Tag Archives: output-tax

VAT: EC AG’s Opinion – Are aphrodisiacs food?

By Marcus Ward 2 March 2020

Latest from the courts

It’s rare to come across anything vaguely sexy about VAT, but hey ho, aphrodisiacs were the subject of the AG’s opinion in the case of “X” – the name of the Dutch business. The document was published by the European Commission (EC) and is here but unavailable in the English language, presumably as a result of Brexit, unless anyone knows of any other reason.

Opinion

The AG, M. Maciej Szpunar decided that no, aphrodisiacs cannot be treated as food via Directive 2006/112/CE – Article 98 and are therefore not subject to a reduced rate (which would have been zero rated in the UK). The relevant element was:

“Foodstuffs” intended for human consumption “refers to products containing nutrients, and which are in principle consumed for the purpose of supplying said nutrients to the human body”. Products which are normally used to supplement or replace foodstuffs “Means products which are not foodstuffs, but which contain nutrients and are consumed in place of foodstuffs to supply these nutrients to the body, as well as products ingested in order to stimulate the nutritional functions of food or products used to replace them.

Therefore, in the AG’s opinion, the powders and capsules sold by X are different to foodstuffs and supplements and were not subject to the reduced rate. The fact that they may contain elements of nutrition did not override that they were intended to stimulate sexual desire and it was not the intention of the legislation that such products should be subject to the reduced rate as they were not “essential goods”.

That, of course, does not mean that foods which are said to contain aphrodisiac properties such as; asparagus, oysters, watermelons, celery and pomegranates are not reduced rated.

I doubt that Aphrodite – the Greek goddess of love and beauty, knew that ultimately there would be a court case on the rate of indirect tax applicable to such, err; “stimulants”.

AG’s Opinion

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) consists of one judge from each member state, assisted by eleven Advocates General whose role is to consider the written and oral submissions to the court in every case that raises a new point of law, and deliver an impartial opinion to the court on the legal solution.

VAT overpayments – HMRC to consider changes

By Marcus Ward 24 February 2020

VAT overpayments – New direct claims?

If a recipient of a supply makes an overpayment of VAT (usually as a result of standard rated tax being charged when a supply is reduced rated, zero rated or exempt) the remedy for the customer is to go to the supplier to obtain a new invoice/VAT only credit note and. repayment of the VAT paid. However, this can cause practical problems, disputes and an actual cost if a supplier has ceased business or become insolvent. HMRC has recognised that if the supplier has paid output tax on the supply then there is an inherent unfairness.

Following the decision in PORR Építési Kft. (C 691/17) which considered the principles of; proportionality, fiscal neutrality and effectiveness, HMRC invited interested parties to discuss a direct HMRC claim process where the taxpayer has pursued a refund via its supplier for overpaid incorrectly charged VAT but where, as stated in the cases, “recovery is impossible or excessively difficult”. In such cases the taxpayer “must be able to address its application for reimbursement to the tax authority directly”. In the past, HMRC has directed that such claims from them are pursued via the High Court (or County Court if under £30,000). The meeting discussed the new route to direct claims without initial court action including guidance, time limits and claim processes.

We await the outcome eagerly as this situation is quite common, I have found it is an issue particularly in; property and construction supplies, Financial Services and cross-border transactions (place of supply issues). If HMRC are minded to introduce a “direct claim” this will bring welcome relief to taxpayers and introduce fairness for all parties and do away with windfalls received by HMRC.

Brexit – Introduction of new import controls on EU goods

By Marcus Ward 17 February 2020

More red tape and delays

The government has announced new plans to introduce import controls on EU goods at the border from 1 January 2021, the day after the end of the Brexit transition period.

This will almost certainly mean additional complexity and delays at borders and will damage businesses, especially those which operate on a Just In Time (JIT) basis or import fresh food, flowers or any other goods which are subject to rapid deterioration.

It is difficult to divorce politics from commerce in these circumstances, but I have avoided commenting on this decision on a political basis, although I think it is fair to say I am not in favour.

The government commented that all UK exports and imports (currently called dispatches and acquisitions from the EU) will be treated equally. This will mean traders in the EU and GB will have to submit customs declarations and be liable to goods’ checks. It was also confirmed that the policy easements put in place for a potential No Deal Brexit will not be reintroduced as businesses have time to prepare. (HMRC have withdrawn a collection of guidance on issues including tariffs, origin, and quotas, which was prepared for a potential No Deal Brexit).

It is difficult to identify how businesses could have had time to prepare as HMRC guidance was unhelpful on this point and it was, and still is, unclear what precise arrangements a business has to prepare for. It is assumed that this a unilateral UK’ decision and it cannot be helpful for cooperation negotiations, unless these controls are what are actually wanted. In the document, it is stated that: ”Business can prepare for border controls by making sure they have an Economic Operator Registration and Identification (EORI) number, and also looking into how they want to make declarations such as using a customs agent”. That is the extent of the advice provided and repeats what has been said before.

Without wanting to amplify government propaganda, but in the interest of even-handedness, below are the reasons given for implementing import controls:

to keep our borders safe and secure so we know who’s coming in and how often, what they are bringing in, and why
to ensure we treat all partners equally as we begin to negotiate our own trading arrangements with countries around the world
to collect the right customs, VAT and excise duties
the EU has said it will enforce checks on our goods entering the Eurozone. We will likewise enforce our own rules for goods entering the UK

Also, HMRC extended the deadline for businesses to apply for customs support funding to 31 January 2021. To date, applications have been made for around £18.5 million out of a possible £26 million.

This announcement follows on from the consideration of the introduction of UK freeports here.

I hope that there are enough customs agents to go round, although the lack of any evidence that HMRC is recruiting new Customs officers suggests that perhaps it is not fully prepared itself.

Government Freeports consultation

By Marcus Ward 14 February 2020

The Government is consulting on plans to create up to ten freeports. Freeports may provide tariff flexibility, customs facilitations and tax measures designed to encourage global trade and attract inward investment post-Brexit. The proposed Freeports will have different customs rules to the rest of the country.

What is a Freeport?

Freeports are secure customs zones located at ports where business can be carried out inside a country’s land border, but where different customs rules apply. The paper says that Freeports may:

reduce administrative burdens and tariff controls
provide relief from duties and import taxes
ease tax and planning regulations
offer simplifications to normal customs processes on imported goods
encourage global trade
provide hotbeds for innovation
increase prosperity areas surrounding Freeports by generating employment opportunities
attract inward investment post-Brexit

Typically, goods brought into a Freeport do not attract a requirement to pay duties until they leave the Freeport and enter the domestic market. No duty at all is payable the goods are re-exported. If raw materials are brought into a Freeport from overseas and processed into a final good before entering the domestic market, then duties will be paid on the final good.

Government aims

It is stated that the government wants Freeports to boost trade, jobs and investment. They say that is why they are proposing cutting red tape by streamlining customs processes, exploring the use of planning measures to speed up planning processes and accelerate development and housing delivery in and around Freeports, and consulting on a comprehensive set of tax breaks to support businesses. Of course, all this would be unnecessary if Brexit had not have occurred.

Deadline

The consultation deadline is 20 April 2020 so there is not a lot of time to make your views known.

VAT: Payment handling charges – The Virgin Media case

By Marcus Ward 5 February 2020

Latest from the courts

In the Virgin Media Ltd First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case a number of issues were considered. These were:

whether payment handling charges were exempt via: The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, items (1) and (5)
whether the supply was separate from other media services
which VAT group member made the supply?
whether there was an intra-group supply
whether there was an abuse of rights

Background

Virgin Media Limited (VML) provided cable TV, broadband and telephone services (media services) to members of the public. It was the representative member of a VAT Group which also contained Virgin Media Payment Limited (VMPL).

If customers choose not to pay by direct debit, they were required to pay a £5 “handling charge”. The handling charge was paid to VMPL and passed to VML on a daily basis. The issue was; what was the correct VAT treatment of the charge?

Contentions

The appellant argued that the £5 charge was optional for the customer and the collection of it was carried out by VMPL and was exempt as the transfer or receipt of, or any dealing with, money. Further, that, despite being members of the same VAT group, there was nothing in the legislation which forced the VAT group to treat supplies by separate entities within that group as a single supply to a recipient outside the group.

HMRC contended that there was a single taxable supply and thus no exempt services were provided and, in fact, VMPL was not making a supply at all (and therefore not to VML as the group representative member). In the first alternative, if it were decided that there was a supply, such a supply was an ancillary component of a single taxable supply by VML as representative group member and not by VMPL as per the Card Protection Plan case. In the second alternative, if both decisions above went against HMRC, that the service provided by VMPL fell outside the exemption so that it was taxable in its own right.

Decision

It was found that:

there was a single supply made to customers
the supply was made by VML as the representative member of the VAT group
the £5 handling charge was an integral part of the overall supply
if not integral, the handling charge was an ancillary supply such that it took on the VAT treatment of the substantive supply
therefore, VMPL does not make any supply to the end users of the overall service
if VMPL does make a supply, it is an intra-group supply to VML which s disregarded for VAT purposes
VMPL does not have a free-standing fiscal identity for VAT purposes
if the FTT is wrong on the above points and VMPL does make a supply of payment handling services to customers, these supplies are taxable and not exempt (per Bookit and NEC) as the supply is simply technical and administrative and does not amount to debt collection
the arrangements do not constitute an abusive practice. The essential aim of the transactions are not to secure a tax advantage so HMRC’s argument on abuse fails

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and a reference to the CJEU was considered inappropriate and output tax was due on the full amount received by the group from customers.

Summary

This was a complex case which suffered significant delays. It does help clarify a number of interconnected issues and demonstrates the amount of care required when planning company structures and the VAT analysis of them.

VAT: Subjects normally taught in schools – The Premier Family Martial Arts case

By Marcus Ward 20 January 2020

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Premier Family Martial Arts LLP the issue was whether kickboxing was a subject that is ordinarily taught in schools (or universities). If it was, then the education exemption at VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, group 6, item 2 would apply as it was supplied by a partnership. If not, the tuition would be subject to VAT.

Background

The FTT found that kickboxing is a “striking” martial art. In terms of its physical attributes, kickboxing involves a mixture of boxing, karate and taekwondo and therefore includes all elements of the striking”martial arts. All martial arts involve common physical attributes such as co-ordination and balance. It also stated that; perhaps more significantly, all martial arts emphasise, in addition to the physical aspects of the various forms of martial arts, aspects of personal development such as self-discipline, respect for others, confidence, manners, teamwork and focus which meant it should be considered more than recreational. There was also evidence to the mental and social benefits of the practice of martial arts.

However, this was insufficient to qualify it as a subject “ordinarily” taught in schools. The subject does not feature on the national curriculum, there is no formal qualification or external accreditation requirement to become a kickboxing teacher and there was no formal external validation of the qualifications achieved by children who attend the Appellant’s classes.

Decision

Consequently, the tuition failed the exemption test, the appeal was dismissed and the charges for tuition were therefore subject to VAT.

Commentary

This case demonstrates that there are fine lines between different types of tuition and to which the education exemption applies. It is never safe to simply assume that a subject is ordinary taught in schools. Although many subjects are (to my mind; surprisingly) considered as exempt, it is always better to check.

As the old joke goes: two men punching each other – what’s that a bout?

VAT – Limitation on deduction of input tax on hired cars

By Marcus Ward 20 January 2020

Currently, UK businesses may claim 50% of input tax incurred on the lease of vehicles. This limitation is a simplification for persons using the vehicle for both business and non-business purposes.

The 50% restriction also applies to optional services – unless they’re supplied and identified separately from the leasing supply and excess mileage charge – if it forms part of a supply of leasing but not if it was incurred on an excess mileage charge that forms part of a separate supply of maintenance. If repair and maintenance etc are supplied separately, 100% of the input tax is usually reclaimable. The 50% restriction is a derogation from from Articles 26(1)(a), 168 and 169 of Directive 2006/112/EC. These measures remove the need for the hirer of a business car to keep records of private mileage travelled ior to account for VAT on the actual private mileage travelled in that car.

The Council Implementing Decision 2019/2230 authorised the United Kingdom, until 31 December 2022, to continue restricting to 50% the right to deduct the VAT incurred with hired or leased vehicles, which is not exclusively used for business purposes.

Brexit

This Decision shall, in any event, cease to apply to and in the UK from the day following that on which the Treaties cease to apply to the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 50(3) TEU (Brexit) or, if a withdrawal agreement concluded with the UK has entered into force; from the day following that on which the transition period ends, or on 31 December 2022, whichever is the earlier.

Changes to the VAT registration limits for overseas businesses

By Marcus Ward 16 January 2020

The (current) EU Member States have reached political agreement on correcting the current discriminatory and unfair rules on non-resident businesses. Unfortunately, these new measures will not come into effect until 1 January 2025 (well after the UK will have left the EU).

Background

Under the current rules a Non-Established Taxable Person (NETP) is required to register and account for VAT in a Member State as soon as any supply is made there. There is a zero threshold, so, for example, if a French company makes a UK supply of £100 it will be required to register here. Compare this to a UK company which will be able to make supplies up to £85,000 per annum without needing to register or pay UK VAT. Blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary based on where a company belongs. It also distorts competition and is inherently unfair. This is the position across the EU, so UK businesses will be suffering in other countries. This has long been a bugbear of mine!

New rules

From 2025 EU Member States have agreed to extend the threshold to all business making supplies. NETPs will have similar VAT registration thresholds as domestic businesses in each country. The registration limits will not be able to exceed €85,000 per year and overseas businesses may only benefit from this if their total sales across the EU are below an amount of €100,000. This is to avoid large enterprises benefiting from the small company threshold.

Outcome

The change will bring a level playing field between domestic and overseas business and will remove significant compliance costs which fall disproportionally on SMEs. This could also encourage small businesses to explore overseas markets without falling foul of; overseas regimes, potential penalties for innocent errors and the disincentive of domestic businesses having a commercial competitive tax advantage over those based overseas.

It is a pity that these changes will not be applied for another five years. It does beg the question why it will take so long. Of course, we have yet to see how Brexit plays out. It is not outside the bounds of reason to imagine the EU Member States excluding the UK from the new rules, nor the UK not implementing them at all here.

VAT Notice 700/7: Business promotions – updated

By Marcus Ward 10 January 2020

Further to my articles here, here, and here HMRC have, on 30 December 2019, updated the relevant Notice which covers, inter alia; business gifts, samples and promotional schemes.

The changes are summarised here:

Technical content has been updated to take account of developments in both law and policy on vouchers
A new section has been added as a result of the changes to the treatment of vouchers issued after 1 January 2019
The definition of the meaning of a gift has been amended
An explanation of the treatment of the disposal of obsolete stock has been added

This can be a complex area of VAT, especially valuation, and care should be taken when promotion schemes are being considered.

VAT: Digital newspapers zero-rated. The News Corp case

By Marcus Ward 10 January 2020

Latest from the courts

Hot on the heels of the update to e-publications here comes new from the Upper Tribunal (UT) in the News Corp UK and Ireland Ltd case.

Background

The issue was whether electronic editions of The Times (plus other e-newspapers from the same company: The Sunday Times, The Sun and The Sun on Sunday) were “newspapers” within the meaning of The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 3, Item 2 and could therefore be treated as zero rated.

The relevant part of Schedule 8, Group 3 (where relevant), lists the following items:

“1 Books, booklets, brochures, pamphlets and leaflets.

2 Newspapers, journals and periodicals…”,

At the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) the appeal was dismissed, and the decision went in favour of HMRC. Details here. The facts were consistent throughout both hearings.

Decision

The UT agreed with the FTT in that there was no material difference between the two types of supply despite the sale of e-newspapers being supplies of services and the sale of physical newspapers being supplies of goods.

That being the case, it was possible to interpret Schedule 8, Group 3. Item 2 as extending to e-publications, which, of course, did not exist when the legislation was drafted in 1972. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the e-newspapers were zero rated. Such treatment did not extend the scope of UK zero rating which would not be permitted by the EU.

The UT also indicated that the zero rating would be subject to some restrictions in respect of what may be treated as e-publications.

It was observed that it is important that the legislation should be interpreted in a way that maintained its relevance and that the “always speaking” * principle is preserved.

Commentary

The EC European Council (EC) has previously agreed to allow Member States to apply reduced VAT rates to electronic publications. This UT case appears to confirm that this will extend to UK zero rating. Other Members States have already applied reduced rates or are in the process of doing so. The UK have not previously announced its approach, so this decision is likely to force their hand (notwithstanding the fallout from Brexit…).

Action

Supplies or e-publications should review their sales and decide whether their supplies are on fours with this case. If so, it may be possible to make a retrospective claim for overpaid output tax, subject to certain conditions.

Recipients of such supplies should consider approaching their suppliers and obtain a repayment of overpaid VAT if it represents a cost to them.

“Always speaking” is an influential principle that is recited in materials on legislative drafting as the justification for using the present tense, adopted in many common law jurisdictions as a principle of interpretation, and accepted as a foundation for the linguistic analysis of the use of tense in statutes. It is particularly relevant where technology has outpaced the law.