Tag Archives: output-tax

New VAT Group rules

By Marcus Ward 6 November 2019

Changes to VAT Group rules – an increased opportunity

From 1 November 2019 the rules for VAT grouping have changed.

What is a VAT group?

A VAT group allows two or more entities to account for VAT under a single registration number with one of the corporate bodies in the group acting as the representative member.

The group is registered in the name of that representative member, who is responsible, on behalf of all of the other members of the group, for completing VAT returns and paying and reclaiming VAT.

All supplies of goods and services made by any member of the group to a third party outside the group are treated as having been made by the representative member. Similarly, any supply of goods or services made by a third party outside the group to any member of the group is treated as having been made to the representative member.

Supplies of goods or services between group members are not subject to VAT and a single VAT return will be completed each period for the entire group, as opposed to separate businesses submitting individual returns.

The changes

Prior to 1 November, only bodies corporate were able to form a VAT group (mainly companies and LLPs). From the beginning of this month, VAT grouping is additionally available for all entities, including; partnerships, sole traders and trusts in certain cases.

Eligibility

Via existing legislation, grouping is permitted if the control tests are passed. Bodies corporate can form a VAT group if:

each is established or has a fixed establishment in the UK
they are under common control

(There are additional tests for certain ‘specified bodies’ set out in Notice 700/2 para 3.2)

‘Control’ has a specific meaning based on the definition of holding company and subsidiary in section 1159 of and Schedule 6 to the Companies Act 2006.

New changes to eligibility

Non-corporate entities such as individuals and partnerships can now join a VAT group if they meet all of the following conditions:

they are established, or have a fixed establishment in the UK
they can demonstrate that they control all of its body corporate subsidiaries in the group. The test will apply assuming the non-corporate entity would pass the test if it was a corporate body, eg; usually meaning 51% or more of share capital in the relevant company/companies
they can demonstrate that they are entitled to VAT register independently of any other business (the distinction here is that a body corporate may be included in a VAT group if it is not trading, nor intends to trade)

The current eligibility to group is set out at VAT Act 1994, Section 43A and has been updated with a new section 43AZA which includes the new changes.

VAT Group pros and cons

So, would it be beneficial to VAT group entities? I set out here the pros and cons for businesses.

Pros

only one VAT return per quarter – less administration
no VAT on supplies between VAT group members.
no need to invoice etc or recognise supplies on VAT returns
likely to improve partial exemption position if exempt supplies are made between group companies.
likely to improve input tax recovery if taxable supplies are made to partly exempt group companies
may provide useful planning opportunities/convenience at a later date.

Cons

all members of the group are jointly and severally liable for any VAT due
only one partial exemption de-minimis limit for group
obtaining all relevant data to complete one return may take time thus increasing the potential for missing filing deadlines
a new VAT number is issued
assessments can be issued to the representative member relating to earlier periods when it was not the representative member and even when it was not a member of the group at that time
the limit for voluntary disclosures of errors on past returns applies to the group as a whole (rather than each company having its own limit)
payments on account limits apply to the group as a whole. This applies to a business whose VAT liability is more than £2million pa. Please see HMRC Reference: Notice 700/60 details here
may detrimentally affect partial exemption position if a partly exempt company makes taxable supplies to a fully taxable group company

Planning

If you think that there is a potential advantage for you, or your clients’ business, in VAT grouping, please contact us to discuss the VAT position.

VAT: What’s a TOGC (and what’s not)? – The General Distribution Storage case

By Marcus Ward 7 October 2019

Latest from the courts

A Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC) is an area of VAT which produces a lot of issues and is a subject which is returned to on a regular basis in the courts. The General Distribution Storage Ltd (GDSL) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) TC 07352 [2019] case provides a warning that getting it wrong can be costly.

Background

The appellant owned the freehold of a commercial property. This property was rented to a third party. Subsequently, the property was sold with the benefit of the existing lease, to Hartlone Scaffolding Ltd (HSL). Output tax was charged and paid on the value of the sale as the property was subject to an option to tax. HSL also opted to tax before the date of completion. On the same day, HSL sold on the property to Foundry Investments Ltd (FIL) and again, VAT was charged and paid.

FIL made a claim for the input tax charged which caused a pre-credibility enquiry from HMRC. During the inspection, HMRC noted that, although GDSL had charged VAT, it had neither declared, nor paid the VAT to HMRC. An assessment was issued to recover this output tax.

The appellant claimed that no VAT was due because the sale of the tenanted building qualified as a VAT free TOGC, ie; it was not a taxable sale of an opted commercial property, but rather, it was the sale of a property letting business which was a going concern.

Technical

TOGC provisions

Normally the sale of the assets of a VAT registered business will be subject to VAT at the appropriate rate. A TOGC, however is the sale of a business including assets which must be treated as a matter of law, as “neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services” by virtue of meeting certain conditions (summarised below). It is always the seller who is responsible for applying the correct VAT treatment. Transfer Of a Going Concern treatment is not optional. A sale is either a TOGC or it isn’t. It is a rare situation in that the VAT treatment depends on; what the purchaser’s intentions are, what the seller is told, and what the purchaser actually does. All this being outside the seller’s control. Full details of TOGCs here.

TOGC Conditions

The conditions for VAT free treatment of a TOGC:

The assets must be sold as a business, or part of a business, as a going concern
The assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part (HMRC guidance uses the words “intend to use…” which, in some cases may provide additional comfort)
There must be no break in trading
Where the seller is a taxable person (VAT registered) the purchaser must be a taxable person already or immediately become, as a result of the transfer, a taxable person
Where only part of a business is sold it must be capable of separate operation
There must not be a series of immediately consecutive transfers

Where the transfer includes property which is standard-rated, either because the seller has opted to tax it or because it is a ‘new’ or uncompleted commercial building the purchaser must opt to tax the property and notify this to HMRC no later than the date of the supply.

Please note that the above list has been compiled for this article from; the legislation, HMRC guidance and case law. Specific advice must be sought.

Decision

It was decided that TOGC could not apply in these circumstances. The buyer, HSL, at the time of the sale, could not have intended to carry on the property letting business as it immediately sold on the freehold (at a profit) on the same day. As above, TOGC treatment does not apply if there is a “series of immediately consecutive transfers”. The appeal was consequently dismissed, and output tax was therefore properly due.

Commentary

This appears to have been the only available conclusion. It illustrates the importance of considering VAT whenever a supply of property is made. It is unclear why VAT was initially charged and why this was not declared to HMRC (and it if was thought a TOGC, why the VAT position was not subsequently corrected by the issue of a VAT only credit note). This is a complex area of the tax and an easy issue to miss when there are a considerable number of other factors to consider when a business (or property) is sold. Extensive case law (example here and changes to HMRC policy here ) insists that there is often a dichotomy between a commercial interpretation of a going concern and HMRC’s view.

Contracts are important in most TOGC cases, so it really pays to review them from a VAT perspective.

I very strongly advise that specialist advice is obtained in cases where a business, or property is sold. Yes, I know I would say that!

VAT: ‘Intention’ – The Euro Beer case

By Marcus Ward 7 October 2019

Latest from the courts, the Euro Beer Distribution Ltd First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case.

The intention of a taxpayer is extremely important for a number of reasons. It is relevant where:

a VAT registration is requested
input tax is claimed
and in this case; whether deregistration is compulsory

Broadly, immediate action is dependent upon whether a business intends to make taxable supplies in the future. This intention dictates whether registration is possible, whether input tax may be claimed, and whether a business may remain VAT registered. Even if a business has the intention to make taxable supplies, it is sometimes difficult to evidence this to HMRC’s satisfaction.

Background

Euro Beer was in the business of importing and selling alcoholic drinks. It had been in business since 2004 and was also approved and registered as an owner of duty suspended goods under the Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999.

Technical

HMRC compulsorily deregistered Euro Beer via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, para 13 (2) on the grounds that it believed that the appellant had ceased making taxable supplies. Nil returns had been submitted since 2016 and, after enquires, formed the view that there was no intention to make supplies in the future.

Euro Beer contended, unsurprisingly, that there was an intention to make taxable supplies in the future such that continued VAT registration was appropriate. Additionally, the reason for the nil returns was simply, at that time, business had dried up. The appellant provided limited evidence to support its intention. This comprised; emails between the directors and third-party contacts.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed and Euro Beer’s VAT deregistration (and revocation of approval from the Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999) was confirmed as appropriate.

Commentary

This was hardly a surprising decision and one wonders why it got to court. It does, however, emphasise the importance of the concept of intention. This can be a subjective matter and HMRC place significant weight on documentary evidence. There is no question in law that HMRC must register/maintain registration/repay input tax if it is satisfied that there is a business which does not make taxable supplies but ‘intends to make such supplies in the course or furtherance of that business’ – VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, para 9 (b). However, ensuring HMRC is satisfied is often problematic.

This is specifically difficult in the area of land and property. VAT registration and the associated input tax claims of a property developer is often the source of disputes. It is important to differentiate between an intention, and what actually happens. Often business plans change, or the original intention is not fulfilled. In such cases, there is a mechanism for repaying input tax claimed (VAT Gen regs 1995 reg 108) but this is only applicable in certain circumstances. The case of Merseyside Cablevision Ltd (MAN/85/327, VTD 2419) demonstrates that if an intention to make taxable supplies is thwarted, input tax claimed is not clawed back (a person who carries on activities which are preparatory to the carrying on of a business is to be treated as in business and is a taxable person).

It should be noted that a business does not have to specify a date by which it expects to make taxable supplies, or to estimate the value of them.

The lesson is; to document every business decision made:

board minutes, emails, business plans, letters etc
retain all correspondence with; third-parties
provide written advice from legal advisers, accounts etc
invoices demonstrating expenditure in respect of a new venture are persuasive
budgets and considered estimates can be of use
retain all advertising media, offers, promotions and other publicity.

Clearly for land and property additional; planning permission, land registry details, plans, surveys, fees, etc will build up a picture that there is an intention to make taxable supplies.

These are just examples and different business may have alternative evidence.

In commercial terms, it will be difficult for HMRC to be unsatisfied if a business is incurring costs in relation to a project – why would they devote time/staff/advisers/financial resources to something when there is no intention of deriving income?

One final point on the Euro Beer case. The judge stated; ‘an intention to make supplies requires more than a mere hope to be in a position to make supplies at some unspecified time in the future’. It is not enough for a business to ‘generally’ state that there is an intention.

VAT: Apportionment and best judgement – The Homsub case

By Marcus Ward 3 October 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Homsub Ltd case the issue was the apportionment of values when a supply comprises goods at different VAT rates.

Further to the M & S case here is another First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case on the value of food and drink in meal deals. It also considered whether HMRC exercised ‘best judgement’ when it carried out an invigilation exercise to establish the percentage split between supplies subject to VAT and those which were not.

Background

Homsub is a franchisee in respect of Subway products, essentially being hot and cold food, which can be consumed either on or off their premises.

HMRC had concerns that the correct amount of output tax was being declared on sales. Consequently, it carried out an invigilation exercise as follows: The invigilators recorded, in respect of each of the five outlets, each sale made and annotated it with whether it was eat in or take out. A record was also made as to whether the food was hot or cold. Those differences needed to be recorded because of the different VAT treatment in respect of hot food and cold food on the one hand and eat in and take out food on the other. All eat in food is taxable, while some takeaways are zero rated. Further information here.

Contentions

Homsub complained that the methodology adopted by HMRC was flawed as it was not sufficiently refined to give rise to a reasonably reliable overall picture. It was argued that the exercise should have been undertaken by reference to transaction values, rather than the number of transactions. That is – HMRC should have looked at the value of supplies made which did attract VAT as compared to the value of supplies made which did not attract VAT.

The court identified that the true area of concern on the part of the respondents was that Subway sometimes had promotions called “Meal Deals” whereby several products would be bundled together for a single headline price.

Homsub contended that a meal deal offer was available to customers whereby for the all in price of £3 a customer could purchase a sandwich (hot or cold) and a drink (which could be a fizzy drink or hot beverage upon which VAT would be due). If the meal deal involved hot food, then it would be subject to VAT.

HMRC’s issue was that because of the way in which the appellant’s till was set up, it treated £2.99 of each meal deal as attributable to the sandwich (VAT free if cold) and only 1p to the accompanying drink which, if subject to VAT, would mean that the VAT would be one fifth of one penny.

Outcomes

Homsub stated that it is entitled to run its business as it sees fit and to make such commercial decisions as best suit its business. The appellant said that it is entitled to sell loss leaders, as do many major retailers, or to sell stock at less than cost price if that somehow serves the best overall commercial interests of the business.

The court ruled that this was not a true loss leader situation. This was a transaction were goods are packaged together to be sold at a single price. What must be done is to look at the reality of the transaction when apportioning the part of the money paid by the customer between the various components within the package of goods sold. Consequently, Homsub needed to apportion the sales value in a different way. This would not necessarily be on the basis of the relevant retail prices. This is because accurate apportionment is difficult, especially as, as Homsub explained, that labour is by far the largest cost component within the cost of a sandwich and the overall meal deal package, that is; much more staff labour was devoted to preparing sandwiches than serving drinks.

If the case stopped there, there would be additional output tax for Homsub to pay. However…

Methodology and best judgement

The court decided that the assessment methodology adopted by HMRC was significantly flawed and potentially misleading. A simple count of transactions that did attract VAT and those which did not attract VAT might be capable of being appropriate in certain kinds of business, but not in this case. Further, a statistician or forensic accountant would be ‘alarmed to find that the methodology used by HMRC was considered to be either acceptable or such as to give rise to a reasonably reliable result’. In court, the representative of HMRC was forced to agree with this interpretation- which must have caused embarrassment. The court also said that it was not its function to go on to undertake any kind of assessment to ascertain what, if any, additional VAT might be due.

Decision

In the court’s judgement the methodology was flawed to such an extent that it would be wholly unreasonable, and unfair to the appellant, to base a best judgement assessment thereon. The appeal was therefore allowed.

Commentary

Always have assessments of this sort reviewed. There is significant case law on ‘best judgement’ most salient being: Van Boeckel v C&E [1981] and Rahman v HMRC. Additionally, HMRC often make certain assumptions on assessments based on invigilation and mark up exercises. These can be challenged, as can the methodology. As examples, HMRC need to recognise, inter alia;

seasonal trade variations
discounts
customer preferences (in this case, Homsub explained that at some of its shops’ locations a lot of customers were students and preferred to take away rather than eating in)
representative periods
sales/special offers
the times invigilations were carried out (were they representative of all trade?)
the number of invigilations and ‘test meals’ – were they sufficient to establish a fair overall picture of the business?
own and staff use
business promotions
loss of goods (destroyed, waste, stolen etc)
gross/net
gifts to customers
alternative methods
HMRC staff experience etc

All of these and other situations can affect expected sale values.

I have further set out how HMRC operate in these situations here.

I have a success rate of over 90% in getting these types of assessments reduced or completely withdrawn. Please do not simply accept HMRC’s decision, nor the, increasingly, bullying stance they can adopt. Always challenge!

VAT: Extent of welfare exemption – The Lilias Graham Trust case

By Marcus Ward 3 October 2019

Latest from the courts

Certain welfare services are exempt from VAT via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, Item 9 – services which are directly connected with the care or protection of children. In the The Lilias Graham Trust (LGT) First Tier Tribunal case, the scope of the exemption was considered.

Background

LGT, which has charitable status, operated residential assessment centres, which supported parents (many of whom had mental health issues) in learning how to care for their children.

It was common ground that LGT’s services were as summarised in a letter from Glasgow City Council (where relevant):

LGT is an assessment centre providing assessment services on the parenting capacity of those referred to the service
The assessment services cover families where there is an uncertainty about whether the parent(s) can safely look after their children
LGT is simply acting as an observer watching the parent’s care for their own children and providing information in the form of advice
LGT is not providing any treatment in the form of medical care for any illness or injury
LGT’s recommendation following the assessment provides a recommendation to social workers around whether the parent(s) has sufficient capacity to keep their child safe and healthy
GCC viewed the residential accommodation as a fundamental part of the provision of the assessment services on the parenting capacity of those families which were referred to LGT.

Although the major part of LGT’s income came from the Local Authority fees, it is also subsidised to a degree by grants and donations.

Technical

In this case the odd position was that HMRC was arguing for exemption because, in learning how to care for their children, the services were “closely linked” to welfare services or “directly connected” to them as provided for by the Principal VAT Directive and the VAT Act in turn.

LGT contended that their supplies to a Local Authority (which could recover any VAT charged) were taxable as they did not fall within the welfare definition. LGT admitted that there was a causal relationship between the services provided and the care and protection of children, but the connection was too remote to be deemed to be a direct connection – There were several intervening factors and intermediaries between the service provided and the care and protection of children.

At issue was net input tax of circa £400,000 which would be recoverable by LGT if its supplies were taxable, but not if they were exempt. Guide to partial exemption here.

Decision

The court found that the essential purpose of the supplies made by LGT was to ensure that the child was better cared for and had optimal protection. That is precisely why the Local Authority employed LGT. Its supplies are both closely linked and directly connected with the protection of children as also to their care. Accordingly, the appellant made supplies of welfare services which are exempt from VAT. The fact that LGT provided its services to the Local Authority rather than the parents did not mean that its services should be taxable. Therefore, there was no output tax chargeable to the Local Authority and no input tax recovery by LGT on expenditure attributable to those exempt supplies.

Commentary

In this case, HMRC originally ruled that the services were taxable and LGT were required to VAT register, it even issued a late registration penalty. HMRC clearly subsequently changed its view which put input tax which LGT had recovered at risk. There are often disputes on the extent of the exemption, and sometimes debates on whether a service is supplied, or simply staff providing their services. It is important to understand these sometimes subtle differences as getting it wrong can be costly, as LGT found out.

VAT: Digital services to EU customers after Brexit

By Marcus Ward 1 October 2019

HMRC has published guidance on how to account for digital sales to EU customers when the UK’s MOSS system becomes redundant. Full document here.

After Brexit, businesses will no longer be able to use the Mini One Stop Shop (MOSS) to declare sales and pay VAT due in EU Member States.

The final return period for MOSS will be the period ending 31 December 2019.

A business will be able to use MOSS to:

submit a final return by 20 January 2020
amend the final return until 14 February 2020
update registration details until 14 February 2020
view previous returns

For sales made after Brexit, a business will need to register for either:

VAT MOSS in any EU member state
VAT in each EU member state where you sell digital services to consumers.

Registration deadline

A business will need to register by the 10th day of the month following its first sale to an EU customer after Brexit.

A business cannot register before Brexit.

The EC website may be used to:

check whether a business should register for Union or Non-Union MOSS
find out who to contact to register for VAT MOSS in an EU member state.

Further details are provided in the HMRC guidance.

The above assumes that the UK will leave the EU, and that there will be no agreements on VAT before Brexit

What are digital services?

Radio and television broadcasting services

These include:

the supply of audio and audio-visual content
live streaming

Telecommunications services

This means transmission of signals of any nature by wire, optical, electromagnetic or other system and includes:

fixed and mobile telephone services
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
voice mail, call waiting, call forwarding, caller identification, 3-way calling and other call management services
paging services
access to the internet

Electronically supplied services

These rules only apply to e-services that you supply electronically and includes things like:

supplies of images or text, such as photos, screensavers
supplies of music, films and games
online magazines
website supply or web hosting services
distance maintenance of programmes and equipment
supplies of software and software updates
advertising space on a website

VAT: Disaggregation – The Caton case

By Marcus Ward 12 September 2019

Latest from the courts.

In the Charles John Caton First Tier tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether HMRC were correct in deciding that a business was artificially split to avoid VAT registration (so called disaggregation, details here).

Background

The appellant ran a café known as The Commonwealth for a number of years. Subsequently, his wife opened a restaurant in adjoining premises. HMRC decided that this was a single business and required a backdated VAT registration. This resulted in a retrospective VAT return and associated penalties for late registration.

HMRC pointed to the leases, the liability insurance and the alcohol licence, which are all in Mr Caton’s name, together with the fact he signed a questionnaire stating that he was sole proprietor of the restaurant, and the fact that the washing up area is shared, and say that these show that there was only one business. They also said that the fact that Mrs Caton did not have a bank account and therefore card takings from the restaurant went into Mr Caton’s bank account further bolsters their case.

The appellant proffered the following facts to support the contention that there were two separate businesses: There were separate staff in the restaurant and the café. Those for the cafe were hired by Mr Caton, and are his responsibility, and those for the restaurant were hired by Mrs Caton and are her responsibility. The cooking is done completely separately, by different people using different cooking areas. The menus are completely different, and when the café sells the restaurant ‘specials’ they are rung up on the till with a marker that shows they are restaurant sales. Although the majority of the food is ordered from the same place, there are separate orders (even though these orders are placed at the same time and paid for using Mr Caton’s bank account). Mrs Caton decides on the menu for the restaurant and the prices. She keeps the cash generated from the sales in the cafe, and this is not banked in Mr Caton’s account. Depending on the ratio of cash sales to card sales in any given month, she may need to pay some of it to Mr Caton for the rent, rates etc, but any surplus she keeps.There were two tills, one for the restaurant and one for the cafe.

The Law

The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 1A provides that:

(1) Paragraph 2 below is for the purpose of preventing the maintenance or creation of any artificial separation of business activities carried on by two or more persons from resulting in an avoidance of VAT.

(2) In determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above whether any separation of business activities is artificial, regard shall be had to the extent to which the different persons carrying on those activities are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links.

VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 2 provides that:

(1)… if the Commissioners make a direction under this paragraph, the persons named in the direction shall be treated as a single taxable person carrying on the activities of a business described in the direction…

Decision

The judge decided that she considered the facts that point to the businesses being run and owned as two separate operations were significantly stronger that facts that point to a joint ownership. And the appeal was allowed.

Commentary

These types of cases are decided on the precise facts. I think that this one must have been a close call. It appears the fact that may have swung it was that the judge commented “We find it extremely surprising, in this case, that HMRC have never met with Mrs Caton or, in correspondence, asked her for any details. Mr Caton and HMRC have both told us that he has consistently maintained from the first meeting the fact that Mrs Caton runs the restaurant. We find it impossible that HMRC could be in possession of facts sufficient to make a reasonable decision on this case without hearing from Mrs Caton.” That approach by HMRC is never going to play well in court. It strikes me that this type of approach is increasing in the department. Whether this is down to lack of training, resources or simple corner cutting to save time I cannot say.

If HMRC issue a direction under VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 2 that two or more businesses should be treated as one, it is always worth having that decision reviewed. This is especially relevant in cases such as this where customers are the final consumers making the VAT sticking tax.

VAT: Exempt medical treatment – The Skin Rich case

By Marcus Ward 9 September 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Skin Rich Ltd [2019] TC 07310 First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether Botox and nail treatments could be exempt as health and welfare services: “The supply of services consisting in the provision of medical care” by a “registered person” (principally, doctors, opticians, osteopaths, chiropractors and nurses).

Background

Skin Rich Ltd operated a skin culture and aesthetics clinic offering a range of specialist skin treatments including, but not limited to, Botox and dermal filler treatments or ‘Injectables’ and fungal nail treatments it contended were exempt from VAT.

The appellant employed several medical professionals to administer the injectables arguing it was a medical procedure and exempt under VATA 1994, Sch. 9, Grp. 7, items 1 and 2. It was not enough, however, that the services were provided by persons registered as appropriate, they had to be providing “medical care” in order to meet the terms of the exemption. Their principal purpose had to be the protection, including the maintenance or restoration of health. Whilst it was conceded a cosmetic benefit would not preclude a treatment having a primary purpose to protect, restore or maintain the health of an individual.

Decision

The FTT dismissed the appeal that Botox services and fungal nail treatment supplied by them were exempt under VATA 1994, Sch. 9, Grp. 7, items 1 and 2, or alternatively item 4. Consequently, output tax was due on the full value of these supplies. The FTT was not persuaded the services were principally to protect, restore or maintain the health of an individual. They did not, therefore, meet the definition of medical care established by the relevant case law. Furthermore, they did not consider the taxpayer to be “state regulated” as required by item 4.

Commentary

This can be a difficult area of the tax. I have dealt with a number of cases where apparent cosmetic surgery (breast augmentation and liposuction etc) were argued to have beneficial mental health outcomes. Case law on this matter is sometimes conflicting. Care should be taken when determining the VAT liability of certain procedures. The tests are more than something being “sort of medical”.

This was not an unexpected outcome, but presumably the appellant thought that, for the tax involved, it was worth going to court.

VAT: Domestic Reverse Charge for builders – introduction delayed

By Marcus Ward 9 September 2019

As you were…

The UK Government has announced that it is to delay the introduction of the VAT Domestic Reverse Charge (DRC) for construction businesses by a year after a coalition of trade bodies and organisations highlighted its potentially damaging consequences. Details of DRC here

The DRC was due to come into force from 1st October this year, but it has been announced via Revenue and Customs Brief 10 (2019): domestic reverse charge VAT for construction services – delay in implementation that it has been deferred for a year. The new implementation date will be 1 October 2020 unless there are further delays.

The move has been welcomed by all parties affected by the rules and HMRC said that it was committed to working closely with the sector to raise awareness and provide additional guidance to make sure all businesses will be ready for the new implementation date.

Invoices etc

HMRC have also recognised that some businesses have already put changes in place to anticipate the original introduction date and appreciate that it may not be possible to reverse these changes before 1 October 2019. Where “genuine errors” have occurred, HMRC has stated that it will take into account the late change in its implementation date.

Comments

The Chief Executive of the Federation of Master Builders said “I’m pleased that the government has made this sensible and pragmatic decision to delay reverse charge VAT until a time when it will have less of a negative impact on the tens of thousands of construction companies across the UK. To plough on with the October 2019 implementation could have been disastrous given that the changes were due to be made just before the UK is expected to leave the EU, quite possibly on ‘no-deal’ terms.” The situation hasn’t been helped by the poor communication and guidance produced by HMRC. Despite the best efforts of construction trade associations to communicate the changes to their members, it’s concerning that so few employers have even heard of reverse charge VAT.”

It has been stated by certain trade bodies that more than two-thirds of construction firms had not heard of the VAT changes and of those who had, around the same number had not prepared for them. My own experience backs this up and talking to other tax people and building businesses it is clear that this is not an issue which has been publicised widely and despite accountancy firms doing their best to bring it to the attention of relevant clients and contacts, many remain unaware.

Commentary

Discussions over Brexit (obviously!) have been blamed for the situation, although there is no word about why HMRC waited until a month before the intended implication to decide to delay the DRC. A lot of work has been carried out on this matter, and changes to documentation, processing and systems have taken place which will need to be reversed before 1 October 2019. At least the delay will provide HMRC with a new chance to let affected parties know next time and gives them time to identify why so many building businesses were unaware of the reverse charge.

Whether the DRC IS introduced next year remains to be seen. To my mind, it does not deal with the major sources of tax leakage in the construction industry and, as usual, complaint business will play by the book and those that do not will find a way round the rules. To exclude labour only services appears to be a folly. Perhaps they will be amended before next year.

VAT EU Gap Report

By Marcus Ward 5 September 2019

Mind the gap

EU countries lost €137 billion in VAT revenues in 2017 according to a study released by the EC on 5 September 2019. The VAT Gap has slightly reduced compared to previous years but remains very high.

This gap represents a loss of 11.2% of the total expected VAT revenue.

During 2017, collected VAT revenues increased at a faster rate of 4.1% than the 2.8% increase of VAT Total Tax Liability (VTTL). As a result, the overall VAT Gap in the EU Member States saw a decrease in absolute values of about EUR 8 billion or 11.2% in percentage terms.

Member States in the EU are losing billions of Euros in VAT revenues because of tax fraud and inadequate tax collection systems according to the latest report. The VAT Gap, which is the difference between expected VAT revenues and VAT actually collected, provides an estimate of revenue loss due to tax fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance, but also due to bankruptcies, financial insolvencies or miscalculations.

In 2017, Member States’ VAT Gaps ranged from 0.6% in Cyprus, 0.7% in Luxembourg, and 1.5% in Sweden to 35.5% in Romania and 33.6% in Greece. Half of EU-28 MS recorded a Gap above 10.1%.

Overall, the VAT Gap as percentage of the VTTL decreased in 25 Member States, with the largest improvements noted in Malta, Poland, and Cyprus and increased in three – namely Greece, Latvia, and Germany.

The variations of VAT Gaps between the Member States reflect the existing differences in terms of; tax compliance, fraud, avoidance, bankruptcies, insolvencies and tax administration. Other circumstances could also have an impact on the size of the VAT Gap such as economic developments and the quality of national statistics.

The UK

In the year 2017, in the UK the VTTL was £158421 millions of which £141590 millions was actually collected. This leaves a VAT gap for the UK of £16831 millions which represents 11% of the amount which is estimated was due to HMRC. About a mid-table performance compared to other Member States.