Tag Archives: penalties

VAT: What is a TOGC? Why is it important?

By   6 June 2019
0

What is a Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC)?

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. It is always the seller who is responsible for applying the correct VAT treatment and will be required to support their decision.

Where the sale meets the conditions, the supply is outside the scope of VAT and therefore VAT is not chargeable.

The word ‘business’ has the meaning set out in The VAT Act 1994, section 94 and ‘going concern’ has the meaning that at the point in time to which the description applies, the business is live or operating and has all parts and features necessary to keep it in operation, as distinct from its being only an inert aggregation of assets.

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. This may be the date of completion or, if earlier, the date of receipt of payment or part payment (eg; a deposit). There are additional anti-avoidance requirements regarding the buyer’s option to tax

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.

Property transfer

The sale of a property may qualify for TOGC if the above tests are met. Usually, but not exclusively, a TOGC sale is the sale of a tenanted building when the sale is with the benefit of the existing lease(s) – (the sale of a property rental business rather than of the property itself). Another example of a property TOGC is where a property under construction is sold (a development business). As may be seen, timing with a property TOGC is of utmost importance. For example, an option to tax one day late will invalidate TOGC treatment. A guide to land and property.

What purpose do the TOGC rules serve?

The TOGC provisions are intended to simplify accounting for VAT when a business changes hands. The main purposes are to:

  • relieve the buyer from the burden of funding VAT on the purchase, helping businesses by improving their cash flow and avoiding the need to separately value assets which may be liable at different rates or are exempt and which have been sold as a whole
  • protect government revenue by removing a charge to tax and entitlement to input tax where the output tax may not be paid to HMRC, for example, where a business charges tax, which is claimed by the new business but not paid by the selling business

What if it goes wrong?

TOGC 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.

Add VAT when TOGC treatment applies:

Often, the TOGC point can be missed, especially in complex property transactions.

The addition of VAT is sometimes considered a “safe” VAT position. However, output tax will have been charged incorrectly, which means that when the buyer claims VAT shown on the relevant invoice, this will be disallowed. This can lead to;

  • potential penalties and interest from HMRC
  • the buyer having to recover the VAT payment (often the seller, having sold a business can be difficult to track down and then obtain payment from)
  • significant cash flow issues (HMRC will need to be repaid the input tax claim immediately)
  • if a property sale, SDLT is likely to be overpaid

Sale treated as a TOGC when it is a taxable supply:

When VAT free TOGC treatment is applied to a taxable supply (possibly as one, or more of the TOGC conditions are not met) then there is a tax underdeclaration. The seller will be assessed by HMRC and penalties and interest are likely to be levied. There is then the seller’s requirement to attempt to obtain the VAT payment from the buyer. Similarly to above, this is not always straightforward or possible and it may be that the contract prohibits additional payment. There is likely to be unexpected funding issues for the buyer if (s)he does decide to make the payment.

Considering the usually high value of sales of businesses, the VAT cost of getting it wrong can be significant.

Summary

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 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. I sometimes find that the buyer’s intentions change such that the TOGC initially applied becomes invalid when the change in the use of assets (from what was notified to the seller) actually takes place.  HMRC is not always sympathetic in these situations. One of the questions I am often asked is: “How long does the buyer have to operate the business after purchase so that TOGC treatment applies?” Unsurprisingly, there is no set answer to this and HMRC do not set a specific period. My view, and it is just my view, is that an absolute minimum time is one VAT quarter.

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: Land & Property – Option To Tax Update

By   3 June 2019
0

Who opts to tax?

HMRC have published an updated Public Notice 742A The changes are in connection with authorised signatories, in particular; corporate bodies, overseas entities and powers of attorney. It is important to establish who can sign an option to tax (OTT) form VAT1614A as getting it wrong may invalidate an OTT with potentially very expensive consequences.

A guide to the OTT here.

It seems an appropriate time to look at who can sign an OTT form. HMRC guidance states:

“The person responsible for making the decision and notifying the option to tax depends on the type of legal entity holding (or intending to hold) the interest in the land or building, and who within that entity has the authority to make decisions concerning VAT. In most cases it will be the sole proprietor, one or more partners (or trustees), a director or an authorised administrator. If you have appointed a third party to notify an option to tax on your behalf, HMRC requires written confirmation that the third party is authorised to do so.”

Some specific situations:

Beneficial owners

In cases where there is both a beneficial owner and a legal owner of land or buildings for VAT purposes it is the beneficial owner who is making the supply of the land or building. It is therefore the beneficial owner who should OTT. This may not be the case where the beneficiaries are numerous, such as unit trusts and pension funds. In these cases, the person deemed to be making the supply is the trustee who holds the legal interest and receives the immediate benefit of the consideration.

Joint owners

Joint ownership is where two entities purchase land or buildings together, or one party sells a share in property to another party. Usually, a supply may only be made by both entities together. The two entities should OTT together as a single option and register for VAT account for output tax as a single entity (usually a partnership even if it is not a partnership for any other purpose.).

Limited partnerships

Under the Limited Partnership Act 1907 every limited partnership must be registered with Companies House. A limited partnership is made up of one or more general partners, who have unlimited liability, and one or more ‘limited’ partners, who are not liable for debts and obligations of the firm. A limited partner is unable to take part in the management.

If there is only one general partner and one or more limited partners, the general partner is treated as a sole proprietor for VAT registration purposes. If there are two or more general partners and one or more limited partners, the general partners are treated as a partnership. It is the general partners who should OTT.

Limited liability partnerships (LLPs)

An LLP has separate legal status from its members and is able to enter into contracts in its own right. An LLP is a body corporate and is may register for VAT. If the partnership decides to OTT, one or more members, as the authorised signatory must sign the notification.

Authorised persons for particular legal entities 

In order for an OTT to be notified effectively, it must be signed and dated by an authorised person who possesses the legal capacity to notify a decision.

List of authorised signatories

Legal entity Authorised persons
Sole trader (proprietor) Owner of the business
Trust Trustee (or partner if VAT2 is completed)
Partnership (UK) Any partner (on VAT2)
Partnership (Scotland) Any partner
Limited partnership (UK) General partner
Limited partnership (Scotland) General partner
Limited Liability Partnership Designated member or member
Unincorporated Association Chairperson, treasurer, trustee or company secretary
Limited company Company director or company secretary
Community Interest Company (CIC) Company director or company secretary
Charitable Incorporated Organisation Director, chairperson, treasurer, trustee, or company secretary
Community Benefit Society Chairperson, treasurer, trustee or company secretary
Local Authority Section 151 officer (or Section 95 officer in Scotland), town clerk, head of finance, or treasurer
VAT group Director or company secretary of the group member that owns the property
Government department Nominated VAT liaison officer or finance manager (or a person senior to either)
Corporate body acting as a director, trustee or company secretary Any office holder or employee authorised by the corporate body (as long as the corporate body itself has authorisation from the owner the property)
Overseas entity Director or manager
Power of attorney Anyone granted a power of attorney to administer or manage the tax affairs of the owner of a property

Commentary

An invalid OTT may result in, among other things:

  • Input tax recovery being barred
  • A potential Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC) becoming subject to VAT
  • VAT registration being denied
  • Unwanted complexity in transactions with the potential for a deal to be aborted
  • Costs in unwinding the VAT position (if firefighting is possible)
  • Uncertainty
  • Delays in transactions
  • A dispute between two sides to a transaction
  • Past input tax being the subject of clawback
  • The Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) being triggered resulting in VAT costs and complexity
  • HMRC levying penalties and interest

It is important to get the, seemingly simple, process of OTT right, and right first time!

The ABC of VAT – property

By   28 May 2019
0

A glossary

Anyone who has had even the slightest brush with VAT will know that it is a very complex tax. Now, multiply that complexity by the intricacy and occasionally arcane nature of property law and one may see that the outcome will be less than straightforward. I have produced a general guide and an article on residential property VAT Triggerpoints

I hope the following glossary will help with steering through some of the difficulties.

  • Annex– a building which is joined to or is next to a larger main building usually an extension or addition to a building
  • Assign – to transfer the right or interest in a property from one party to another
  • Break clause – a clause allowing either landlord or tenant to give written notice after a particular date or period of the tenancy in order to end the tenancy
  • Beneficial owner – party deemed to make a supply of property rather than the legal owner
  • Blocked input tax – VAT which a developer is unable to recover when constructing a new dwelling. Typically, expenditure on good such as; carpets, fitted furniture, and gas and electrical appliances
  • Building materials– goods ordinarily incorporated into a property which attracts similar VAT treatment to the construction services.
  • Capital Goods Scheme(CGS) – a method of calculating the recovery amount of input tax incurred on property over a ten-year period, Details of the CGS here
  • Certificate – a document issued to a supplier in order to obtain certain zero-rated or reduced-rated building work
  • Change of number of dwellings– usually a conversion from commercial to residential, or a single house into flats (or flats into a single house) at 5% VAT
  • Consideration– a thing done or given in exchange for something else = a supply. Usually quantified in money, but in some cases non-monetary consideration
  • Construction of new dwellings – a zero rated supply
  • Contract – legal document detailing the agreement of terms between the vendor and buyer
  • Contractor – entity responsible for building works
  • Conversion–work on a non-residential building which results in a property designed as a dwelling(s) being created
  • Covenants – rules governing the property in its title deeds or lease. May impact the definition of dwellings
  • Curtilage– either a garden, or an area surrounding a building which is deemed to be part of the property
  • Designed as a dwelling– a property initially designed for residential use, regardless of any subsequent alternative use
  • Dilapidations – items that have been damaged during a tenancy for which the tenant is responsible for the cost of repair or replacement. Usually VAT free
  • DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – a scheme which ‘self-builders’ to recover VAT on a new build dwelling or conversion. Details here
  • Dwelling– a building deemed to be residential
  • Empty house – if, in the ten years before work on a dwelling starts, it has not been lived in, the work may be subject to 5% rather than 20% VAT
  • Exempt– a supply that is VAT free. It usually results in attributable input tax falling to be irrecoverable
  • Facade– a wall (or two walls on a corner plot) which may be retained without affecting the zero rating of a new dwelling construction
  • Grant– a supply of an interest in land
  • Holiday home – the sale or long lease of a holiday home cannot be zero-rated even if it is designed as a dwelling
  • Housing Association – a non-profit organisation which rents residential property to people on low incomes or with particular needs
  • In the course of construction– meaningful works that have occurred in relation to the construction of a building (but prior to its completion)
  • Incorporated goods – goods sold with a new dwelling which are zero rated and to which the input tax block does not apply. See white goods
  • Input tax– VAT incurred on expenditure associated with property
  • Interest in, or right over, land– the right to access to and use of, land. Usually via ownership or lease
  • Lease – legal document governing the occupation by the tenant of a premises for a specific length of time
  • Licence to occupy– a permission to use land that does not amount to a tenancy
  • Live-work units – a property that combines a dwelling and commercial or industrial working space. Usually subject to apportionment
  • Major interest–a supply of a freehold interest or a lease exceeding 21 years
  • Multiple occupancy dwelling – a dwelling which is designed for occupation by persons not forming a single household
  • New building–a commercial building less than three years old the sale of which is mandatorily standard
  • Non-residential– a commercial building which is not used as a dwelling
  • Open market value – likely sale price with a willing seller and buyer, with a reasonable period of marketing and no special factors affecting the property
  • Option to tax (OTT) – act of changing the exempt sale or letting of a commercial into a taxable supply. The purpose is to either; recover input tax or avoid input tax being charged. Details here
  • OTT disapplication– the legal removal of a vendor’s option to tax
  • OTT not applicable – the OTT does not apply to residential buildings (so VAT can never apply to dwellings)
  • OTT revocation– the ability to revoke an option to tax after six months or twenty years
  • Partial exemption– a calculation to attribute input tax to exempt and taxable. Generally, VAT incurred in respect of exempt supplies is irrecoverable
  • Person constructing – a developer, contractor or sub-contractor who constructs a building
  • Premium – upfront payment for a supply of property
  • Relevant Charitable Purpose (RCP)–the use by a charity for non-business purposes or for use as a village hall or similar
  • Relevant Residential Purpose (RRP)– dwelling used for certain defined residential purposes, eg; children’s home, a hospice or student accommodation
  • Reverse surrender– a tenant surrenders an onerous lease to the landlord and makes a payment to surrender
  • Share of freehold – where the freehold of the property is owned by a company and the shareholders are the owners of the property
  • Single household dwelling– a building designed for occupation by a single household
  • Snagging – the correction of building faults. Usually follows the VAT liability of the original work
  • Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) – tax paid by a purchaser of a property. SDLT is increased if the sale of a commercial property is the subject of an option to tax
  • Substantial reconstruction– certain significant works to a listed building
  • Surrender– a tenant surrenders the lease to the landlord in return for payment
  • Taxable supply– a supply subject to VAT at the standard, reduced or zero-rate
  • Use as a dwelling – a building which was designed or adapted for use as someone’s home and is so used
  • Vendor – entity selling a property
  • Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC) – the VAT free sale of the assets of a business as a going concern. This may include a tenanted property
  • Zero-rated– a taxable supply subject to VAT at a rate of 0%

We strongly recommend that advice is obtained if any property transaction is being undertaken.

Details of our land and property services may be found here.

VAT: Treatment of vouchers, gifts and discounts – How business promotions work

By   24 May 2019
0
Business promotions are an area of VAT which continues to prove complex.  This is further exacerbated by changes to the legislation at EU and domestic level and ongoing case law. The main points are; whether there is a supply, and, if so, what is the value of that supply?

I hope that the VAT position is helpfully summarised here. I thought it may be useful if the VAT treatment of various business promotion schemes is summarised in one place.

…I recall a statement from an old mentor of mine; “if you have a marketing department you have a VAT issue!”

Summary

Offer How to charge VAT
Discounts Charged on the discounted price (not the full price)
Gifts Charged on the gift’s full value – there are some exceptions listed below
Multi-buys Charged on the combined price if all the items have the same VAT rate. If not, VAT is ‘apportioned’ as mixed-rate goods
Money-off coupons, vouchers etc No VAT due if given away free at time of a purchase. If not, VAT due on the price charged
Face value vouchers that can be used for more than one type of good or service (multi-purpose) No VAT due, if sold at or below their monetary value
Face value vouchers that can only be used for one type of good or service (single-purpose) VAT due on the value of the voucher when issued
Redeemed face value vouchers Charged on the full value of the transaction at the appropriate rate of the goods provided in return for the voucher

 Exceptions for gifts

There’s no VAT due on gifts given to the same person if their total value in a 12 month period is less than £50.

Free goods and services

A business is not required to account for VAT on things like free samples if they meet certain conditions.

Supplies Condition to meet so no VAT due
Free samples Used for marketing purposes and provided in a quantity that lets potential customers test the product
Free loans of business assets The cost of hiring the asset is included in something else you sell to the customer
Free gifts The total cost of all gifts to the same person is less than £50 in a 12 month period
Free services You don’t get any payment or goods or services in return

Background

Face value vouchers

Recent changes, radically alter the UK rules for face value vouchers (FVV). FVVs are; vouchers, tokens, stamps (physical or electronic) which entitle the holder to certain goods or services up to the value on the face of the vouchers from the supplier of those goods or services.

Examples of FVVs would include vouchers sold by popular group discount websites, vouchers sold by high street retailers, book tokens, stamps and various high street vouchers.

Single or multi-purpose

The most important distinction for FFVs is whether a voucher is a single purpose voucher or multi-purpose voucher. If it is a multi-purpose voucher then little has changed. If it is a single purpose voucher, however, HMRC will now required output tax to be accounted for at the date it is issued.

Single purpose vouchers are vouchers which carry the right to receive only one type of goods or services which are all subject to a single rate of VAT. Multi-purpose vouchers are anything else. The differences can be quite subtle.

For example:

  • a voucher which entitles you to download an e-book from one seller will be a single purpose voucher. A voucher which entitles you to either books (zero rated) or an e-book download (standard rated) from the same seller will be multi-purpose
  • a voucher which entitles you to £10 of food at a restaurant which does not sell takeaways is probably single purpose, whereas if the restaurant has a cold salad bar and you can buy a take away with the voucher (or hot food) then it would be multi-purpose. 

The above means that for single purpose vouchers VAT is due whether the voucher is actually redeemed or not; which seems an unfair result. There is no way to reduce output tax previously accounted for if the voucher is not used.

Please contact us if you, or your clients use this type of business promotion. of course, get it wrong, and there is likely to be a financial penalty!

VAT – Business Entertainment Flowchart. What input tax may I recover?

By   10 May 2019
0

Input tax recovery on entertainment

One of the most common questions asked on “day-to-day” VAT is whether input tax incurred on entertainment is claimable.  The answer to this seemingly straightforward question has become increasingly complex as a result of; HMRC policy, EC involvement and case law.  Different rules apply to entertaining; clients, contacts, staff, partners and directors depending on the circumstances.  It seems reasonable to treat entertaining costs as a valid business expense.  After all, a business, amongst other things, aims to increase sales and reduce costs as a result of these meetings.  However, HMRC sees things differently and there is a general block on business entertainment.  It seems like HMRC does not like watching people enjoying themselves at the government’s expense!

If, like me, you think in pictures, then a flowchart may be useful for deciding whether to claim entertainment VAT.  It covers all scenarios, but if you have a unique set of circumstances or require assistance with some of the definitions, please contact me.

VAT – Business Entertainment Flowchart

Business Entertainment flow chart

VAT: Zero rating of prescriptions

By   29 April 2019
0

Latest from the courts

The UK is unique in the EU for the zero rating of medicines prescribed by a registered medical practitioner.

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Pearl Chemist Ltd (Pearl) the issue was whether the development of new technology and legislation affected the zero rating of prescriptions written by UK registered and non-UK registered doctors and the  interpretation of “registered medical practitioner”.

Background

Pearl is authorised to dispense medicines prescribed online by doctors based in countries based in the European Economic Area. It contracted with a third party which operated websites which offered medical screening and services, primarily for conditions such as erectile dysfunction, hair loss and obesity/weight loss.

Customers of the third party could obtain an online consultation with qualified doctors. If the doctor decided to issue a prescription, the written prescription would be sent to Pearl who would then despatch the medicine directly to the individual customer on behalf of the third party. Pearl treated all these supplies as zero-rated. The relevant law covering such prescriptions changed in 2008 such that it was now possible to dispense drugs prescribed by a qualified doctor based outside the UK.

HMRC formed the view that these supplies were not covered by the UK zero rating on the basis that an EU qualified doctor who is not registered with the GMC is not a registered medical practitioner. An assessment for output tax was issued in respect of supplies made against prescriptions written by non-UK doctors.

The issues

The issues, broadly were:

  • Are qualified doctors based outside the UK covered by the description “registered medical practitioner” in UK legislation?
  • If not, does this breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality? (Whether there is clear discrimination between identical supplies made on the prescription of UK doctors and doctors from other EU countries)

Decision

The judge ruled that the UK zero rating does not cover prescriptions written by non-UK doctors as they are not within the definition of “registered medical practitioner” Consequently, the supplies must be standard rated in the UK. However, the exclusion of medicines prescribed by overseas doctors from the zero-rating constitutes a breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality. This seemed good news for Pearl, but…the Tribunal stated that it was unable to provide an effective remedy for that breach and accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed HRMC’s assessment.

Commentary

This decision seems rather harsh on the appellant. It appears that the judge ruled that she had no power to override UK Parliament’s intention despite the inherent “unfairness” of the outcome of this intention where identical supplies were treated differently depending on where the prescription was written.

Certainly an odd one and I wonder if this is the last of this matter. Any business in a similar situation may need to review its position on the basis of this decision.

Changes to recovery of VAT on imports

By   15 April 2019
0

HMRC have recently issued RCB 2 (2019) which sets out HMRC’s view on Toll Manufacturers (TM). TM is an arrangement in which a company which has a specialised equipment processes raw materials or semi-finished goods for another company. It may also be called toll processing. Typically, a TM will import, say, pharmaceutical goods, process and distribute them within the UK for clinical trials on behalf of an overseas owner.

HMRC has become aware that a number of UK TMs have paid import VAT on behalf of overseas customers have also claimed a corresponding deduction for input tax under VAT Act 1994 Section 24. However, there is no provision in UK law for such deduction.

Current treatment

TMs will usually act as importer and recover import VAT via a C79 despite them not being the owner of the goods (the owner instructs the TM to carry out works on their goods on their behalf).

HMRC has now confirmed that this VAT treatment is incorrect, and it will no longer be permitted.

New treatment

Only the owner of the goods will be treated as the importer and be able to recover import VAT. TMs will no longer be able to claim this VAT.

However, HMRC will not require TMs to make adjustments to past claims and the treatment will only be required going forward.

Introduction

The change comes into effect from 15 July 2019

Affect

Affected TMs are likely to need to make significant changes to their systems before that date.

Overseas owners of the relevant goods will either need to:

  • register for UK VAT and claim the import VAT on a “regular” return, or
  • make a claim via the Thirteenth VAT Directive (86/560/EEC)

NB: In cases where title has passed before import into the UK (businesses sell on the goods before importing them into the UK so ownership and title has passed to the new owner, however the business that sold the goods acts as importer on UK import declarations, pays the import VAT to HMRC and receives the import VAT certificate – C79) the correct procedure is for the new owner of the goods to be the importer of record and reclaim the import VAT and not the previous owner.

As with many areas of VAT, a No-Deal Brexit is likely to increase the complications for such cross-border transactions in the future.

Please contact us if you have any queries or require assistance on this matter.

VAT Success Stories

By   1 April 2019
0

I often write about how it is important to seek VAT advice at the right time, see triggerpoints. So, I thought that I’d give some practical examples on where we have saved our clients money, time and aggravation.

Investment company

HMRC denied claims for input tax incurred on costs relating to the potential acquisition of an overseas business and threatened to deregister the plc as it was not, currently, making taxable supplies. Additionally, HMRC contended that even if VAT registration was appropriate, the input tax incurred did not relate to taxable supplies and was therefore blocked.

We were able to persuade HMRC that our client had a right to be VAT registered because It intended to make taxable supplies (supplies with a place of supply outside the UK which would have been taxable if made in the UK) and that the input tax was recoverable as it related to these intended taxable supplies (management charges to the acquired business). This is a hot topic at the moment, but we were able to eventually demonstrate, with considerable and detailed evidence that there was a true intention.

This meant that UK VAT registration was correct and input tax running into hundreds of thousands of pounds incurred in the UK was repaid.

Restaurant

We identified and submitted a claim for a West End restaurant for nearly £200,000 overpaid output tax. We finally agreed the repayment with HMRC after dealing with issues such as the quantum of the claim and unjust enrichment.

Developer

Our property developing client specialises in very high-end residential projects in exclusive parts of London. They built a dwelling using an existing façade and part of a side elevation. We contended that it was a new build (zero rated sale and no VAT on construction costs and full input tax recovery on other costs). HMRC took the view that it was work on an existing dwelling so that 5% applied and input tax was not recoverable. After site visits, detailed plans, current and historical photograph evidence HMRC accepted the holy grail of new build. The overall cost of the project was tens of millions.

Charity

A charity client was supplying services to the NHS. The issue was whether they were standard rated supplies of staff or exempt medical services. We argued successfully that, despite previous rulings, the supplies were exempt, which benefited all parties. Our client was able to deregister from VAT, but not only that, we persuaded HMRC that input tax previously claimed could be kept. This was a rather pleasant surprise outcome.  We also avoided any penalties and interest so that VAT did not represent a cost to the charity in any way.  If the VAT was required to be repaid to HMRC it is likely that the charity would have been wound up.

Shoot

A group of friends met to shoot game as a hobby. They made financial contributions to the syndicate in order to take part. HMRC considered that this was a business activity and threatened to go back over 40 years and assess for output tax on the syndicate’s takings which amounted to many hundreds of thousands of pounds and would have meant the shoot could not continue. We appealed the decision to retrospectively register the syndicate.

After a four-year battle HMRC settled on the steps of the Tribunal. We were able to demonstrate that the syndicate was run on a cost sharing basis and is not “an activity likely to be carried out by a private undertaking on a market, organised within a professional framework and generally performed in the interest of generating a profit.” – A happy client.

Chemist

We assisted a chemist client who, for unfortunate reasons, had not been able to submit proper VAT returns for a number of years.  We were able to reconstruct the VAT records which showed a repayment of circa £500,000 of VAT was due.  We successfully negotiated with HMRC and assisted with the inspection which was generated by the claim.

The message? Never accept a HMRC decision, and seek good advice!

VAT: Partial exemption, the N Brown case

By   18 March 2019
0

Latest from the courts.

Partial exemption has always been, and probably always will be, the most complex and oft debated area of the tax.

Attribution

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of N Brown Group plc the issue was how to attribute input tax incurred on marketing. This included:

  • online
  • catalogues and leaflets
  • parcel packs
  • inserts in magazines and newspapers
  • direct mailings
  • advertisements in publications
  • TV advertisements
  • telemarketing
  • brand development
  • PR
  • celebrity endorsements
  • market research
  • photo shoots

Background

N Brown, as you may know, sells clothing and household goods online to the public. It has only a few retail stores so does not have the facility that a “bricks and mortar” retailer would have of displaying goods in its stores. It therefore has to incur significant marketing costs to bring its products to the attention of its customers and present them in an attractive way that encourages sales. The activities of the appellant include the sale of these goods, which is standard-rated for VAT purposes, and the provision of finance, which is exempt for VAT purposes. The finance element is the provision of credit which produces significant income from the interest on monthly balances which consumers do not pay off.

Issue

The issue was whether the input tax incurred on the marketing was attributable to the sale of goods which were advertised or, as HMRC contended; to both its taxable and exempt income (so that it was residual). If HMRC were correct an element of the input tax would fall to be irrecoverable via the appellants’ partial exemption calculation. HMRC’s position was that the input tax which N Brown incurred in respect of the marketing is residual because, although they did not seek to deny the existence of a “direct and immediate link” between the relevant goods and services and taxable supplies that the appellant made, they consider that there is also a direct and immediate link to the exempt credit provided.

Unsurprisingly, N Brown’s position was that the vast majority of goods and services received in connection with the marketing had a “direct and immediate link” only with taxable supplies that it made and so the relevant input tax was not residual and is therefore recoverable in full.

A subtle distinction, however, as £42 million of VAT was at stake, quite a vital one!

Technical

A general guide to partial exemption is available here

Broadly, a partially exempt business is required to attribute input tax incurred to three categories:

  • Taxable activities (here, the sale of goods) fully recoverable
  • Exempt activities (here the provision of credit) not recoverable
  • Non-attributable (residual) – input tax attributable to both taxable and exempt activities, or neither. This input tax must be apportioned either by the “standard method” or special method agreed with HMRC.

Decision

The judge found that there was a two-way relationship between the sale of the goods and the provision of credit terms. As a consequence, the input tax fell into the category of non-attributable (residual) even if the relevant advertisements made no mention of credit at all. It was also found that the standard method (used by HMRC) did not produce a reasonable outcome so the assessment issued by HMRC would need adjustment in the taxpayer’s favour. This required a different method to be devised and that certain elements of exempt income could be ignored in the calculation. I suspect that negotiations on an agreeable method might take some time…

Commentary

This case demonstrates that care is always required when costs are attributed to a business’ activities. This is especially important when the costs are significant. There tends to be a lot of “debate” with HMRC on such matters and slight nuances can affect attribution and thus the outcome of the calculation. It is an area which always requires specialised advice.

VAT: Input tax recovery on director’s costs

By   18 March 2019
0

Latest from the courts: Directors expenditure – what may be recovered as input tax?

The Praesto Consulting UK Limited  Court of Appeal (CoA) case.

This is a subject that pops up every now and again: Is a purchase for the director’s business purposes (input tax usually recoverable by the company) or for a director personally (so non-business and not recoverable)?

Background

Mr Ranson was an ex-employee of a claimant in civil proceedings; Customer Systems plc (“CSP”). Mr Ranson resigned to set up a company of which he was sole director, “Praesto”, which then carried on a consultancy business competing with CSP. CSP issued proceedings against Mr Ranson (and three other employees) over the nature of the departure from the company, but not against Praesto itself. The acting solicitor firm issued eight invoices (containing the VAT in question) to Mr Ranson personally, and not his company. The invoices were paid by Praesto

Issue

Praesto paid the legal fees relating to the defence of the civil proceedings brought by CSP against its sole director. Is the company entitled to credit for VAT input tax charged in relation to those fees? That is, was it proper business expenditure by the company, or was the defence of the case a personal cost of the director as a (distinct) individual?

HMRC laid great stress on the fact that the invoices were addressed to Mr Ranson personally, that they related to services provided in relation to the claim brought by CSP against him and that Praesto was never joined as a party to the proceedings.

Decision

The CoA ruled that Praesto could recover VAT on the fees. The action against Mr Ranson was the first phase of litigation which would ultimately seek damages from Praesto (and therefore Praesto had a direct interest in CSP’s claim being dismissed). This was an indication that there was a direct and immediate link between the legal services provided and the business. In reality, Praesto was throughout the proceedings, the main target of the litigation: It was Praesto which had made the profits which CSP sought to claim.

The fact that the invoices were addressed to Mt Ranson provided no legal bar to the company recovering the associated input tax. The judge observed that there was a joint retainer whereby the solicitor firm was being instructed by, and acting on behalf of, both Mr Ranson and Praesto. Under such a retainer both Mr Ranson and Praesto would be entitled to the solicitor’s’ services and both would be jointly and severally liable for the fees. That is a legal relationship involving reciprocal performance. As both parties were jointly and severally liable for the fees, there would be no particular significance in addressing invoices to only one of the parties so liable.

This seems an entirely sensible decision.

Commentary

This has echoes of the P&O case: P&O Ferries (Dover) Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1992] VATTR 221 referred to in this case, where criminal proceedings were brought against various P&O employees and the company itself arising out of the Herald of Free Enterprise Zeebrugge disaster – the company paid for the legal representation of all the individual defendants and claimed input tax on the costs of so doing. It was held that the conviction of even one of the individual employees would have caused severe damage to the public perception of the company’s business. To mitigate the real risk of being driven out of business the board took the view that the company had to take every step available to it to guard against the successful prosecution of each of the individual employees. The legal services in question were, therefore, used for the purpose of the company’s business.

Another area where VAT on costs invoiced to a (future) director personally are recoverable is in pre-incorporation cases where (obviously) the company does not exist so cannot, at that time, recover the VAT. HMRC permit recovery in such cases if the recipient of the invoice does indeed become a director of the company and the supply is used by that company for business purposes

Please contact us if you have any queries.