Tag Archives: outside-the-scope

VAT: Changes to the treatment of forfeited deposits

By   1 February 2019
0

HMRC have announced via its Policy Paper Customs Brief 13 (2018) that the VAT treatment of forfeit, or “no-show” deposits will change from 1 March 2019.

The changes affect businesses that receive payments for services and part payments for goods and the customer does not:

  • use the service
  • collect the goods

Typically, this could be a hotel which reserves a room for a deposit which is retained if the customer is a no-show.

Current treatment

Prior to 1 March 2019, charges for unfulfilled supplies and the retention of customer deposits are treated as outside the scope of VAT (and consequently VAT free). This is on the basis that either no supply had been made or, in the alternative, the retention of the deposit represents compensation for a loss, or the costs necessarily incurred.

Practically, this means that output tax is payable on the initial deposit, but this is adjusted if subsequently there is a no-show or goods are not collected.

New treatment

From 1 March 2019, HMRC’s new policy will be that output tax is due on all retained payments for unused services and uncollected goods. Where businesses become aware that a customer has decided not to take up goods or services after paying, the transaction will remain subject to VAT. No adjustments or refunds of VAT will be allowed for those retained payments.

This means that when a non-repayable deposit is taken, VAT will always be due on the payment, regardless of subsequent events. However, if a deposit is returned, there will be no VAT due on it.

The rationale for the new treatment, according to HMRC is that; “because when a customer makes or commits to make a payment, it is for a supply. It cannot be reclassified as a payment to compensate the supplier for a loss once it is known the customer will not use the goods or services”

Who is affected?

Clearly, any business that takes non-refundable deposits will be hit by the new rules. These will be mainly; hotel and accommodation providers, hirers of goods, transport suppliers, the entertainment sector and bespoke goods. (And apparently, in Bulgaria; the production and marketing of bread and pastries according to the Firin OOD case).

Technical

HMRC base their decision on this matter on CJEU decisions in Air France-KLM and Firin OOD) and claim that is treatment is unavoidable.

Please find more details of deposits and advance payments in general here

Please contact me should you have any queries.

 

VAT – Latest from the courts: impact of outside the scope income

By   25 July 2016
0

Outside the scope (of VAT)  income leads to loss of input tax: Upper Tribunal (UT) decision

In the recent UT case of VCS it was decided that input tax relating to outside the scope activities of the appellant was not recoverable.

Background

VCS is a car park operator, which manages and operates car parking for its clients on private land. Inter alia, providing parking control services, including the issue of parking permits and enforcement action (solely at the discretion of VCS).

In practice, most of VCS’s revenue is derived not from providing parking permits, but from parking charge notices (“PCNs”) which it issues to motorists who are in breach of the rules for parking in the car parks. In the period considered, approximately 92% of VCS’s income came from PCNs, and just 8% from parking permits. In March 2013 the Court of Appeal (CoA) decided that the PCN revenue was not subject to VAT. This was because VAT is chargeable only in respect of revenue from the supply of goods or services. The CoA held that the PCN revenue was not earned in respect of supplies of services liable to VAT. Rather, the PCN revenue represented damages for breach of contracts between VCS and the motorists and/or damages for trespass by the motorists.

Decision

The UT agreed with the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that that VCS was not entitled to recover input tax that related to outside the scope (PCN) income and that it was reasonable to assume that since 92% of the income generated by VCS was outside the scope of VAT, only 8% of the input tax incurred on its costs should be deductible.

Commentary

It is clear that there is a direct link between the general overheads of the business in respect of which VCS incurred input VAT and both VCS’s taxable supplies of parking permits and the PCN income.  The appellant’s contention that a taxable person (such as VCS) is entitled to deduct all the input tax if the goods or services are used to any extent for the purposes of taxed transactions was doomed to failure and the chairman stated that “…we accept HMRC’s interpretation of Article 168 PVD. Accordingly, where purchased goods or services are used by a taxable person both for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible (ie; taxable supplies) and for transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible (ie; where the transactions do not constitute economic activity or do not constitute taxable supplies (even though they may be transactions undertaken in the course of a taxable person’s business) or where the supplies are exempt), VAT may only be deducted in so far as (that is, to the extent that) it is attributable to taxable supplies.”.

There are no surprises in this decision, but it serves as a timely reminder that not only is “VAT free” income not always a beneficial treatment, but any income that does not relate to a business’s’ taxable supplies can create costs and complexities, whether it be outside the scope, non-business, or exempt.

Outside the scope income can be received by any business in certain circumstances, and it must be recognised in its VAT reporting as this case demonstrates that not all input tax may be recovered and there is no de minimis for input tax attributed to outside the scope and non-business, it is simply not input tax.

Full case Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS)