Tag Archives: tax

VAT: Apportionment and best judgement – The Homsub case

By Marcus Ward 3 October 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Homsub Ltd case the issue was the apportionment of values when a supply comprises goods at different VAT rates.

Further to the M & S case here is another First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case on the value of food and drink in meal deals. It also considered whether HMRC exercised ‘best judgement’ when it carried out an invigilation exercise to establish the percentage split between supplies subject to VAT and those which were not.

Background

Homsub is a franchisee in respect of Subway products, essentially being hot and cold food, which can be consumed either on or off their premises.

HMRC had concerns that the correct amount of output tax was being declared on sales. Consequently, it carried out an invigilation exercise as follows: The invigilators recorded, in respect of each of the five outlets, each sale made and annotated it with whether it was eat in or take out. A record was also made as to whether the food was hot or cold. Those differences needed to be recorded because of the different VAT treatment in respect of hot food and cold food on the one hand and eat in and take out food on the other. All eat in food is taxable, while some takeaways are zero rated. Further information here.

Contentions

Homsub complained that the methodology adopted by HMRC was flawed as it was not sufficiently refined to give rise to a reasonably reliable overall picture. It was argued that the exercise should have been undertaken by reference to transaction values, rather than the number of transactions. That is – HMRC should have looked at the value of supplies made which did attract VAT as compared to the value of supplies made which did not attract VAT.

The court identified that the true area of concern on the part of the respondents was that Subway sometimes had promotions called “Meal Deals” whereby several products would be bundled together for a single headline price.

Homsub contended that a meal deal offer was available to customers whereby for the all in price of £3 a customer could purchase a sandwich (hot or cold) and a drink (which could be a fizzy drink or hot beverage upon which VAT would be due). If the meal deal involved hot food, then it would be subject to VAT.

HMRC’s issue was that because of the way in which the appellant’s till was set up, it treated £2.99 of each meal deal as attributable to the sandwich (VAT free if cold) and only 1p to the accompanying drink which, if subject to VAT, would mean that the VAT would be one fifth of one penny.

Outcomes

Homsub stated that it is entitled to run its business as it sees fit and to make such commercial decisions as best suit its business. The appellant said that it is entitled to sell loss leaders, as do many major retailers, or to sell stock at less than cost price if that somehow serves the best overall commercial interests of the business.

The court ruled that this was not a true loss leader situation. This was a transaction were goods are packaged together to be sold at a single price. What must be done is to look at the reality of the transaction when apportioning the part of the money paid by the customer between the various components within the package of goods sold. Consequently, Homsub needed to apportion the sales value in a different way. This would not necessarily be on the basis of the relevant retail prices. This is because accurate apportionment is difficult, especially as, as Homsub explained, that labour is by far the largest cost component within the cost of a sandwich and the overall meal deal package, that is; much more staff labour was devoted to preparing sandwiches than serving drinks.

If the case stopped there, there would be additional output tax for Homsub to pay. However…

Methodology and best judgement

The court decided that the assessment methodology adopted by HMRC was significantly flawed and potentially misleading. A simple count of transactions that did attract VAT and those which did not attract VAT might be capable of being appropriate in certain kinds of business, but not in this case. Further, a statistician or forensic accountant would be ‘alarmed to find that the methodology used by HMRC was considered to be either acceptable or such as to give rise to a reasonably reliable result’. In court, the representative of HMRC was forced to agree with this interpretation- which must have caused embarrassment. The court also said that it was not its function to go on to undertake any kind of assessment to ascertain what, if any, additional VAT might be due.

Decision

In the court’s judgement the methodology was flawed to such an extent that it would be wholly unreasonable, and unfair to the appellant, to base a best judgement assessment thereon. The appeal was therefore allowed.

Commentary

Always have assessments of this sort reviewed. There is significant case law on ‘best judgement’ most salient being: Van Boeckel v C&E [1981] and Rahman v HMRC. Additionally, HMRC often make certain assumptions on assessments based on invigilation and mark up exercises. These can be challenged, as can the methodology. As examples, HMRC need to recognise, inter alia;

seasonal trade variations
discounts
customer preferences (in this case, Homsub explained that at some of its shops’ locations a lot of customers were students and preferred to take away rather than eating in)
representative periods
sales/special offers
the times invigilations were carried out (were they representative of all trade?)
the number of invigilations and ‘test meals’ – were they sufficient to establish a fair overall picture of the business?
own and staff use
business promotions
loss of goods (destroyed, waste, stolen etc)
gross/net
gifts to customers
alternative methods
HMRC staff experience etc

All of these and other situations can affect expected sale values.

I have further set out how HMRC operate in these situations here.

I have a success rate of over 90% in getting these types of assessments reduced or completely withdrawn. Please do not simply accept HMRC’s decision, nor the, increasingly, bullying stance they can adopt. Always challenge!

VAT: Extent of welfare exemption – The Lilias Graham Trust case

By Marcus Ward 3 October 2019

Latest from the courts

Certain welfare services are exempt from VAT via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, Item 9 – services which are directly connected with the care or protection of children. In the The Lilias Graham Trust (LGT) First Tier Tribunal case, the scope of the exemption was considered.

Background

LGT, which has charitable status, operated residential assessment centres, which supported parents (many of whom had mental health issues) in learning how to care for their children.

It was common ground that LGT’s services were as summarised in a letter from Glasgow City Council (where relevant):

LGT is an assessment centre providing assessment services on the parenting capacity of those referred to the service
The assessment services cover families where there is an uncertainty about whether the parent(s) can safely look after their children
LGT is simply acting as an observer watching the parent’s care for their own children and providing information in the form of advice
LGT is not providing any treatment in the form of medical care for any illness or injury
LGT’s recommendation following the assessment provides a recommendation to social workers around whether the parent(s) has sufficient capacity to keep their child safe and healthy
GCC viewed the residential accommodation as a fundamental part of the provision of the assessment services on the parenting capacity of those families which were referred to LGT.

Although the major part of LGT’s income came from the Local Authority fees, it is also subsidised to a degree by grants and donations.

Technical

In this case the odd position was that HMRC was arguing for exemption because, in learning how to care for their children, the services were “closely linked” to welfare services or “directly connected” to them as provided for by the Principal VAT Directive and the VAT Act in turn.

LGT contended that their supplies to a Local Authority (which could recover any VAT charged) were taxable as they did not fall within the welfare definition. LGT admitted that there was a causal relationship between the services provided and the care and protection of children, but the connection was too remote to be deemed to be a direct connection – There were several intervening factors and intermediaries between the service provided and the care and protection of children.

At issue was net input tax of circa £400,000 which would be recoverable by LGT if its supplies were taxable, but not if they were exempt. Guide to partial exemption here.

Decision

The court found that the essential purpose of the supplies made by LGT was to ensure that the child was better cared for and had optimal protection. That is precisely why the Local Authority employed LGT. Its supplies are both closely linked and directly connected with the protection of children as also to their care. Accordingly, the appellant made supplies of welfare services which are exempt from VAT. The fact that LGT provided its services to the Local Authority rather than the parents did not mean that its services should be taxable. Therefore, there was no output tax chargeable to the Local Authority and no input tax recovery by LGT on expenditure attributable to those exempt supplies.

Commentary

In this case, HMRC originally ruled that the services were taxable and LGT were required to VAT register, it even issued a late registration penalty. HMRC clearly subsequently changed its view which put input tax which LGT had recovered at risk. There are often disputes on the extent of the exemption, and sometimes debates on whether a service is supplied, or simply staff providing their services. It is important to understand these sometimes subtle differences as getting it wrong can be costly, as LGT found out.

Claiming VAT from the EU after Brexit

By Marcus Ward 1 October 2019

More work, confusion and administration for VAT after Brexit.

After a No-Deal Brexit it will not be possible to recover input tax incurred in other EU Member States by using HMRC’s online service. This is known as; the electronic cross-border refund system which enables a business that incurs VAT on expenditure in a Member State where it is not established and makes no supplies, to recover that VAT directly from that Member State (the Member State of refund).

HMRC state that this will be the case after 5pm on 31 October 2019, but we shall have to wait and see on the precise timing.

HMRC has published meagre guidance on the new method of recovering overseas VAT (for some of us at a certain age, it is the “old” EC 8th Directive method).

Claiming a refund after Brexit

Unhelpfully, each EU Member State has its own process for refunding VAT to businesses based outside the EU (as UK businesses will be post Brexit). This is similar to the existing EC 13^th Directive claims. A UK Business will need to use the process for the EU country where it is claiming a refund; even for unclaimed expenses incurred before Brexit.

A business will have to wade through the requirements and the EC provides assistance here.

This will be a complete headache for claimants and underlines the benefits of a harmonised system. Each claim form is different in each Member State, each form must be completed in the language of the country in which VAT is being claimed, and these forms are very bureaucratic; some run to over ten pages…. It will also be necessary to obtain and provide a Certificate of Status (CoS).

In summary

CoS

HMRC can issue a form VAT66A which may be used by claimants to prove that they are engaged in business activities at the time of the claim. A CoS is only valid for twelve months. Once it has expired you will need to submit a new CoS.

EC 13^th Directive claim

A non-EU based business may make a claim for recovery of VAT incurred in the EU. Typically, these are costs such as; employee travel and subsistence, service charges, exhibition costs, imports of goods, training, purchases of goods in the UK, and clinical trials etc.

The scheme is available for any businesses that are not VAT registered anywhere in the EU, have no place of business or other residence in the EU and do not make any supplies there.

The usual rules that apply to UK business claiming input tax also apply to 13th Directive claims. Consequently, the likes of; business entertainment, car purchase, non-business use and supplies used for exempt activities are usually barred.

Process

The business must obtain a CoS to accompany a claim. The application form is a VAT65A and is available here Original invoices which show the VAT charged must be submitted with the claim form and business certificate. Applications without a certificate, or certificates and claim forms received after the relevant deadline are not accepted. It is possible for a business to appoint an agent to register to enable them to make refund applications on behalf of that business.

VAT: Digital services to EU customers after Brexit

By Marcus Ward 1 October 2019

HMRC has published guidance on how to account for digital sales to EU customers when the UK’s MOSS system becomes redundant. Full document here.

After Brexit, businesses will no longer be able to use the Mini One Stop Shop (MOSS) to declare sales and pay VAT due in EU Member States.

The final return period for MOSS will be the period ending 31 December 2019.

A business will be able to use MOSS to:

submit a final return by 20 January 2020
amend the final return until 14 February 2020
update registration details until 14 February 2020
view previous returns

For sales made after Brexit, a business will need to register for either:

VAT MOSS in any EU member state
VAT in each EU member state where you sell digital services to consumers.

Registration deadline

A business will need to register by the 10th day of the month following its first sale to an EU customer after Brexit.

A business cannot register before Brexit.

The EC website may be used to:

check whether a business should register for Union or Non-Union MOSS
find out who to contact to register for VAT MOSS in an EU member state.

Further details are provided in the HMRC guidance.

The above assumes that the UK will leave the EU, and that there will be no agreements on VAT before Brexit

What are digital services?

Radio and television broadcasting services

These include:

the supply of audio and audio-visual content
live streaming

Telecommunications services

This means transmission of signals of any nature by wire, optical, electromagnetic or other system and includes:

fixed and mobile telephone services
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
voice mail, call waiting, call forwarding, caller identification, 3-way calling and other call management services
paging services
access to the internet

Electronically supplied services

These rules only apply to e-services that you supply electronically and includes things like:

supplies of images or text, such as photos, screensavers
supplies of music, films and games
online magazines
website supply or web hosting services
distance maintenance of programmes and equipment
supplies of software and software updates
advertising space on a website

Tax – Why do people pay it?

By Marcus Ward 16 September 2019

This seems a rather pointless question to ask, and I suspect many people will reply “because we have to”. But is it as simple as that?

An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report this month looks at the willingness of individuals and businesses to voluntarily pay tax and how it can be improved through better understanding of the complex interlinkages between enforcement, trust in government and the ease of compliance.

The report called ‘Tax Morale: What Drives People and Businesses to Pay Tax?‘ is interesting to read for tax advisers and taxpayers alike. It considers the drivers behind compliance with tax obligations and focuses on developing countries where compliance rates are low.

Many developing countries face a range of challenges in increasing revenue domestically. These challenges include:

a small tax base
a large informal sector
weak governance and administrative capacity
low per capita income
low levels of domestic savings and investment
tax avoidance and evasion by firms and elites.

As a result, two-thirds of least developed countries still struggle to raise taxes equivalent to more than 15% of GDP, the widely accepted minimum to enable an effective state. In comparison, OECD member countries raise taxes, on average, close to 35% of GDP.

Apparently, compliance is not determined solely by tax rates or the threat of penalties, but rather by a wide range of socio-economic and institutional factors that vary across regions and populations.

Improving tax morale can contribute to efforts to overhaul the international tax rules and improve compliance by multinational enterprises and it may also improve the efforts to counter banking secrecy and tax evasion.

Tax morale is composed of several, interlinked, elements. A theory set out in the report posits that trust is driven by the degree to which the tax system, including the approach to facilitation and enforcement, is characterised as:

fair
equitable
reciprocal
accountable

As such, strengthening tax compliance is not only about improving tax enforcement and enforced compliance, but also about pursuing “quasi-voluntary compliance” through building trust and facilitating payments.

Why is this important?

The report states that a better understanding of what motivates taxpayers to participate in, and comply with, a tax system is valuable for all countries and stakeholders. Tax administrations can benefit from increased compliance and higher revenues, taxpayers (both businesses and individuals) are better served by tax systems that understand and are responsive to their needs, while increased data and discussion can help researchers deepen their understanding.

So…

In terms of VAT, what are our experiences of HMRC? Is it fair, equitable, reciprocal and accountable? Having discussed this at most client meetings where businesses have been challenged, and my experience in the department and advising businesses is: It used to be a lot better, there was a feeling that they were “trying to get things right”, however, this sense has been declining and trust is increasingly and rapidly being lost. Is this nostalgia, or does HMRC increasingly rely on bullying, ignoring contentions, misunderstanding or misapplying legislation or not being concerned with taxpayers?

All I would say here is that the fact that HMRC can issue a written ruling, but then go back on it if it suits them, is hardly fair or equitable. See here – no more “Sheldon Statement” protection for taxpayers.

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.

VAT DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – useful information

By Marcus Ward 9 September 2019

The DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme is a tax refund scheme for people who build, or arrange to have built, a house they intend to live in. It also applies to converting commercial property into a house(s). Details here.

However, there are often uncertainties and disputes over precisely what tax may be claimed on various expenditure. To this end, HMRC has published a comprehensive list of items, sorted alphabetically, which should avoid a lot of potential disagreements on claims.

It should be noted that a claim for services can only be made for conversions (at the reduced rate of 5%) as any services in respect of a new build property should be zero rated.

What else can a housebuilder not claim for?

There is no claim available for:

building projects outside the UK
materials or services that are not subject to VAT, eg; are zero-rated or exempt or provided by a non VAT-registered supplier
professional or supervisory fees, eg; architects and surveyors
the hire of plant, tools and equipment, eg; generators, scaffolding and skips
building materials that aren’t permanently attached to or, part of, the building itself
some fitted furniture, electrical and gas appliances, carpets or garden ornaments
supplies for which you do not have a VAT invoice.

If you would like assistance with making a claim, please contact us.

VAT: Exempt medical treatment – The Skin Rich case

By Marcus Ward 9 September 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Skin Rich Ltd [2019] TC 07310 First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether Botox and nail treatments could be exempt as health and welfare services: “The supply of services consisting in the provision of medical care” by a “registered person” (principally, doctors, opticians, osteopaths, chiropractors and nurses).

Background

Skin Rich Ltd operated a skin culture and aesthetics clinic offering a range of specialist skin treatments including, but not limited to, Botox and dermal filler treatments or ‘Injectables’ and fungal nail treatments it contended were exempt from VAT.

The appellant employed several medical professionals to administer the injectables arguing it was a medical procedure and exempt under VATA 1994, Sch. 9, Grp. 7, items 1 and 2. It was not enough, however, that the services were provided by persons registered as appropriate, they had to be providing “medical care” in order to meet the terms of the exemption. Their principal purpose had to be the protection, including the maintenance or restoration of health. Whilst it was conceded a cosmetic benefit would not preclude a treatment having a primary purpose to protect, restore or maintain the health of an individual.

Decision

The FTT dismissed the appeal that Botox services and fungal nail treatment supplied by them were exempt under VATA 1994, Sch. 9, Grp. 7, items 1 and 2, or alternatively item 4. Consequently, output tax was due on the full value of these supplies. The FTT was not persuaded the services were principally to protect, restore or maintain the health of an individual. They did not, therefore, meet the definition of medical care established by the relevant case law. Furthermore, they did not consider the taxpayer to be “state regulated” as required by item 4.

Commentary

This can be a difficult area of the tax. I have dealt with a number of cases where apparent cosmetic surgery (breast augmentation and liposuction etc) were argued to have beneficial mental health outcomes. Case law on this matter is sometimes conflicting. Care should be taken when determining the VAT liability of certain procedures. The tests are more than something being “sort of medical”.

This was not an unexpected outcome, but presumably the appellant thought that, for the tax involved, it was worth going to court.

VAT: Domestic Reverse Charge for builders – introduction delayed

By Marcus Ward 9 September 2019

As you were…

The UK Government has announced that it is to delay the introduction of the VAT Domestic Reverse Charge (DRC) for construction businesses by a year after a coalition of trade bodies and organisations highlighted its potentially damaging consequences. Details of DRC here

The DRC was due to come into force from 1st October this year, but it has been announced via Revenue and Customs Brief 10 (2019): domestic reverse charge VAT for construction services – delay in implementation that it has been deferred for a year. The new implementation date will be 1 October 2020 unless there are further delays.

The move has been welcomed by all parties affected by the rules and HMRC said that it was committed to working closely with the sector to raise awareness and provide additional guidance to make sure all businesses will be ready for the new implementation date.

Invoices etc

HMRC have also recognised that some businesses have already put changes in place to anticipate the original introduction date and appreciate that it may not be possible to reverse these changes before 1 October 2019. Where “genuine errors” have occurred, HMRC has stated that it will take into account the late change in its implementation date.

Comments

The Chief Executive of the Federation of Master Builders said “I’m pleased that the government has made this sensible and pragmatic decision to delay reverse charge VAT until a time when it will have less of a negative impact on the tens of thousands of construction companies across the UK. To plough on with the October 2019 implementation could have been disastrous given that the changes were due to be made just before the UK is expected to leave the EU, quite possibly on ‘no-deal’ terms.” The situation hasn’t been helped by the poor communication and guidance produced by HMRC. Despite the best efforts of construction trade associations to communicate the changes to their members, it’s concerning that so few employers have even heard of reverse charge VAT.”

It has been stated by certain trade bodies that more than two-thirds of construction firms had not heard of the VAT changes and of those who had, around the same number had not prepared for them. My own experience backs this up and talking to other tax people and building businesses it is clear that this is not an issue which has been publicised widely and despite accountancy firms doing their best to bring it to the attention of relevant clients and contacts, many remain unaware.

Commentary

Discussions over Brexit (obviously!) have been blamed for the situation, although there is no word about why HMRC waited until a month before the intended implication to decide to delay the DRC. A lot of work has been carried out on this matter, and changes to documentation, processing and systems have taken place which will need to be reversed before 1 October 2019. At least the delay will provide HMRC with a new chance to let affected parties know next time and gives them time to identify why so many building businesses were unaware of the reverse charge.

Whether the DRC IS introduced next year remains to be seen. To my mind, it does not deal with the major sources of tax leakage in the construction industry and, as usual, complaint business will play by the book and those that do not will find a way round the rules. To exclude labour only services appears to be a folly. Perhaps they will be amended before next year.

VAT EU Gap Report

By Marcus Ward 5 September 2019

Mind the gap

EU countries lost €137 billion in VAT revenues in 2017 according to a study released by the EC on 5 September 2019. The VAT Gap has slightly reduced compared to previous years but remains very high.

This gap represents a loss of 11.2% of the total expected VAT revenue.

During 2017, collected VAT revenues increased at a faster rate of 4.1% than the 2.8% increase of VAT Total Tax Liability (VTTL). As a result, the overall VAT Gap in the EU Member States saw a decrease in absolute values of about EUR 8 billion or 11.2% in percentage terms.

Member States in the EU are losing billions of Euros in VAT revenues because of tax fraud and inadequate tax collection systems according to the latest report. The VAT Gap, which is the difference between expected VAT revenues and VAT actually collected, provides an estimate of revenue loss due to tax fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance, but also due to bankruptcies, financial insolvencies or miscalculations.

In 2017, Member States’ VAT Gaps ranged from 0.6% in Cyprus, 0.7% in Luxembourg, and 1.5% in Sweden to 35.5% in Romania and 33.6% in Greece. Half of EU-28 MS recorded a Gap above 10.1%.

Overall, the VAT Gap as percentage of the VTTL decreased in 25 Member States, with the largest improvements noted in Malta, Poland, and Cyprus and increased in three – namely Greece, Latvia, and Germany.

The variations of VAT Gaps between the Member States reflect the existing differences in terms of; tax compliance, fraud, avoidance, bankruptcies, insolvencies and tax administration. Other circumstances could also have an impact on the size of the VAT Gap such as economic developments and the quality of national statistics.

The UK

In the year 2017, in the UK the VTTL was £158421 millions of which £141590 millions was actually collected. This leaves a VAT gap for the UK of £16831 millions which represents 11% of the amount which is estimated was due to HMRC. About a mid-table performance compared to other Member States.