Tag Archives: non-business

VAT: Land and property quiz – Answers

By Marcus Ward 1 August 2019

The “fun” quiz.

The important thing to consider is what the purchaser does, or intends to do, with the land once purchased. This will dictate the input tax recovery position. So, can the input tax be recovered? Answers to quiz questions in the 26 July 2019 post below

Answers

On the purchased land the person constructs:

a dwelling and supplies the house on a 25-year lease

Yes

The lease is 21 years or over, so it is zero rated. However, a lease under 21 years would be an exempt so no recovery. For more details

an office and uses it for his own business supplying FS to a client in China

Yes

However, if the FS supply had been to the UK or another EU Member State, the supply would be exempt so no input tax recovery. This may change in the event of a No-Deal Brexit.

a storage facility and a fully taxable company leases it to another company in the same partly exempt VAT group after opting to tax

Unlikely to be full input tax recovery as the VAT group is itself partly exempt. The Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) may apply.

a block of ten flats with a gym and swimming pool which tenants are entitled to use. Grants 99 years leases on all flats

Yes

The supply is zero rated, notwithstanding there are additional (to usual residential dwellings) facilities.

a dwelling but uses it for short term holiday lets of no more than a fortnight.

Yes

Holiday lets are standard rated, so the business would be taxable. The purchaser would need to VAT register, however.

a warehouse which is sold on completion but without an option to tax being made before the sale

Yes

A ‘new” commercial building (one under three years old) is mandatorily standard rated, so no option to tax is required.

the land is held with the intention of constructing dwellings at some time in the future, which could be over six years

Yes

As long as the intention remains, and can be evidenced, the input tax may be attributed to the future taxable, zero rated, supply.

a factory which is not subjected to an option to tax but is leased to an US company

The place of supply (POS) is the UK as this is where the immovable property is located, regardless of the status of the client. Consequently, this is an exempt supply with no right to input tax recovery.

a block of three flats which are rented for six months before freehold sale

No, or maybe, or yes

The initial supply is exempt, so the input tax is, preliminarily, attributed to the short term lets. However, a simplified form of the partial exemption de minimis limits may be used and, depending on the scale of the development, it is possible that some, or all, of the input tax may be recovered despite the initial exempt supplies.

a sport hall by a school Academy which is leased to sporting charities and also used for its own educational purposes. No option to tax

It would be unlikely that an Academy would be able to recover all the input tax. Because it would make (exempt) business supplies, this would fall outside the VAT Act 1994, Section 33 rules, so there would be no input tax recovery in respect of those activities. There would be an apportionment and only the input tax referable to own use would be recoverable as those supplies of education would be non-business. If the Academy opted to tax the facilities (and was VAT registered), the input tax would be recoverable in full. No input tax referable to business use would be possible if the Academy was using VAT126 claims. VAT and Academies

a manufacturing plant which a company rents to a connected (non-VAT grouped) party which makes and sells toys. The option is taken

Yes

As the connected party is fully taxable the anti-avoidance rules do not apply. If the connected party was not able to recover the VAT charged to it (say it made exempt supplies) the anti-avoidance legislation would kick in and the option would be disapplied, meaning that the input tax in the hands of the developer would not be recoverable.

a car showroom and offices which a company uses for its own business of selling cars, providing finance and brokering insurance

There would be mixed use; car sales are taxable, finance and insurance are exempt, so some of the input tax would probably not be recoverable (dependent upon the de minimis limits). The development would be an overhead of the business. It is likely that the property would be an item covered by the CGS.

a care home for the elderly which a company uses for that purpose

This likely be an exempt supply, so no input tax recovery on supplies which are properly VATable. There may be reliefs on construction costs, however.

a small cabin office and the remaining land is used for a forestry business which will have no sales for ten years (when the trees are grown)

Yes

Although the intended taxable supplies are some way off, as long as the intention can be evidenced, the input tax may be recovered when incurred as it will relate to those intended taxable transactions. If the intention changes, this may impact the initial recovery. More information

a residential block which is immediately transferred to an associated company (an arm’s length transaction) on completion. No tenants are in situ.

Yes

The transfer of the freehold triggers the zero rating. The associated company may then, if it chooses, make exempt supplies without a VAT cost. This type of planning can be very helpful.

So there we have it. How did you get on? I would say that any score over eight is very good.

VAT: When is the building of a house complete? (And why is it important?)

By Marcus Ward 11 June 2019

Completion of a residential dwelling

A technical point which comes up surprisingly often and seems innocuous is: when is a building “complete”? The following case is helpful, and I thank Les Howard for bringing it to my attention.

The date that the construction of a dwelling is deemed to be complete is important for a number of reasons. The issue in the case of Mr and Mrs James was whether certain works could be zero rated via the VAT Act Schedule 8 Group 5 Item 2 (The supply in the course of the construction of a building designed as a dwelling…) or as HMRC contended, they were the reconstruction or alteration of an existing building and the work should be standard rated.

Background

The James used a contractor to plaster the entire interior of their house in the course of its construction. However, the work was demonstrably defective to such an extent that the James commenced legal proceedings. A surveyor advised that all of the old plaster needed to be hacked off and replaced by new plastering installed by a new firm. The stripping out and replacement works took place after the Certificate of Completion had been issued.

The James claimed input tax on the house construction via the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme.

Technical

HMRC refused the James’ claim to have the remedial work zero-rated because, in their view, the re-plastering works amounted to the reconstruction or alteration of the house which was, when the supplies were made, an “existing building”. They proffered Note 16 of Schedule 5 which provides that “the construction of a building” does not include “(a) … the conversion, reconstruction or alteration of an existing building”.

They stated that zero-rating only applied if the work formed part of the construction of a zero-rated building. They had previously decided that the work of snagging or correction of faults carried out after the building had been completed could only be zero-rated if it was carried out by the original contractors and correction of faults formed part of the building contract. When the snagging is carried out by a different contractor, the work is to an existing building and does not qualify for zero rating.

The James stated that the Customs’ guidelines on snagging do not take into account extraordinary circumstances. Their contention was that the re-plastering works were zero rated because they had no choice but to engage the services of a different contractor other than the one who carried out the original works.

Decision

The judge found for the appellant – the re-plastering works were zero rated.

There was a query as to why The James applied for a Certificate of Completion before the plastering was completed. In nearly all cases such a certificate would crystallise the date the building was complete.

The reasons were given as:

the need for funds. The James could not remortgage the house without the certificate and they needed to borrow a substantial amount
they could not reclaim VAT under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme until the Certificate of Completion had been issued
they were aware that the building inspector was beginning to wonder why the building works were taking such a long time
they needed the house assessed for Council Tax which could only happen when the certificate had been issued
the Certificate was issued as part of the procedure required by the Building Act 1984 and the Building Regulations of 2000

These reasons were accepted by the judge.

Despite the respondents stating that:

for the reasons given above
the fact that the James had been living in the house for some time
they had obtained the Certificate of Completion
the new plastering work had been done by the new plasterer such that the house had been constructed before supply of the new plasterer’s services had been made
the house was an “existing building”

the judge was satisfied that in the circumstances the new plastering work was supplied in the course of the construction of the building as a dwelling house and that there was no reconstruction or alteration of an existing building in the sense contemplated by Note (16) to Group 5 Schedule 8.

He observed that the Certificate of Completion records that the substantive requirements of the Building Regulations have been satisfied. But to the naked eye the old plasterwork was obviously inadequate and dangerous ad he could not possibly consider that the construction project had finished until the new plasterwork was installed. The James’ construction project was to build a new dwelling house. Plasterwork of an acceptable standard was an integral part of the construction works. The new plasterwork was done at the earliest practicable opportunity.

Commentary

Care should be taken when considering when the completion of a house build takes place. There are time limits for DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme clams and clearly, as this case illustrates, usually work done to a house after completion does not qualify for zero rating. So, if the owner of a house is thinking of, say, building a conservatory for example, it is more prudent in VAT terms to construct it at the same time as a new house is built, and certainly before completion.

I would say that the appellant in this case achieved a surprisingly good result.

The ABC of VAT – property

By Marcus Ward 28 May 2019

A glossary

Anyone who has had even the slightest brush with VAT will know that it is a very complex tax. Now, multiply that complexity by the intricacy and occasionally arcane nature of property law and one may see that the outcome will be less than straightforward. I have produced a general guide and an article on residential property VAT Triggerpoints

I hope the following glossary will help with steering through some of the difficulties.

Annex– a building which is joined to or is next to a larger main building usually an extension or addition to a building
Assign – to transfer the right or interest in a property from one party to another
Break clause – a clause allowing either landlord or tenant to give written notice after a particular date or period of the tenancy in order to end the tenancy
Beneficial owner – party deemed to make a supply of property rather than the legal owner
Blocked input tax – VAT which a developer is unable to recover when constructing a new dwelling. Typically, expenditure on good such as; carpets, fitted furniture, and gas and electrical appliances
Building materials– goods ordinarily incorporated into a property which attracts similar VAT treatment to the construction services.
Capital Goods Scheme(CGS) – a method of calculating the recovery amount of input tax incurred on property over a ten-year period, Details of the CGS here
Certificate – a document issued to a supplier in order to obtain certain zero-rated or reduced-rated building work
Change of number of dwellings– usually a conversion from commercial to residential, or a single house into flats (or flats into a single house) at 5% VAT
Consideration– a thing done or given in exchange for something else = a supply. Usually quantified in money, but in some cases non-monetary consideration
Construction of new dwellings – a zero rated supply
Contract – legal document detailing the agreement of terms between the vendor and buyer
Contractor – entity responsible for building works
Conversion–work on a non-residential building which results in a property designed as a dwelling(s) being created
Covenants – rules governing the property in its title deeds or lease. May impact the definition of dwellings
Curtilage– either a garden, or an area surrounding a building which is deemed to be part of the property
Designed as a dwelling– a property initially designed for residential use, regardless of any subsequent alternative use
Dilapidations – items that have been damaged during a tenancy for which the tenant is responsible for the cost of repair or replacement. Usually VAT free
DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – a scheme which ‘self-builders’ to recover VAT on a new build dwelling or conversion. Details here
Dwelling– a building deemed to be residential
Empty house – if, in the ten years before work on a dwelling starts, it has not been lived in, the work may be subject to 5% rather than 20% VAT
Exempt– a supply that is VAT free. It usually results in attributable input tax falling to be irrecoverable
Facade– a wall (or two walls on a corner plot) which may be retained without affecting the zero rating of a new dwelling construction
Grant– a supply of an interest in land
Holiday home – the sale or long lease of a holiday home cannot be zero-rated even if it is designed as a dwelling
Housing Association – a non-profit organisation which rents residential property to people on low incomes or with particular needs
In the course of construction– meaningful works that have occurred in relation to the construction of a building (but prior to its completion)
Incorporated goods – goods sold with a new dwelling which are zero rated and to which the input tax block does not apply. See white goods
Input tax– VAT incurred on expenditure associated with property
Interest in, or right over, land– the right to access to and use of, land. Usually via ownership or lease
Lease – legal document governing the occupation by the tenant of a premises for a specific length of time
Licence to occupy– a permission to use land that does not amount to a tenancy
Live-work units – a property that combines a dwelling and commercial or industrial working space. Usually subject to apportionment
Major interest–a supply of a freehold interest or a lease exceeding 21 years
Multiple occupancy dwelling – a dwelling which is designed for occupation by persons not forming a single household
New building–a commercial building less than three years old the sale of which is mandatorily standard
Non-residential– a commercial building which is not used as a dwelling
Open market value – likely sale price with a willing seller and buyer, with a reasonable period of marketing and no special factors affecting the property
Option to tax (OTT) – act of changing the exempt sale or letting of a commercial into a taxable supply. The purpose is to either; recover input tax or avoid input tax being charged. Details here
OTT disapplication– the legal removal of a vendor’s option to tax
OTT not applicable – the OTT does not apply to residential buildings (so VAT can never apply to dwellings)
OTT revocation– the ability to revoke an option to tax after six months or twenty years
Partial exemption– a calculation to attribute input tax to exempt and taxable. Generally, VAT incurred in respect of exempt supplies is irrecoverable
Person constructing – a developer, contractor or sub-contractor who constructs a building
Premium – upfront payment for a supply of property
Relevant Charitable Purpose (RCP)–the use by a charity for non-business purposes or for use as a village hall or similar
Relevant Residential Purpose (RRP)– dwelling used for certain defined residential purposes, eg; children’s home, a hospice or student accommodation
Reverse surrender– a tenant surrenders an onerous lease to the landlord and makes a payment to surrender
Share of freehold – where the freehold of the property is owned by a company and the shareholders are the owners of the property
Single household dwelling– a building designed for occupation by a single household
Snagging – the correction of building faults. Usually follows the VAT liability of the original work
Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) – tax paid by a purchaser of a property. SDLT is increased if the sale of a commercial property is the subject of an option to tax
Substantial reconstruction– certain significant works to a listed building
Surrender– a tenant surrenders the lease to the landlord in return for payment
Taxable supply– a supply subject to VAT at the standard, reduced or zero-rate
Use as a dwelling – a building which was designed or adapted for use as someone’s home and is so used
Vendor – entity selling a property
Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC) – the VAT free sale of the assets of a business as a going concern. This may include a tenanted property
Zero-rated– a taxable supply subject to VAT at a rate of 0%

We strongly recommend that advice is obtained if any property transaction is being undertaken.

Details of our land and property services may be found here.

VAT – Business Entertainment Flowchart. What input tax may I recover?

By Marcus Ward 10 May 2019

Input tax recovery on entertainment

One of the most common questions asked on “day-to-day” VAT is whether input tax incurred on entertainment is claimable. The answer to this seemingly straightforward question has become increasingly complex as a result of; HMRC policy, EC involvement and case law. Different rules apply to entertaining; clients, contacts, staff, partners and directors depending on the circumstances. It seems reasonable to treat entertaining costs as a valid business expense. After all, a business, amongst other things, aims to increase sales and reduce costs as a result of these meetings. However, HMRC sees things differently and there is a general block on business entertainment. It seems like HMRC does not like watching people enjoying themselves at the government’s expense!

If, like me, you think in pictures, then a flowchart may be useful for deciding whether to claim entertainment VAT. It covers all scenarios, but if you have a unique set of circumstances or require assistance with some of the definitions, please contact me.

VAT – Business Entertainment Flowchart

VAT Success Stories

By Marcus Ward 1 April 2019

I often write about how it is important to seek VAT advice at the right time, see triggerpoints. So, I thought that I’d give some practical examples on where we have saved our clients money, time and aggravation.

Investment company

HMRC denied claims for input tax incurred on costs relating to the potential acquisition of an overseas business and threatened to deregister the plc as it was not, currently, making taxable supplies. Additionally, HMRC contended that even if VAT registration was appropriate, the input tax incurred did not relate to taxable supplies and was therefore blocked.

We were able to persuade HMRC that our client had a right to be VAT registered because It intended to make taxable supplies (supplies with a place of supply outside the UK which would have been taxable if made in the UK) and that the input tax was recoverable as it related to these intended taxable supplies (management charges to the acquired business). This is a hot topic at the moment, but we were able to eventually demonstrate, with considerable and detailed evidence that there was a true intention.

This meant that UK VAT registration was correct and input tax running into hundreds of thousands of pounds incurred in the UK was repaid.

Restaurant

We identified and submitted a claim for a West End restaurant for nearly £200,000 overpaid output tax. We finally agreed the repayment with HMRC after dealing with issues such as the quantum of the claim and unjust enrichment.

Developer

Our property developing client specialises in very high-end residential projects in exclusive parts of London. They built a dwelling using an existing façade and part of a side elevation. We contended that it was a new build (zero rated sale and no VAT on construction costs and full input tax recovery on other costs). HMRC took the view that it was work on an existing dwelling so that 5% applied and input tax was not recoverable. After site visits, detailed plans, current and historical photograph evidence HMRC accepted the holy grail of new build. The overall cost of the project was tens of millions.

Charity

A charity client was supplying services to the NHS. The issue was whether they were standard rated supplies of staff or exempt medical services. We argued successfully that, despite previous rulings, the supplies were exempt, which benefited all parties. Our client was able to deregister from VAT, but not only that, we persuaded HMRC that input tax previously claimed could be kept. This was a rather pleasant surprise outcome. We also avoided any penalties and interest so that VAT did not represent a cost to the charity in any way. If the VAT was required to be repaid to HMRC it is likely that the charity would have been wound up.

Shoot

A group of friends met to shoot game as a hobby. They made financial contributions to the syndicate in order to take part. HMRC considered that this was a business activity and threatened to go back over 40 years and assess for output tax on the syndicate’s takings which amounted to many hundreds of thousands of pounds and would have meant the shoot could not continue. We appealed the decision to retrospectively register the syndicate.

After a four-year battle HMRC settled on the steps of the Tribunal. We were able to demonstrate that the syndicate was run on a cost sharing basis and is not “an activity likely to be carried out by a private undertaking on a market, organised within a professional framework and generally performed in the interest of generating a profit.” – A happy client.

Chemist

We assisted a chemist client who, for unfortunate reasons, had not been able to submit proper VAT returns for a number of years. We were able to reconstruct the VAT records which showed a repayment of circa £500,000 of VAT was due. We successfully negotiated with HMRC and assisted with the inspection which was generated by the claim.

The message? Never accept a HMRC decision, and seek good advice!

VAT: Latest on holding companies and input tax recovery

By Marcus Ward 21 January 2019

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of W Resources plc (WRP) the enduring matter of input tax recovery by a holding company was considered. This follows similar considerations in the cases of Norseman and BAA and HMRC’s updated guidance on the matter. This case considered whether a holding company could recover input tax incurred on certain costs. This is turn depended on whether the holding company intended to make taxable supplies. Specifically; the intention to recharge professional expenses incurred to two non VAT-grouped subsidiary companies contingent on those companies receiving income at a future time.

Background

WRP acquired two subsidiary companies. The subsidiary company’s business the exploration and exploitation of tungsten in the EU. WRP contended that it incurred the relevant input tax

to enable the subsidiaries to raise funds to carry out their exploration activities
to exercise financial control over the subsidiaries
to obtain geological expertise, project management and supervision and day to day management and supervision for the subsidiaries so that they could carry on their exploration and exploitation activities

HMRC denied the claim of input tax on the basis that the WRP was not carrying on an economic activity or making supplies for a consideration (such that it should not be VAT registered).

It was common ground that, if it was decided that all of the supplies which were made by the WRP to the subsidiary companies (following their acquisition by the appellant) were supplies made for a consideration and in the course of carrying on an “economic activity”, then the input tax which was incurred during the preparatory phase should be recoverable.

So, the issue was – were the intended recharges so uncertain such that there could be no direct link to an economic activity?

Decision

The appeal was dismissed.

Although the judge distinguished Norseman (above) where there was only a vague intention to make charges to subsidiary companies and here the position was different because there was a fixed intention that WRP would be able to invoice in due course for its supplies of services at an amount quantified by reference to the value of the services received but only if the relevant subsidiary began to generate revenues, the fact that it was uncertain whether the subsidiaries would generate income was to sufficient to break the link between supply and consideration. The fact that the intended charges were contingent was fatal to the appeal.

Commentary

The judge appears to have come to the decision reluctantly and entertained the thought that “the contrary is certainly arguable”. This case demonstrates, yet again, the difficulties in determining future intentions of a business. Such intentions dictate whether a business may VAT register and/or recover input tax. It is often difficult to evidence intentions and HMRC seem intent to challenge input tax recovery in such circumstances and will be buoyed by this result.

This case again emphasises the importance of holding companies having appropriate processes and ensuring that proper documentation is in place to evidence, not only the intention to make taxable supplies of management charges, but that those charges were actually made to subsidiaries.

Often significant costs can be incurred by a holding company in cases such as acquisitions and restructuring. It is important that these costs are incurred by, and invoiced to, the appropriate entity in order for the VAT on them to be recovered. Consideration should be given to how the input tax is recovered before it is incurred, and the appropriate structure put in place if possible.

Further information and advice on inter-company charges may be found here

VAT – A Christmas Tale

By Marcus Ward 17 December 2018

Well, it is Christmas…. and at Christmas tradition dictates that you repeat the same nonsense every year….

Dear Marcus

My business, if that is what it is, has become large enough for me to fear that HMRC might take an interest in my activities. May I explain what I do and then you can write to me with your advice? If you think a face to face meeting would be better, I can be found in most decent sized department stores from mid-September to 24 December.

First of all, I am based in Greenland, but I do bring a stock of goods, mainly toys, to the UK and I distribute them. Am I making supplies in the UK?

If I do this for philanthropic reasons, am I a charity, and if so, does that mean I do not pay VAT?

The toys are of course mainly for children and I wonder if zero rating might apply? I have heard that small T shirts are zero rated so what about a train set – it is small and intended for children. Does it matter if adults play with it? My friend Rudolph has told me that there is a peculiar rule about gifts. He says that if I give them away regularly and they cost more than £150 I might have to account for VAT. Is that right?

My next question concerns barter transactions. Dads often leave me a food item such as a mince pie and a drink and there is an unwritten rule that I should then leave something in return. If I’m given Tesco’s own brand sherry I will leave polyester underpants but if I’m left a glass of Glenfiddich I will be more generous and leave best woollen socks. Have I made a supply and what is the value please? My feeling is that the food items are not solicited so VAT might not be due and, in any event; isn’t food zero-rated, or is it catering? Oh, and what if the food is hot?

Transport is a big worry for me. Lots of children ask me for a ride on my airborne transport. I suppose I could manage to fit twelve passengers in. Does that mean my services are zero-rated? If I do this free of charge will I need to charge air passenger duty? Does it matter if I stay within the UK, or the EU? My transport is the equivalent of six horse power and if I refuel with fodder in the UK will I be liable for fuel scale charges? After dropping the passengers off I suppose I will be accused of using fuel for the private journey back home. Somebody has told me that if I buy hay labelled as animal food I can avoid VAT but if I buy the much cheaper bedding hay I will need to pay VAT. Please comment.

May I also ask about VAT registration? I know the limit is £85,000 per annum but do blips count? If I do make supplies at all, I do nothing for 364 days and then, in one day (well night really) I blast through the limit and then drop back to nil turnover. May I be excused from registration? If I do need to register should I use AnNOEL Accounting? At least I can get only one penalty per annum if I get the sums wrong.

I would like to make a claim for input tax on clothing. I feel that my red clothing not only protects me from the extreme cold, but it is akin to a uniform and should be allowable. These are not clothes that I would choose to wear except for my fairly unusual job. If lady barristers can claim for black skirts, I think I should be able to claim for red dress. And what about my annual haircut? That costs a fortune. I only let my hair grow that long because it is expected of me.

Insurance worries me too. You know that I carry some very expensive goods on my transport. Play Stations, Mountain Bikes, i-pads and Accrington Stanley replica shirts for example. My parent company in Greenland takes out insurance there and they make a charge to me. If I am required to register for VAT in England will I need to apply the Reverse Charge? This seems to be a daft idea if I understand it correctly. Does it mean I have to charge myself VAT on something that is not VATable and then claim it back again?

Next you’ll be telling me that Father Christmas isn’t real……….

HAPPY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!

Education – New funding rules impact on VAT

By Marcus Ward 9 December 2018

The government has announced it will amend the VAT law from 1 August 2019 to ensure continuity of VAT treatment for English Higher Education (HE) providers under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. The change in legislation applies to English HE providers who register with the Office for Students (OfS) in the Approved (fee cap) category.

Background

VAT exemption currently applies to UK universities and their colleges, institutions conducted by higher education corporations (HECs) and other institutions that are designated as eligible to receive support from central funding.

There are changes to the way that HE providers are funded by the OfS from the start of the 2019 to 2020 academic year. These changes require an amendment to be made to the statutory definition of an eligible body in Note 1(c) of Group 6 of Schedule 9 to the VAT Act 1994.

Paragraph 4.1 of VAT Notice 701/30 (Education and Vocational training) explains that an eligible body includes ‘a school, university, sixth form college, tertiary college or further education (FE) college or other centrally funded higher or FE institution’ (defined as such under the Education Acts).

Revised VAT treatment

Note 1(c) to Group 6 of Schedule 9 to the VAT Act 1994 is being amended in respect of HE institutions in England (only).

The exemptions that relate to FE will be unaffected, although some providers of FE that also provide HE may register with the OfS in the Approved (fee cap) category.

Note 1(c) currently refers to bodies that fall within subsections 91(5)(b) and (c) of the Further and Higher Education Act (FHEA) 1992, but subsection 91(5)(c) of FHEA 1992 will no longer apply to England once the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 fully commences.

Sub-section 91(5)(b) of FHEA 1992 will be amended so that this only applies to institutions in Wales.

In order to be bodies entitled to exempt their supplies, those English HE providers who are currently exempt by virtue of being HECs or designated institutions will in future need to be registered by the OfS in the Approved (fee cap) category.

All English HE providers who will become registered in the Approved (fee cap) category will also become entitled to exempt their supplies in future.

The overall impact of the change is to ensure that those HE providers that are currently eligible to receive central funding can continue to exempt their supplies of education.

institutions which currently fall within section 91 FHEA 1992 will have to show that they are registered with the Office for Students in order to exempt their services

HEMore details are available in VAT Information Sheet 08/18

See our education offering here

EC clamp down on yacht and aircraft VAT abuse

By Marcus Ward 8 November 2018

The European Commission (EC) has stepped up its agenda to tackle tax avoidance in the yacht and aircraft sectors by implementing infringement proceedings on tax breaks being applied in the pleasure craft industries of the Isle of Man. These provisions can generate major distortions of competition, as highlighted by last year’s ‘Paradise Papers’ leaks.

The EC has sent a formal notice to the UK in respect of the Isle of Man’s abusive VAT practices relating to sales and leasing of aircraft.

Background

Input tax is only deductible when it relates to business use of an asset. The EC says that supplies of aircraft, including leasing services, intended expressly for private use, should not be effectively VAT free. The EC believes that the UK has not taken sufficient action against abusive VAT practices in the Isle of Man on supplies and leasing of aircraft. This perceived abuse is facilitated by UK national rules which do not comply with EU law.

Broadly, arrangements are made such that a (seemingly) artificial leasing businesses is put in place and through which individuals rent their own jets from themselves. The most high-profile example of this structure is one used by Lewis Hamilton for his private jet.

Features of such arrangements are said to be:

Users of the scheme recover 100% of import VAT when it appears that an adjustment should be made for the proportion of the amount of private use intended for the aircraft
VAT should be declared and paid to any European Member States whose airports are used for leisure flights.
The leasing businesses set up for jets usually appear to be a letterbox companies with no real economic purpose. Consequently, it is unlikely that such entities should be entitled to reclaim VAT from the Isle of Man.

It is understood that the Isle of Man government has called in the HMRC which will review of 231 tax refunds issued to private jet owners since 2011 valued at circa $1billion of VAT.

Representatives of the EC are due to visit the Isle of Man this month. Similar action is being taken against Italy in respect of the lease of yachts and excise duty rates for motor boats.

What happens next?

The UK now has two months to respond to the arguments put forward by the EC regarding VAT on aircraft. If the UK authorities do not act within those two months, the EC will send a reasoned opinion. If the UK does not act within the next two months on the reasoned opinion the EC may bring the case before the Court of Justice of the EU.

Pierre Moscovici, the Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs Union, said: “It’s simply not fair that some individuals and companies can get away with not paying the correct amount of VAT on products like yachts and aircraft. Favourable tax treatment for private boats and aircraft is clearly at odds with our commonly agreed tax rules and heavily distorts competition in the maritime and aviation sectors. With this in mind, the Commission is taking action to clamp down on rules that try to circumvent EU law in these areas.”

For More Information

On the general infringements procedure, MEMO/12/12.

On the EU infringements procedure.

Commentary

We do not design, sell or advocate such schemes. Our view is that these and similar structures are, quite rightly, open to attack from the relevant authorities. They do not reflect well on those that put these structures in place nor those that benefit from them. Using a leasing scheme as such is not necessarily abusive. However, if one takes the other elements in the targeted schemes into consideration, such as the absence in motive of setting up those companies and the fact that those companies do not seem to have any substance, it is likely to lead to the action we see from the EC and its view that these schemes are abusive.

How Brexit will impact on these and similar situations remains to be seen.

VAT: Latest on MTD – deferral for some businesses

By Marcus Ward 18 October 2018

HMRC has announced the latest update on Making Tax Digital (MTD). Details of MTD here and here

Background

VAT registered businesses with a taxable turnover above the VAT threshold are required to use the MTD service to keep records digitally and use software to submit their VAT returns from 1 April 2019. We emphasise that VAT registered business with an annual turnover below £85,000 are excluded from MTD. This may be the case for voluntary registrations, “intending traders” (businesses which intend to trade in the future but have not done so yet) or small businesses.

The exception to this is a minority of VAT registered businesses with more complex requirements. HMRC have reacted to concerns of certain businesses and, as a result, decided to delay the implementation of MTD for these entities until 1 October 2019.

These entities are:

Trusts
Not for profit organisations that are not set up as a company
VAT divisions
VAT groups
Public sector entities required to provide additional information on their VAT return (eg: Government departments and NHS Trusts)
Local authorities
Public corporations,
Businesses based overseas,
Business making payments on account
Annual accounting scheme users

Timeline

Consequently, the full MTD timeline is now:

October 2018

Open to sole traders and companies (except those which are part of a VAT group or VAT Division) provided they are up to date with their VAT. Those who trade with the EU, are based overseas, submit annually, make payments on account, use the VAT Flat Rate Scheme, and those newly registered for VAT that have not previously submitted a VAT return, are unable to join at this point. Those businesses which have incurred a Default Surcharge within the last 24 months will be able to join the pilot by the end of October 2018.

Late 2018

Private testing begins with partnerships, businesses that trade with the EU, and users of the Flat Rate Scheme.

Late 2018 / early 2019

Open to other sole traders and companies who are not up to date with their VAT and businesses newly registered for VAT that have not previously submitted a VAT return.

Early 2019

Open to partnerships and those customers that trade with the EU.

Spring 2019

Pilot open for MTD customers that have been deferred.

April 2019

MTD mandated for all customers (except those that have been deferred).

October 2019

MTD mandated for businesses that have been deferred. The six month deferral applies to customers who fall into one of the following categories: trusts, ‘not for profit’ organisations that are not set up as a company, VAT divisions, VAT groups, those public sector entities required to provide additional information on their VAT return (Government departments, NHS Trusts), Local Authorities, public corporations, traders based overseas, those required to make payments on account and annual accounting scheme users.

This deferral will apply to around 3.5% of mandated businesses.