Tag Archives: marcus-ward-vat

VAT: DIY housebuilders can make more than one claim – The Ellis case

By   18 October 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Andrew Ellis and Jane Bromley [2021] TC08277, the issue was whether a person constructing their own house can make more than one claim for VAT incurred.

Background

The DIY Housebuilder’s Scheme enables a DIY housebuilder to recover VAT incurred on the construction of a house in which the constructor will live. Details here.

In this case, the specific issue was whether, despite the HMRC guidance notes on the scheme claim form explicitly stating that only one claim can be made, whether two claims may be submitted and paid by the respondent.

The appellant constructed a house over a period of five years (he was a jobbing builder and the work was generally only undertaken at weekends and holidays). To aid cash flow, an initial claim was made, followed by a second two years later.

The relevant legislation is The VAT Act 1994 section 35.

Decision

The appeal was allowed. The FTT found that HMRC’s rule that only one claim could be made under the DIY housebuilder’s scheme was ultra vires and that multiple claims should be permitted.

The judge stated that “…there is no express indication that only one claim may be made. Like many provisions, section 35 VATA is drafted in the singular. Drafting in the singular is an established technique to assist in clarity and to enable the proposal to be dealt with succinctly.  As there is no express indication to the contrary in section 35 VATA, section 6 Interpretation Act 1978 applies to confirm that the reference to “a claim” in section 35 VATA must be read as including “claims”.

Commentary

This is good news for claimants who often must wait a number of years for a house to be built and therefore carry the VAT cost until the end of the project.

This case presumably means that it is possible to make claims as the project progresses and there is no need to wait until completion.

We await comment on this case from HMRC, but it is hoped that clarification will be forthcoming on whether the result of this case will be accepted.

VAT: HMRC OSS updates

By   5 October 2021
0

HMRC has issued two new documents which provide practical guidance for users of the One Stop Shop (OSS).

They cover how to pay the VAT due on an OSS return and how to use the service to submit an OSS VAT return if a business is registered for the OSS Union Scheme. A link has been added to allow a business to submit a OSS return directly.

VAT: Farm in business? The Babylon case

By   21 September 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Babylon Farm Ltd (the farm) the issue was whether the appellant was in business and consequently was able to recover certain input tax.

Background

Yet another case on whether there was any business activity in a company. Please see here, here, here and here for previous cases on this issue. The farm sold hay which it cut from another person’s fields to a connected party. The value of the one-off annual sale was £440 pa. The appellant also contended that it was also undertaking preparatory acts for the new business activities and that it would be able to levy management charges. Another new business activity was the creation of an investment and insurance product.

The farm built a new barn on which it claimed input tax of £19,760.

HMRC considered that no business was being carried on and decided to deregister the farm thus refusing to pay the input tax claim. The farm challenged this decision and contended that taxable supplies were being made, and there was also an intention to make taxable supplies in the future.

Legislation

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 of the VAT Act 1994 requires HMRC to be satisfied that a person is either making taxable supplies or is carrying on a business and intends to make such supplies in the course or furtherance of a business in order to be registered for VAT. There are a number of tests set out in case law (mainly The Lord Fisher case) to establish whether a person is in business:

  1. Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
  2. Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
  3. Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
  4. Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
  5. Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
  6. 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?

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The farm was not in business and could not recover input tax on the costs of the new barn.

The judge stated that he could see no legal basis for the farm to be in business. The hay that the farm sold was taken from the customer’s own land and therefore belonged to him already. It was also noted that no invoices were raised, no payment for the hay had been made for a number of years and the single customer was a director of Babylon Farm Limited so the farm was not operating in an open market. The sale of hay had not been conducted on a basis that followed sound and recognised business principles or on a basis that was predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for consideration. As a consequence, the farm was not operating as a business during the relevant period.

On the intention point; neither of the intended activities had yet resulted in any chargeable services being provided and both were to be carried on through companies that had been formed for these purposes (not the farm). Both businesses remained at a formative stage and neither company has generated any revenue. This was insufficient to retain the VAT registration.

Commentary

The decision was hardly a surprise and one wonders how it reached the UT. HMRC were always going to challenge an input tax claim of that quantum with no output tax (and such a low value of sales which may not have been made in any event).

Refunds of UK VAT for non-UK businesses and EU VAT for UK businesses

By   14 September 2021
0

HMRC has published updated guidance VAT Notice 723A which sets out how a business established outside the UK can claim a refund of VAT incurred here, and how to reclaim VAT incurred in the EU VAT if a business is established in the UK.

More details of how to make post-Brexit VAT claims here.

Autumn Budget – date announced

By   13 September 2021
0

HM Treasury has announced that government spending plans will be set out at the Spending Review on 27 October 2021 alongside an Autumn Budget.

The Spending Review will set out the plan for how public spending will be carried out over the next three years.

VAT: New rules for Uncertain Tax Treatments

By   7 September 2021
0

The government have released draft legislation and guidance in respect of Uncertain Tax Treatments (UTT). In addition to VAT, this legislation also covers; corporation tax, income tax and PAYE.

Who is affected?

Large businesses with a:

  • turnover of more than £200 million per annum
  • balance sheet total over £2 billion

Threshold

A business must notify HMRC in cases of UTT where the tax advantage of the treatment is £5 million or more in a twelve-month period.

Start date

The new rules will be introduced from 1 April 2022.

Notification

There are three triggers for notification:

  1. Provision made in the accounts

The amount relates to a transaction which a provision has been made in the accounts, in accordance with GAAP, to reflect the probability that a different tax treatment will be applied to the transaction

2. HMRC’s known interpretation of the law

Reliance was placed on an interpretation or application of the law that is different to HMRC’s known interpretation or application.

3. Substantial possibility amount would be found to be incorrect

It is reasonable to anticipate that, if a court were to consider the way in which the amount was arrived at, there is a substantial possibility that the treatment would be found to be incorrect.

Tax advantage

The definition of tax advantage for VAT is:

  • Less output tax is accounted for or is accounted for later, than would otherwise be the case
  • If there is an input tax claim which would otherwise not be obtained; a larger claim, or a claim earlier than would otherwise be the case
  • If input tax is recovered as a recipient of a supply before the supplier accounts for the output tax; the period between the time when the input tax is recovered or the time when the output tax is accounted for is greater than would otherwise be the case
  • The amount of non-deductible tax is less than it otherwise would be
  • An obligation to account for VAT is avoided

Exemptions

There are exemptions from notification. For VAT, exemption will apply where it is reasonable to conclude that HMRC is already aware of the information which would otherwise be required to be notified or in circumstances where a business has previously requested clearance and where HMRC agrees with the proposed treatment.

Penalties

The penalty for failure to make a notification will be £5k initially, £25k for a second failure and £50k for a third failure within a three-year period. There will be an opportunity to advance a reasonable excuse argument to avoid a penalty.

VAT: Construction of a dwelling – zero-rated? The CMJ (Aberdeen) case

By   18 August 2021
0

Latest from the courts

The First-Tier tribunal (FTT) considered the case of CMJ (Aberdeen) Limited (CMJ) and whether the supply of building services in respect of the construction of a dwelling were correctly zero rated by the appellant. HMRC deemed that the construction services were standard rated on the basis that the works were not carried out in accordance with the terms of the relevant statutory planning consent.

Background

HMRC’s view was that, although planning consent was in place at the time the construction services were supplied by the appellant, that planning consent permitted only the alteration or enlargement of a dwelling and did not allow for the construction of a dwelling. HMRC accept that the property was constructed as a new building, but that this was not permitted by the planning consent and so the construction was not carried out in accordance with it.

CMJ contended that statutory planning consent had been obtained for the construction via a combination of the planning consent and a construction building warrant which it had obtained from the relevant authority, and which allowed for the construction of a new building.

Legislation

The zero rating for the construction of new dwellings is contained in The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5, item 2

“The supply in the course of the construction of

(a)     a building designed as a dwelling…”

Note 2 to Group 5 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act include the following:

“(2)  A building is designed as a dwelling or a number of dwellings where in relation to each dwelling the following conditions are satisfied…

…(d)   statutory planning consent has been granted in respect of that dwelling and its construction or conversion has been carried out in accordance with that consent.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. It was judged that the building warrant did not comprise statutory planning consent for the purposes of note 2 (d) because:

  • Planning consent and building warrants operate under different statutory regimes.
  • Breach of planning consent is dealt with separately from a breach of the building warrant legislation, and each is dealt with by the specific statutory regime . If there is a breach of planning consent, it would not affect the validity of the building warrant, and vice versa.
  • The Building Standards Handbook states that the purpose of the building standards system is setting out the standards to be met when building work takes place. This is different from planning consent which is consent to allow the authority to permit development on a piece of land. They are distinct and separate regimes aimed at distinct and separate issues. While planning permission is about how the house will look, a building warrant is about whether it meets building standards.
  • Both planning permission and a building warrant is required. One is no substitute for the other.
  • It is possible to obtain retrospective planning consent, the judge did not believe it is possible to get a retrospective building warrant.

It was not possible to carry out works of construction in accordance with a valid statutory consent, since no such consent had been given for construction at the time that the building works were carried out.

Commentary

The legislation covering building work is complex and there are many traps for the unwary. Even the seemingly straightforward matter of whether a new dwelling is constructed can produce difficulties, as in this case. We always counsel that proper VAT advice is sought in such circumstances.

VAT: Fraudster ordered to pay £37 million

By   5 August 2021
0

Latest from the courts

A high level fraudster who skipped his trial and fled to Dubai has been ordered to pay more than £37 million. Failure to do so will result in ten years in prison. He played a major role in this missing trader fraud (MTIC) which involves the theft of Value Added Tax from HMRC. He was part of a conspiracy to use a network of companies and a huge number of transactions to cover up the theft of VAT.

Adam Umerji, 43, was convicted in his absence of offences of conspiracy to cheat the government’s revenue and conspiracy to transfer criminal property, in a prosecution conducted by the CPS Specialist Fraud Division after a complex criminal investigation by HMRC.

Background

Missing trader fraud (also called missing trader intra-community fraud or MTIC fraud) involves the theft of VAT from a government by fraudsters who exploit VAT rules, most commonly the EU rules which provide that the movement of goods between Member States is VAT free. There are different variations of the fraud but they generally involve a trader charging VAT on the sale of goods and absconding with the VAT (instead of paying the VAT to the government’s taxation authority). The term “missing trader” is used because the fraudster has gone missing with the VAT.

A common form of missing trader fraud is carousel fraud. In carousel fraud, VAT and goods are passed around between companies and jurisdictions.

VAT: Land and property exemptions

By   5 August 2021
0

Further to my article on VAT: Land and property simplification and HMRC’s call for evidence the ICAEW has reiterated its call for all VAT land and property exemptions to be abolished and recommends the removal of all VAT options.

ICAEW also concludes that following the UK’s departure from the EU the government is in the best position since the introduction of VAT to thoroughly review the structure of the tax.

ICAEW also suggests that all land and property transactions should subject to VAT at either the standard rate or reduced rate, other than those relating to domestic property which should remain zero rated. This approach would remove many of the complexities of the current regime, it concludes.

Commentary

This is one area of the tax that is crying out for simplification and the case put forward by ICAEW has its merits. In my view, the Government should go further and review many complexities of the tax. As one example, the rules in respect of the sale of food products is ridiculously complex and produces odd and unexpected outcomes. Also, other exemptions would benefit from reconsideration, particularly financial services and insurance, but I suspect that the current government has a lot on its plate, much of it of its own making.