Tag Archives: tribunal

VAT Latest from the courts – exemption for sporting facilities by an eligible body

By Marcus Ward 8 November 2016

St Andrew’s College, Bradfield

This Upper Tribunal case demonstrates the importance of getting the structure right. Full case here

Overview

Exemption exists for an eligible body making certain supplies of sporting services.

Background

St Andrew’s College is a boarding school and a registered charity. It is the representative member of a VAT group which also included two subsidiary companies. The companies provided facilities for playing sport and the group intended to treat these as exempt supplies. HMRC challenged the intended treatment on the basis that the subsidiaries did not qualify as eligible bodies via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 10 (exemption related to sport, sports competitions and physical education). It was agreed that all of the other criteria were met, so the case turned on the definition of an eligible body. It was common ground that the College, as an educational charity, was itself an eligible body. Even though, as the representative member of the VAT group, the College was treated as making all supplies actually made by the subsidiaries, that did not mean that the supplies were exempt.

Decision

In order to be regarded as an eligible body the subsidiaries were required to be a non-profit making body. What was relevant here was whether the subsidiaries (themselves) had specific restrictions on their ability to distribute any profit that they made. The UT formed the view that there was no specific restriction and that although profits were only covenanted up to the College this was insufficient to meet the test in Group 10 Note (2A). It was also found that the deeds of covenant did not, of themselves, establish that the subsidiaries could make distributions only to non-profit making bodies.

Consequently, the subsidiaries failed to qualify for exemption and that the First Tier Tribunal correctly found that output tax was due on the income from provision of sporting facilities.

Commentary

This case highlights the importance of putting in place a correct structure and to ensure that it reflects the intention of the supplier. One may see that in this scenario it would have been relatively simple to arrange matters to accurately reflect the aims of the group. Care would have been required in drafting documentation etc as matters stood, or rearranging the supply chain.

It should also be noted that there are specific anti-avoidance provisions in place for certain suppliers of sporting services (although not in issue here). Advice should be taken at an early stage in planning to ensure that if exemption is desired, that it is achieved if possible.

VAT Latest from the courts – more on agent or principal

By Marcus Ward 2 November 2016

Whether a business acts as agent or principal in respect of hotel accommodation

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Hotels4U.com Limited (H4U) further consideration was given to the relationship of parties in travel/accommodation services. This follows on from the recent Supreme Court case of Secret Hotels 2 Ltd which we considered here

Background

H4U entered into contracts with suppliers of hotel rooms and displayed details of the hotels on its website. Travellers and travel agents are able to book online, pay a deposit and receive a voucher which enabled them to occupy the relevant accommodation when presented to the hotel.

The FTT was required to decide whether H4U was acting as agent or principal in respect of these supplies made to travellers and travel agents. If acting as principal, output tax would be due via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS). If acting as agent, the place of supply (POS) would be outside the UK and no UK VAT would be due. We are aware that many of our clients are in a similar position so this decision will be important to them.

Decision

H4U contended that that its position was indistinguishable from the Secret Hotels 2 Ltd case such that it should be regarded as an agent. The FTT upheld this contention for most of the relevant transactions (based on contracts which contained sufficient evidence to enable the Tribunal to reach a decision in UK law) so H4U could be seen as acting as agent. H4U also argued that HMRC’s intention to seek a reference to the CJEU in respect of the interpretation of the EU Principal VAT Directive Article 306 on the meaning of “acting solely as an intermediary”’ (whether that is different from an agent in English law) was an attempt to re-argue the matter before the CJEU and should be resisted. The FTT stated that it was only considering the position under UK law.

Commentary

We understand that there are a number of similar ongoing appeals and this decision may be of benefit to them. It also underlines the fact that documentation, and how each party acts, is important in determining the relationship. No one piece of evidence on its own may be decisive but goes to form part of the overall picture. As always in agent/principal cases, it is crucial that the documentation accurately represents the actual transaction. Contracts can play a big part, as can the Terms & Conditions and wording on websites and advertisements. Broadly, as a starting point, it must be clear to the customer that an agent is acting on behalf of a named principal; without this information, HMRC will likely form the view that there is no agency arrangement and that the “intermediary” party is acting as an undisclosed agent (for all intents and purposes acting as principal). This means that any supply would be seen to be made to, and by the agent, such that (in this case) output tax would be due using TOMS.

Action

We shall have to wait and see whether HMRC is successful in making a reference on the possible distinction between the meaning of agent in UK and EC law.

In the meantime, any businesses which are involved in agency/principal relationships, not just in the travel field, may benefit from taking advice on whether their arrangements are affected by these two cases and whether there may be value in putting planning in place.

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

By Marcus Ward 19 October 2016

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

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

Background

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

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

Decision

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

Conclusion

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

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

VAT – Latest from the courts: Craft fair pitches standard rated

By Marcus Ward 17 October 2016

The Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Zombory-Moldovan (trading as Craft Carnival)

Background

In the past, the rent of stall at craft fairs have generally been treated as an exempt right over land. In fact, in this instant case, the First Tier Tribunal agreed with the appellant that supplies made to stallholders to sell their goods were the equivalent to a right to occupy land and therefore exempt from VAT.

However, in this decision, the UT overturned this analysis and found that the supply was standard rated.

Decision

The reasons given were that what Craft Carnival supplied went beyond the mere use of a plot of land for a specific period and amounted to the use of a pitch at an event in order to “offer certain goods for sale”. The test in the previous “Temco” case on this point stated that an exempt supply amounts to a “relatively passive activity linked simply to the passage of time and not generating any significant added value”. Craft Carnivals had “very real and significant responsibilities beyond the bare provision of an appropriately-sized plot”. This, being a single supply (it was decided) meant that the entire charge was subject to VAT at the standard rate.

The appellant’s website stated that “In addition to the erection of marquees, which are hired for the duration of a fair, Mrs Zombory-Moldovan arranges for the provision 45 of other necessary temporary facilities including portable toilets, electrical generators and security fencing. She also employs between five and seven members of staff to act as ticket sellers and car park 3 marshals. Before the fair takes place Mrs Zombory-Moldovan would have issued a press release and advertised the event in local newspapers and on Craft Carnival’s website and booked a children’s entertainer, such as a magician, to encourage families to attend.”

Impact

Any business or charity which provides similar supplies must review their VAT responsibilities in light of this decision immediately. This case is likely have far-reaching implications for both organisers and those businesses which sell goods in fairs and similar events. This may encompass; trade fairs, exhibitions and even, possibly, high end car-boot sales type events. We await HMRC’s response to their victory in this case and how wide-ranging they consider the decision to be.

Please contact us if this decision affects your or your client’s businesses.

Latest from the courts: missing goods subject to VAT

By Marcus Ward 13 October 2016

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

VAT – Latest from the courts: treatment of web-based introductions

By Marcus Ward 14 September 2016

First Tier Tribunal (FTT) – What intermediary services may be exempted?

Background

The provision of intermediary services (putting those who require a financial product in touch with those who provide them) is exempt from VAT if certain conditions apply. Broadly, the requirement is mainly the need to provide something more than just the introduction, eg; negotiation of credit. If a business acts as a mere conduit or in an advertising capacity its supplies will be standard rated.

The case

In the FTT case of Dollar Financial UK Limited TC05334 (Dollar) the applicant received web-based services from overseas The Reverse Charge was applied to these supplies (details of the Reverse Charge here). Dollar provides “payday loans” which are themselves exempt from VAT. As Dollar was unable to recover all of the VAT on the Reverse Charge it represented a VAT cost to the business. However, if the supplies were exempt there would be no need to apply the Reverse Charge and so the loss would be avoided.

The FTT was required to consider what precisely the suppliers (so called lead generators) provided to Dollar in return for a commission based on the value of the loan. The lead generators operated websites which are mainly comparison sites and which referred potential borrowers to loan providers such as Dollar. HMRC formed the view that these services did not amount to intermediary services and hence were subject to the Reverse Charge.

The FTT ruled that there were differences between the two examples of services received by Dollar. In one example it was decided that despite;

there being no legal relationship between the lead generator and the potential borrower
that the leads were sold to the lender offering the best commission
that the assessment for loan suitability was quick, only involved only a few basic checks, and did not require any judgment or discretion, and
that only 1% of the introductions resulted in offers of loans to borrowers,

the appellant was acting as more than a mere conduit or in an advertising capacity, and was providing exempt introductory services. Consequently, there was no need to apply the Reverse Charge.

In the other example, the Tribunal considered that a single supply of online chat assistance was more akin to an outsourced, principally back-office function which did not amount to intermediary services and was therefore standard rated such that Dollar must apply the Reverse Charge.

Commentary

This case demonstrates the need to identify precisely what is being provided by a business’ suppliers and to review contracts intently. A small change in the circumstances between one supply and another may result in different VAT treatment. This is a comprehensive judgement and it is worth reading in its entirety if a business is involved in these type of transactions. We recommend that advice is sought by those businesses which could be affected by this case; either as supplier or recipient.

Latest from the courts – Recovery of VAT on cars purchase

By Marcus Ward 14 September 2016

Input tax incurred on the purchase of cars

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

The case

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

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

Action

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

VAT Latest from the courts – what is an economic activity by a charity?

By Marcus Ward 5 September 2016

In the VAT case of Longridge on the Thames (Longbridge) here the Court of Appeal considered previous decisions at the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and Upper Tribunal (UT) on whether Longbridge carried on an economic activity. This is an important case as it goes some way in determining the meaning of “business” in light of the term “economic activity” used in EC legislation. The term “business” is only used in UK legislation, The Principal VAT Directive refers to “economic activity” rather than business, and since UK domestic legislation must conform to the Directive both terms must be seen as having the same meaning. Since the very first days of VAT there have been disagreements over what constitutes a “business”. I have previously commented on this matter here

Background

Longbridge is a charity. It uses volunteers to provide boating activities (mainly to young people) on the Thames. The fees charged by Longbridge were often at below cost and the charity relied on donations to continue its operations. It constructed a new building and sought VAT zero rating of these costs on the basis that the building was to be used for non-business purposes. Consequently, it was crucial to the relief claimed that the charity was not carrying out a business in VAT terms. The FTT and the UT found that the charity’s “predominant concern” was not to make supplies for a consideration and therefore it was not in business. These findings were based on long standing case law, the most salient being; Lord Fisher and Morrison’s Academy Boarding Houses Association. Lord Fisher set out a series of tests which HMRC rely on to determine whether a business exists – considered here and here

Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed HMRC’s appeal. It decided that Longridge was carrying on an economic activity and therefore the construction of the new building could not be zero rated. The decision is worth considering in full, however, the court held that there was a “direct link” between the fees paid and service the recipients received, even if it was subsidised in certain instances and that Longbridge was furthering its charitable objectives. The requirement for a direct link was clearly demonstrated in The Apple and Pear Development Council case. The establishment of the direct link meant that Longridge was carrying in business (in UK law).

Commentary

The important test for whether an economic activity is being carried on is now; the direct link between payment and service. There is no longer the requirement to consider the test of “predominant concern” and in fact it was stated in the decision by the judges that this test is “unhelpful and may be misleading.” We must now ignore; the motive of the provider of the service, its status as a charity, the amount charged, whether subsidies are received by the charity, and whether volunteers are involved in the relevant activities.

This is a very big change in the analysis of whether a business exists and basically means that previous cases on this matter were wrongly decided. It brings the UK into line with the EC on the definition of an economic activity and therefore provides clarity on this matter – which has long been an area which has desperately required it.

It means that, unless the decision is reversed at the Supreme Court, we say goodbye to the unloved Lord Fisher tests. However, this may be very bad news for charities and not for profit entities that have relied on these tests to avoid VAT registration and charging VAT on their supplies. It is likely that many more charities will be dragged into the VAT net. It remains to be seen whether this case will trigger a renewed targeting effort on charities by HMRC, but what is clear is that charities need to be conscious of this new turn of events and consider their position. We strongly recommend that any bodies which have had previous discussions with HMRC on this point and any entity which is affected by this decision take professional advice immediately.

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

By Marcus Ward 18 August 2016

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

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

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

Background

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

Decision

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

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

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

Lessons to be learned

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

VAT Latest from the courts – more on composite or separate supplies

By Marcus Ward 1 August 2016

The case of: General Healthcare Group Limited (GHG)

Those that have read my articles in the past will recognise the topic of composite or separate supplies rears its ugly head on many occasions. It is a matter that has occupied businesses, advisers and HMRC since VAT’s inception, and shows no signs of disappearing any time soon. To put it into the Tribunal chairman’s words: This is another appeal on the subject of whether a transaction which comprises several different elements should be regarded as a single supply or several distinct and independent supplies.

In the latest episode, a ruling was handed down by the Upper Tribunal (UTT) in the case of GHG.

Background

GHG challenged the decision in the First tier Tribunal (FTT) that it made a single supply of prostheses and operating services via its consultants. Consultants fit prostheses in certain procedures, eg; hip replacements when they operate in GHG hospitals. The prostheses are supplied by GHG which also provide the hospital facilities to enable the independent, self-employed consultants to supply healthcare which includes the fitting of prostheses, to its patients. The FTT (in the lead case of Nuffield Hospital with GHG) decided that there was a single supply of exempt healthcare to the patient in these circumstances. GHG appealed against this decision, contending that there is one supply of exempt healthcare, and a separate zero rated supply of the prosthetics prescribed and fitted by the consultants who performed the operations.

VAT Impact

Treating the prosthetics as zero rated rather than exempt would have no impact on output tax (no VAT would be due in either analysis) but zero rating would enable GHG to recover input tax on the prosthetics in question and an increased amount of VAT incurred on general overheads. It is likely that such a claim, across the board would run into many multi-millions.

Decision

The UT dismissed GHG’s appeal, stating that “… from the point of view of the typical patient who requires a prosthesis, GHG makes a single supply of hospital and medical care which includes providing the prosthesis to be fitted by the consultant …”.

Commentary

The decision appears logical and in line with both EC and UK legislation and past case law and was not really a surprise. In these type of cases it is important to consider what the recipient of the supply thinks (s)he is receiving. In this case, and having been on the receiving end of a similar procedure (although I hope that I am a few years off a hip replacement) I think it is absolutely accurate to say that the patient would consider that (s)he is receiving a single supply of medical care. However, I have no doubt that the patient who has just received a new hip would be very unlikely to be thinking of the VAT treatment of their….errr treatment in the slightest…..

The UTT chairman stated that it declined to make any reference to the CJEU.

As always, this is a tricky area, if you have received any questionable rulings from HMRC on single/multiple supplies, or wonder whether there is a different way of analysing your supplies, please contact us as explained above, the matter continues to throw up interesting results.

Full case here