Tag Archives: tax-tribunal

VAT: Is dog grooming taught in schools? The Dogs Delight case

By Marcus Ward 15 February 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Julie Lalou t/a Dogs Delight First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether the teaching of dog grooming qualified as private tuition and was therefore exempt.

Background

The Appellant operated a business providing dog grooming and dog grooming courses. The appeal was concerned only with the supplies of dog grooming tuition as it was accepted that dog grooming in itself is taxable.

Technical

The sole issue in dispute in this appeal was whether the supplies fall within the private tuition exemption as for provided by The Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, item 2 “The supply of private tuition, in a subject ordinarily taught in a school or university, by an individual teacher acting independently of an employer”.

HMRC’s view was that “to be eligible for exemption dog grooming would need to be a course that is ‘ordinarily’ taught in schools and universities which it is not…”

The appellant wrote to HMRC giving a list of seven “local Colleges and Universities where the Level 3 Dog Grooming Diploma is ordinarily taught”. The appellant went on to state “There are many more within the UK” which were said to represent around 30% of English colleges. Further it was stated that the business was a City & Guilds approved centre and that the courses were not recreational.

Decision

It was accepted that the courses that the appellant taught involved her making supplies of tuition in that she transferred to her students skills and knowledge.

But, unsurprisingly, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant had failed to demonstrate that dog grooming is taught at a wide number of schools and universities

The court also determined that the appellant needed to provide some evidence of whether dog grooming was taught at schools and universities in the EU (again, something she had failed to do).

Commentary

The exemption for private tuition is fraught with complexities and the amount of case law on the subject is significant, which indicates the difficulties in analysing the VAT position. An example here. It is important to establish what is being provided and that research is carried out to consider the degree of ubiquity of the subject in education. A general guide to education here. The phrase “ordinarily taught” is rather nebulous and it would be prudent to obtain as much evidence as possible that a subject is s commonly or ordinarily taught in schools and universities if a supply is treated as exempt.

VAT: DIY housebuilders can make more than one claim – The Ellis case

By Marcus Ward 18 October 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Andrew Ellis and Jane Bromley [2021] TC08277, the issue was whether a person constructing their own house can make more than one claim for VAT incurred.

Background

The DIY Housebuilder’s Scheme enables a DIY housebuilder to recover VAT incurred on the construction of a house in which the constructor will live. Details here.

In this case, the specific issue was whether, despite the HMRC guidance notes on the scheme claim form explicitly stating that only one claim can be made, whether two claims may be submitted and paid by the respondent.

The appellant constructed a house over a period of five years (he was a jobbing builder and the work was generally only undertaken at weekends and holidays). To aid cash flow, an initial claim was made, followed by a second two years later.

The relevant legislation is The VAT Act 1994 section 35.

Decision

The appeal was allowed. The FTT found that HMRC’s rule that only one claim could be made under the DIY housebuilder’s scheme was ultra vires and that multiple claims should be permitted.

The judge stated that “…there is no express indication that only one claim may be made. Like many provisions, section 35 VATA is drafted in the singular. Drafting in the singular is an established technique to assist in clarity and to enable the proposal to be dealt with succinctly. As there is no express indication to the contrary in section 35 VATA, section 6 Interpretation Act 1978 applies to confirm that the reference to “a claim” in section 35 VATA must be read as including “claims”.

Commentary

This is good news for claimants who often must wait a number of years for a house to be built and therefore carry the VAT cost until the end of the project.

This case presumably means that it is possible to make claims as the project progresses and there is no need to wait until completion.

We await comment on this case from HMRC, but it is hoped that clarification will be forthcoming on whether the result of this case will be accepted.

VAT: Farm in business? The Babylon case

By Marcus Ward 21 September 2021

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Babylon Farm Ltd (the farm) the issue was whether the appellant was in business and consequently was able to recover certain input tax.

Background

Yet another case on whether there was any business activity in a company. Please see here, here, here and here for previous cases on this issue. The farm sold hay which it cut from another person’s fields to a connected party. The value of the one-off annual sale was £440 pa. The appellant also contended that it was also undertaking preparatory acts for the new business activities and that it would be able to levy management charges. Another new business activity was the creation of an investment and insurance product.

The farm built a new barn on which it claimed input tax of £19,760.

HMRC considered that no business was being carried on and decided to deregister the farm thus refusing to pay the input tax claim. The farm challenged this decision and contended that taxable supplies were being made, and there was also an intention to make taxable supplies in the future.

Legislation

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 of the VAT Act 1994 requires HMRC to be satisfied that a person is either making taxable supplies or is carrying on a business and intends to make such supplies in the course or furtherance of a business in order to be registered for VAT. There are a number of tests set out in case law (mainly The Lord Fisher case) to establish whether a person is in business:

Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
Are the taxable supplies that are being made of a kind which, subject to differences of detail, are commonly made by those who seek to profit from them?

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The farm was not in business and could not recover input tax on the costs of the new barn.

The judge stated that he could see no legal basis for the farm to be in business. The hay that the farm sold was taken from the customer’s own land and therefore belonged to him already. It was also noted that no invoices were raised, no payment for the hay had been made for a number of years and the single customer was a director of Babylon Farm Limited so the farm was not operating in an open market. The sale of hay had not been conducted on a basis that followed sound and recognised business principles or on a basis that was predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for consideration. As a consequence, the farm was not operating as a business during the relevant period.

On the intention point; neither of the intended activities had yet resulted in any chargeable services being provided and both were to be carried on through companies that had been formed for these purposes (not the farm). Both businesses remained at a formative stage and neither company has generated any revenue. This was insufficient to retain the VAT registration.

Commentary

The decision was hardly a surprise and one wonders how it reached the UT. HMRC were always going to challenge an input tax claim of that quantum with no output tax (and such a low value of sales which may not have been made in any event).

VAT: Report on Tax Tribunal performance published

By Marcus Ward 7 September 2021

A new report reviewing the performance of the Tax Chamber of the First-tier Tribunals (FTT) has been published. It identifies the FTT’s strengths and areas for improvement It has been published by the independent the Tax Law Review Committee (TLRC)

The major causes of dissatisfaction among FTT users include:

delay
lack of communication by the FTT administration
a lack of engagement by some judges during the hearing
the allocation of cases to judges with the appropriate knowledge or skill.

Delay is the overriding concern among tribunal users surveyed: both delay between the hearing and the release of the decision (which sometimes is over one year) and delay caused by the FTT administration. Especially in relation to the FTT administration, the underlying cause of these problem seems to be a lack of funding, as there is a rapid staff-turnover with staff leaving for better renumerated jobs in other parts of the Civil Service.

Area of strength:

how litigants in person are often assisted by judges taking an inquisitorial approach.

The report identifies potential for further improvements to access to justice for litigants in person, including allowing remote video-hearings as an alternative to having cases determined on paper without a hearing, and the possible establishment of a pro-bono advocacy scheme.

VAT – Latest on the coronavirus position

By Marcus Ward 23 March 2020

Update

Clearly VAT is not high on people’s agendas at the moment, but it may be a concern if a business is struggling to pay it in these difficult times.

The government has announced that, along with other measures to reassure and assist business, an easement for paying VAT due. Taxpayers may now defer VAT payments.

Measures

The details:

the next quarter’s VAT has been deferred to the end of the tax year
no business will pay any from now until the end of June
all UK businesses are eligible
the deferral does not cover payments due under the VAT MOSS scheme
no penalties or interest will be due on the tax deferred under these measures
this represents a circa £30 billion cash boost for business
unlike some other countries, the deadline to submit returns has not been deferred – which is unfortunate given the virus’ effect on staff and administrative processes
additional resources have been allocated to deal with time to pay (TTP) applications
the regular inspection of businesses has been suspended until further notice
there has been no announcement on the temporary reduction of VAT rates – but this may happen in the near future
all proceedings in UK First Tier Tribunal (FTT) are stayed for 28 days

Access to the scheme

This is an automatic offer with no applications required. Businesses will not need to make a VAT payment during this period. Taxpayers will be given until the end of the 2020 to 2021 tax year to pay any liabilities that have accumulated during the deferral period. VAT refunds and reclaims will be paid by HMRC as normal.

Businesses who normally pay by direct debit should cancel their direct debit with their bank if they are unable to pay. This must be done in sufficient time so that HMRC do not attempt to automatically collect on receipt of a submitted VAT return.

Commentary

These are very welcome easements for business and the speed and clarity of the statements are very welcomed and should be commended.

VAT: Bad Debt Relief – The Total case

By Marcus Ward 1 July 2019

Latest from the courts

Bad Debt Relief (BDR) is often an area that creates disputes with HMRC. The legislation has changed over the years and the current rules are described here.

Background

Broadly speaking, under normal VAT rules, 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). BDR, as the names suggests, is intended to provide relief on the VAT element of a bad debt. Output tax previously claimed may be “reclaimed” by using the BDR mechanism.

The law which governs the claiming of bad debt relief is The VAT Act 1994, Section 36, and Section 26A which covers the repayment of input tax when a customer fails to pay for supplies received within six months of the relevant date, and The VAT Regulations 1995, Parts XIX, XIXA and XIXB.

Conditions for claiming bad debt relief

A business must have accounted for the VAT on the supplies and paid it to HMRC
It must have been written off the debt in its day to day VAT accounts and transferred it to a separate bad debt account
The value of the supply must not be more than the customary selling price
The debt must not have been paid, sold or factored under a valid legal assignment
The debt must have remained unpaid for a period of six months after the date of the supply

The case

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Total Catering Equipment Ltd [2019] TC 07184, heard on 4 June 2019, the issue was whether payments from customers which were diverted by a dishonest employee should be recognised as a payment for a supply of goods (no BDR available as the money was received then stolen) or whether the fact that the business did not actually receive the payment meant that a BDR was appropriate. Total supplied goods to customers, some of whom paid by credit or debit cards. The member of staff responsible for these transactions, set up a separate (from the business) bank account and fraudulently diverted customers; payments into his own account. A BDR claim was made by the appellant when the crime was discovered. The claim was refused by HMRC on the grounds that the employee had received payment “on behalf” of Total before making payment into his own account.

Decision

The judge found for the appellant. The appeal was allowed – it was decided that Total had never actually received payment for the goods supplied, so BDR was available. A distinction was made between the diversion of monies in this case (where the supplier was deemed to never had received the money) and a theft by an employee from, eg; a till or subsequent withdrawals from the business’ bank account (where a business would have received payment before the money was stolen).

Commentary

I have written about VAT and illegal activities here. There can be a fine line between taxable illegal activities and non-taxable illegal activities, and subtleties around tax points (time of supply) misrepresentation and consideration. If you, or your clients have been in the unfortunate position of being on the receiving end of crime, it would be adding insult to injury to have to account for tax on money you do not have. I would always advise that any demands from HMRC, or refusals to refund VAT should be properly reviewed.

VAT: Latest from the courts – Are loan administration services exempt?

By Marcus Ward 1 May 2018

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Target Group Limited (Target) the appeal was against a decision by HMRC that loan administration services supplied by Target to a UK bank, Shawbrook Bank Limited (Shawbrook) were standard rated.

Background

Target contracted with Shawbrook to provide services related to loans provided by Shawbrook to its customers in the course of its lending business. Target’s description of its services was “loan account administration services” which amounted to Shawbrook outsourcing the management of the loans to Target. The services that Target provided covered the entire lifecycle of the loans, apart from the making of the initial loan. Target established loan accounts using its own systems, communicates with borrowers as an undisclosed agent of Shawbrook, and dealt with payments by borrowers and all administrative issues that arose. Target had limited discretion. The terms of the loans, including interest rates, were set by Shawbrook. Although Target is involved in dealing with arrears, any enforcement action would be a decision for Shawbrook. Specifically, the contract described Target as being “a provider of loan origination and account operation services” which “performs activities including the functions of: payment processing and servicing and portfolio management services”

Issue

It was accepted that Shawbrook made the loans (not Target) and that the services provided by Target were to Shawbrook and comprised a single (composite) supply for VAT purposes, rather than multiple supplies. Details of the definition between the two types of supply have been hot news in the VAT world for some time. My commentary on relevant recent case law here here here here here and here

The issue was the precise nature of the supplies and whether they qualified for exemption. The areas of dispute included whether Target’s supplies were excluded from exemption as debt collection, and whether the loan accounts fall to be treated as current accounts.

Target’s case was that the principal supply it made to Shawbrook related to payments and transfers in the same way as in the Electronic Data Services Ltd (EDS) case, which related to similar customer-facing loan administration services. (EDS provided loan arrangement and execution services to banks in relation to the granting of personal loans. The services included the provision of a staffed call centre, the printing and despatch of loan agreement documentation, the transfer of funds via the BACS system on the release of loans and the administrative work related to handling loan accounts and repayments). In the alternative, the principal or core supply relates to the operation of accounts (specifically, current accounts), or amounts to transactions concerning debts.

Technical

Article 135(1)(d) of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC (the Principal VAT Directive, or “PVD”) requires Member States to exempt the following transactions: “transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit and current accounts, payments, transfers, debts, cheques and other negotiable instruments, but excluding debt collection;”

This is transposed into UK legislation via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, items 1 and 8:

“Item 1. The issue, transfer or receipt of, or any dealing with, money, any security for money or any note or order for the payment of money. …

Item 8. The operation of any current, deposit, or savings account.”

Decision

It was decided that Target’s supplies did not qualify for exemption and they therefore fell to be standard rated. What was fatal to the appellant’s case was the fact that there was an absence of any involvement in the initial loan. Consequently, although it was possible to view the services as “transactions concerning payments” they fell within the debt collection definition and accordingly were not exempt. The judge also ruled that the supplies may be loan accounts, these did not qualify as an exempt operation of a current account.

Commentary

Of course, this decision was important for the recipient of the supply (Shawbrook) as well as Target. Because its supplies were exempt, the VAT on the outsourcing expenditure would be irrecoverable thus creating an extra 20% cost.

This case once again demonstrates that even the smallest variation of facts can produce an unexpected VAT outcome. Care must be taken to analyse precisely what is being provided. Financial Services is a minefield for VAT and it is certainly one area that assumptions of the VAT treatment should be avoided and timely advice sought.

Picture: A loan arranger (apologies)