Tag Archives: tribunal

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: 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: What is an economic activity? The Pertemps’ case

By Marcus Ward 12 August 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Pertemps Limited the issue was whether the operation of the respondent’s salary sacrifice scheme to provide travel and subsistence payments to employees was a supply for VAT purposes and, indeed, whether it was an economic activity at all.

I have considered what is an economic activity (business) many times, examples here, here, here and here. It is a perennial VAT issue and goes to the very heart of the tax. EU legislation talks of economic activity, which is taken to be “business activity” in the UK. There is no legal definition of either economic or business activity so case law on this point is very important.

Background

Employees of the respondent were offered the option of;

being paid a salary, from which they would have to meet any travel and subsistence expenses, or
participating in Pertemps’ scheme where they would be paid their travel and subsistence expenses but receive a reduced salary.

The amount of the reduction was equal to the amount of the expense payment plus a fixed amount to defray the costs of running the scheme. The issue was whether the charge for using the scheme was taxable.

HMRC’s appeal against the FTT decision [2018] UKFTT 369 (TC) was based on the view that the scheme involved a taxable supply of services by Pertemps to its participating employees such that output tax was due of the fixed payments. The FTT concluded that Pertemps did supply services to the employees. but the supply was not within the scope of VAT because the operation of the scheme was not an economic activity. It allowed Pertemps’ appeal. The FTT also held that, if there had been a supply, it would have been exempt.

Decision

The UT decided that, although the FTT erred in law when it concluded that Pertemps made a supply of services to the employees who participated in the scheme, it was correct when it concluded that Pertemps was not carrying on any economic activity when it provided the scheme for employees. The charge only arose in the context of the employment relationship, and it could not be compared to an open market supply of accountancy services.

Therefore, HMRC’s appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Care should always be taken with salary sacrifice schemes. Some, but not all, sacrifices are subject to output tax. HMRC internal guidance on the subject here. This case is a helpful clarification on the matter of certain charges to staff. It also adds another layer to the age-old issue of what constitutes a business activity. VAT is only due on business supplies, and it is crucial to appreciate what is, and isn’t an economic activity. This is especially important in respect of charities and NFP bodies.

VAT: What are zero rated animal foodstuffs?

By Marcus Ward 12 August 2019

Modelled by Lola. (R) Collar: models’ own

Latest from the courts

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Westland Horticulture Limited highlights the complexities of; the VAT treatment of food, animal foodstuffs, seeds, crops and how these are all held out for sale. One only has to consider the myriad VAT liabilities of seemingly similar products sold at, say, a garden centre, to realise that this is can be a VAT minefield.

Examples

Food for a budgerigar is standard rated, but pigeon grit is zero rated.
Peanuts and sunflower seeds are zero rated, unless advertised as wild bird food when they are standard rated
Food for a Labrador is standard rated, unless the dog is used as a gun dog when it is zero rated
Lavender seeds are zero rated. Daffodil bulbs are standard rated.

This is a very small list of examples where the VAT treatment of precisely the same product may change depending on use, and/or where a slight difference of the type of goods can have a surprising tax outcome.

A full guide to garden centre liabilities here

The case

HMRC state in Public Notice 701/38 para 5.3

“Most grass seed is zero-rated because of the extensive use of grass as animal feed. This includes supplies to and by garden centres, local authorities and grass seed to be grown on set aside land.

But pre-germinated grass seed and turf are not used for the propagation of animal feed and are therefore standard-rated.”

Zero rating is available per VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, item 3: “…seeds or other means of propagation of plants comprised in animal feeding stuffs”

In Westland’s case, it sold a product called Aftercut Patch Fix, which, although was 90% grass seed, also contained sowing granules and an ingredient called Clinoptilolite which, apparently, neutralises the effects of excess salts and ammonia found in pet urine. The grass seed was of various varieties and is not in itself any different to “ordinary” grass seed sold without any additives.

Having a new puppy, I can verify the damage one small hound can do to lawns and this is a product I may will need to invest in. The product was held out (see below) to help fix damage to grass that, in my case, a small Lola (and larger Libby) can do.

Decision

Unsurprisingly, the judge ruled that the product was standard rated on the grounds (no pun intended) that it was clearly intended to be used on people’s gardens rather than to be planted to grow animal food. Therefore, the zero rating provided via PN 701/38 does not apply.

The Product was physically different to generic grass seed as it contained more than just seed. The product (as distinct from the seed within the product) is therefore not a similar product to generic grass seed for the purposes of fiscal neutrality.

Commentary

A discrete issue you may think. However, the tax in this single case amounted to over half a million pounds. It illustrates how much care must be taken in establishing the correct liability of; food, animal foodstuff, pet food and ornamental versus edible plants, seeds, bulbs, shrubs and trees.

One of the salient tests is how the goods are “held out for sale” (held out)

Held out means the:

way a product is labelled, packaged, displayed, invoiced, advertised or promoted
heading under which the product is listed in a catalogue, web page or price list

In this case, the packaging and description on the appellant’s website was a major factor in the decision.

Manufacturers and retailers may need to review how their products are described, what the contents are and how they are displayed in-store. Even the location of the goods, how they are displayed, and the signage used may affect the VAT treatment (it doesn’t matter if I buy zero rated working dog food and feed it to my two who are never going to do a day’s work in their life….).

VAT: Evidence to claim input tax

By Marcus Ward 9 July 2019

Latest from the courts

Hot on the heels of my recent article here, a First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case has considered what evidence may be accepted for a claim for input tax.

The Wasteaway case contemplated whether HMRC’s disallowance of the appellant’s claim, (via The VAT Act 1994, section 73) for input tax was correct, or whether they should have allowed the claim based on alternative evidence of receiving the relevant supplies in lieu of missing tax invoices.

It is well known that in order to claim input tax on expenditure a business is required to have a valid tax invoice to support it. But what if there is no VAT invoice? Can, or should HMRC accept any other evidence to support a claim?

Background

It was stated that the invoices were lost during a time when the business was evicted from its premises. The judge formed the view that the appellant’s approach to record keeping was “slapdash”. Which isn’t a good starting point. HMRC issued an assessment because it was decided that the appellant had “not provided satisfactory evidence of the taxable supply to the business and its direct link to your onward taxable supply for discretion to be considered under Article 182 of the Principal VAT Directive. If no invoice, a pro forma invoice or a document stating ‘this is not a VAT invoice’ has been provided…” along with an offer to provide alternative evidence.

It was also discovered, during the inspection, that not only had output tax been underdeclared, but the appellant had a history of poor record keeping.

Decision

Despite the business providing; records of payments, in some cases weighbridge tickets, detailed bank statements, spreadsheets and Sage accounts information – which it was contended amounted to alternative documentary evidence, it was ruled that this was insufficient, so the assessment stood.

The lack of care in obtaining and retaining documents, poor accounting procedures such that output tax was understated and the past behaviour and history of the taxpayer meant that HMRC was not obliged to accept the proffered alternative evidence, The general unreliability of the records counted against the business and that HMRC acted in best judgement.

It was stated that HMRC were perfectly justified in requiring more detailed and convincing documentary evidence to replace the missing VAT invoices than the appellant provided. And the inspector could not be criticised for refusing to accept the extremely thin evidence supplied as an alternative to the missing VAT invoices.

Commentary

It is clear that every business must keep proper records and retain all documents, especially invoices. It was hardly surprising that failure to do that ensured that this appeal was dismissed. It also didn’t help that the appellant had a poor track record of accounting.

HMRC do have the discretion to accept alternative evidence, however, this is more likely if the relevant invoices have been genuinely misplaced, destroyed or not received. There is also the opportunity to go to the supplier and request a replacement invoice.

So, basically: Keep records properly or it will cost you!

VAT: Bad Debt Relief – The Total case

By Marcus Ward 1 July 2019

Latest from the courts

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

Background

Broadly speaking, under normal VAT rules, a supplier is required to account for output tax, even if the supply has not been paid for (however, the use of cash accounting or certain retail schemes removes the problem of VAT on bad debts from the supplier). BDR, as the names suggests, is intended to provide relief on the VAT element of a bad debt. Output tax previously claimed may be “reclaimed” by using the BDR mechanism.

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

Conditions for claiming bad debt relief

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

The case

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

Decision

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

Commentary

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

VAT: The transport of disabled persons

By Marcus Ward 24 June 2019

HMRC have released Revenue and Customs Brief 3 (2019) RCB3 2019 which sets out the treatment of certain transport services, specifically in relation to the Jigsaw Medical Services Upper Tribunal (UT) case. This case considered emergency ambulance services contrasted with patient transport services. It was accepted that they were exempt (“the supply of transport services for sick or injured persons in vehicles specially designed for that purpose” – VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 11) but could they “also” be treated as zero rated?

Technical

Zero rating takes precedence over exemption, so if these services qualify for both exemption and zero rating, they will be treated as zero rated. Although both treatments are VAT free, zero rating is beneficial as it provides the suppler the ability to recover input tax attributable to the supplies.

Summary

The Brief clarifies that zero rating applies if the supply of transport is in any vehicle with seating to carry ten or more passengers (including the driver) or if there would be 10 seats if wheelchair adaptations were removed. If the supply is not zero rated, say, because of the number of seats test is failed, the above exemption may apply if the service is the transport of sick or injured persons. If that exemption does not apply, then the default position applies, and the service is standard rated. RCB3 also provides information on how to apply the “ten seat rule” and on adapted vehicles.

VAT: When is the building of a house complete? (And why is it important?)

By Marcus Ward 11 June 2019

Completion of a residential dwelling

A technical point which comes up surprisingly often and seems innocuous is: when is a building “complete”? The following case is helpful, and I thank Les Howard for bringing it to my attention.

The date that the construction of a dwelling is deemed to be complete is important for a number of reasons. The issue in the case of Mr and Mrs James was whether certain works could be zero rated via the VAT Act Schedule 8 Group 5 Item 2 (The supply in the course of the construction of a building designed as a dwelling…) or as HMRC contended, they were the reconstruction or alteration of an existing building and the work should be standard rated.

Background

The James used a contractor to plaster the entire interior of their house in the course of its construction. However, the work was demonstrably defective to such an extent that the James commenced legal proceedings. A surveyor advised that all of the old plaster needed to be hacked off and replaced by new plastering installed by a new firm. The stripping out and replacement works took place after the Certificate of Completion had been issued.

The James claimed input tax on the house construction via the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme.

Technical

HMRC refused the James’ claim to have the remedial work zero-rated because, in their view, the re-plastering works amounted to the reconstruction or alteration of the house which was, when the supplies were made, an “existing building”. They proffered Note 16 of Schedule 5 which provides that “the construction of a building” does not include “(a) … the conversion, reconstruction or alteration of an existing building”.

They stated that zero-rating only applied if the work formed part of the construction of a zero-rated building. They had previously decided that the work of snagging or correction of faults carried out after the building had been completed could only be zero-rated if it was carried out by the original contractors and correction of faults formed part of the building contract. When the snagging is carried out by a different contractor, the work is to an existing building and does not qualify for zero rating.

The James stated that the Customs’ guidelines on snagging do not take into account extraordinary circumstances. Their contention was that the re-plastering works were zero rated because they had no choice but to engage the services of a different contractor other than the one who carried out the original works.

Decision

The judge found for the appellant – the re-plastering works were zero rated.

There was a query as to why The James applied for a Certificate of Completion before the plastering was completed. In nearly all cases such a certificate would crystallise the date the building was complete.

The reasons were given as:

the need for funds. The James could not remortgage the house without the certificate and they needed to borrow a substantial amount
they could not reclaim VAT under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme until the Certificate of Completion had been issued
they were aware that the building inspector was beginning to wonder why the building works were taking such a long time
they needed the house assessed for Council Tax which could only happen when the certificate had been issued
the Certificate was issued as part of the procedure required by the Building Act 1984 and the Building Regulations of 2000

These reasons were accepted by the judge.

Despite the respondents stating that:

for the reasons given above
the fact that the James had been living in the house for some time
they had obtained the Certificate of Completion
the new plastering work had been done by the new plasterer such that the house had been constructed before supply of the new plasterer’s services had been made
the house was an “existing building”

the judge was satisfied that in the circumstances the new plastering work was supplied in the course of the construction of the building as a dwelling house and that there was no reconstruction or alteration of an existing building in the sense contemplated by Note (16) to Group 5 Schedule 8.

He observed that the Certificate of Completion records that the substantive requirements of the Building Regulations have been satisfied. But to the naked eye the old plasterwork was obviously inadequate and dangerous ad he could not possibly consider that the construction project had finished until the new plasterwork was installed. The James’ construction project was to build a new dwelling house. Plasterwork of an acceptable standard was an integral part of the construction works. The new plasterwork was done at the earliest practicable opportunity.

Commentary

Care should be taken when considering when the completion of a house build takes place. There are time limits for DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme clams and clearly, as this case illustrates, usually work done to a house after completion does not qualify for zero rating. So, if the owner of a house is thinking of, say, building a conservatory for example, it is more prudent in VAT terms to construct it at the same time as a new house is built, and certainly before completion.

I would say that the appellant in this case achieved a surprisingly good result.

VAT: What is a TOGC? Why is it important?

By Marcus Ward 6 June 2019

What is a Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC)?

Normally the sale of the assets of a VAT registered business will be subject to VAT at the appropriate rate. A TOGC, however is the sale of a business including assets which must be treated as a matter of law, as “neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services” by virtue of meeting certain conditions. It is always the seller who is responsible for applying the correct VAT treatment and will be required to support their decision.

Where the sale meets the conditions, the supply is outside the scope of VAT and therefore VAT is not chargeable.

The word ‘business’ has the meaning set out in The VAT Act 1994, section 94 and ‘going concern’ has the meaning that at the point in time to which the description applies, the business is live or operating and has all parts and features necessary to keep it in operation, as distinct from its being only an inert aggregation of assets.

TOGC Conditions

The conditions for VAT free treatment of a TOGC:

The assets must be sold as a business, or part of a business, as a going concern
The assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part (HMRC guidance uses the words “intend to use…” which, in some cases may provide additional comfort)
There must be no break in trading
Where the seller is a taxable person (VAT registered) the purchaser must be a taxable person already or immediately become, as a result of the transfer, a taxable person
Where only part of a business is sold it must be capable of separate operation
There must not be a series of immediately consecutive transfers
Where the transfer includes property which is standard-rated, either because the seller has opted to tax it or because it is a ‘new’ or uncompleted commercial building the purchaser must opt to tax the property and notify this to HMRC no later than the date of the supply. This may be the date of completion or, if earlier, the date of receipt of payment or part payment (eg; a deposit). There are additional anti-avoidance requirements regarding the buyer’s option to tax

Please note that the above list has been compiled for this article from; the legislation, HMRC guidance and case law. Specific advice must be sought.

Property transfer

The sale of a property may qualify for TOGC if the above tests are met. Usually, but not exclusively, a TOGC sale is the sale of a tenanted building when the sale is with the benefit of the existing lease(s) – (the sale of a property rental business rather than of the property itself). Another example of a property TOGC is where a property under construction is sold (a development business). As may be seen, timing with a property TOGC is of utmost importance. For example, an option to tax one day late will invalidate TOGC treatment. A guide to land and property.

What purpose do the TOGC rules serve?

The TOGC provisions are intended to simplify accounting for VAT when a business changes hands. The main purposes are to:

relieve the buyer from the burden of funding VAT on the purchase, helping businesses by improving their cash flow and avoiding the need to separately value assets which may be liable at different rates or are exempt and which have been sold as a whole
protect government revenue by removing a charge to tax and entitlement to input tax where the output tax may not be paid to HMRC, for example, where a business charges tax, which is claimed by the new business but not paid by the selling business

What if it goes wrong?

TOGC treatment is not optional. A sale is either a TOGC or it isn’t. It is a rare situation in that the VAT treatment depends on; what the purchaser’s intentions are, what the seller is told, and what the purchaser actually does. All this being outside the seller’s control.

Add VAT when TOGC treatment applies:

Often, the TOGC point can be missed, especially in complex property transactions.

The addition of VAT is sometimes considered a “safe” VAT position. However, output tax will have been charged incorrectly, which means that when the buyer claims VAT shown on the relevant invoice, this will be disallowed. This can lead to;

potential penalties and interest from HMRC
the buyer having to recover the VAT payment (often the seller, having sold a business can be difficult to track down and then obtain payment from)
significant cash flow issues (HMRC will need to be repaid the input tax claim immediately)
if a property sale, SDLT is likely to be overpaid

Sale treated as a TOGC when it is a taxable supply:

When VAT free TOGC treatment is applied to a taxable supply (possibly as one, or more of the TOGC conditions are not met) then there is a tax underdeclaration. The seller will be assessed by HMRC and penalties and interest are likely to be levied. There is then the seller’s requirement to attempt to obtain the VAT payment from the buyer. Similarly to above, this is not always straightforward or possible and it may be that the contract prohibits additional payment. There is likely to be unexpected funding issues for the buyer if (s)he does decide to make the payment.

Considering the usually high value of sales of businesses, the VAT cost of getting it wrong can be significant.

Summary

This is a complex area of the tax and an easy issue to miss when there are a considerable number of other factors to consider when a business is sold. Extensive case law (example here and changes to HMRC policy here ) insists that there is often a dichotomy between a commercial interpretation of a going concern and HMRC’s view. I sometimes find that the buyer’s intentions change such that the TOGC initially applied becomes invalid when the change in the use of assets (from what was notified to the seller) actually takes place. HMRC is not always sympathetic in these situations. One of the questions I am often asked is: “How long does the buyer have to operate the business after purchase so that TOGC treatment applies?” Unsurprisingly, there is no set answer to this and HMRC do not set a specific period. My view, and it is just my view, is that an absolute minimum time is one VAT quarter.

Contracts are important in most TOGC cases, so it really pays to review them from a VAT perspective.

I very strongly advise that specialist advice is obtained in cases where a business, or property is sold. Yes, I know I would say that!

VAT: Zero rating of prescriptions

By Marcus Ward 29 April 2019

Latest from the courts

The UK is unique in the EU for the zero rating of medicines prescribed by a registered medical practitioner.

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Pearl Chemist Ltd (Pearl) the issue was whether the development of new technology and legislation affected the zero rating of prescriptions written by UK registered and non-UK registered doctors and the interpretation of “registered medical practitioner”.

Background

Pearl is authorised to dispense medicines prescribed online by doctors based in countries based in the European Economic Area. It contracted with a third party which operated websites which offered medical screening and services, primarily for conditions such as erectile dysfunction, hair loss and obesity/weight loss.

Customers of the third party could obtain an online consultation with qualified doctors. If the doctor decided to issue a prescription, the written prescription would be sent to Pearl who would then despatch the medicine directly to the individual customer on behalf of the third party. Pearl treated all these supplies as zero-rated. The relevant law covering such prescriptions changed in 2008 such that it was now possible to dispense drugs prescribed by a qualified doctor based outside the UK.

HMRC formed the view that these supplies were not covered by the UK zero rating on the basis that an EU qualified doctor who is not registered with the GMC is not a registered medical practitioner. An assessment for output tax was issued in respect of supplies made against prescriptions written by non-UK doctors.

The issues

The issues, broadly were:

Are qualified doctors based outside the UK covered by the description “registered medical practitioner” in UK legislation?
If not, does this breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality? (Whether there is clear discrimination between identical supplies made on the prescription of UK doctors and doctors from other EU countries)

Decision

The judge ruled that the UK zero rating does not cover prescriptions written by non-UK doctors as they are not within the definition of “registered medical practitioner” Consequently, the supplies must be standard rated in the UK. However, the exclusion of medicines prescribed by overseas doctors from the zero-rating constitutes a breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality. This seemed good news for Pearl, but…the Tribunal stated that it was unable to provide an effective remedy for that breach and accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed HRMC’s assessment.

Commentary

This decision seems rather harsh on the appellant. It appears that the judge ruled that she had no power to override UK Parliament’s intention despite the inherent “unfairness” of the outcome of this intention where identical supplies were treated differently depending on where the prescription was written.

Certainly an odd one and I wonder if this is the last of this matter. Any business in a similar situation may need to review its position on the basis of this decision.