Tag Archives: tribunal

VAT – Claiming input tax on fuel. A warning

By   27 February 2017
0

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Cohens Chemist the issue was whether VAT paid on employees’ mileage expenses was recoverable.

Background

The appellant offers a delivery service of prescription medicines.  This service was undertaken by the appellants’ employees, using their own vehicles. The employees buy the fuel which is to be used in their vehicles, with their own money, and later submit claims to the appellants for the payment of a mileage allowance related to the distance covered.  The allowance includes an element of reimbursement for the fuel used.  The appellant then claim credit for the input tax included in the cost of the fuel which they have reimbursed in this way. This is permissible via VAT (Input Tax) (Reimbursement by Employers of Employees’ Business Use of Road Fuel) Regulations 2005. HMRC sought to disallow these claims on the basis that there were no supporting invoices form the petrol stations and that the detailed records kept were not sufficient to support the recovery of VAT.

Decision

Unfortunately for the taxpayer,  it was decided that the failure by to retain fuel receipts in compliance with mandatory requirement of Regulations meant that the disallowance of the input tax claims was appropriate.  This was particularly costly for Cohens Chemist as the input tax at stake here was £67,000. Additionally, the Tribunal held that there was discretion to allow alternative evidence and that this discretion was reasonably exercised to reject the claim.

Commentary 

A very simple lesson to be learned from this case:

Always obtain and retain fuel receipts!  

Failure to do so can be very costly, and it does not matter how detailed and accurate your fuel records are.  You must check your system for the VAT treatment of fuel allowances.

VAT Latest from the courts – White Goods claims by housebuilders

By   27 February 2017
0

Recovery of input tax on goods included in the sale of a new house.

The recent Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Taylor Wimpey plc considered whether builders of new dwellings are able to recover input tax incurred on certain expenditure on goods supplied with the sale of a new house. We are aware that there are many cases stood behind this hearing and it is understood that the appellant’s claim amounts to circa £60 million alone. Unfortunately, the UT ruled against the appellant.

The rules

Before considering the impact of the case, I thought it worthwhile to look at the rules on this matter.

There is in place a Blocking Order (“Builders’ Block”) which prohibits recovery of input tax on goods which are not “building materials”. In most cases it is simple to determine what building materials are; bricks, mortar, timber etc, but the difficulty comes with items such as white goods (ovens, hobs, washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators etc) carpets, and similar.  So what are the rules?

These are set out in HMRC’s VAT Notice 708 para 13.2

There are five criteria:

  • The articles are incorporated into the buildings (or its site)
  • the articles are “ordinarily” incorporated by builders into that type of building
  • other than kitchen furniture, the articles are not finished or prefabricated furniture, or materials for the construction of fitted furniture
  • with certain exceptions, the articles are not gas or electrical appliances
  • the articles are not carpets or carpeting material

To qualify as building materials, goods have to meet all of these criteria

Examples of specific goods are given at VAT Notice 708 para 13.8 

The case

Generally, Taylor Wimpey’s argument was that under the VAT law in force at the time of the claim it was entitled to recover the VAT paid on these items and the Builders’ Block did not prevent it from recovering input tax on these goods. The VAT was properly recoverable as it was attributable to the zero rated sale of the house when complete. Taylor Wimpey further contended that if the Builder’s Block did apply, it was unlawful under EU law and should therefore be disapplied.  Additionally, there was a challenge on the meaning of “incorporates … in any part of the building or its site” and the meaning of “ordinarily installed by builders as fixtures”.

The Builders’ Block which prevents housebuilders from reclaiming VAT on such goods was challenged on the basis that the UK was not allowed to extend input tax blocks, as it had done in 1984 (white goods) and 1987 (carpets).

The decision

The UT ruled that the block could be extended in relation to supplies which were zero-rated and that the block properly applied to most of appellants’ claim.  The UT held that only goods “ordinarily installed” in a house were excepted from the block, but that exception does not cover white goods and fitted carpets supplied since the appropriate rule changes.

Commentary

This ruling was not really a surprise and, unless Taylor Wimpey pursues this further it provides clarity.  It demonstrates that technology and the requirements of a modern house purchaser have moved on significantly since the 1970s and 1980s.  I doubt many houses built in the 1970s had dishwashers or extractor hoods.  The ruling does bear reading from a technical viewpoint as my summary does not go into the full reasons for the decision.  If you, or your client have a claim stood behind this case it is obviously not good news as claims for white goods are extremely limited.  If you have mistakenly claimed for white or similar goods, it would be prudent to review the position in light of this case.  The decision also affects claims via the DIY Housebuilder’s Scheme.  Details of this scheme here

VAT Latest from the courts – Reverse Charge

By   13 February 2017
0

The First Tier Tribunal case of University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne is a useful reminder of the impact of the Reverse Charge.

A brief guide to the Reverse Charge is included below.

Background

As with many UK universities, Newcastle was keen to encourage applications to study from new students from overseas. This is an important form of income for the institution.  It used local (overseas) agents to recruit students. Some 40% of those students were studying as undergraduates, 40% as postgraduates on one year “taught” courses and 20% as postgraduate research students studying for doctorates.  In 2014 the University had agreements with more than 100 agents worldwide. The agents used their own resources to recruit students for universities around the world, including in the UK. The University entered into contractual arrangements with agents and paid commission to them. In 2008 the University paid agent commissions of £1.034m, rising to £2.214m in 2012.

The Tribunal was required to consider whether the services supplied by the agents were a single supply to University or separate supplies to both the University and students. If the entire supply is to the University then the Reverse Charge is applicable and, because the University is partly exempt, this would create a VAT cost to it. If the supplies are to both the students and the University, the Reverse Charge element would be less and the VAT cost reduced. (There were changes to the Place Of Supply legislation during the period under consideration, but I have tried to focus on the overall impact in this article.)

The University contended that agents made two supplies: a supply to the University of recruitment services and a supply to students of support services. The commission paid by the University should therefore be apportioned so as to reflect in part direct consideration paid by the University for supplies of services to it, and in part third party consideration for services supplied to the students. The supplies to students would not made in the UK and therefore were not subject to UK VAT.

Decision

After thorough consideration of all of the relevant material, the judge decided that the agents made a single supply of services to the University and make no supplies to students. This meant that the University must account for VAT on the full value of services received since 2010 under the Reverse Charge (although before 2010 different rules on place of supply applied).  Additionally,  it was decided the University was not entitled to recover as input tax VAT for which it is required to account by means of a Reverse Charge. There was no direct and immediate link between the commission paid to agents and any taxable output of the University or the economic activities of the University as a whole.

Commentary

It is understood that the way the University recruited students using overseas agents is common amongst most Universities in the UK, so this ruling will have a direct impact on them.  It was hardly a surprising decision, but underlines the need for all businesses to consider the impact of the application of the Reverse Charge.  Of course, the Reverse Charge will only create an actual VAT cost if a business is partly exempt, or involved in non-business activities.  The value of the Reverse Charge also counts towards the VAT registration threshold.  This means that if a fully exempt business receives Reverse Charge services from abroad, it may be required to VAT register (depending on value). Generally, this means an increased VAT cost. This situation may also affect a charity or a NFP entity.

The case also highlights the importance of contracts, documentation and website wording (should any more reminders be needed).  VAT should always be borne in mind when entering into similar arrangements. It may also be possible to structure arrangements to avoid or mitigate VAT costs if carried out at an appropriate time.

We can assist with any of the above and are happy to discuss this with you.

Guide – Reverse charge on services received from overseas
Normally, the supplier of a service is the person who must account to the tax authorities for any VAT due on the supply.  However, in certain situations, the position is reversed and it is the customer who must account for any VAT due.  This is known as the ‘Reverse Charge’ procedure.  Generally, the Reverse Charge must be applied to services which are received by a business in the UK VAT free from overseas. 
Accounting for VAT and recovery of input tax.
Where the Reverse Charge procedure applies, the recipient of the services must act as both the supplier and the recipient of the services.  On the same VAT return, the recipient must
  • account for output tax, calculated on the full value of the supply received, in Box 1;
  • (subject to partial exemption and non-business rules) include the VAT stated in box 1 as input tax in Box 4; and;
  • include the full value of the supply in both Boxes 6 and 7.
Value of supply.
The value of the deemed supply is to be taken to be the consideration in money for which the services were in fact supplied or, where the consideration did not consist or not wholly consist of money, such amount in money as is equivalent to that consideration.  The consideration payable to the overseas supplier for the services excludes UK VAT but includes any taxes levied abroad.
Time of supply.
The time of supply of such services is the date the supplies are paid for or, if the consideration is not in money, the last day of the VAT period in which the services are performed.
The outcome
The effect of the provisions is that the Reverse Charge has no net cost to the recipient if he can attribute the input tax to taxable supplies and can therefore reclaim it in full. If he cannot, the effect is to put him in the same position as if had received the supply from a UK supplier rather than from one outside the UK. Thus the charge aims to avoid cross border VAT rate shopping. It is not possible to attribute the input tax created directly to the deemed (taxable) supply. 

VAT Latest from the courts; vouchers (again)

By   13 February 2017
0

The Court of Appeal (CA) case: Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) considered the VAT treatment of free vouchers.

Business promotions are an area of VAT which continues to prove complex.  This is further exacerbated by changes to the legislation at EC and domestic level and ongoing case law.   A background to the issue of vouchers here 

And a background to the hearing of this particular case at the Upper Tribunal here

Background

The appeal concerned the VAT consequences (in respect of both input and output tax) of promotional schemes carried out by ANL in order to boost the circulation of the newspapers: Daily Mail and the Mail On Sunday.  ANL gave away Marks & Spencer vouchers to people who bought these newspapers for a minimum of three months. The questions where whether attributable (to the provision of the vouchers) input tax was recoverable, and, was there a deemed supply such that output tax was due on the vouchers.  One scheme was managed for ANL by The Hut.com Limited. The Hut received a fee for its services which was subject to VAT and which ANL sought to deduct as input tax. The Hut also purchased the retailer vouchers in batches (usually at a discount) and invoiced them to ANL at cost and also subject to VAT.  In another scheme, ANL purchased vouchers directly from Marks & Spencer.

Decision

HMRC sought to rely on  paragraph 14 of VAT Information Sheet 12/2003, viz: “Where face value vouchers are purchased by businesses for the purpose of giving them away for no consideration (e.g. to employees as ‘perks’ or under a promotion scheme) the VAT incurred is claimable as input tax subject to the normal rules. Output tax is due under the Value Added Tax (Supply of Services) Order 1993. Therefore all vouchers given away for no consideration will be liable to output tax to the extent of the input tax claimed”.

However, the CA agreed with the decisions made at the Upper Tribunal.  Although the vouchers were given away (no consideration) input tax was recoverable because there was an overarching business purpose for the expenditure (increasing sales).  Additionally, it was decided that the provision of the vouchers was not caught by the deemed supply rules so there was no output tax due when the vouchers were given away to readers. ANL also sought to reclaim input tax on vouchers purchased directly from Marks & Spencer – usually at a discount from their face value, but at a price which purported to include VAT. The CA also agreed with the UT on this point; that no VAT was charged on these retailer vouchers, and consequently, there was no input tax to recover.

Commentary

An interesting case, and one that will reward with a reading in full.  It does seem that HMRC’s views on vouchers need revising in light of this decision.  As always, if your business, or your clients’ businesses, are involved with vouchers in any way it is important to ensure that the VAT treatment is correct.  This is especially relevant in light of; previous case law, recent changes to the rules applicable to the treatment of vouchers (as set out in the link above) as well as this specific case.

Please contact us should you wish to discuss this matter.

VAT Postal claims: Zipvit update

By   6 February 2017
0

A full background of this case may be found here

In summary: It was previously decided that certain supplies made by Royal Mail (RM) to its customers were taxable. This was on the basis of the TNT CJEU case. RM had treated them as exempt. HMRC was out of time to collect output tax, but claims made by recipients of RM’s services made retrospective claims. These claims were predicated on the basis that the amount paid to RM included VAT at the appropriate rate (it was embedded in the charge) and that UK VAT legislation stipulates that the “taxable amount” for any supply, is the amount paid by the customer including any VAT included in the price.

Update

We understand that Zipvit’s appeal against the decision by the Upper Tribunal that the relevant input tax was not recoverable has been listed on the Court Of Appeal’s register and is due to be heard in January 2018.

There are a lot of cases stood behind Zipvit and the amount of VAT involved is significant.  If you have an appeal stood behind this case, or act on behalf of a business which has, we recommend that a review of the position is carried out in light of the latest developments. We can assist which such a review if required.

VAT – What is a caravan? Latest from the courts

By   27 January 2017
0

Motorhomes versus caravans…

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Oak Tree Motorhomes Limited the simple issue was whether motorhomes may be considered to fall within the definition of a “caravan” and thus benefit from certain zero rating provisions.  Oak Tree sold certain vehicles commonly called ‘motor homes’, ‘motor caravans’ and ‘campervans’

The VAT Act 1994, Section 30(2) provides that supplies of goods of a description specified in Schedule 8 are zero-rated. At the relevant time this was VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 9, item 1 which described the following goods: “Caravans exceeding the limits of size for the time being permitted for the use on roads of a trailer drawn by a motor vehicle having an unladen weight of less than 2,030 kilogrammes.” Oak Tree contended that the sales of their vehicles were covered by this item and thus should have been zero rated rather than standard rated.

So what is a caravan?

The term is not defined in the VAT legislation, but HMRC base its interpretation on the definitions in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravans Sites Act 1968 as set out in Public Notice 701/20 para 2.1.  In that Notice HMRC state that:

“A caravan is a structure that:

  • is designed or adapted for human habitation
  • when assembled, is physically capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed or by being transported on a motor vehicle so designed or adapted), and
  • is no more than:
  • 20 metres long (exclusive of any drawbar)
  • 8 metres wide, or
  • 05 metres high (measured internally from the floor at the lowest level to the ceiling at the highest level)”

(Note: No reference is made to engine here).

The Decision

It was accepted by HMRC that the vehicles were large enough to qualify as caravans, so the matter turned on the interpretation of a “caravan” and whether the fact that the relevant vehicles incorporated an engine disbarred them. The UT did not appear to waste much time in agreeing with the First Tier Tribunal that a motorhome was not a caravan.  This was so even though accommodation in a motorhome and a qualifying caravan might be almost identical. The UT considered that the First Tier Tribunal’s interpretation of “caravan” by reference to the Oxford English Dictionary was appropriate. An important definition being one which refers to a caravan as generally “…able to be towed”. It was also decided that an engine represented “…an obvious and significant distinction” between a caravan and a motorhome.  It is also interesting that despite HMRC’s Notice referring to the Caravan Act 1960, the UT considered that this should not be used in determining whether a vehicle should be regarded as a caravan

Commentary

This was almost a foregone conclusion, but the appellant obviously thought it was worth another bite at the cherry as the claim was worth over £1.1 million (and an ongoing saving). There are lots of areas involving caravans that throw up VAT oddities, including, but not limited to; pitches, skirts, contents, holiday homes and compound/multiple supplies here 

It may also mean that HMRC will have to consider redrafting Notice 701/20

If a business is involved in any transactions involving caravans it would be prudent to consider whether all of the available reliefs are being taken advantage of, and whether VATable supplies have been correctly identified.

VAT Self-billing and latest from the courts

By   6 January 2017
0

Self-billing: where the customer issues the invoice (and how this can go wrong).

A recent case Court of Appeal case: GB Housley here has highlighted the inherent dangers of using the self-billing system.  Self-billing is a very useful mechanism for a lot of businesses, especially in respect of activities like royalties and scrap purchases where the supplier may not know (or know immediately) the value of the supply.  Before we look at the case, it may be useful to recap the rules for self-billing.

Self-billing is an arrangement between a supplier and a customer. Both customer and supplier must be VAT registered. The customer prepares the supplier’s invoice and forwards a copy to the supplier with the payment.  There is no requirement to notify HMRC or get approval for using the arrangement.

If you are the customer

You issue the documentation and you are able to reclaim as input tax the VAT shown on the self-billing invoice.

In order to set up self-billing arrangements with your supplier you are required to:

  • enter into an agreement with each supplier
  • review agreements with suppliers at regular intervals
  • keep records of each of the suppliers who let you self-bill them
  • make sure invoices contain the required information and are correctly issued

If a supplier stops being registered for VAT then you can continue to self-bill them, but you can’t issue them with VAT invoices. Your self-billing arrangement with that supplier is no longer covered by the VAT regulations.

Self-billing agreements

You can only operate a self-billing arrangement if your supplier agrees to put one in place. If you don’t have an agreement with your supplier your self-billed invoices won’t be valid, and you won’t be able to reclaim the input tax shown on them.

Both parties need to sign a formal self-billing agreement. This is a legally binding document. The agreement must contain:

  • your supplier’s agreement that you, as the self-biller, can issue invoices on your supplier’s behalf
  • your supplier’s confirmation that they won’t issue VAT invoices for goods or services covered by the agreement
  • an expiry date – usually for 12 months’ time but it could be the date that any business contract you have with your supplier ends
  • your supplier’s agreement that they’ll let you know if they stop being registered for VAT
  • details of any third party you intend to outsource the self-billing process to

Reviewing self-billing agreements

Self-billing agreements usually last for 12 months. At the end of this you will need to review the agreement to make sure you can prove to HMRC that your supplier agrees to accept the self-billing invoices you issue on their behalf. It’s very important that you don’t self-bill a supplier when you don’t have their written agreement to do so.

Record keeping

If you are a self-biller you’ll need to keep certain records. These are:

  • copies of the agreements you make with your suppliers
  • the names, addresses and VAT registration numbers of the suppliers who have agreed that you can self-bill them

If you don’t keep the required records, then the self-billed invoices you issue won’t be proper VAT invoices.

All self-billed invoices must include the statement “The VAT shown is your output tax due to HMRC”.

It is important that a business does not add VAT to self-billed invoices that it issues to suppliers who are not VAT-registered.

A business will only be able to reclaim  input tax shown on self-billed invoices if it meets all the record keeping requirements.

If you are a VAT registered supplier

If one of your customers wants to set up a self-billing arrangement with you, they’ll ask you to agree to this in writing. If you agree, they will give you a self-billing agreement to sign.

For VAT purposes you will be required to do all of the following:

  • sign and keep a copy of the self-billing agreement
  • agree not to issue any sales invoices to your customer for any transaction during the period of the agreement
  • agree to accept the self-billing invoices that your customer issues
  • tell your customer at once if you change your VAT registration number, deregister from VAT, or transfer your business as a going concern

The VAT figure on the self-billed invoice your customer sends you is your output tax.   You are accountable to HMRC for output tax on the supplies you make to your customer, so you should check that your customer is applying the correct rate of VAT on the invoices they send you. If there has been a VAT rate change, you will need to check that the correct rate has been used.

The Case

The issues were whether the lack of formalised self-billing agreements disqualified the use of self-billing, and if that was the case, whether alternative evidence should have been accepted to support a claim for input tax. The CoA discharged HMRC’s assessment which was issued to GB Housley – a scrap metal merchant.

The assessment was based on input tax claims made on the basis of the self-billed documents.  It was ruled that although the self-billing was used in error, HMRC should have considered alternative evidence and used its discretion on whether to allow the claims on transactions which took place. For this reason, as it is unclear whether HMRC would have assessed if they had considered other information, the assessment should be removed.

A timely warning to ensure that all of the conditions of self-billing arrangements are met, and that this is clearly demonstrable.  Ongoing monitoring is crucial for businesses operating self-billing as an overlooked change can affect the VAT treatment.

In this case, it looks like the applicant was rather fortunate, but this outcome cannot be relied on if self-billing is applied incorrectly.

We are able to advise on such agreements, arrangements and accounting.

Crime doesn’t pay……..VAT. Is there tax on illegal activities?

By   4 January 2017
0
A gentle introduction to VAT for the new year.  A number of people have been surprised to find that crime does pay tax, thank you very much. It seems bad enough that the police should chase and catch you, put you in the dock and send you to prison, without finding that your first visitor is HMRC….

Dodgy perfume?

Goodwin & Unstead were in business selling counterfeit perfume. They were also up-front about what they were doing. Unstead claimed that “Everything I can carry in my vehicle, everything I trade in and sell, is a complete copy of the real thing. I do not sell goods as the real thing. In fact I sell my goods for a quarter of the original price. I am not out to defraud or con the public. I only appeal to the poseurs in life.”

The real manufacturers might have sued these men for passing off the product of their chemistry experiments in trademarked bottles, but it was HMRC who sent them to jail – for failing to register and pay VAT on their sales. The amount they should have collected was estimated at £750,000, which shows that they must have appealed to a great many poseurs.
.
If they had paid the VAT, Customs would have had no problem with them. Their customers must have been reasonably satisfied – if your counterfeit perfume smells something like the real thing, why worry?
They tried to get out of jail with an ingenious argument – if the sale of the perfume was illegal, surely there shouldn’t be VAT on it. It wasn’t legitimate business activity, so it wasn’t something that ought to be taxable. The European Court had no time for this. They pointed out that it would give lawbreakers an advantage over lawful businesses; they wouldn’t have to charge VAT. The judges suggested that maybe people would even deliberately break the law so they could get out of tax; in this case, the only thing that made the trade illegal was treading on someone’s trademark rights, and that was something that might happen at any time in legitimate businesses. The judges said that VAT would apply to any trade which competed in a legal marketplace, even if the particular sales broke the law for some reason. Counterfeit perfume is VATable because real perfume is too. Of course, Customs have traditionally had two main roles – looking for drug smugglers, and dealing with VAT-registered traders. They have generally treated both with much the same suspicion, but the ECJ made it clear in this case that the two sets of customers are completely separate.

“Personal” services?

Customers paid the escort £130, of which £30 was paid to the agency. VAT on £130 or VAT on £30?

The first hearing before the Tribunal went something like this (this may be using artistic licence, but the published summary implies it was so):

HMRC: “We think the VAT should be on £130 because the escorts are acting as agents of the escort business.”
Trader: “No, it’s just £30, the £100 belongs to the escort and is nothing to do with me.”
Tribunal chairman: “All right, tell me a bit about how the business operates.”
Customs: “No.”
Tribunal chairman: “What?”
Customs: “You don’t want to know.”
Tribunal chairman: “How can I decide whether the escorts are acting as agent or principals without knowing how the business operates?”
Customs: “Don’t go there, just give us a decision.”
Tribunal chairman: “Trader, you tell me how the business operates.”
Trader: “I agree with him, you don’t want to know.”
The Tribunal seems to have been a bit baffled by this. They were aware that Customs had a great deal more evidence which had been collected during the course of a thorough investigation, and they asked the parties to go away and decide whether they might let the Tribunal see a bit more of it so they could make a judgement rather than a guess.

What about drugs then?

It’s well-known that you are allowed to smoke dope in some establishments in Amsterdam, although the Dutch authorities are thinking about restricting this to Netherlands’ residents. They may find that such a rule contravenes the European Law on freedom of movement – under the EU treaty, you can’t be meaner to foreigners than you are to your own people just because they are foreign. That’s a nice idea, but individuals and governments keep trying it on. Anyway, the Coffeeshop Siberie rented space to drug dealers who would sell cannabis at tables for people to take advantage of the relaxed atmosphere. Presumably they are preparing to examine passports or local utility bills before making the sale, if only the Dutch are to be allowed to get stoned. Anyway, the Dutch authorities asked the coffee shop’s owners for VAT on the rent paid by the dealers, and the owners appealed to the ECJ. This time, surely, it was sufficiently illegal. Although the consumption of drugs was tolerated, it was still against the law, and it must therefore be not VATable.
The judges pointed out that the coffee shop was not actually selling drugs. They were just providing the space for other people to sell drugs. Although selling drugs was completely illegal, and there was no legitimate market in cannabis, renting space was a normal business activity. Renting space to someone who did something illegal with it was in the same category as the dodgy perfume sales in Goodwin & Unstead: it was a bit illegal, but not illegal enough. The VAT was still due.

Counterfeiting?

In a German case, the ECJ ruled that the importation of counterfeit money was outside the scope of VAT. The Advocate-General observed that a line must be drawn between, on the one hand, transactions that lie so clearly outside the sphere of legitimate economic activity that, instead of being taxed, they can only be the subject of criminal prosecution, and, on the other hand, transactions which though unlawful must nonetheless be taxed, if only for ensuring in the name of fiscal neutrality, that the criminal is not treated more favourably than the legitimate trader’.

So, there you have it, if you are of a criminal disposition, and you want to avoid VAT, funny money is the way to go.  Please note, this does not constitute advice…..!

VAT: Latest from the courts – Pole Tax?

By   20 December 2016
0

(Pardon the dreadful pun).

The Court of Appeal case of Wilton Park Ltd and Secrets Ltd

Background

The appellant operated an “exotic dancing” club which featured table and lap dancing.  It received commission from self-employed dancers which was treated as exempt from VAT.  This was on the basis that the commissions were charged on redemption of vouchers (known as Secrets Money) such that it represented the services of dealing with security for money.  Customers were able to purchase Secrets Money with the addition of a 20% commission. The vouchers were used to pay individual dancers who subsequently needed to exchange the vouchers for cash.  The taxpayer charged a 20% fee for such a conversion.

The issue

The issue was whether face-value vouchers issued by appellant companies constituted “…any security for money” within the VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, item 1.   HMRC argued that the redemption of the vouchers was part of a taxable supply of performance facilitation services by the taxpayer and thus standard rated.

Decision

Not surprisingly, the CoA dismissed the appeal, agreeing with both the FTT and UT in holding that the provision of the club’s facilities formed part of the consideration for the commission an consequently was not an exempt supply.

Commentary

This appears a rather desperate appeal, and there still remains the possibility that the taxpayer could take the matter to the Supreme Court.  It illustrates that simply putting in a mechanism which adds a degree of complexity does not affect the overriding VAT analysis.  What was provided and what was paid for here seems reasonably apparent and it is quite a leap to consider the structure was simply exchanging vouchers for cash.  It also occurs that this would be a very straightforward way for other businesses to avoid paying VAT if the appellant had been successful.

For more on this subject (should that be your thing…….) a read of the Spearmint Rhino case not only explores the structure/relationship between dancers and club owners but is also rather good entertainment and provides an amusing yet illustrative overview of the agent/principal issue (and is not salacious in the least…..).

VAT – Input tax on buy out costs and VAT grouping

By   23 November 2016
0

Latest from the courts

May input tax incurred by a VAT group be attributed to the activities of a single member of that group?

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Heating and Plumbing Supplies Ltd, the issue was whether input tax incurred on professional costs of a management buyout were recoverable.

Background

A company was formed with the intention of buying the shares of a trading company.  The purchasing company and the trading company were then VAT grouped and the professional costs were invoiced to, and paid for, by the VAT group (the tax point being created after the date that the VAT group was formed).  HMRC disallowed the claim for the relevant input tax on the grounds that the purchasing company itself did not make any taxable supplies (it did not engage in an economic activity).  While this may have been correct, the appellant contended that in these circumstances, the VAT group must be considered as a single taxable person and that the activities of the group as a whole that should be considered. The input tax was an overhead of the group, and because the group itself only made taxable supplies (via the representative member) the input tax was recoverable in full by the representative member

Decision

Following recent case law in Skandia America at the Court of Justice, the judge here decided in favour of the appellant. It was ruled that HMRC may not look at the purchasing company in isolation but rather, the group must be considered as a whole.  The FTT stated that “when a VAT group is formed the identities of the individual members of the group disappear…” meaning that a VAT group is a single taxable entity, the VAT status of the individual members being irrelevant in this situation. This confirms our long held view on the status of VAT groups and provides welcome clarification on the matter.

Relevance

This case highlights that HMRC’s policy of looking at the activities of a group member individually is inappropriate.  This is so even if the grouping structure provides input tax recovery which would not have been available had the companies been VAT registered independently.

Typically in these circumstances, HMRC will either challenge the decision, or amend its guidance to reflect this ruling.  We await news on how HMRC will react.

Action

If a business has either been denied input tax on buy out or similar acquisition costs, or made a decision not to recover this VAT, it would be prudent to lodge a claim with HMRC (plus interest).

We are able to assist with such a claim.

www.marcusward.co