Where goods are located in a shop can affect the VAT treatment. Nuts sold in the bakery aisle are VAT free, but those sold with snacks or confectionary are standard rated.
Tag Archives: output-tax
The interaction between Transfer Pricing and VAT
Are Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments subject to VAT? – Usually no, but…
What is TP?
A transfer price is the price charged in a transaction between two parties. The transfer pricing legislation concerns itself with the prices charged in transactions between connected parties as, in such circumstances, the price charged may not necessarily be that which would have been charged if the parties had not been connected.
The UK’s transfer pricing legislation details how transactions between connected parties are handled and in common with many other countries is based on the internationally recognised ‘arm’s length principle’.
The UK allows only for a transfer pricing adjustment to increase taxable profits or reduce a tax loss. It is not possible to decrease profits or increase a tax loss.
The UK’s transfer pricing legislation also applies to transactions between any connected UK entities.
The arm’s length principle applies to transactions between connected parties. For tax purposes such transactions are treated by reference to the profit that would have arisen if the transactions had been carried out under comparable conditions by independent parties.
So, is a TP adjustment additional consideration for a supply?
VAT
Value of the supply – what is the consideration?
TP is a direct tax concept which does not necessarily align with VAT considerations. Unhelpfully, there are no provisions in UK legislation which provides for the VAT treatment of TP adjustments. Additionally, there is no case law on this subject.
As a TP adjustment is solely for direct tax purposes, it does not usually affect the value of the supply for VAT purposes. Consequently, such adjustments are usually outside the scope of VAT.
However, price adjustments of previous supply of goods/services must be recognised for VAT market value rules only when:
- the supply is taxable
- the relevant input tax is not fully recoverable and
- HMRC issues an ‘Open Market Value Notice’ to the parties requiring them to apply market values for VAT.
VAT Act 1994, Schedule 6, Part 2, para 1 gives HMRC the vires to issue such a Notice.
Latest
We understand that a case: Arcomet Romania is due to be heard by the CJEU on whether TP adjustments represent consideration and we await the outcome which may provide clarity. (Although after Brexit, the previous position: that the UK VAT Act is to be interpreted with EU case law and general principles of EU law has ended. UK courts whilst still relying on the UK VAT Act and its EU VAT Directive principles, will be able to deviate from ECJ case law).
VAT: Evidence for exports. The H Ripley case
Latest from the courts
In the H Ripley & Co Limited First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether the appellant had satisfactory evidence to support the zero rating of the export of goods (scrap metal).
Background
HMRC denied zero rating on the basis that the appellant did not provide satisfactory evidence to support the fact that the scrap metal was removed from the UK.
The requirements are set out in VAT Notice 725 para 5 and acceptable documentary evidence may include:
- the customer’s order – including customer’s name and delivery address
- inter-company correspondence
- copy sales invoice
- advice note
- packing list
- commercial transport documents from the carrier responsible for removing the goods from the UK, for example an International Consignment Note (CMR) fully completed by the consignor, the haulier and signed by receiving consignee
- details of insurance or freight charges
- bank statements as evidence of payment
- receipted copy of the consignment note as evidence of receipt of goods abroad
- a signed CMR document or note
- a bill of lading
- an airfreight invoice
- an invoice from the carrier of the goods
- official documents issued by a public authority, such as a notary, confirming the arrival of the goods
- any other documents relevant to the removal of the goods in question which you would normally get in the course of business
or a combination of the above.
HMRC advised the appellant that it had received an information request from the Belgian tax authorities in respect of certain transactions and consequently, HMRC required information on the company’s documents in connection with the supplies. On receipt of the information HMRC concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support zero-rating so the sales were treated as standard rated and the appellant’s repayment claim was reduced to reflect this.
In these circumstances the burden of proof is on the appellant to show that it has satisfied the conditions set out in Notice 725 to zero-rate its supplies and provide documentation to show that the goods were removed from the UK.
Decision
The court noted that it was not HMRC’s position that supplementary evidence could not be provided post the required three-months period but that it was entitled to decline the additional evidence when it was provided some 18 to 30 months after the three-month period. It was clear that the evidence of removal must be obtained within three months and not that the valid evidence is brought into existence within the three-month time limit and obtained at some future date.
Notice 725 sets out the conditions which attach to the entitlement to zero-rate supplies. The FTT considered it to be clear from paragraph 4.3 and 4.4 (which have the force of law) that the onus is on the exporter company claiming zero-rating to gather sufficient evidence of removal within three months of the date of the supply. If it does not do so, it is not entitled to zero-rate the supplies.
Specifically, the court considered:
- Sales Invoices – did not provide clear evidence that the goods were removed from the UK. Despite the invoices confirming the sale of scrap metal to a Belgium registered company it did not follow that the address of the purchaser is the same address as the destination that the goods were sent to.
- Bank Statements – simply provided proof of payment they did not confirm who received the goods nor where the goods were delivered.
- Weighbridge Tickets – merely confirm a consignment of scrap metal was sold to a Belgium based company and the goods were collected by a UK registered vehicle.
- CMRs – none of the CMRs were fully completed by the haulier and signed by the receiving consignee.
- P&O Boarding Cards –a taxpayer must have in its possession valid evidence of export within three months from the time of supply. The boarding cards were not provided to HMRC until 30 May 2018, some 18 to 30 months after the disputed consignments took place. It was not disproportionate for HMRC to state that the time limit for obtaining valid evidence of removal was three months and that the substantive requirements of Notice 725 had not been met. In any event, the court did not accept that the boarding cards evidence the exports of the scrap metal; none of the reference numbers on the boarding card match those used in any of the other documents and none of the lead names on the boarding cards match any of the other names in any other document. The boarding cards do not have any identifying features such that they may be matched with any of the disputed consignments.
- E-mails and WhatsApp messages –none of the messages evidence that the loads were exported. At best they evidence a request from the buyer to a carrier to collect goods from the supplier’s yard and the WhatsApp messages were silent on whether the loads were exported from the UK.
The appeal was dismissed, and the assessments were upheld because none of the documents either individually or taken as a whole, were sufficient evidence to support zero-rating.
Commentary
Yet another case illustrating the importance of insuring correct documentation is held. It is not sufficient that goods leave the UK, but the detailed evidence requirements must always be met.
VAT: Input tax claim on Land Rovers. The Three Shires Trailers case
Latest from the courts
In the Three Shires Trailers Limited First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issues were whether an input tax claim on the purchase of two Land Rover Discoveries was appropriate when they were converted from commercial vehicles to cars, or was a self-supply triggered?
Background
The vehicles were commercial vehicles when purchased and input tax was recovered. Subsequently, they were converted by the addition of three fold up seats with seat belts behind the driver seat and removing materials which had blacked out the rear windows which reclassified them as cars. This would have subjected them to an input tax block if purchased in that state.
The purpose of buying the vehicles was for the transport of trailers to customers, the collection of trailers from suppliers and to enable personnel of the appellant to attend trade fairs all over the country.
Technical
“A Motor Car” is defined as:
“any motor vehicle of a kind used on public roads which has three or more wheels and either:
(a) is constructed or adapted solely or mainly for the carriage of passengers; or
(b) has to the rear of the driver’s seat roofed accommodation which is fitted with side windows or which is constructed or adapted for the fitting of side windows…”
Issues
The appellant stated that the vehicles were used only for business purposes. Employees were not permitted to use the vehicles for private purposes and did not do so. The vehicles were kept at the business’s premises. He also explained that the vehicles were not converted to cars, if they were cars, they were qualifying cars and if they were non-qualifying cars, the use was only temporary, and they were converted back to commercial vehicles.
Initially, HMRC disallowed the claim because the vehicles became cars and subject to the input tax block.
Subsequently, HMRC’s case was that the vehicles had been converted from commercial vehicles to non-qualifying cars which triggers an irreversible self-supply under Article 5 of the Value Added Tax (Cars) Order 1992 so output tax equalling the claimed input tax was due.
Decision
The FTT decided that, at the time when the vehicles were acquired, they were indisputably commercial vehicles and the appellant was entitled to deduct the input tax on them.
The judge found that, after conversion, the vehicles were intended for use, and were used, only for business purposes. The appellant did not intend that the vehicles should be used for private purposes and so far as he was aware, there was no private use. The vehicles were therefore qualifying motor vehicles eligible for input VAT recovery. No output tax was due on a self-supply.
The appeal was allowed.
Commentary
Another case on the recovery of input tax on car purchases and the difference between commercial vehicles and cars. It is notoriously difficult to persuade HMRC that there is no private use of cars, but it is possible.
Repayment interest on VAT credits or overpayments – Update
HMRC has updated its guidance on when repayment interest is due.
If a business has claimed more input tax than it has declared output tax (a repayment return) HMRC will repay the difference by making a VAT repayment. HMRC will also repay any VAT that has been overpaid in error. Repayments are usually made within 30 days. The 30 days starts from the day HMRC receives the VAT Return and ends the day your repayment is approved (not the day it is received). HMRC does not count days taken to check the return is accurate and legitimate, and to correct any errors or omissions, as part of this 30-day period.
If HMRC is late in paying, a business may be entitled to repayment interest on any VAT that it is owed. For accounting periods starting on or after 1 January 2023, repayment interest replaces the repayment supplement.
A business, or its agent can track a VAT repayment online.
Update
Information on eligibility criteria for repayment interest on overpayments and start dates when VAT is not paid to HMRC has been amended. Information on repayment interest end dates when HMRC sets it off against your debts has also been updated.
Small businesses/start ups: Should I register for VAT voluntarily?
OK, so why would a business choose to VAT register when it need not? Let’s say its turnover is under the VAT registration limit of £90,000, isn’t it just best to avoid the VATman if at all possible?
Planning
This is not an article which considers whether a business MUST register, but rather it looks at whether it is a good idea to register on a voluntary basis if it is not compulsory. The first time a business would probably consider VAT planning.
Decision
As a general rule of thumb; if you sell to the public (B2C) then probably not. If you sell to other VAT registered businesses (B2B) then it is more likely to be beneficial.
If you sell B2B to customers overseas it is almost certain that VAT registration would be a good thing, as it would if you supply zero rated goods or services in the UK. This is because there is no output tax on sales, but full input tax recovery on costs; VAT nirvana! A distinction must be made between zero rated supplies and exempt supplies. If only exempt supplies are made, a business cannot register for VAT regardless of level of income.
Compliance
Apart from the economic considerations, we have found that small businesses are sometimes put off VAT registration by the added compliance costs (especially since MTD) and the potential penalties being in the VAT club can bring. Weighed against this, there is a certain kudos or prestige for a business and it does convey a degree of seriousness of a business undertaking. We also come across situations where a customer will only deal with suppliers who are VAT registered.
The main issue
The key to registration is that, once registered, a business may recover the VAT it incurs on its expenditure (called input tax). So let us look at some simple examples of existing businesses for comparison:
Examples
- Example 1
A business sells office furniture to other VAT registered business (B2B)
It buys stock for 10,000 plus VAT of 2,000
It incurs VAT on overheads (rent, IT, telephones, light and heat etc) of 2,000 plus 400 VAT
It makes sales of 20,000
If not registered, its profit is 20,000 less 12,000 less 2400 = 5600
If VAT registered, the customer can recover any VAT charged, so VAT is not a disincentive to him
Sales 20,000 plus 4000 VAT (paid to HMRC)
Input tax claimed = 2400 (offset against payment to HMRC)
Result: the VAT is neutral and not a cost, so profit is 20,000 less 12,000 = 8000, a saving of 2400 as compared to the business not being registered. The 2400 clearly equals the input tax recovered on expenditure.
- Example 2
A “one-man band” consultant provides advice B2B and uses his home as his office. All of his clients are able to recover any VAT charged.
He has very few overheads that bear VAT as most of his expenditure is VAT free (staff, train fares, use of home) so his input tax amounts to 100.
He must weigh up the cost (time/admin etc) of VAT registration against reclaiming the 100 of input tax. In this case it would probably not be worthwhile VAT registering – although the Flat Rate Scheme may be attractive.
- Example 3
A retailer sells adult clothes to the public from a shop. She pays VAT on the rent and on the purchase of stock as well as the usual overheads. The total amount she pays is 20,000 with VAT of 4000.
Her sales total 50,000
If not VAT registered her profit is 50,000 less 24,000 = 26,000
If VAT registered she will treat the value of sales as VAT inclusive, so of the 50,000 income 8333 represents VAT she must pay to HMRC. She is able to offset her input tax of 4000.
This means that her profit if VAT registered is 50,000 less the VAT of 8333 = 41,667 less the net costs of 20,000 = 21,667
Result: a loss of 4333 in profit.
As may be seen, if a business sells to the public it is nearly always disadvantageous to be voluntarily VAT registered. It may be possible to increase her prices by circa 20%, but for a lot of retailers, this is unrealistic.
Intending traders
If a business has not started trading, but is incurring input tax on costs, it is possible to VAT register even though it has not made any taxable supplies. This is known by HMRC as an intending trader registration. A business will need to provide evidence of the intention to trade and this is sometimes a stumbling block, especially in the area of land and property. Choosing to register before trading may avoid losing input tax due to the time limits (very generally a business can go back six months for services and four years for goods on hand to recover the VAT). Also cashflow will be improved if input tax is recovered as soon as possible.
Action
Careful consideration should be given to the VAT status of a small or start-up business. This may be particularly relevant to start-ups as they typically incur more costs as the business begins and the recovery of the VAT on these costs may be important. In most cases it is also possible to recover VAT incurred before the date of VAT registration.
This is a basic guide and there are many various situations that require further consideration of the benefits of voluntary VAT registration. We would, of course, be pleased to help.
VAT: Buildings and construction update
HMRC has amended Notice 708 which covers:
- when building work can be zero-rated or reduced-rated at 5%
- when building materials can be zero-rated or reduced-rated at 5%
- when the sale, or long lease in a building is zero-rated
- where you can find out more about the VAT domestic reverse charge for building and construction services
- when developers are blocked from deducting input tax on goods that are not building materials
- when a builder or developer needs to have a certificate from their customer, confirming that the building concerned is intended to be used for a purpose that attracts the zero or reduced rate
- when a customer can issue that certificate to a builder or developer
- what happens when a certificated building is no longer used for the purpose that attracted the zero rate, the use for that purpose decreases or the building is disposed of
- the special time of supply rules for builders
- when a business, on using its own labour to carry out building work on a building or civil engineering structure that it occupies or uses, must account for a self-supply charge
Sections 18.1 and 18.2 of the Notice and the certificates in those sections have been updated to show they have force of law under The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5, Note 12.
A VAT Did you know?
Size matters Part III – Bay plants are VAT free – as long as they are no bigger than 50cm and they have not been clipped or shaped.
Extension of VAT energy-saving materials relief
HMRC have published a new Policy Paper on the extension of energy-saving materials (ESMs).
Installations of ESMs in residential accommodation currently benefit from a temporary VAT zero rate until 31 March 2027, after which they revert to the reduced rate of VAT at 5%.
This measure extends the relief to installations of ESMs in buildings used solely for relevant charitable purposes, such as village halls or similar recreational facilities for a local community.
It also expands the scope of the relief to the following technologies:
- electrical batteries that store electricity generated by certain ESMs and from the National Grid
- water-source heat pumps
- diverters that enable excess electricity from certain ESMs to be used within a building in which it is generated rather than exported to the grid
It also adds certain preparatory groundworks that are necessary for the installation of ground- and water-source heat pumps.
The changes apply from 1 February 2024
The policy objective is to incentivise the installation of ESMs across the UK to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions.
The measures are implemented by The Value Added Tax (Installation of Energy-Saving Materials) Order 2024.
VAT treatment of serviced apartments: The Realreed Limited case
Latest from the courts
In this First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether serviced apartments qualify for exemption.
Background
Realreed owns a property called Chelsea Cloisters in Sloane Avenue, London. The property comprises; 656 self-contained apartments and some commercial units. 421 of these apartments are let on long leases (no VAT issues arise from these supplies). The appeal concerned the VAT treatment of the letting of the remaining 235 apartments, which include studio, one-bedroom or two-bedroom self-contained rooms. The appellant has, at all times, received a significant number of occupiers from corporate customers when they relocate their employees to London for a specified period, such as a secondment.
The contentions
Realreed argued that the letting of the apartments is a supply of accommodation which is exempt under The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 1, Item 1. Chelsea Cloisters operates like a ‘home from home’ for its tenants: it provides residential accommodation. The physical appearance of the building is very similar to that of other residential buildings in the vicinity. It does not have signage suggesting the serviced accommodation is a hotel or similar establishment. It is rare for hotels (or similar establishments) at the booking point to offer long-term availability in the same way as Realreed does. Chelsea Cloisters does not offer room service, or catering of any form. Tenants have fully functioning kitchens and other self-catering facilities within their apartments and have washing machines and dryers to do all their own laundry. Tenants can, and do, stay for extended periods of time (one for around 20 years). The business has always involved the provision of residential accommodation on a longer-term basis than would typically be found in a hotel, with a much higher degree of personal autonomy for the occupant.
HMRC contended that the use of the Apartments is carved out of the exemption in Item 1 by excepted item (d), which applies to “the provision in an hotel, inn, boarding house or similar establishment of sleeping accommodation”. Note 9 to Group 1 provides that “similar establishment” “includes premises in which there is provided furnished sleeping accommodation whether with or without the provision of board or facilities for the preparation of food, which are used or held out as being suitable for use by visitors or travellers”.
Decision
The court considered that Realreed provided sleeping accommodation in an establishment which is similar to a hotel. The two hallmarks of short-term accommodation coupled with additional services (daily maid service, linen changing, cleaning at the end of a stay, residents bar, concierge) mean that Chelsea Cloisters is an establishment in potential competition with the hotel sector, which also offers short-term accommodation with services.
The FTT found that Realreed provided furnished sleeping accommodation, so the remaining question was whether Chelsea Cloisters is used by or held out as being suitable for use by “visitors or travellers” per Note 9.
The FTT interpreted ‘visitor or traveller’ as referring to a person who is present in a particular place without making it their home, ie; they are not staying there with any degree of permanence. The average length of visit was less than a fortnight which must mean that the apartments were indeed made available to visitors or travellers.
The supplies were therefore standard rated.
Commentary
There is a distinction between leases and other room lettings for VAT. The most important issue is the degree of “permanence”, although other factors have a bearing. Businesses which let rooms should consider the nature of their supplies with reference to this case which helpfully sets out which factors need to be considered.