Children’s clothing is zero rated. But where a child has one foot larger than the other, the pair of shoes can be zero-rated if the smaller shoe qualifies as a child’s size (boys 6 1/2 and girls; generally, size 3).
Children’s clothing is zero rated. But where a child has one foot larger than the other, the pair of shoes can be zero-rated if the smaller shoe qualifies as a child’s size (boys 6 1/2 and girls; generally, size 3).
Latest from the courts
In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Sonder Europe Limited (Sonder) the issue was whether apartments leased to Sonder and used to provide short-term accommodation to corporate and leisure travellers were supplies of a designated travel service via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) and whether the bought-in supply was used for the direct benefit of travellers (as required by TOMS).
Background
Sonder leased apartments from landlords on a medium to long-term basis and used them to provide accommodation to travellers on a short-term basis (one night to a month; the average stay being five nights). Sonder furnished some apartments as well as undertaking occasional decorating and maintenance.
The sole issue was whether these supplies are covered by TOMS. TOMS is not optional.
Initially in the FTT it was decided that output tax was due via TOMS. This was an appeal by HMRC against that First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision.
The issue
Whether VAT was accountable using TOMS – on the margin, or on the full amount received from travellers by Sonder.
Legislation
TOMS is authorised by the VAT Act 1994, section 53 and via SI 1987/1806.
Arguments
Sonder contended that the supply was “for the direct benefit of the traveller” as required by the VAT (Tour Operators) Order 1987 and that the accommodation was provided “…without material alteration or further processing”. Consequently, TOMS applied. The FTT decided that Sonder did not materially alter or process the apartments.
HMRC maintained that the FTT decision was based on the physical alternations made rather than the actual characteristics of the supplies. Consequently, these were not supplies covered by the 1987 Order and output tax was due on the total income received for these services.
Decision
The UT upheld HMRC’s appeal and decided that TOMS did not apply n these circumstances The UT found that the FTT’s decision was in error in that it did not have regard to whether the services bought in were supplied to it for the direct benefit of travellers. Furthermore, the short-term leases to occupy property as holiday accommodation were materially altered from interests in land for a period of years supplied by the landlords.
The services received by Sonder from the landlords were not for the direct benefit of the travellers and Sonder’s supplies were not for the benefit of the users without material alteration and further processing. Consequently, there was not a supply of bought-in services, but rather an ‘in-house’ supply which was not covered by TOMS.
To the UT, the position was even clearer in relation to unfurnished apartments. Sonder acquired an interest in land for a term of years in an unfurnished apartment. It furnished the apartment and then supplied a short-term licence to a traveller to occupy as holiday accommodation. What was supplied to the traveller was materially different to what was supplied to Sonder.
Commentary
Another illustration of the complexities of TOMS and the significant impact on a business of getting the rules wrong. The fact that the UT remade the decision demonstrates that different interpretations are possible on similar facts. Moreover, even slight differences in business models can result in different VAT outcomes.
VAT and digital platforms
Via section 349 of the Finance (No.2) Act 2023, measures were introduced which require certain UK digital platforms to report information to HMRC about the income of sellers of goods and services on their platform. HMRC then exchange this information with the other participating tax authorities for the jurisdictions where the sellers are tax resident.
Under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) rules, digital platforms in participating jurisdictions will be required to provide a copy of the information to the taxpayer to help them comply with their tax obligations.
Now HMRC have recently (last month) issued a new series of guidance , or updated guidance, on digital platform reporting, which are:
Selling goods or services on a digital platform
This Guidance explains the details a business needs to give to digital platforms when selling goods or services in the UK. A section on what information sellers will receive from online platforms has been added.
It covers:
Check if you need to carry out digital platform reporting
This guidance provides information on:
Register to carry out digital platform reporting
This sets out:
Managing digital platform reporting
This provides guidance on:
VAT Bsics
Opting To Tax commercial property
Opting to tax provides a unique situation in the VAT world. It is the only example of where a supplier can choose to add VAT to a supply….. or not.
What is an option to tax (OTT)?
The sale or letting of a property is, in most cases, exempt (VAT free) by default. However, it is possible to apply the OTT to commercial property. This has the result of turning an exempt supply into a taxable supply at the standard rate. It should be noted that an OTT made in respect of a residential property is disregarded and consequently, the supply of residential properties is always exempt (unless it is the first time sale of a new build – in which case it is zero-rated).
Why opt?
Why would a supplier then deliberately choose to add VAT on a supply?
The only purpose of OTT is to enable the optor to recover or avoid input tax incurred in relation to the relevant land or property. The OTT is a decision solely for the property owner or landlord and the purchaser or tenant is not able to affect the OTT unless specific clauses are included in the lease or purchase contracts. Care should be taken to ensure that existing contracts permit the OTT to be taken. Despite a lot of misleading commentary and confusion, it is worth bearing in mind that the recovery or avoidance of input tax is the sole reason to OTT.
Once made the OTT is usually irrevocable for a 20-year period (although there are circumstances where it may be revisited within six months of it being taken – see below). There are specific rules for circumstances where the optor has previously made exempt supplies of the relevant land or property. In these cases, HMRC’s permission must usually be obtained before the option can be made.
What to consider
The important questions to be asked before a property transaction are:
These are the basic questions to be addressed; further factors may need to be considered depending on the facts of a transaction.
Input tax recovery
Input tax relating to an exempt supply is usually irrecoverable. In fact, a business only making exempt supplies is unable to register for VAT. A guide to partial exemption here. So input tax incurred on, say; purchase, refurbishment, legal costs etc would be lost if a property was sold or rented on an exempt basis. In order to recover this tax, it must relate to a taxable supply. If an OTT is taken, the sale or rent of the property will be standard rated which represents a taxable supply. VAT on supply = input tax claim.
Two-part process
The OTT is a two-part process.
There can be problems in cases where the OTT is taken, but not formally notified.
Timing
It is vital to ensure that an OTT is made at the correct time. Even one day late may affect the VAT treatment. Generally speaking, the OTT must be made before any use of the property, eg; sale or rent. Care should also be taken with deposits which can trigger a tax point before completion.
Disadvantages
As mentioned above (and bears repeating) the benefit of taking the OTT is the ability to recover input tax which would otherwise fall to be irrecoverable. However, there are a number of potential disadvantages.
Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC)
I always say that advice should be taken in all property transactions and always in cases of a TOGC or a possible TOGC. This is doubly important where an opted building is being sold, because TOGC treatment only applies to a sale of property when specific tests are met. A TOGC is VAT free but any input tax incurred is recoverable, so this is usually a benefit for all parties.
Revoking an Option To Tax
Summary
Property transactions are high value and often complex. The cost of getting VAT wrong or overlooking it can be very swingeing indeed. I have also seen deals being aborted over VAT issues. Of course, if you get it wrong there are penalties to pay too. For these reasons, please seek VAT advice at an early stage of negotiations.
More on our land and property services here
In the aftermath of the horrific Grenfell fire, a lot of buildings require unsafe cladding to be replaced.
A new Brief clarifies HMRC’s policy on the deduction of VAT incurred on cladding remediation works which are carried out on existing residential buildings. It sets out:
Broadly, the distinction is whether the work qualifies as snagging. If it does, the VAT treatment follows the liability of the original building work – zero rated if the original construction was of a zero-rated new residential building, ie; they are supplied in the course of construction of a qualifying building.
If not snagging, the remedial work will be standard rated.
If the work is standard rated, it may be recoverable by the recipient in certain circumstances.
Snagging
HMRC’s definition of snagging is “the carrying out of remedial works to correct faulty workmanship or replace faulty materials”. Normally, it is carried out by the original developer under the terms of the original contract. This means it is not seen as a separate supply of construction services. Snagging covers faults that are:
More details on snagging here.
Furthermore, HMRC has published Guidelines for Compliance GfC11. This guidance covers HMRC’s existing policy on the VAT treatment of remedial works and includes:
HMRC state that its policy has not changed.
HMRC has published new guidance in its internal manual VATHLT2035.
It covers the services of the medical and paramedical professions: Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates.
Regulation for Anaesthesia Associates (AAs) and Physician Associates (PAs) came into effect on 13 December 2024. A full registration is required by December 2026. The exemption will only apply to the AAs and PAs that have joined from the date of registration.
Anaesthesia Associates
AAs are specialised practitioners trained to perform certain medical procedures related to anaesthesia under the supervision of qualified medical personnel. They are not doctors but play a crucial role in the healthcare system by assisting in the administration of anaesthesia and monitoring patients during surgical procedures. AAs are authorised to perform specific procedures they are trained and approved for. They will be regulated by the General Medical Council (GMC). Their services will be exempt from VAT, provided they are carried out for the purpose of medical care.
Physician Associates
PAs are healthcare professionals who support doctors in diagnosing and managing patients. They are trained to perform various medical procedures and provide care under the supervision of doctors. PAs are not doctors but are essential members of the multidisciplinary healthcare team, enhancing the capacity of healthcare services. They are meant to supplement, not replace, the role of doctors. Their services will be exempt from VAT, provided they are carried out for the purpose of medical care.
The exemption is via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7.
In or out?
If a biscuit is covered, even partially, in chocolate the VAT is 20%, but if the chocolate is inside, say a choc chip cookie or a bourbon, it is VAT free.
HMRC have released a recorded webinar about VAT on private school fees — what you need to do, and when and how to register.
It covers:
Children’s clothes are zero-rated. These include; hats, caps, braces, belts, garters and scarves, but not earmuffs – which are standard rated even if they are for children.
Latest from the courts
In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Procurement International Ltd (PIL) the issue was whether the movement of goods constituted a zero-rated export.
Background
Both parties essentially agreed the facts: The Appellant’s business is that of a reward recognition programme fulfiller. The Appellant had a catalogue of available products, and it maintained a stock of the most ordered items in its warehouse. PIL supplied these goods to customers who run reward recognition programmes on behalf of their customers who, in turn, want to reward to their customers and/or employees (reward recipients – RR). The reward programme operators (RPOs) provide a platform through which those entitled to receive rewards can such rewards. The RPO will then place orders PIL for the goods.
A shipper collected the goods from PIL in the UK and shipped them directly to the RR (wherever located). The shipper provided the services of delivery including relevant customs clearances etc. on behalf of the Appellant. PIL had zero-rated the supply of goods sent to RRs located overseas. All goods delivered to RRs outside the UK are delivered duty paid (DDP) or delivered at place (DAP). As may be seen by Incoterms the Appellant remained at risk in respect of the goods and liable for all carriage costs and is responsible for performing or contracting for the performance of all customs (export and import) obligations. The Appellant was responsible for all fees, duties, tariffs, and taxes. Accordingly, the Appellant is responsible for, and at risk until, the goods are delivered “by placing them at the disposal of the buyer at the agreed point, if any, or at the named place of destination or by procuring that the goods are so delivered”.
Contentions
HMRC argued that in situations where the RPO was UK VAT registered, the appellant was making a supply of goods to the RPO at a time when the goods were physically located in the UK, and consequently there was a standard-rated supply. It issued an assessment to recover the output tax considered to be underdeclared.
PIL contended that there was a supply of delivered goods which were zero-rated when the goods were removed to a location outside the UK. It was responsible (via contracts which were accepted to reflect the reality of the transactions) for arranging the transport of the goods.
Decision
The FTT held that there was a single composite supplies of delivered goods, and these were a zero-rated supply of exported goods by PIL. The supplies were not made on terms that the RPOs collected or arranged for collection of the goods to remove them from the UK. The Tribunal found that the RPOs took title to the goods at the time they were delivered to the RR, and not before such that it was PIL and not the RPOs who was the exporter. This meant that the RPOs would be regarded as making their supplies outside the UK and would be responsible for overseas VAT as the Place Of Supply (POS) would be in the country in which it took title to the goods (but that was not an issue in this case).
The appeal was allowed, and the assessment was withdrawn.
Legislation
Domestic legislation relevant here is The VAT Act 1994:
Some paragraphs of VAT Notice 703 have the force of law which applies here, namely the sections on:
Commentary
The Incoterms set out in the relevant contracts were vital in demonstrating the responsibilities of the parties and consequently, who actually exported the goods. It is crucial when analysing the VAT treatment of transactions to recognise each party’s responsibilities, and importantly, when (and therefore where) the change in possession of the goods takes place.