HMRC updated Notice 700 on 9 June 2023.
Changes
VAT MOSS references to credit notes for supplies of digital services, the annual accounting scheme, and monthly tax periods have been removed.
Updates also reflect the introduction of VAT late submission and late payment penalties, as well as the new interest regime in paragraphs 2.7, 19.9, 21.1, 21.2.1, 21.6, 27.1 and 28.
HMRC state that “Everyone has a responsibility to take reasonable care over their tax affairs. This means doing everything you can to make sure the tax returns and other documents you send to HMRC are accurate.”
If a taxpayer does not take reasonable care HMRC will charge penalties for inaccuracies.
Penalties for inaccuracies
HMRC will charge a penalty if a business submits a return or other document with an inaccuracy that was either as a result of not taking reasonable care, or deliberate, and it results in one of the following:
The penalty amount will depend on the reasons for the inaccuracy and the amount of tax due (or repayable) as a result of correcting the inaccuracy.
How HMRC determine what reasonable care is
HMRC will take a taxpayer’s individual circumstances into account when considering whether they have taken reasonable care. Therefore, there is a difference between what is expected from a small sole trader and a multi-national company with an in-house tax team.
The law defines ‘careless’ as a failure to take reasonable care. The Courts are agreed that reasonable care can best be defined as the behaviour which is that of a prudent and reasonable person in the position of the person in question.
There is no issue of whether or not a business knew about the inaccuracy when the return was submitted. If it did, that would be deliberate and a different penalty regime would apply, see here It is a question of HMRC examining what the business did, or failed to do, and asking whether a prudent and reasonable person would have done that or failed to do that in those circumstances.
Repeated inaccuracies
HMRC consider that repeated inaccuracies may form part of a pattern of behaviour which suggests a lack of care by a business in developing adequate systems for the recording of transactions or preparing VAT returns.
How to make sure you take reasonable care
HMRC expects a business to keep VAT records that allow you to submit accurate VAT returns and other documents to them. Details of record keeping here
They also expect a business to ask HMRC or a tax adviser if it isn’t sure about anything. If a business took reasonable care to get things right but its return was still inaccurate, HMRC should not charge you a penalty. However, If a business did take reasonable care, it will need to demonstrate to HMRC how it did this when they talk to you about penalties.
Reasonable care if you use tax avoidance arrangements*
If a business has used tax avoidance arrangements that HMRC later defeat, they will presume that the business has not taken reasonable care for any inaccuracy in its VAT return or other documents that relate to the use of those arrangements. If the business used a tax adviser with the appropriate expertise, HMRC would normally consider this as having taken reasonable care (unless it’s classed as disqualified advice)
Where a return is sent to HMRC containing an inaccuracy arising from the use of avoidance arrangements the behaviour will always be presumed to be careless unless:
* Meaning of avoidance arrangements
Arrangements include any agreement, understanding, scheme, transaction or series of transactions (whether or not legally enforceable). So, whilst an arrangement could contain any combination of these things, a single agreement could also amount to an arrangement. Arrangements are `avoidance arrangements’ if, having regard to all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to conclude that the obtaining of a tax advantage was the main purpose, or one of the main purposes of the arrangements.
NB: We at Marcus Ward Consultancy do not promote or advise on tax avoidance arrangements and we will not work with any business which seeks such advice.
Using a tax adviser
If a business uses a tax adviser, it remains that business’ responsibility to make sure it gives the adviser accurate and complete information. If it does not, and it sends HMRC a return that is inaccurate, it could be charged penalties and interest.
Evidence
Before any question of reasonable excuse comes into play, it is important to remember that the initial burden lies on HMRC to establish that events have occurred as a result of which a penalty is, prima facie, due. A mere assertion of the occurrence of the relevant events in a statement of case is not sufficient. Evidence is required and unless sufficient evidence is provided to prove the relevant facts on a balance of probabilities, the penalty must be cancelled without any question of reasonable excuse becoming relevant.
None of us are perfect
Finally, it is worth repeating a comment found in HMRC’s internal guidance “People do make mistakes. We do not expect perfection. We are simply seeking to establish whether the person has taken the care and attention that could be expected from a reasonable person taking reasonable care in similar circumstances…”
The sale of ducks is zero rated, but racing pigeons are standard rated.
HMRC has published updated standards for agents and advisers. It sets out HMRC’s expectations of tax agents. Tax agents are agents and advisers, who are acting professionally in relation to the tax affairs of others. This includes third party agents and advisers, whether acting in respect of UK or offshore tax affairs, and to all dealings they have with HMRC. Most agents are members of professional regulatory bodies that publish and endorse standards for behaviour. All the directors and staff of Marcus Ward Consultancy who provide professional advice are members of CIOT and/or ATT and are covered by their principles and ethics. Our approach to tax planning is set out here and is summarised below.
Summary
HMRC’s standard for dealing with agents: HMRC states that it wants to provide agents with a service that is fair, accurate and based on mutual trust and respect.
What HMRC expects from agents
Agents who do not follow the standard are considered to be in breach of it. HMRC has a range of different approaches, policies and powers to deal with breaches of the standard. For more information, HMRC has published a review of its powers to uphold its standard for agents.
Our approach to planning and HMRC
Marcus Ward Consultancy Ltd does not market, advise on, or advocate aggressive schemes. The company provides bespoke solutions to an individual business and does not believe in “one size fits all” mass-marketed schemes. We will always work within the law and the spirit of the law. We operate a full disclosure policy and may refuse to work with you if you do not subscribe to this attitude. We will, on occasion, cross swords with HMRC if we believe we are correct and that HMRC is being unreasonable and we will fight to uphold our clients’ rights against any unfair accusations.
HMRC require feedback on improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions.
The three key objectives are:
HMRC is asking for responses by 31 May 2023, either via email or post.
Latest from the courts
In the Yorkshire Agricultural Society First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether payments for entry into the annual The Great Yorkshire Show qualified as exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 12, item 1 –
“The supply of goods and services by a charity in connection with an event—
HMRC raised an assessment on the grounds that the supply of admittance fell outwith the exemption so it was standard rated. It appears that this view was formed solely on the basis that the events were not advertised as fundraisers.
The exemption covers events whose primary purpose is the raising of money and which are promoted primarily for that purpose. HMRC contended that the events were not advertised as fundraisers and therefore the exemption did not apply. Not surprisingly, the appellant contended that all of the tests at Group 12 were fully met.
The FTT found difficulty in understanding HMRC’s argument. It was apparent from the relevant: tickets, posters and souvenir programmes all featured the words “The Great Yorkshire Show raises funds for the Yorkshire Agricultural Society to help support farming and the countryside”.
Decision
The FTT spent little time finding for the taxpayer and allowing the appeal. The assessment was withdrawn. There was a separate issue of the assessment being out of time, which was academic given the initial decision. However, The Tribunal was critical of HMRC’s approach to the time limit test (details in the linked decision). HMRC’s argument was that apparently, the taxpayer had brought the assessment on itself by not providing the information which HMRC wanted. The Judge commented: “That is not the same as HMRC being in possession of information which justified it in issuing the Assessment. It is an inversion of the statutory test”.
HMRC’s performance (or lack of it)
Apart from the clear outcome of this case, it also demonstrated how HMRC can get it so wrong. The FTT stated that it was striking that there was very little by way of substantive challenge by HMRC to the appellant’s evidence, nor any detailed exploration of it in cross-examination. The FTT, which is a fact-finding jurisdiction, asked a series of its own questions to establish some facts about the Society’s activities and the Show in better detail. No-one from HMRC filed a witness statement or gave evidence, even though HMRC, in its application to amend its Statement of Case, had said that the decision-maker would be giving evidence. The decision-maker did not give evidence. HMRC were wrong on the assessment and the time limit statutory test and did not cover itself in glory at the hearing.
Commentary
More evidence that if any business receives an assessment, it is always a good idea to get it reviewed. Time and time again we see HMRC make basic errors and misunderstand the VAT position. We have an excellent record on challenging HMRC decisions. Charities have a hard time of it with VAT, and while it is accurate to say that some of the legislation and interpretation is often complex for NFPs, HMRC do not help by taking such ridiculous cases.
Latest from the courts
In the First-Tier Tribunal case of Sports Invest UK Ltd the issue was the place of supply (POS) of a football agent’s services (commission received for a player’s transfer).
The POS is often complex from a VAT perspective and depends on the place of belonging (POB) of the supplier and the recipient of the supply. These rules determine if VAT is charged, where VAT is charged and the rate of VAT applicable, additionally, they may impose requirements to register for VAT in different jurisdictions.
Background
Sports Invest was a football agent based in the UK. It received fees in respect of negotiating the transfer of a player: João Mário from a Portuguese club: Sporting Lisbon to an Italian club: Internazionale (Inter Milan). The appellant signed a representation contract with the player which entitled it to commission, and a separate agreement with Inter Milan entitling it to a fee because the player was permanently transferred.
The Issues
To whom did Sports Invest make a supply – club or player? What was the supply? Was there one or two separate supplies? What was the POS?
As appears normal for transactions in the world of football the contractual arrangements were complex, but, in essence as a matter of commercial and economic reality, Sports Invest had agreed the commission with the player in case it was excluded from the deal. However, this did not occur, and the deal was concluded as anticipated. Inter Milan paid The Appellant’s fee in full, but did this affect the agreement between Sports Invest and the player? That is, as HMRC contended, did Inter Milan pay Sports Invest on the player’s behalf (third party consideration) such that there were two supplies; one to the player and one to the cub?
The FTT stated that there was no suggestion that the contracts were “sham documents”.
VAT Liability
The arrangements mattered, as pre-Brexit, a supply of services by a business with a POB in the UK to an individual (B2C) in another EU Member State would have been subject to UK VAT; the POS being where the supplier belonged. HMRC assessed for an element of the fee that it saw related to the supply to the player. The remainder of the fee paid by the club was accepted to be consideration for a UK VAT free supply by the agent to the club (B2B).
Decision
The court found that there was one single supply by The Appellant to Inter Milan. This being the case, the supply was B2B and the POS was where the recipient belonged and so that the entire supply was UK VAT free. There was no (UK) supply to the individual player as that agreement was superseded by the contractual arrangements which were actually put in place and the player owed the agent nothing as the potential payment under that contract was waived.
The appeal against the assessment was upheld.
Commentary
The court’s decision appears to be logical as the supply was to the club who were receiving “something” (the employment contract with the player) and paying for it. The other “safeguarding” agreement appeared to be simple good commercial practice and was ultimately “not required”. This case highlights the often complex issues of; establishing the nature of transactions, the identity of the recipient(s), agency arrangements, the POS and the legal, commercial and economic reality of contracts.
Latest from the courts
In the Innate-Essence Limited (t/a The Turmeric Co) First Tier tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether turmeric shots were zero rated food via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, general item 1 or a standard rated beverage per item 4 of the Excepted items.
The Legislation
“General items Item No 1 Food of a kind used for human consumption. …
Excepted Items Item No … 4 Other beverages (including fruit juices and bottled waters) and syrups, concentrates, essences, powders, crystals or other products for the preparation of beverages.”
The Product
Turmeric roots are crushed and the pulp sieved to extract the liquid. No additional liquids such as apple juice, orange juice or water are added during the production process.
The Shots contain:
All the ingredients are cold pressed to retain the maximum nutritional value of the raw ingredients. The Shots are not pasteurised as this would negatively affect the nutritional content of the Shots. No sugar or sweeteners are added to the Shots. The Shots are sold in small 60ml plastic bottles and it was stated that they provided long term health benefits.
The court applied the many tests derived from case law on similar products, and as is usual in these types of cases, the essence of the decision was on whether the Exception for beverages applied to The Shots.
Whether a product is a beverage (standard rated) is typically based on tests established in the Bioconcepts case (via VFOOD7520) as there is no definition of “beverage” in the legislation. The tests:
The principle of the tests is based on the idea that a drinkable liquid is not automatically a beverage, but could be a liquid food that is not a beverage.
The Tribunal found that the Shots were not beverages but zero rated food items. As The judge put it: “In our view, the marketing and customer reviews demonstrate clear consistency in the use to which the Shots are put. The Shots are consumed in one go on a regular, long-term basis for the sole purpose of the claimed health and wellbeing benefits. The purpose of the Shots is entirely functional: to maximise the consumers daily ingestion of curcumin which is achieved by cold pressing the raw ingredients into a liquid. We consider it highly unlikely that a consumer would attempt to ingest the same quantity of raw turmeric in solid form.
The Shots are marketed on the basis of the nutritional content of the high-quality ingredients (primarily raw turmeric) that are stated to support health and wellbeing. The Shots contain black pepper and flax oil, two ingredients that are not commonly found in beverages. The Shots are marketed as requiring regular daily consumption over a long period of time (at least three months) to provide the consumer with the claimed long-term health and wellbeing benefits. A one-off purchase of a Shot would not achieve the stated benefits of drinking a Shot”.
The Tribunal also went to consider the “lunch time pints in pubs” (The Kalron case) issue, but I would rather not comment on whether this is a usual substitute for a lunch…
The appeal was allowed.
Commentary
Yet another food/beverage case. Case law insists that each product must be considered in significant detail to correctly identify the VAT liability and even then, a dispute with HMRC may not be avoided. Very small differences in content, marketing, processes etc can affect the VAT treatment. As new products hit the shop shelves at an increasing rate I suspect that we will be treated to many more such cases in the future. If your business produces or sells similar products, it will be worth considering whether this case assists in any contention for zero rating.
HMRC has published updated Road Fuel Scale Charge (RFSC) tables for the recovery of input tax on motoring costs which start on 1 May 2023.
RFSC
A scale charge is a way of accounting for output tax on road fuel bought by a business for cars which is then put to private use. If a business uses the scale charge, it can recover all the VAT charged on road fuel without having to split mileage between business and private use. The charge is calculated on a flat rate basis according to the carbon dioxide emissions of the car.
Big Brother is watching you…
It always used to be the case that “Control Visits” aka VAT inspections were decided by a business’
The more ticks a business gets the more inspections it will receive. Consequently, a business with a high turnover (a “Large Trader”) with many international branches providing complicated financial services worldwide which has failed to file returns by the due date and has received assessments in the past will be inspected almost constantly. Tick only a few of the boxes and a sole trader with a low turnover building business will still generate HMRC interest if it has received assessments in the past or is constantly late with its returns.
These visits are in addition to what is known as “pre-credibility” inspections (pre-creds). Pre-creds take place in cases where a business has submitted a repayment claim. HMRC will check whether the claim is valid before they release the repayment. These may be done via telephone, email, or in person, and may lead to a full-blown inspection.
In addition, there was always a random element with inspections generated arbitrarily. The usual cycles were: six monthly, annually, three yearly, five yearly, or less frequently. On occasions, the next inspection would depend on the previous inspector’s report (they may, for instance, have recommended another inspection after a future event has occurred).
The Connect System
Although elements of the above “tests” may still apply, many inspections now are based on intelligence obtained from many sources. The main resource is a data system which HMRC call “Connect”. This system feeds from many bases and forms the basis of many decisions made by HMRC. Instead of HMRC relying on information provided by businesses on VAT returns, Connect draws on statistics from myriad government and corporate sources to create a profile of each VAT registered business. If this data varies from that submitted on returns it is more likely that that business will be inspected. As an example: HMRC obtains anonymised information on all Visa and MasterCard transactions, enabling it to identify areas of likely VAT underpayments which it can then target further. Other sources of information are: online marketplaces – websites such as eBay and Gumtree, as well as Airbnb can be accessed to identify regular traders who may not be VAT registered. Additionally, it can also access Land Registry records, so these can be checked not only to see what properties have been sold (and ought to have been subject to output tax) but what properties have been purchased (in order to determine whether a taxpayer is likely to be able to afford such properties).
The Connect system can also examine public social media account information, such as; Twitter, Facebook and Instagram using sophisticated mechanisms along with being able to access individual’s digital information such as web browsing and emails.
It is understood that less than 10% of all inspections are now random.
The £100 million plus Connect project is, and will be, increasingly important as HMRC is losing significant resources; particularly well trained and experienced inspectors. With many local VAT offices closing there is also a concern on the ground that a lot of “local knowledge” of businesses has been lost.
Big Brother really is watching you…. And if you are on the receiving end of an inspection, there is a circa 90% chance that there is a reason for it!
For information on how to survive a VAT inspection, please see here.
I always suggest that if notification of an impending inspection is received a pre-visit review is undertaken to identify and deal with any issues before HMRC arrive and levy penalties and interest.