has the power to direct that Open Market Value (OMV) is applied to the value of certain supplies between connected parties – VAT Act 1994 Schedule 6, paragraph 1. This power is used to avoid situations where one party is unable to recover all of the input tax incurred on purchases. Usually, the direction is used when one party purchase goods and services at OMV, recovers full input tax and then supplies these goods and services to a connected party at a lower price, thus reducing the amount of input tax lost by the recipient party.

HMRC deemed this to be the position in Temple Retail Limited and Temple Finance Limited (TC04840) where “TRL” purchased goods and services and resupplied them to “TFL”. TFL was a company that was unable to recover all of its input tax as a result of partial exemption (it made supplies of exempt credit as it sold goods to consumers via HP agreements). HMRC was concerned that TRL and TFL had an opportunity to improve their aggregate input tax recovery by charging fees for certain services below OMV and consequently issued an OMV direction.

HMRC later issued TRL with assessments for under-declared output tax for not complying with the direction and this, inter alia, was the subject of the appeal by the taxpayer.

The FT Tribunal was satisfied that the majority of TRL’s fees charged to TFL were charged at OMV. However, The Tribunal decided that advertising services were not calculated at OMV and held that these services should be recalculated by reference to a method which it specified.

The case is a useful reminder of HMRC’s powers to substitute a stated value of a supply with what it believes to be OMV between connected parties. Business which are connected and provide exempt services need to be aware of the position and ensure that relevant supplies do not fall foul of the OMV direction rules. Care should be taken to document the values used and the reasons why they reflect the economic reality of the position in order to avoid a challenge from HMRC. OMV is often an area that creates differences of opinion and therefore disputes. Any structures which set out to deliberately reduce the value of supplies are likely to result in more serious actions from HMRC.

A definition of what constitutes connected parties is found here

If the case sets off any warning bells, please contact us as soon as possible.

VAT – Care with input tax claims

By Marcus Ward 2 November 2015

You have a purchase invoice showing VAT. You are VAT registered, and you will use the goods or services purchased for your business… can you claim it?

Assuming a business is not partly exempt or not subject to a restriction of recovery of input tax due to non-business activities (and the claim is not for a motor car or business entertainment) the answer is usually yes.

However, HMRC is now, more than ever before, concerned with irregular, dishonest and inaccurate claims. It is an unfortunate fact that some people see making fraudulent claims as an “easy” way to illegally obtain money and, as is often the case, honest taxpayers are affected as a result of the (understandable) concerns of the authorities. Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) or “carousel” fraud has received a lot of publicity over recent years with an estimate of £Billions of Treasury money being obtained by fraudsters. While this has been generally addressed, HMRC consider that there is still significant leakage of VAT as a consequence of dishonest claims. HMRC’s interest also extends to “innocent errors” which result in input tax being overclaimed.

In order to avoid unwanted attention from HMRC, what should a business be watching for when claiming credit for input tax? Broadly, I would counsel making “reasonable enquiries”. This means making basic checks in order to demonstrate to HMRC that a business has taken care to ensure that a claim is appropriate. This is more important in some transactions than others and most regular and straightforward transactions will not be in issue. Here are some pointers that I feel are important to a business:

Was there a supply?

This seems an obvious question, but even if a business holds apparently authentic documentation; if no supply was made, no claim is possible. Perhaps different parts of a business deal with checking the receipt of goods or services and processing documents. Perhaps a business has been the subject of fraud by a supplier. Perhaps the supply was to an individual rather than to the business. Perhaps a transaction was aborted after the documentation was issued. There may be many reasons for a supply not being made, especially when a third party is involved. For example, Co A contracts with Co B to supply goods directly to Co C. Invoices are issued by Co B to Co A and by Co A to Co C. It may not be clear to Co A whether the goods have been delivered, or it may be difficult to check. A lot of fraud depends on “correct” paperwork existing without any goods or services changing hands.

Is the documentation correct?

The VAT regulations set out a long list of details that a VAT invoice must show. Full details on invoicing here If any one of these required items is missing HMRC will disallow a claim. Beware of “suspicious” looking documents including manually amended invoices, unconvincing quality, unexpected names or addresses of a supplier, lack of narrative, “copied” logos or “clip-art” additions etc. One of the details required is obviously the VAT number of the supplier. VAT numbers can be checked for validity here

Additionally, imports of goods require different documentation to support a claim and this is a more complex procedure (which extends to checking whether supplies of goods have been made and physical access to them). A lot of fraud includes a cross border element so extra care should be taken in checking the validity of both the import and the documentation.

Ultimately, it is easy to create a convincing invoice and HMRC is aware of this.

Timing

It is important to claim input tax in the correct period. Even if a claim is a day out it may be disallowed and penalties levied.

Is there VAT on a supply?

If a supplier charges VAT when they shouldn’t, eg; if a supply is zero rated or exempt or subject to the Transfer of A Going Concern rules, it is not possible to reclaim this VAT even if the recipient holds an apparently “valid” invoice. HMRC will disallow such a claim and will look to levy penalties and interest. When in doubt; challenge the supplier’s treatment.

Place of supply

Only UK VAT may be claimed on a UK return, so it is important to check whether UK VAT is actually applicable to a supply. The place of supply (POS) rules are notoriously complex, especially for services, if UK VAT is shown on an invoice incorrectly, and is claimed by the recipient, HMRC will disallow the claim and look to levy a penalty, so enquiries should be made if there is any uncertainty. VAT incurred overseas can, in most cases be recovered, but this is via a different mechanism to a UK VAT return. Details on claiming VAT in other EC Member States here

One-off, unusual or new transactions

This is the time when most care should be taken, especially if the transaction is of high value. Perhaps it is a new supplier, or perhaps it is a property transaction – if a purchase is out of the ordinary for a business it creates additional exposure to mis-claiming VAT.

To whom is the supply made?

It is only the recipient of goods or services who may make a claim; regardless of; who pays or who invoices are issued to. Care is required with groups of companies and multiple VAT registrations eg; an individual may be registered as a sole proprietor as well as a part of a partnership or director of a limited company, As an illustration, a common error is in a situation where a report is provided to a bank (for example for financing requirements) and the business pays the reporting third party. Although it may be argued that the business pays for the report, and obtains a business benefit from it, the supply is to the bank in contractual terms and the business cannot recover the VAT on the services, in fact, in these circumstances, nobody is able to recover the VAT. Other areas of uncertainty are; restructuring, refinancing or acquisitions, especially where significant professional costs are involved.

e-invoicing

There are additional rules for electronically issued invoices. Details here

A business may issue invoices electronically where the authenticity of the origin, integrity of invoice data, and legibility of invoice content can all be ensured, and thestomer agrees to receive invoices electronically.

‘Authenticity of the origin’ means the assurance of the identity of the supplier or issuer of the invoice
‘Integrity of content’ means that the invoice content has not been altered
‘Legibility’ of an invoice means that the invoice can be easily read.

A business is free to choose a method of ensuring authenticity, integrity, and legibility which suits its method of operation. e-invoicing provides additional opportunities for fraudsters, so a business needs to ensure that its processes are bulletproof.

HMRC’s approach

If a claim is significant, or unusual for the business’ trading pattern, it is likely that HMRC will carry out a “pre-credibility” inspection where they check to see if the claim is valid before they release the money. Another regular check is for HMRC to establish whether the supplier has declared the relevant output tax on the other side of the transaction (a so-called “reference”). Not unsurprisingly, they are not keen on making a repayment if, for whatever reason, the supplier has not paid over the output tax.

What should a business do?

In summary, it is prudent for a business to “protect itself” and raise queries if there is any doubt at all over making a claim. It also needs a robust procedure for processing invoices. If enquiries have been made, ensure that these are properly documented for inspection by HMRC as this is evidence which may be used to mitigate any potential penalties, even if a claim is an honest mistake. A review of procedures often flushes out errors and can lead to increased claims being made.

VAT Distance Selling – avoidance structure now deemed ineffective

By Marcus Ward 26 October 2015

The EC Commission’s VAT Committee has recently issued new guidelines to counter perceived avoidance of registering for Distance Selling by businesses.

In cases where the supplier is responsible for the delivery of goods B2C; typically mail-order and increasingly goods purchased online (so called “delivered goods”) the supplier is required to VAT register in the EC Member State of its customer(s) once a certain threshold is met. For full details of Distance Selling see here.

In order to avoid having to register, some business have sought to avoid their supply falling within the definition of delivered goods by splitting the sale of goods and the delivery.

The UK raised concerns about the planning and structures put in place to obviate the need to register in other EC Member States. The VAT Committee has recognised these concerns and has today issued new guidelines on Distance Sales

In addition to the current rules (set out in Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Principal VAT Directive) a Distance Sale will have occurred when goods have been “dispatched or transported by or on behalf of the supplier” in any cases where the supplier “intervenes directly or indirectly in the transport or dispatch of the goods.” The Committee has stated that it considers that the supplier shall be regarded as having intervened indirectly in the transport or dispatch of the goods if any of the following conditions apply:

(i) The transport or dispatch of the goods is sub-contracted by the supplier to a third party who delivers the goods to the customer.

(ii) The dispatch or transport of the goods is provided by a third party but the supplier bears totally or partially the responsibility for the delivery of the goods to the customer.

(iii) The supplier invoices and collects the transport fees from the customer and further remits them to a third party that arranges the dispatch or transport of the goods.

The Committee further clarified that, in other cases of “intervention,” in particular where the supplier actively promotes the delivery services of a third party to the customer, puts the customer and the third party in contact and provides to the third party the information needed for the delivery of the goods, the seller should likewise be regarded as having “intervened indirectly” in the transport or dispatch of the goods.

Note: These guidelines issued by the VAT Committee are merely views of an advisory committee, they do not constitute an official interpretation of EC law and therefore do not bind the Commission or the Member States. However, the Committee’s views are highly influential and it is likely that Member States will review their procedures and implement these guidelines.

Distance Selling VAT registration can apply retrospectively and assessments and penalties for late registration and underdeclaration of VAT are likely. Also, with different VAT rates applicable in different Member States even if VAT has (incorrectly) been charged at the rate applicable in the Member State where the supplier belongs (rather than the customer) this will likely be at the incorrect rate and recovery of this incorrectly paid VAT will also create issues.

Please contact us if the above changes will affect your business as action must be taken immediately.

VAT e-audits: A warning

By Marcus Ward 15 October 2015

The increase in the sophistication and use of data analysis software has enabled HMRC and tax authorities worldwide to increase the number of indirect tax VAT e-audits.

This has led to an increase in, and higher quantum of; assessments, penalties and interest. The use of more automated resources means that HMRC is capable of auditing a greater amount of information from a greater number of businesses.

Even greater care must be taken now with recording and reporting transactions and the application of calculations such as partial exemption. The need for accurate and timely records has never been more important. It’s crucial that the basics of compliance are taken care of, as well as seeking advice and reviews on specific issues.

These issues are summarised here

Please contact us if you feel that your VAT systems need to be checked, or if you have any doubts about the accuracy of your business’ indirect tax reporting.

We offer a full range of reviews, from a straightforward healthcheck to a full report on a business.

As the severe motto has it: Comply or die!

VAT – Proof of evidence of Intra-EC supplies

By Marcus Ward 23 September 2015

A B2B supply of goods from one Member State to another (a dispatch) is VAT free (with the recipient dealing with acquisition tax in the Member State of receipt). However, in order to VAT free treatment to apply evidence that the goods have moved cross-border must be provided and satisfy the authorities in the Member State of dispatch.

The level of evidence and type of documents required to support the right to VAT free treatment varies significantly between Member States. This has led to confusion and difficulties for businesses.

As a result the EC VAT Expert Group* have, this week, produced a paper (paper 46) named “‘Proof of evidence of Intra-EU supplies’” Here: 46 – Proof of IC Supplies

As well as identifying the wide discretion afforded to Member States as to the type of documents required, it notes that this discretion and lack of clarity often leads to disproportionate compliance burdens for businesses involved in the cross border supply of goods. This also results in the fundamental principle of fiscal neutrality and the free movements of goods being impaired.

In summary

The Group’s findings may be summarised:

Diversity of documentation

Most Member States rely on a myriad of documents which may not be listed in national legislation. Such diversity is a problem and may require businesses to provide documentary evidence that cannot be reasonably obtained. This practice does not reconcile with principles established by the ECJ. The paper adds that tax authorities tend to focus on certain formalities and not permit alternative evidence.

Local initiatives

The paper notes that based on Article 131 of the VAT Directive, and often in light of the fight against fraud, tax authorities are introducing local initiatives. The compatibility of these with the EC framework may be questioned and is causing increasing burdens and costs on legitimate taxpayers.

Importance given by tax authorities to the “knowledge test”

The paper considers that the level of demand from tax authorities to document intra-EC trade should not be upgraded because of fraud cases. Documentary evidence is of a type fraudsters would typically provide. The wide margin of interpretation left to tax authorities and judges regarding concepts such as “good faith” means that further guidance may be required. This, however, should not extend up to a requirement for suppliers to show evidence to authorities that their customers acted in good faith.

Diversity of practices; timing versus legal certainty

The diversity of approaches across EC Member States generates costs and increase risks for businesses operating in different Member States.

Conclusion

The paper considered some recent ECJ case law on cross-border transactions and concluded VAT free treatment should be granted to the supplier when:

1) It demonstrates that the transaction meets the substantive criteria of that provision, namely that it is entered into with another taxable person in a Member State other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods begins. This would be done with the supplier holding at least three non-contradictory documents or elements certifying the transport or dispatch to another Member State.

2) In this context, a reasonable customer assessment could be expected from taxpayers when tax authorities audit whether the transactions are taking place in the context of fraud and/or abuse.

Next Steps

It is recommended that new guidance could be adopted in an Implementing Regulation or an explanatory note to the relevant Articles in the VAT Directive could be prepared by the Commission.

It will be interesting to see if these recommendations are adopted. It would make life a lot more straightforward for businesses who trade cross-border in the EC. Although the UK has one of the most practical regimes in this respect, even genuine movements of goods from the UK can result in an unexpected and unwelcome VAT charge because of a lack of specific documentation.

* The VAT Expert Group assists and advises the European Commission on VAT matters. Details here

Announcement

By Marcus Ward 11 September 2015

Marcus Ward Consultancy Ltd is pleased to announce the acquisition of the professional services practice of the consultancy called: VATAdvice. This longstanding and highly regarded practice based in Cambridgeshire is owned by Les Howard a well-known face in the VAT world. Les will continue his VAT support for charities and involvement with the Tax Tribunal.

Director Marcus Ward commented “There is a definite synergy between the two companies and I am pleased that I can continue to help Les’ clients with the highest level of service that I know they have been accustomed to. This will expand the practice’s existing offering to accountancy and legal firms. We are able to continue to offer VAT advice in the specific areas of; land and property, international transactions, and not for profit bodies as well as dealing with any other VAT issues. We are happy that Les has chosen us to carry on looking after his numerous clients and we aim to make the handover as smooth as possible for all of them”.

Marcus Ward Consultancy Ltd was formed two years ago to help businesses through the increasingly complex VAT regime. It has grown quickly in London and East Anglia and has clients across the world. It is a professional practice committed to providing the highest quality indirect tax advice in a timely and understandable way. It has expertise in both EC and UK legislation and over 25 years of indirect tax experience.

It is extremely commercially minded and works on the principle of “Leave VAT to us and you can concentrate on growing your business”.

It prides itself in defending businesses against unfair attacks from HMRC.

Enquires: marcus.ward@consultant.com

Telephone: 07748 117935