Tag Archives: penalties

VAT Snippet – e-supplies to Russia

By Marcus Ward 1 December 2016

New VAT rules for B2C supplies to Russian recipients

If your business, or your client’s business provide electronically supplied services to private consumers* in Russia new rules will require foreign (“non-established“) businesses to register and pay VAT on their supplies.

These rules will come into effect from 1 January 2017.

Supplies of such services will be subject to the Russian standard VAT rate of 15.25% of gross revenue.

For the purposes of this legislation electronically supplied services include (but are not limited to):

e-books
streaming of music and film
online access to games and download of games to electronic devices
services of social networking sites
cloud computing
hosting of websites
access to search engines
internet service providers
broadcasting of TV or radio channels
online advertising
data storage,
and other similar services

This definition broadly follows the definition for EU supplies.

Quarterly VAT returns will be required, however, there will be no right to recover input tax on these returns.

Place of belonging

As with any e-sales, it is important to have a procedure in place in order to establish the place of belonging of all customers as this will dictate what (if any) VAT is applicable, and to which authority payment should be made. In broader terms, the rules for Distance selling must also be adhered to. Guide here

* Russian definition of place of an individual customer – A “private consumer” is deemed to be in Russia if his/her living place is in Russia; or if he/she purchased the service by using a Russian bank (or a Russian electronic money operator), a network address registered in Russia, or a phone number with the Russia’s country code.

This follows an international trend as may be seen with similar developments here

If you are affected by this new VAT legislation, please contact us. We have a worldwide network which can take the pain out of international VAT compliance and avoid a business inadvertently triggering swingeing penalties and interest overseas. Please see further details of this service here

VAT – Cash businesses: Investigations

By Marcus Ward 25 October 2016

HMRC’s methods of establishing underdeclarations

HMRC have always taken interest in cash businesses as they see them as a revenue risk. We have heard, anecdotally, that there is an ongoing campaign to target cash businesses which HMRC suspect are under-declaring takings. Such businesses are usually retail and commonly restaurants and take aways (which I shall use as an example in this article). A retail business is obliged to keep certain records. For sales, this is a record of daily gross takings (DGT) and this is the area I will focus on as it is where “suppression” of income generally occurs. In a very crude example, the owner, or a member of staff does not ring up a sale and the payment is pocketed. There are more sophisticated ways in which suppression occurs, but this is the most common.

Even in this day and age where most payments are made by credit or debit cards, there is still significant scope for declarations to be inaccurate.

The methods

There are a number of ways in which HMRC can determine the accuracy of VAT declarations. These may be from the usual bank and accounts reconciliations, mark up exercises, to, say, counting take-away containers to build up a picture of the turnover. The following are also ways in which HMRC test the credibility of declarations:

Compliance checks

These usually take place in the evenings when a restaurant is open for business (or soon after it closes). Officers gain entrance, question staff, examine records for that and previous days, and remove certain records. From this information they can build up a picture of trading. These visits are usually unannounced.

Invigilation exercise

HMRC observe how the business operates and check that all sales of food and drinks are rung into the till. This is usually with the agreement of the business.

Test meals

HMRC staff will purchase a test meal and at a later time check to see if it has been recorded correctly. It may be that this method will be repeated at a suspect restaurant by different HMRC staff, perhaps in the same evening. If any of the sales are not recorded correctly, it may be insufficient in itself to create an assessment, but it will confirm suspicions of suppression and lead to further action.

Observation

While posing as customers, HMRC will also count the number of covers, the amount of take aways, the number of staff, how orders are taken and paid for, and how payments are made.

Surveillance

Members of HMRC staff park outside a restaurant (usually in an unmarked van) and watch the activities of the restaurant. They count the number of people dining and the numbers of people exiting with take aways. This observation may also record the number of deliveries and other relevant information that they are able to obtain from what they can see. This exercise may be carried out over a number of days/nights or even weeks.

Purchases

In more complex suppression, the value of purchases may also be suppressed in order to present a more credible picture to an inspector. This may be more common if the purchases are zero rated food (on which the business would not claim input tax). HMRC may attempt to build up a picture of sales by the volume of actual purchases made. They often check the restaurant’s suppliers’ records to get a full picture of trade.

Information obtained by one of the above methods may, on its own, be insufficient to raise an assessment, but combined with information obtained in different ways will more often than not result in one (should the exercises demonstrate an under-declaration of course).

Taxpayer’s rights

Attendance

HMRC do not have the right to attend a taxpayer’s premises at any time. The law says that inspections may be carried out “at any reasonable time”. This means that that if a business owner is busy, or the time is outside normal office hours, or there is not access to all of the relevant information, or the request is unreasonable for any other reason, the business owner (or his adviser) may request that an inspector leaves and makes an appointment at a future reasonable time. This is sometimes easier to do in theory than in practice, but a taxpayer’s rights are set out in The Finance Act 2009, Schedule 36, part II.

A business has no right to refuse a “regular” inspection but these are arranged for an agreed time in any case.

Records

The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 11 states that the requirement to produce records is limited to being provided at such time as HMRC “may reasonably require”. So, again, if HMRC are making demands that a business feels are unreasonable, it is within its rights to refuse to allow access and to make a mutually agreed and acceptable appointment to allow access to premises and records. This may lead to a discussion, but HMRC do not have unfettered rights to access premises or records.

Best judgement

Regardless of how HMRC have gathered information, any assessment must be made to the best of their judgement and must be “an honest and genuine attempt to make a reasoned assessment of the VAT payable”. If the business is able to demonstrate that this was not the case, the assessment must be removed. Broadly, this will entail demonstrating that things that ought to have been considered were ignored, or that things that have been included should not have been. Generally, the most common ways to challenge an assessment based on the above exercises are; that the period considered was not representative, or not long enough to be representative, or that the tests carried out were insufficient to demonstrate a consistent pattern of trading. There are usually specific facts in each case that may be used to challenge the validity and quantum of an assessment.

Action

Of course, it is hoped that no business which makes accurate declarations is troubled by such investigations. However, if a business feels that HMRC is being unreasonable with its demands it should seek professional advice before agreeing to permit HMRC access.

Matters change however, if HMRC have a Search Warrant or a Writ of Assistance in which case HMRC are able to compel a business to allow entry or inspection.

As always, we advise that any assessment is, at the very least, reviewed by a business’ adviser.

Latest from the courts: Excise Duty – against which party may an assessment be raised?

By Marcus Ward 19 October 2016

A little “light” relief from VAT. Indirect taxes extend to Customs and Excise Duties (as well as IPT and various other “lower profile” taxes) and we are able to assist with all of these.

In an interesting Excise Duty case; B & M Retail Limited (B & M) the Upper Tribunal were asked whether an assessment for Customs Duty due on wine and beer could be issued to an entity “down the chain” to an entity which was holding goods at a given time.

Background

HMRC detained the relevant the goods under The Customs & Excise Management Act 1979 (“CEMA”) Section 139 on the grounds that, in their judgment, on the balance of probabilities, Excise Duty had not been paid on the goods. Under B & M’s terms and conditions of business its suppliers were required to warrant that the sale of alcohol to B & M was on a “Excise Duty paid” basis.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decided that despite an HMRC investigation resulting in the fact that they were not satisfied that duty had been paid on the goods, B & M was not responsible for the duty (and subsequent penalties) as the goods had passed through other various entities before they reached the appellant. The decision was based on the fact that the duty point must have arisen before the goods reached B & M and consequently, the duty was payable by someone further up the supply chain and not simply by the entity which was holding the Excise Duty goods at the Excise Duty point.

Decision

However, the Upper Tribunal disagreed with the FTT and overturned the verdict. The Upper Tribunal stated that “… the recognition by HMRC that one or more other Excise Duty points must, in principle, have been triggered before B & M received the relevant goods did not preclude HMRC from assessing B & M for excise duty …”. The Upper Tribunal did, however, remit the case to the First Tier Tribunal to review the evidence to ensure that the assessment is in time and that, as a matter of fact, the Excise Duty due on the beer and wine remains unpaid.

Conclusion

It would appear that this decision currently gives HMRC the right to raise an assessment for duty and penalties anywhere along the supply chain when an entity is holding the goods, even though a “previous” entity may have been responsible for the payment. This is not * * polite cough * * small beer as the amount in question was £5,875,143 of duty and a penalty of £1,175,028. This is helpful to HMRC as, in this instant case, it would appear that entities further up the supply chain were either not registered, or became deregistered, making it more difficult for HMRC to recover the Duty due.

It is important for every importer to be clear about the Excise Duty position and to carry out detailed due diligence on the relevant shipment. It is now not possible to escape an assessment by demonstrating that a third party is responsible for the payment of the duty.

Latest from the courts: missing goods subject to VAT

By Marcus Ward 13 October 2016

In the CJEU case of Maya Marinova the issue was whether goods which could not be located in the Bulgarian appellant’s warehouse were subject to VAT on the grounds they had been disposed of.

Background

The appellant purchased certain goods, and subsequently, at an inspection, was unable to either;

produce the goods , or;
demonstrate how they were disposed of.

The Bulgarian authorities had confirmed that the goods had been purchased from a supplier, but the purchases did not appear in the business’ purchase records. They assessed for VAT on the missing goods assuming that they had been purchased and sold off record and the output tax had not been accounted for. They employed a mark-up exercise based on similar goods sold in the appellant’s shop.

The case proceeded directly to the court without an AG’s opinion. The matter was; whether the decision to assess offended the principle of fiscal neutrality if it were supported by national legislation (which it was here). It was decided that in these circumstances, such action was not precluded and the assessment was basically sound. It was stated that “… tax authorities may presume that the taxable person subsequently sold those goods to third parties and determine the taxable amount of the sale of those goods according to the factual information at hand …”. As usual, the case was passed back to the referring court to consider whether the Bulgarian domestic legislation goes further than is necessary to ensure the correct collection of tax and to prevent evasion.

Commentary

Although the issues in this case arose from specific facts, this is not an uncommon scenario for a business. It was hardly a surprising outcome. In a similar position in the UK, HMRC is also very likely to form the view that if the goods are no longer on hand, then they must have been disposed of, unless evidence to the contrary is provided by a taxpayer.

Of course, there may be a genuine reason why the goods are no longer in stock, but no output tax has been declared on them. These reasons are considered in guidance published by HMRC here and the rules mainly consider goods which have been lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed.

There are specific ways of dealing with VAT in these situations, and in fact, whether output tax is due at all. Failure to comply with this guidance may result in an assessment being issued. The general point is VAT is only due after a tax point has been created. A crude example is that if goods are shoplifted from a store, there is no output tax due. However, if the goods were sold and recorded via a till, and the money which went into the till was stolen, output tax is still due on the supply of those goods (as found in the case of G Benton [1975] VATTR 138).

As always with VAT, it is crucial to keep accurate and up to date records to evidence supplies (as well as recording the movement of stock and any discrepancies in these circumstances). Although an inspector will need to demonstrate “best judgement” in issuing an assessment in respect of missing goods, it is obviously prudent to be able to demonstrate why the anticipated output tax has not been declared and therefore be prepared for such enquiries.

In this instant case, it was not discovered why the goods were not located in the warehouse. It could be that there was a miscommunication between parts of the business, a simple underdeclaration of sales, staff theft, or any other hazards of business. Even for non-tax reasons it is vital that a business’ systems are sufficiently robust to identify such occurrences and procedures are put into place to deal with them.

If you or your clients have received an assessment of this sort, it is usually worthwhile obtaining a review of the position.

VAT – Intended penalty for participating in fraud

By Marcus Ward 3 October 2016

Consultation

A consultation was proposed in the 2016 Budget on the introduction of a new penalty for businesses that participate in VAT fraud. Now HMRC has announced that views are sought on; whether there is a case for a new penalty, its structure and to whom it should apply. The intended changes will require amendment to Schedule 24 of the Finance Act 2007. The main target of these proposed new measures is MTIC (Missing Trader Intra-Community) fraud.

Full details of the consultation paper here

Penalty principles

It may be worth reviewing HMRC’s view on the principles of applying a penalty, which they state are;

The penalty regime should be designed from the customer perspective, primarily to encourage compliance and prevent non-compliance. Penalties are not to be applied with the objective of raising revenues.

Penalties should be proportionate to the offence and may take into account past behaviour.

Penalties must be applied fairly, ensuring that compliant customers are (and are seen to be) in a better position than the non-compliant.

Penalties must provide a credible threat. If there is a penalty, we must have the operational capability and capacity to raise it accurately, and if we raise it, we must be able to collect it in a cost-efficient manner.

Customers should see a consistent and standardised approach. Variations will be those necessary to take into account customer behaviours and particular taxes.

Consultation Process

It may be an appropriate time to look at what the consultation process is and how it works. This may helpfully be summarised (by HMRC) as:

There are 5 stages to tax policy development:

Stage 1 Setting out objectives and identifying options.

Stage 2 Determining the best option and developing a framework for implementation including detailed policy design.

Stage 3 Drafting legislation to effect the proposed change.

Stage 4 Implementing and monitoring the change.

Stage 5 Reviewing and evaluating the change.

The closing date for comments on this consultation is 11 November 2016.

Comment

Putting to one side the minor irritation of taxpayers being called customers (a bête noire of mine I’m afraid) it is difficult to argue with the above principles and any attempt to prevent or deter VAT fraud is to be welcomed, as long as it does not impact on innocent parties and HMRC apply any such penalty in an even-handed manner. As a taxpayer in a personal and business capacity, I welcome any measures that may result in my tax bill being increased to cover revenue lost to fraud!

Action

Of course, please respond to HMRC should you feel that you should make your views known. The consultation is open to businesses, individuals, legal firms, accountants, and other interested parties.

We occasionally come across situations where innocent parties have been inadvertently been caught up in fraudulent supply chains. Please contact us for advice on planning that may be put in place to avoid this position and how we can assist if HMRC are making enquiries. As always in VAT, it always pays to be proactive to ensure that processes and structures in place are robust and are demonstrably so.

Bad Debt Relief (BDR) – Avoiding the VAT burden

By Marcus Ward 20 September 2016

VAT Basics

Anything which can relieve the burden of VAT is to be welcomed. BDR is a useful tool if a business is aware of it and understand when it may be claimed.

It is at the very least frustrating when a client does not pay, and in some cases this situation can lead to the end of a business. At least the VAT charged to the client should not become a cost to a supplier. The BDR mechanism goes some way to protect a business from payment defaulters.

Under the normal rules of VAT, a supplier is required to account for output tax, even if the supply has not been paid for (however, the use of cash accounting or certain retail schemes removes the problem of VAT on bad debts from the supplier).

There is specific relief however:

Conditions for claiming BDR

The supplier must have supplied goods or services for a consideration in money, and must have accounted for and paid VAT on the supply. All or part of the consideration must have been written off as a bad debt by making the appropriate entry in the business’ records (this does not have to be a “formal” procedure). At least six months (but not more than three years and six months) must have elapsed since the later of the date of supply or the due date for payment.

Records required

Various records and evidence must be kept (for four years from the date of claim), in particular to identify:

• The time and nature of the supply, the purchaser, and the consideration
• The amount of VAT chargeable on the supply
• The accounting period when this VAT was accounted for and paid to HMRC
• Any payment received for the supply
• Entries in the refund for bad debts account
• The accounting period in which the claim is made.

Procedure for claiming BDR

The claim is made by including the amount of the refund in Box 4 of the VAT Return for the period in which the debt becomes over six months old.

Repayment of refund

Repayment of VAT refunded is required where payment is subsequently received or where the above conditions have not been complied with.

Refund of input tax to debtor

Businesses are required to monitor the time they take to pay their suppliers, and repay input tax claimed if they have not paid the supplier within six months. Subsequent payment of all or part of the debt will allow a corresponding reclaim of input tax. This is an easy assessment for HMRC to make at inspections, so businesses should make reviewing this matter this a regular exercise.

Finally, there is tax point planning available to defer a tax point until payment is received for providers of continuous supplies of services. Please see here

Latest from the courts – Recovery of VAT on cars purchase

By Marcus Ward 14 September 2016

Input tax incurred on the purchase of cars

There is a specific blocking order (Value Added Tax (Input Tax) Order 1992) which prohibits the recovery of input tax incurred on the purchase of cars. The block applies if there is any private use of the car whatsoever (even one mile). HMRC’s approach has been that unless a business can demonstrate that there is no private use the input tax is disallowed. Previous case law, notably Elm Milk Limited relied on the terms of the insurance covering the car (whether private use was permitted) and inter alia, the physical security of the car.

The case

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Zone Contractors Limited TC05330 it was held that VAT was reclaimable on six cars purchased for business use. The reason for the decision was that the relevant employment contracts specifically and explicitly prohibited any private use of the vehicles.

HMRC claimed that the business had not demonstrated that the use of the cars was monitored and controlled sufficiently to evidence the fact that there was no private use. However the FTT decided that the employment contracts could be relied on and permitted the claims. What is relevant in this case is that the court decided that no reliance could be placed on insurance documentation preventing recovery on the grounds of the policy including cover for use for social, domestic and pleasure and that HMRC could not rely on such documentation to disallow a claim as they had in the past.

Action

If a business has been denied input tax recovery on cars by HMRC, or has refrained from claiming input tax based on previous case law, it may well be beneficial to review the circumstances in light of this case. We can assist in lodging claims where appropriate. After all, the VAT of £8000 on a £40,000 car is significant; even if only one has been purchased.

VAT Latest from the courts – HMRC’s bad ‘phone service

By Marcus Ward 18 August 2016

As we know, late payment of VAT results in a Default Surcharge. Details of DS here

However, if a taxpayer has a reasonable excuse the DS will not be due. In the interesting recent case of McNamara Joinery Ltd here

The appeal was on the grounds that HMRC itself caused the default. The business was successful in the appeal on the grounds that its agent could not contact HMRC to arrange a time to pay agreement because of HMRC’s poor telephone service. Anyone who has attempted to contact HMRC by telephone will appreciate that this isn’t a one-off case!

Background

The appellant had a previous history of submitting returns on time, but making late payments late such that the period in question would give rise to a DS if the return or payment was late. Appreciating that the business would not have sufficient funds to meet the VAT payment due, it instructed its agent to contact HMRC on its behalf in an attempt to arrange a “time to pay” (TTP) agreement. The agent attempted to do this two days before the payment was due. However, there were significant problems with the telephone service and the agent was unable to get through as the line kept “going dead” (It appears from later comments made by HMRC that this was due to the volume of calls made at the end of the VAT period). A TTP agreement was subsequently reached, but only after the due date which HMRC argued was too late to avoid the DS.

Decision

On the subject of reasonable excuse, the FT Tribunal observed that “A reasonable excuse is normally an unexpected event, something unforeseeable, something out of the appellant’s control. Insufficiency of funds is not regarded as a reasonable excuse although the reason for the insufficiency might be. It is unfortunately part of the hazards of trade that debtors fail to keep promises to pay. These submissions cannot be regarded as establishing for the appellant a reasonable excuse for the late payment.”
It continued “However, faced with the problem of not having received promised payments, the appellant through its agent did all that it could do in the circumstances…., its agent tried repeatedly to contact HMRC by telephone but was unsuccessful until 12 February 2016 when a time to pay agreement was made and subsequently the arrangements made were adhered to. In the Tribunal’s view this repeated failure to contact HMRC was unexpected and unforeseeable”. Therefore the taxpayer had a reasonable excuse and the DS was removed.

The Judge did not accept HMRC’s submission that the appellant should have been aware that there was a likelihood that there would be a large volume of calls being made to HMRC on the days immediately prior to the due date and that as a result the appellant could reasonably have expected delays in being able to make contact. HMRC do not publish times when their lines are likely to be busy. Rather than expecting delays it is reasonable for a taxpayer to expect telephone calls to HMRC to be answered without delay. In the Tribunal’s view HMRC were in a better position than the appellant to know when there is a likelihood of a large volume of calls and they should have arrangements in place to deal with the higher volume of calls promptly.

So HMRC lost this case because they failed to answer the phone.

Lessons to be learned

One cannot rely on HMRC answering their own phones, even though they are fully aware that there will be an increased demand at certain times. They do not have arrangements in place to deal with the known demand. They do not have a reasonable excuse for not dealing with taxpayers!
When attempting to contact HMRC it is a very good idea to keep an accurate log.
If it is likely that a business is experiencing cashflow issues, contact HMRC as soon as possible and do not leave it to the last moment.
It is possible to arrange a TTP agreement with HMRC.
A business should take advice from their advisers as soon as possible to avoid DSs. This may avoid both a TTP position and/or a DS.

Reclaiming VAT Overseas

By Marcus Ward 16 August 2016

Refunds of VAT for UK businesses incurring other EC Member States

If a business incurs VAT in another EC Member State it is possible to recover it. It is not claimed on a UK VAT return, but via a special claim process which I have set out below. Unfortunately, this procedure is likely to be unavailable after Brexit. I hope that this is a timely reminder as well as a guide as the deadline for the year of the claim is 30 September.

My next article will look at precisely what VAT is recoverable in each Member State in a country by country guide – here

Claim Process

Gone are the days when a business had to make claims directly to the Member State where VAT was incurred; using numerous, complicated forms, in the language of the Member State of claim, and then waiting months, if not years to hear anything.

Now, a simple online claim to HMRC is all that is required. HMRC then coordinate payment for a business from the relevant country. This is a practical overview of the procedure.

All applications must be submitted using the electronic online system. You must be VAT registered in the UK to obtain a refund.

In order to make a claim a business must meet the following conditions:

you must not be registered, liable or eligible to be registered in the Member State of Refund
you must not have any fixed establishment, seat of economic activity, place of business or other residence in the Member State of Refund
during the refund period you must not have supplied any goods or services in the Member State of refund with the exception of;

a) transport services and ancillary services

b) any goods or services where VAT is payable by the person to whom the supply is made (the reverse charge).

By submitting your application you are declaring that you meet these conditions.

How do I claim?

A separate online application is required for each Member State from which you wish to claim. In order to start an application you must access the relevant online services section and enter standard data into the required fields, along with invoice for expenditure you wish to reclaim.

Period application covers

The refund period must not be more than one calendar year or less than three calendar months. Generally refund periods do not have to cover strict calendar quarters. However, some Member States have their own requirements, and details of these can be obtained from the relevant tax authority.

Minimum amount that may be claimed

If the refund application relates to a period of less than a calendar year, but not less than three months the minimum amount claimable is EUR 400 or the equivalent in national currency.

If the refund application relates to a period of a calendar year or the remainder of a calendar year the minimum amount claimable is EUR 50 or the equivalent in national currency.

Invoices included on the application

Invoices relating to supplies of goods or services with a tax point during the period of the refund application should be included. Additionally, a business may claim for invoices not included in a previous application as long as they relate to the same calendar year.

VAT which cannot be included on a claim

A claim cannot include VAT which has been;

incorrectly invoiced,
invoiced in respect of goods despatched to another Member State or exported from the EC
incurred in respect of non-business activities

Information required from invoices being claimed

Name and address of your supplier
Except in cases of importation the VAT identification number or tax reference number of the supplier and the prefix of the Member State of Refund
Date and number of the invoice or importation document
Taxable amount and amount of VAT expressed in the currency of the Member State of refund
The amount of deductible VAT expressed in the currency of the Member State of refund
Where applicable the deductible proportion
Nature of the goods and services acquired, described according to the following expenditure codes: Fuel, Transport Hire, Road Tolls, Travel Expenses (taxi, public transport), Accommodation, Food and Restaurant Services, Admissions to Fairs and Exhibitions, Luxuries/Amusements/Entertainment.

If an invoice includes items covering more than one expenditure code the code relating to the highest proportion of expenditure is the one that should be used.

Restriction of applications in respect of partial exemption

A business must apply the appropriate recovery rate for the goods or services purchased against each invoice or importation on your application, and show the amount of VAT recoverable in the appropriate box. The recovery rate to be applied is the last percentage appropriate to the refund period covering the invoice date. Following an annual adjustment, you will not be required to amend refund applications already submitted. The invoices can only be entered once and the percentage to be used is that covering the invoice date.

Restriction of applications in respect of non-business expenses

Expenditure incurred in another Member State that relates to non-business activities is not claimable under the refund scheme.

Language needed on the application

Member States generally require the application to be in their own language they may allow the use of a second language in the free text fields, and English is a common option. The language(s) required by the Member State of Refund will be displayed on the electronic portal as you complete the application.

Invoices which may be required to be submitted electronically

A business may be requested to submit invoices with values of EUR 1,000 or more (EUR 250 or more in the case of fuel) with the application. All other invoices should be retained as they may be requested at a later date by the Member State of Refund.

Claim updates

A business will be informed electronically at the following key stages of the process.

If your application fails basic validation checks by the electronic portal
When HMRC forwards your application to the Member State of Refund
When the Member State of Refund receives the application
If the Member State of Refund requires additional information from you
When the Member State of Refund makes its decision

Time limits for submitting an application

Applications must be submitted to HMRC at the latest by 30 September of the calendar year following the refund year and will only be considered submitted if the applicant has completed all of the required standing data fields (see above).

Time limits for the Member State of refund to process an application

The Member State of Refund must notify the applicant of its decision to approve or refuse the application within four months of the date they first received the application.

Payment method

The refund will be paid in the Member State of Refund or, at the applicant’s request, in any other Member State. In the latter case, any bank charges for the transfer will be deducted by the Member State of Refund from the amount to be paid to the applicant.

Error on applications

The electronic portal provides a correction facility whereby a business can recall the original application and amend existing details. You may not, however, add new lines.

Penalties

All Member States take a very serious view of incorrect or false applications. Refunds claimed incorrectly on the basis of incorrect or false information can be recovered and penalties and interest may be imposed and further refund applications suspended.

Applications refused

If the Member State of Refund refuses an application fully or partly they must also notify you of the reasons for refusal.

If this happens you can appeal against the decision using the appeals procedure of that Member State. This means that the normal VAT appeals rules of that Member State on time limits, form of appeal etc., will apply.

Interest on delayed applications

Interest may be payable to you by the Member State of Refund if payment is made after the deadline. If applicable, it will be paid from the day following the deadline up to the date the refund is actually paid. Interest rates must be the same as those applied to refunds of VAT to taxable persons established in the Member State of Refund under the national law of that Member State.

Claims on UK VAT returns

VAT incurred overseas must not be claimed on a UK VAT return. If it is, it is liable to an assessment, penalties and interest levied in the UK by HMRC.

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

By Marcus Ward 25 July 2016

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)