In this hot weather it is important to drink sufficient fluids. If you buy a bottle of water, you will pay VAT, but milk is zero rated.
Tag Archives: output-tax
VAT: How long do I have to keep records?
Record keeping is a rather dry subject, but it is important not to destroy records which HMRC may later insist on seeing! I have looked at what VAT records a business is required to keep here, but how long must they be kept for?
This is seemingly a straightforward question, but as is usual with VAT there are some ifs and buts.
The basic starting point
The usual answer is that VAT records must be kept for six years. However, there are circumstances where that limit is extended and also times when it may be reduced. Although the basic limit is six years, unless fraud is suspected, HMRC can only go back four years to issue assessments, penalties and interest.
Variations to the six year rule
One Stop Shop (OSS)
If a business is required to use the OSS then its records must be retained for ten years (and they should be able to be sent to HMRC electronically if asked).
Capital Goods Scheme (CGS)
If a business has assets covered by the CGS, eg; certain property, computers, aircraft and ships then adjustments will be required up to a ten year period. Consequently, records will have to be retained for at least ten years in order to demonstrate that the scheme has been applied correctly.
Land and buildings
In the case of land and buildings you might need to keep documents for 20 years. We advise that records are kept this long in any event as land and buildings tend to be high value and complex from a VAT perspective, However, it is necessary in connection with the option to tax as it is possible to revoke an option after 20 years.
Transfer Of a Going Concern (TOGC)
This is more of a ‘who” rather than a what or a how long. When a business is sold as a going concern, in most circumstances the seller of the business will retain the business records. When this happens, the seller must make available to the buyer any information the buyer needs to comply with his VAT obligations. However, in cases where the buyer takes on the seller’s VAT registration number, the seller must transfer all of the VAT the records to the buyer unless there is an agreement with HMRC for the seller to retain the records. If necessary, HMRC may disclose to the buyer information it holds on the transferred business. HMRC do this to allow the buyer to meet his legal obligations. But HMRC will always consult the seller first, to ensure that it does not disclose confidential information.
How can a business cut the time limits for record keeping?
It is possible to write to HMRC and request a concession to the usual time limits. HMRC generally treat such a request sympathetically, but will not grant a concession automatically. If a concession is granted there is still a minimum allowance period of preservation which is in line with a business’ commercial practice.
Computer produced records
Where records are stored in an electronic form, a business must be able to ensure the records’ integrity, eg; that the data has not changed, and the legibility throughout the required storage period. If the integrity and legibility of the stored electronic records depends on a specific technology, then the original technology or an equivalent that provides backwards compatibility for the whole of the required storage period must also be retained.
How to keep records
HMRC state that VAT records may be kept on paper, electronically or as part of a software program (eg; bookkeeping software). All records must be accurate, complete and readable.
Penalties
If a business’ records are inadequate it may have to pay a record-keeping penalty. If at an inspection HMRC find that records have deliberately been destroyed your they will apply a penalty of £3,000 (this may be reduced to £1,500 if only some of the records are destroyed). In addition, there will be questions about why they have been destroyed!
VAT: Mind the gap – HMRC latest figures
GOV.UK has published details of the most recent measurement of the tax gap for 2021-2022.
What is the tax gap?
The tax gap is measured by comparing the net tax total theoretical liability with tax actually paid. This is comparing the amount of tax HMRC expected to receive in the UK and the amount HMRC actually received.
The figures
The tax gap is estimated to be 4.8% of total theoretical tax liabilities, or £35.8 billion in absolute terms, in the 2021 to 2022 tax year.
Total theoretical tax liabilities for the year were £739.3 billion.
There has been a long-term reduction in the tax gap as a proportion of theoretical liabilities: the tax gap reduced from 7.5% in the tax year 2005 to 2006 to 4.8% in 2021 to 2022 – remaining low and stable between the years 2017 to 2018 and 2021 to 2022.
Criminal activity and evasion accounted for £4.1billion loss in tax collected.
30% of all underpayments of tax were due to a failure to take reasonable care, while 13% of instances were down to evasion.
A massive 56% of the tax gap is made up by small businesses (up from 40% of the total in 2017-18). Whether this is down to HMRC improving collection from large businesses or an increasing failure to crack down on small business is a moot point. It remains to be seen how HMRC react to this new information, but experience insists that small businesses may expect increased attention for the authorities.
The VAT gap
VAT represents 21% of the overall tax gap.
The VAT tax gap is 5.4%.
The absolute VAT gap is £7.6 billion.
The VAT gap has reduced from 14.0% of theoretical VAT liability in 2005 to 2006 to 5.4% in 2021 to 2022.
More than two thirds of the theoretical VAT liability was estimated to be from household consumption. The remainder came from the expenditure by businesses that supply goods and services where the VAT is non-recoverable (they are exempt from VAT), and from the government and housing sectors.
Information on the method used to estimate the VAT gap is here for those interested (I don’t imagine that there will be that many…).
So, £7.6 millions of VAT is missing. That seems an awful lot.
VAT refunds guidance
VAT Claims
HMRC has completely rewritten its manual VRM7000 on VAT repayments and set-off.
When a business makes a claim for VAT (for whatever reason) HMRC have the power to set-off a payment against other amounts due.
HMRC also has a discretion to take account of any taxpayer liabilities in other regimes HMRC administers such as corporation tax or excise duty.
In summary, the new guidance covers:
- Inherent set-off via The VAT General Regulations 1995, Section 80(2A) and Regulation 29. This is where, say, a supply was incorrectly treated as standard rated when it was exempt. It would not be possible to claim the overcharged output tax (subject to unjust enrichment) without recognising the potential overclaim of input tax as a result of partial exemption.
- Set-off under The VAT Gen Regs 1995, Section 81(3) HMRC. This covers HMRC liability to only pay a claim after setting off any VAT, penalties, interest or surcharge owed to it. Section 81(3) is mandatory and applies to the current liabilities of a taxpayer, regardless of the period incurred.
- Set-off under section 81(3A). This is a special provision which requires HMRC to set any liabilities that would otherwise be out-of-time to assess, against any amounts for which HMRC is liable under a claim. It does this by disregarding the assessment time limit, to undo all the consequences of a mistake.
- VAT group set-offs. When a company leaves a VAT group, it is still jointly and severally liable under section 43(1) VAT Act 1994 for any outstanding debts of the group incurred while the company was a member. Any VAT claim by the ex-member will be subject to set-off against these group debts.
- Set-offs against other taxes and duties. HMRC has the discretion under Section 130 of the Finance Act 2008 to set-off debts due from any other tax regimes HMRC is responsible for. This is subject to the insolvency rules in section 131 Finance Act 2008. A taxpayer should always check that no further liabilities have arisen since the claim was made.
- Transfers of rights to claim to another person (Section 133 of the Finance Act 2008) – A claim will be subject to set-off of any outstanding liabilities to HMRC from both transferor and transferee. NB: HMRC policy is to make reasonable efforts to recover outstanding debts from the original creditor before applying set-off to the current creditors claim.
A VAT Did you know?
The sale of ducks is zero rated, but racing pigeons are standard rated.
VAT: Updated Fuel & Power Notice 701/19
Call for evidence: VAT energy saving materials relief
HMRC require feedback on improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions.
The three key objectives are:
- improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions
- cost effectiveness
- alignment with broader VAT principles
HMRC is asking for responses by 31 May 2023, either via email or post.
VAT: Charity exemption for show admittance – The Yorkshire Agricultural Society case
Latest from the courts
In the Yorkshire Agricultural Society First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether payments for entry into the annual The Great Yorkshire Show qualified as exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 12, item 1 –
“The supply of goods and services by a charity in connection with an event—
-
-
- that is organised for charitable purposes by a charity or jointly by more than one charity,
- whose primary purpose is the raising of money, and
- that is promoted as being primarily for the raising of money.”
-
HMRC raised an assessment on the grounds that the supply of admittance fell outwith the exemption so it was standard rated. It appears that this view was formed solely on the basis that the events were not advertised as fundraisers.
The exemption covers events whose primary purpose is the raising of money and which are promoted primarily for that purpose. HMRC contended that the events were not advertised as fundraisers and therefore the exemption did not apply. Not surprisingly, the appellant contended that all of the tests at Group 12 were fully met.
The FTT found difficulty in understanding HMRC’s argument. It was apparent from the relevant: tickets, posters and souvenir programmes all featured the words “The Great Yorkshire Show raises funds for the Yorkshire Agricultural Society to help support farming and the countryside”.
Decision
The FTT spent little time finding for the taxpayer and allowing the appeal. The assessment was withdrawn. There was a separate issue of the assessment being out of time, which was academic given the initial decision. However, The Tribunal was critical of HMRC’s approach to the time limit test (details in the linked decision). HMRC’s argument was that apparently, the taxpayer had brought the assessment on itself by not providing the information which HMRC wanted. The Judge commented: “That is not the same as HMRC being in possession of information which justified it in issuing the Assessment. It is an inversion of the statutory test”.
HMRC’s performance (or lack of it)
Apart from the clear outcome of this case, it also demonstrated how HMRC can get it so wrong. The FTT stated that it was striking that there was very little by way of substantive challenge by HMRC to the appellant’s evidence, nor any detailed exploration of it in cross-examination. The FTT, which is a fact-finding jurisdiction, asked a series of its own questions to establish some facts about the Society’s activities and the Show in better detail. No-one from HMRC filed a witness statement or gave evidence, even though HMRC, in its application to amend its Statement of Case, had said that the decision-maker would be giving evidence. The decision-maker did not give evidence. HMRC were wrong on the assessment and the time limit statutory test and did not cover itself in glory at the hearing.
Commentary
More evidence that if any business receives an assessment, it is always a good idea to get it reviewed. Time and time again we see HMRC make basic errors and misunderstand the VAT position. We have an excellent record on challenging HMRC decisions. Charities have a hard time of it with VAT, and while it is accurate to say that some of the legislation and interpretation is often complex for NFPs, HMRC do not help by taking such ridiculous cases.
VAT: Place of supply – The Sports Invest case
Latest from the courts
In the First-Tier Tribunal case of Sports Invest UK Ltd the issue was the place of supply (POS) of a football agent’s services (commission received for a player’s transfer).
The POS is often complex from a VAT perspective and depends on the place of belonging (POB) of the supplier and the recipient of the supply. These rules determine if VAT is charged, where VAT is charged and the rate of VAT applicable, additionally, they may impose requirements to register for VAT in different jurisdictions.
Background
Sports Invest was a football agent based in the UK. It received fees in respect of negotiating the transfer of a player: João Mário from a Portuguese club: Sporting Lisbon to an Italian club: Internazionale (Inter Milan). The appellant signed a representation contract with the player which entitled it to commission, and a separate agreement with Inter Milan entitling it to a fee because the player was permanently transferred.
The Issues
To whom did Sports Invest make a supply – club or player? What was the supply? Was there one or two separate supplies? What was the POS?
As appears normal for transactions in the world of football the contractual arrangements were complex, but, in essence as a matter of commercial and economic reality, Sports Invest had agreed the commission with the player in case it was excluded from the deal. However, this did not occur, and the deal was concluded as anticipated. Inter Milan paid The Appellant’s fee in full, but did this affect the agreement between Sports Invest and the player? That is, as HMRC contended, did Inter Milan pay Sports Invest on the player’s behalf (third party consideration) such that there were two supplies; one to the player and one to the cub?
The FTT stated that there was no suggestion that the contracts were “sham documents”.
VAT Liability
The arrangements mattered, as pre-Brexit, a supply of services by a business with a POB in the UK to an individual (B2C) in another EU Member State would have been subject to UK VAT; the POS being where the supplier belonged. HMRC assessed for an element of the fee that it saw related to the supply to the player. The remainder of the fee paid by the club was accepted to be consideration for a UK VAT free supply by the agent to the club (B2B).
Decision
The court found that there was one single supply by The Appellant to Inter Milan. This being the case, the supply was B2B and the POS was where the recipient belonged and so that the entire supply was UK VAT free. There was no (UK) supply to the individual player as that agreement was superseded by the contractual arrangements which were actually put in place and the player owed the agent nothing as the potential payment under that contract was waived.
The appeal against the assessment was upheld.
Commentary
The court’s decision appears to be logical as the supply was to the club who were receiving “something” (the employment contract with the player) and paying for it. The other “safeguarding” agreement appeared to be simple good commercial practice and was ultimately “not required”. This case highlights the often complex issues of; establishing the nature of transactions, the identity of the recipient(s), agency arrangements, the POS and the legal, commercial and economic reality of contracts.
VAT: Are Turmeric shots zero rated food? The Innate-Essence Limited case
Latest from the courts
In the Innate-Essence Limited (t/a The Turmeric Co) First Tier tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether turmeric shots were zero rated food via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, general item 1 or a standard rated beverage per item 4 of the Excepted items.
The Legislation
“General items Item No 1 Food of a kind used for human consumption. …
Excepted Items Item No … 4 Other beverages (including fruit juices and bottled waters) and syrups, concentrates, essences, powders, crystals or other products for the preparation of beverages.”
The Product
Turmeric roots are crushed and the pulp sieved to extract the liquid. No additional liquids such as apple juice, orange juice or water are added during the production process.
The Shots contain:
- small quantities of crushed, whole fresh watermelon and lemons which act as a base and provides a natural preservative effect
- fresh pineapple juice
- flax oil and black pepper
All the ingredients are cold pressed to retain the maximum nutritional value of the raw ingredients. The Shots are not pasteurised as this would negatively affect the nutritional content of the Shots. No sugar or sweeteners are added to the Shots. The Shots are sold in small 60ml plastic bottles and it was stated that they provided long term health benefits.
The court applied the many tests derived from case law on similar products, and as is usual in these types of cases, the essence of the decision was on whether the Exception for beverages applied to The Shots.
Whether a product is a beverage (standard rated) is typically based on tests established in the Bioconcepts case (via VFOOD7520) as there is no definition of “beverage” in the legislation. The tests:
- it must be a drinkable liquid that is commonly consumed
- it must be characteristically taken to increase bodily liquid levels, or
- taken to slake the thirst, or
- consumed to fortify, or
- consumed to give pleasure
The principle of the tests is based on the idea that a drinkable liquid is not automatically a beverage, but could be a liquid food that is not a beverage.
The Tribunal found that the Shots were not beverages but zero rated food items. As The judge put it: “In our view, the marketing and customer reviews demonstrate clear consistency in the use to which the Shots are put. The Shots are consumed in one go on a regular, long-term basis for the sole purpose of the claimed health and wellbeing benefits. The purpose of the Shots is entirely functional: to maximise the consumers daily ingestion of curcumin which is achieved by cold pressing the raw ingredients into a liquid. We consider it highly unlikely that a consumer would attempt to ingest the same quantity of raw turmeric in solid form.
The Shots are marketed on the basis of the nutritional content of the high-quality ingredients (primarily raw turmeric) that are stated to support health and wellbeing. The Shots contain black pepper and flax oil, two ingredients that are not commonly found in beverages. The Shots are marketed as requiring regular daily consumption over a long period of time (at least three months) to provide the consumer with the claimed long-term health and wellbeing benefits. A one-off purchase of a Shot would not achieve the stated benefits of drinking a Shot”.
The Tribunal also went to consider the “lunch time pints in pubs” (The Kalron case) issue, but I would rather not comment on whether this is a usual substitute for a lunch…
The appeal was allowed.
Commentary
Yet another food/beverage case. Case law insists that each product must be considered in significant detail to correctly identify the VAT liability and even then, a dispute with HMRC may not be avoided. Very small differences in content, marketing, processes etc can affect the VAT treatment. As new products hit the shop shelves at an increasing rate I suspect that we will be treated to many more such cases in the future. If your business produces or sells similar products, it will be worth considering whether this case assists in any contention for zero rating.