Tag Archives: tax-penalty

VAT: Updated guidance on deliberate behaviour

By Marcus Ward 21 February 2023

HMRC has published updated guidance on deliberate behaviour. It clarifies the definition of these actions in respect of extended time limits.

What is deliberate behaviour?

A deliberate inaccuracy in a document occurs when a person (or another person acting on behalf of that person) knowingly gives HMRC an inaccurate document.

“A person who submits a document containing a deliberate inaccuracy might assert that they did not intend to cause a loss of tax. For the purpose of assessing this loss of tax, the person or any persons acting on their behalf will be treated as deliberately causing the loss of tax if they consciously intended to mislead HMRC”.

Examples

knowingly failing to record all sales
describing transactions inaccurately or in a way likely to mislead
lodging a VAT return that includes a figure of net VAT due that is too low because the person does not have the cash at that time to pay the full amount, and later telling HMRC the true figure when he has the funds to pay
similarly declaring less tax due for aggregates levy, climate change levy, landfill tax or excise duty because the person does not have the funds at that time to pay the full amount

(This list is not exhaustive and HMRC provide more examples in the guidance).

Why is it important?

Mainly, there are different time limits within which HMRC can take action.

A 20 year time limit applies where tax has been underdeclared, or over-repaid, as a result of a deliberately inaccurate return or other document. The normal cap is four years.

Other action

Although HMRC can make assessments to recover any tax lost, it also have a criminal investigation policy and will refer the most serious cases for consideration of criminal proceedings where appropriate.

If you or your clients are subject to an investigation, please seek professional advice immediately. There is a dark side to VAT.

VAT: TOGC and deliberate errors – The Apollinaire case

By Marcus Ward 19 December 2022

Latest from the courts

In the First -Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Apollinaire Ltd and Mr Z H Hashmi the issues were:

whether the appellant’s input tax claim was valid
were the director’s actions “deliberate”
was a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) appropriate?

Background

Mr Hashmi (the sole director of Apollinaire) asserted that he sold his business, Snow Whyte Limited to a Mr Singh as a going concern, together with the trading name “Benny Hamish”. The purchase price was never paid. He alleged that Mr Singh traded for approximately one month and then sold stock worth £573,756 to Apollinaire. The appellant submitted an input tax claim for the purchase of the goods. HMRC refused to make the repayment and raised penalties for deliberate errors. HMRC subsequently issued a PLN to Mr Hashmi.

Issues

Initially HMRC stated that Mr Singh may not have existed, that there was no sale of Snow Whyte Ltd by Mr Hashmi to Mr Singh and similarly, no sale back to Mr Hashmi. However, this submission was later amended to argue that Mr Hashmi controlled the movement of the stock at all times and that the issue was whether the transfer of stock from Snow Whyte Limited was a Transfer Of a Going Concern (TOGC), whether or not Mr Singh existed.

Mr Hashmi appealed, contending that the transactions took place as described to HMRC.

Decision

Unsurprisingly, given Mr Hashmi’s previous history of dissolving companies, but continuing to trade under the same name as those companies (listed at para 14 of the decision) and failing to submit returns and payments, the FTT accepted HMRC’s version of events. Further, there was insufficient evidence to support the transactions (if they took place) and the judge fund that the appellant’s evidence was not credible. If the events did take place, there was no input tax to claim as all the tests (where relevant here) for a TOGC (Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995, Regulation 5) were met:

the assets were sold as a business as a going concern
the assets were used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business
there was no break in trading
both entities traded under the same name
both entities operated from the same premises
both entities had the same employees and tills

The appeal was dismissed.

Penalties

The FTT further decided that HMRC’s penalties and PLN [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] were appropriate. The claim for input tax was deliberately overstated and that Mr Hashmi was the controlling mind of both entities and was personally liable as the sole company director of Apollinaire.

HMRC relied on case law: Clynes v Revenue and Customs[2016] UKFTT 369 (TC) which reads as follows:

“On its normal meaning, the use of the term indicates that for there to be a deliberate inaccuracy on a person’s part, the person must have acted consciously, with full intention or set purpose or in a considered way…

…Our view is that, depending on the circumstances, an inaccuracy may also be held to be deliberate where it is found that the person consciously or intentionally chose not to find out the correct position, in particular, where the circumstances are such that the person knew he should do so.”

Commentary

This case is a reverse of the usual TOGC disputes as HMRC sought to establish that there was no taxable supply so no VAT was due. It underlines that:

care should always be taken with applying TOGC treatment (or appreciating the results of failing to recognise a TOGC)
penalties for deliberate errors can be significant and swingeing
directors can, and are, held personally responsible for actions taken by a company

VAT: Disaggregation – The Caton case

By Marcus Ward 12 September 2019

Latest from the courts.

In the Charles John Caton First Tier tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether HMRC were correct in deciding that a business was artificially split to avoid VAT registration (so called disaggregation, details here).

Background

The appellant ran a café known as The Commonwealth for a number of years. Subsequently, his wife opened a restaurant in adjoining premises. HMRC decided that this was a single business and required a backdated VAT registration. This resulted in a retrospective VAT return and associated penalties for late registration.

HMRC pointed to the leases, the liability insurance and the alcohol licence, which are all in Mr Caton’s name, together with the fact he signed a questionnaire stating that he was sole proprietor of the restaurant, and the fact that the washing up area is shared, and say that these show that there was only one business. They also said that the fact that Mrs Caton did not have a bank account and therefore card takings from the restaurant went into Mr Caton’s bank account further bolsters their case.

The appellant proffered the following facts to support the contention that there were two separate businesses: There were separate staff in the restaurant and the café. Those for the cafe were hired by Mr Caton, and are his responsibility, and those for the restaurant were hired by Mrs Caton and are her responsibility. The cooking is done completely separately, by different people using different cooking areas. The menus are completely different, and when the café sells the restaurant ‘specials’ they are rung up on the till with a marker that shows they are restaurant sales. Although the majority of the food is ordered from the same place, there are separate orders (even though these orders are placed at the same time and paid for using Mr Caton’s bank account). Mrs Caton decides on the menu for the restaurant and the prices. She keeps the cash generated from the sales in the cafe, and this is not banked in Mr Caton’s account. Depending on the ratio of cash sales to card sales in any given month, she may need to pay some of it to Mr Caton for the rent, rates etc, but any surplus she keeps.There were two tills, one for the restaurant and one for the cafe.

The Law

The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 1A provides that:

(1) Paragraph 2 below is for the purpose of preventing the maintenance or creation of any artificial separation of business activities carried on by two or more persons from resulting in an avoidance of VAT.

(2) In determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above whether any separation of business activities is artificial, regard shall be had to the extent to which the different persons carrying on those activities are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links.

VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 2 provides that:

(1)… if the Commissioners make a direction under this paragraph, the persons named in the direction shall be treated as a single taxable person carrying on the activities of a business described in the direction…

Decision

The judge decided that she considered the facts that point to the businesses being run and owned as two separate operations were significantly stronger that facts that point to a joint ownership. And the appeal was allowed.

Commentary

These types of cases are decided on the precise facts. I think that this one must have been a close call. It appears the fact that may have swung it was that the judge commented “We find it extremely surprising, in this case, that HMRC have never met with Mrs Caton or, in correspondence, asked her for any details. Mr Caton and HMRC have both told us that he has consistently maintained from the first meeting the fact that Mrs Caton runs the restaurant. We find it impossible that HMRC could be in possession of facts sufficient to make a reasonable decision on this case without hearing from Mrs Caton.” That approach by HMRC is never going to play well in court. It strikes me that this type of approach is increasing in the department. Whether this is down to lack of training, resources or simple corner cutting to save time I cannot say.

If HMRC issue a direction under VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 2 that two or more businesses should be treated as one, it is always worth having that decision reviewed. This is especially relevant in cases such as this where customers are the final consumers making the VAT sticking tax.