Tag Archives: tribunal

VAT: Brexit referrals to CJEU

By   2 April 2019
0

A quickie

What happens to referrals to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) after Brexit day?

Put simply, from the date the UK leaves the EU UK courts will no longer be able to refer cases to CJEU. Cases referred to CJEU before the date of leaving may still be heard.

We understand that there has been a late surge of referrals before the cut off date. This is likely to mean that there will be significant number of CJEU cases which can directly impact the UK for a time to come even though the UK is no longer a Member State.

This of course assumes that:

  • The UK leaves the EU
  • UK politicians do not actually agree some sort of compromise with the EU on this point
  • The Brexit date is not deferred for a long period (in which case referrals to, and decisions of, the CJEU will have direct relevance to UK VAT for many years, or even decades…).

VAT Success Stories

By   1 April 2019
0

I often write about how it is important to seek VAT advice at the right time, see triggerpoints. So, I thought that I’d give some practical examples on where we have saved our clients money, time and aggravation.

Investment company

HMRC denied claims for input tax incurred on costs relating to the potential acquisition of an overseas business and threatened to deregister the plc as it was not, currently, making taxable supplies. Additionally, HMRC contended that even if VAT registration was appropriate, the input tax incurred did not relate to taxable supplies and was therefore blocked.

We were able to persuade HMRC that our client had a right to be VAT registered because It intended to make taxable supplies (supplies with a place of supply outside the UK which would have been taxable if made in the UK) and that the input tax was recoverable as it related to these intended taxable supplies (management charges to the acquired business). This is a hot topic at the moment, but we were able to eventually demonstrate, with considerable and detailed evidence that there was a true intention.

This meant that UK VAT registration was correct and input tax running into hundreds of thousands of pounds incurred in the UK was repaid.

Restaurant

We identified and submitted a claim for a West End restaurant for nearly £200,000 overpaid output tax. We finally agreed the repayment with HMRC after dealing with issues such as the quantum of the claim and unjust enrichment.

Developer

Our property developing client specialises in very high-end residential projects in exclusive parts of London. They built a dwelling using an existing façade and part of a side elevation. We contended that it was a new build (zero rated sale and no VAT on construction costs and full input tax recovery on other costs). HMRC took the view that it was work on an existing dwelling so that 5% applied and input tax was not recoverable. After site visits, detailed plans, current and historical photograph evidence HMRC accepted the holy grail of new build. The overall cost of the project was tens of millions.

Charity

A charity client was supplying services to the NHS. The issue was whether they were standard rated supplies of staff or exempt medical services. We argued successfully that, despite previous rulings, the supplies were exempt, which benefited all parties. Our client was able to deregister from VAT, but not only that, we persuaded HMRC that input tax previously claimed could be kept. This was a rather pleasant surprise outcome.  We also avoided any penalties and interest so that VAT did not represent a cost to the charity in any way.  If the VAT was required to be repaid to HMRC it is likely that the charity would have been wound up.

Shoot

A group of friends met to shoot game as a hobby. They made financial contributions to the syndicate in order to take part. HMRC considered that this was a business activity and threatened to go back over 40 years and assess for output tax on the syndicate’s takings which amounted to many hundreds of thousands of pounds and would have meant the shoot could not continue. We appealed the decision to retrospectively register the syndicate.

After a four-year battle HMRC settled on the steps of the Tribunal. We were able to demonstrate that the syndicate was run on a cost sharing basis and is not “an activity likely to be carried out by a private undertaking on a market, organised within a professional framework and generally performed in the interest of generating a profit.” – A happy client.

Chemist

We assisted a chemist client who, for unfortunate reasons, had not been able to submit proper VAT returns for a number of years.  We were able to reconstruct the VAT records which showed a repayment of circa £500,000 of VAT was due.  We successfully negotiated with HMRC and assisted with the inspection which was generated by the claim.

The message? Never accept a HMRC decision, and seek good advice!

VAT: Partial exemption, the N Brown case

By   18 March 2019
0

Latest from the courts.

Partial exemption has always been, and probably always will be, the most complex and oft debated area of the tax.

Attribution

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of N Brown Group plc the issue was how to attribute input tax incurred on marketing. This included:

  • online
  • catalogues and leaflets
  • parcel packs
  • inserts in magazines and newspapers
  • direct mailings
  • advertisements in publications
  • TV advertisements
  • telemarketing
  • brand development
  • PR
  • celebrity endorsements
  • market research
  • photo shoots

Background

N Brown, as you may know, sells clothing and household goods online to the public. It has only a few retail stores so does not have the facility that a “bricks and mortar” retailer would have of displaying goods in its stores. It therefore has to incur significant marketing costs to bring its products to the attention of its customers and present them in an attractive way that encourages sales. The activities of the appellant include the sale of these goods, which is standard-rated for VAT purposes, and the provision of finance, which is exempt for VAT purposes. The finance element is the provision of credit which produces significant income from the interest on monthly balances which consumers do not pay off.

Issue

The issue was whether the input tax incurred on the marketing was attributable to the sale of goods which were advertised or, as HMRC contended; to both its taxable and exempt income (so that it was residual). If HMRC were correct an element of the input tax would fall to be irrecoverable via the appellants’ partial exemption calculation. HMRC’s position was that the input tax which N Brown incurred in respect of the marketing is residual because, although they did not seek to deny the existence of a “direct and immediate link” between the relevant goods and services and taxable supplies that the appellant made, they consider that there is also a direct and immediate link to the exempt credit provided.

Unsurprisingly, N Brown’s position was that the vast majority of goods and services received in connection with the marketing had a “direct and immediate link” only with taxable supplies that it made and so the relevant input tax was not residual and is therefore recoverable in full.

A subtle distinction, however, as £42 million of VAT was at stake, quite a vital one!

Technical

A general guide to partial exemption is available here

Broadly, a partially exempt business is required to attribute input tax incurred to three categories:

  • Taxable activities (here, the sale of goods) fully recoverable
  • Exempt activities (here the provision of credit) not recoverable
  • Non-attributable (residual) – input tax attributable to both taxable and exempt activities, or neither. This input tax must be apportioned either by the “standard method” or special method agreed with HMRC.

Decision

The judge found that there was a two-way relationship between the sale of the goods and the provision of credit terms. As a consequence, the input tax fell into the category of non-attributable (residual) even if the relevant advertisements made no mention of credit at all. It was also found that the standard method (used by HMRC) did not produce a reasonable outcome so the assessment issued by HMRC would need adjustment in the taxpayer’s favour. This required a different method to be devised and that certain elements of exempt income could be ignored in the calculation. I suspect that negotiations on an agreeable method might take some time…

Commentary

This case demonstrates that care is always required when costs are attributed to a business’ activities. This is especially important when the costs are significant. There tends to be a lot of “debate” with HMRC on such matters and slight nuances can affect attribution and thus the outcome of the calculation. It is an area which always requires specialised advice.

VAT: Input tax recovery on director’s costs

By   18 March 2019
0

Latest from the courts: Directors expenditure – what may be recovered as input tax?

The Praesto Consulting UK Limited  Court of Appeal (CoA) case.

This is a subject that pops up every now and again: Is a purchase for the director’s business purposes (input tax usually recoverable by the company) or for a director personally (so non-business and not recoverable)?

Background

Mr Ranson was an ex-employee of a claimant in civil proceedings; Customer Systems plc (“CSP”). Mr Ranson resigned to set up a company of which he was sole director, “Praesto”, which then carried on a consultancy business competing with CSP. CSP issued proceedings against Mr Ranson (and three other employees) over the nature of the departure from the company, but not against Praesto itself. The acting solicitor firm issued eight invoices (containing the VAT in question) to Mr Ranson personally, and not his company. The invoices were paid by Praesto

Issue

Praesto paid the legal fees relating to the defence of the civil proceedings brought by CSP against its sole director. Is the company entitled to credit for VAT input tax charged in relation to those fees? That is, was it proper business expenditure by the company, or was the defence of the case a personal cost of the director as a (distinct) individual?

HMRC laid great stress on the fact that the invoices were addressed to Mr Ranson personally, that they related to services provided in relation to the claim brought by CSP against him and that Praesto was never joined as a party to the proceedings.

Decision

The CoA ruled that Praesto could recover VAT on the fees. The action against Mr Ranson was the first phase of litigation which would ultimately seek damages from Praesto (and therefore Praesto had a direct interest in CSP’s claim being dismissed). This was an indication that there was a direct and immediate link between the legal services provided and the business. In reality, Praesto was throughout the proceedings, the main target of the litigation: It was Praesto which had made the profits which CSP sought to claim.

The fact that the invoices were addressed to Mt Ranson provided no legal bar to the company recovering the associated input tax. The judge observed that there was a joint retainer whereby the solicitor firm was being instructed by, and acting on behalf of, both Mr Ranson and Praesto. Under such a retainer both Mr Ranson and Praesto would be entitled to the solicitor’s’ services and both would be jointly and severally liable for the fees. That is a legal relationship involving reciprocal performance. As both parties were jointly and severally liable for the fees, there would be no particular significance in addressing invoices to only one of the parties so liable.

This seems an entirely sensible decision.

Commentary

This has echoes of the P&O case: P&O Ferries (Dover) Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1992] VATTR 221 referred to in this case, where criminal proceedings were brought against various P&O employees and the company itself arising out of the Herald of Free Enterprise Zeebrugge disaster – the company paid for the legal representation of all the individual defendants and claimed input tax on the costs of so doing. It was held that the conviction of even one of the individual employees would have caused severe damage to the public perception of the company’s business. To mitigate the real risk of being driven out of business the board took the view that the company had to take every step available to it to guard against the successful prosecution of each of the individual employees. The legal services in question were, therefore, used for the purpose of the company’s business.

Another area where VAT on costs invoiced to a (future) director personally are recoverable is in pre-incorporation cases where (obviously) the company does not exist so cannot, at that time, recover the VAT. HMRC permit recovery in such cases if the recipient of the invoice does indeed become a director of the company and the supply is used by that company for business purposes

Please contact us if you have any queries.

VAT: Input tax claims – alternative evidence

By   7 March 2019
0

What can be used to make a claim?

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 HMRC accept any other evidence to support a claim? Well, the answer is yes… sometimes.

HMRC has discretion provided by EC law. The right to deduct is given by Article 167 of the Principal VAT Directive (via VAT Regulations 1995/2518 Reg 29(2) in the UK). Specifically, the wording most relevant here is “…such other documentary evidence of the charge to VAT as the Commissioners may direct.” Broadly, a business must hold the correct evidence before being able to exercise the right to deduct.

Where claims to deduct VAT are not supported by a valid VAT invoice HMRC staff are required to consider whether there is satisfactory alternative evidence of the taxable supply available to support deduction. HMRC staff should not simply refuse a claim without giving reasonable consideration to such evidence. HMRC has a duty to ensure that taxpayers pay no more tax than is properly due. However, this obligation is balanced against a duty to protect the public revenue.

Full details of tax invoices here.

 What HMRC consider

HMRC staff are required to work through the following checklist:

  • Does the business have alternative documentary evidence other than an invoice (for example a supplier statement)?
  • Does the business have evidence of receipt of a taxable supply on which VAT has been charged?
  • Does the business have evidence of payment?
  • Does the business have evidence of how the goods/services have been consumed or evidence regarding their onward supply?
  • How did the business know the supplier existed?
  • How was the business relationship with the supplier established? For example: How was contact made?
  • Does the business know where the supplier operates from (have staff visited?)
  • How did the business contact them?
  • How does the business know the supplier can supply the goods or services?
  • If goods, how does the business know they are not stolen?
  • How does the business return faulty supplies?

Outcome

If the responses to the above tests are credible, HMRC staff should exercise their discretion to allow the taxpayer to deduct the input tax. Overall, HMRC are required to be satisfied that sufficient evidence is held by the business which demonstrates that VAT has been paid on a taxable supply of goods or services received by that business and which were used by that business for its taxable activities

Challenge HMRC’s decision

A business may only challenge HMRC’s decision not to allow a claim (did not exercise its discretion) if it acted in an unfair or unreasonable way. In these cases, the onus is on the taxpayer to demonstrate that HMRC have been unreasonable in not using the available discretion. This is quite often a difficult thing to do.

Case law

Not surprisingly, there is significant case law on this subject. The most relevant and recent being the Upper Tribunal (UT) cases of James Boyce and Scandico Ltd.

Tips

If possible, always obtain a proper tax invoice from a supplier, and don’t lose it! The level of evidence required when no invoice is held usually depends on the value of the claim. There would be a difference between persuading an inspector that £20 input tax on stationery is recoverable and the claiming of £200,000 VAT on a property purchase is permissible. As always in VAT, if you get it wrong and claim VAT without the appropriate evidence there is likely to be a penalty to pay.

If you, or your clients are in dispute with HMRC on input tax claims, please contact us.

VAT: More on the Mercedes Benz Financial Services case – PCP

By   1 March 2019
0

Further to my article on the Mercedes Benz Financial Services (MBFS) case on Personal Contract Purchase (PCP), HMRC has published a Briefing Note – Changes to the VAT treatment of PCPs

HMRC has fully implemented the findings in the MBFS CJEU case. In summary, HMRC state that:

“The correct treatment of PCP and similar contracts depends on the level at which the final optional payment is set:

  • if, at the start of the contract, it is set at or above the anticipated market value of the goods at the time the option is to be exercised, the VAT treatment of the contract will follow the MBFS It is a supply of leasing services from the outset and VAT must be accounted for on the full value of each instalment, there is no advance, or credit, so there is no finance
  • if, at the start of the contract, it is set below the anticipated market value, such that a rational customer would buy the asset when they exercise the option, it is a supply of goods, with a separate supply of finance. VAT is due on the supply of goods in full at the outset of the contract, the finance is exempt from VAT”

This treatment must be used by 1 June 2019. Past declarations which have been in error must be adjusted per PN 700/45. Businesses affected by the changes may also need to consider adjustments to input tax claimed, or forgone in respect of partial exemption. A guide to partial exemption here.

VAT: Yet more cases on food

By   11 February 2019
0

Latest from the courts

Like London buses, few cases on the VAT liability of food, then a veritable deluge (although I am unsure whether there can be a deluge of buses…).

Following Eat Ltd and my summary, two further food cases have been heard at First Tier Tribunal (FTT). These are on the subjects of juicing and brownies.

Juice

In The Core (Swindon) the issue was whether fruit and vegetable juices sold as meal replacements were beverages and therefore standard rated or whether they were not beverages and therefore zero-rated as food.

Background

The appellant provides “juice cleanse programmes” (JCPs) which consist of fresh drinkable products made from juicing raw fruits and vegetables and are intended to replace normal meals. The relevant test was how the product was objectively “held out for sale” by the supplier.

What needed to be considered was:

  1. How is the product marketed?
  2. Why it is consumed by the customer?
  3. What is the use to which it is put?

Case law

 Similar products were considered in Fluff, Ltd. Roger Skinner and Bioconcepts where the above tests were set out.

Decision

Judging the JCPs by reference to the above tests the Tribunal found that the purchasers of the JCPs purchase them as meal replacements. Customers do not purchase them as beverages (they drink water in addition to consuming the products). They do not therefore purchase them in order to increase their bodily fluid, or to slake their thirst, or to fortify themselves or to give pleasure. The products are deliberately made palatable, in order not to deter consumers from drinking them, and they are not unpleasant to drink, but they are not consumed for pleasure. Customers purchase and consume them as a meal replacement, not as a beverage. As a consequence, they were zero rated food.

Brownies

In Pulsin’ Ltd the issue was whether a raw choc brownies was a cake (zero rated) or a biscuit (standard rated). So, shades of the infamous Jaffa Cake case.

Background

The products in question were individually wrapped bars produced by cold compression of predominantly: dates, cashews, cacao, various syrups, concentrated grape juice and brown rice bran. All ingredients used are intended to be as natural, unprocessed, hypoallergenic and as nutritionally beneficial as possible.

Case law

The cases set out above were also referred to in this case, along with Kinnerton which I considered here although the judge dismissed HMRC’s contention that the decision in that case was helpful in this.

Decision

The judge formed the view that the products do show enough characteristics of cakes to be so categorised. Therefore, all variants of the raw choc brownies were properly classified as cakes and are therefore eligible to be zero rated.

Commentary

What was interesting here was the judge’s comments on the current position regarding food and VAT.

“It is the Tribunal’s view that the current state of the law on the taxation of food items is not fit for purpose and will necessarily present apparently anomalous results as tastes and attitudes to eating change. The Tribunal fundamentally disagrees with HMRC’s guidance that the borderline between cake and confectionary presents few problems. The lines set and perceived by HMRC in the application of this out of date provision (as recognised by them in their anguished consideration of flapjacks and cereal bars) drives anomalous outcomes….”

And so say all of us…

The zero rating of food is complicated as the provision under VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1 provide for a wide general description (qualifying for zero rating) subject to excepted items (which must therefore be standard rated) with exclusions and overriding items to those exceptions (which then requalify to be zero rated).

VAT: Zero rated food – a summary

By   8 February 2019
0

Food – What’s hot and what’s not?

Further to my article on the recent Eat case I have had a number of queries on what “hot” food can be zero rated. So, as a brief overview of the current position a quick look at types of food:

Pasties, sausage rolls, pies or other pastries

  • If they are hot and straight from the oven: Although the pasty is hot, it is not being kept warm, so therefore there is no VAT
  • Left to cool to room temperature: The pasty is not being kept warm, so no VAT is chargeable.
  • Kept hot in a cabinet, on a hot plate or under a heat lamp: The pasty is being kept warm so VAT is due

Sandwiches

  • Cold food is zero-rated for tax purposes so no VAT.
  • Heated for a customer – standard rated per the Eat case.

Bread

  • Freshly baked, cooling or cold – the bread is not kept warm, even though it may be straight from the oven, so would be VAT free.

Rotisserie chicken

  • If hot from the spit; VAT on takeaway food intended to be served hot is VATable.
  • Kept hot in a cabinet, on a hot plate or under a heat lamp – As the food is kept hot and served hot, VAT is applicable.
  • Left to cool to room temperature – If the chicken is cooked then left to cool, such as in bags in a supermarket, it will be VAT free.

Takeaways

  • such as fish and chips: VAT remains on all takeaway food served hot.

Catering

  • All supplies of catering is subject to VAT regardless of what food and drink is being provided. This includes all restaurants and cafés.

This is a general guide and, as case law shows, there will always be products on the “borderline”.

VAT: What’s hot and what’s not?

By   4 February 2019
0

Latest from the courts

In the seemingly never-ending series of cases on hot/cold food comes the latest instalment in the Eat Limited (Eat) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case.

Issue

Via VAT Act 1994 Schedule 8, Group 1, the sale of certain food is zero rated. However, there is an exception for supplies in the course of catering. Anything coming within the definition of catering reverts to the general rule and is taxable at the standard rate.

The definition of catering includes “any supply of hot food for consumption off those premises…” Note 3 (b).

So, the issue here was whether grilled ciabatta rolls and breakfast muffins which were heated by Eat were hot… or not. HMRC decided that the relevant sales were the standard rated sale of hot food and disallowed a retrospective claim by Eat that they should have been correctly zero rated.

The issue here was whether the products had been heated for the purpose of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above ambient air temperature. In considering the purpose of the heating, the Tribunal needed to ascertain the common intention of Eat and the customer.

Background

Eat sells a range of hot and cold food and drink products through its outlets in the UK. The food and drink can either be consumed at the outlet or be taken away for consumption elsewhere.

The breakfast muffins are filled bread rolls. The rolls are supplied to the appellant by a bakery in a condition that enables Eat to finish baking the rolls at their outlets. The specification requires the rolls to be “pale and 90% baked”. The muffin is assembled at a central kitchen from various ingredients, bagged, and then distributed to Eat’s retail outlets. The ciabatta rolls are also supplied to Eat part-baked and a similar process applied. If a customer purchases a breakfast muffin or a ciabatta roll, the product is “finished-off” in the outlet’s grill.

For zero rating to apply, Eat had to prove that its intention and that of its customers, was that the breakfast muffins and grilled ciabatta rolls were not supplied to customers in order to be eaten “hot”.

The products are treated as “hot” if:

  • They have been heated for the purposes of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above the ambient air temperature; and
  • They are above that temperature at the time they are provided to the customer.

It was not disputed that the products were above ambient air temperature at the time they were provided to customers,

Case law

There has been considerable litigation on the meaning of hot food. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Sub One Limited (t/a Subway) (in liquidation) v 30 HMRC [2014] EWCA Civ 773 reviews the meaning of the legislation, and in particular whether the “purpose” test in the legislation should be construed objectively or purposively.

Submissions

Eat contended that the common intention of the parties was that the supply of the products was to be finished as being “fresh” rather than partially complete. Any residual heat in the products was merely incidental to that common intention.

HMRC submitted that it was part of the deal between Eat and its customers that the products should be sold hot (and obviously so).  Further, that no customer seeks to enter into a bargain in a takeaway restaurant containing a term that the food he or she is to purchase is “to be finished as fresh rather than partially complete”. The customer either wants hot food or does not. Either the supplier proposes to supply hot food, or it does not. It was also noted that in Eat’s advertising (at the point of sale and on its website) that the products were described as “hot”

Decision

The judge decided that this was a “hopeless appeal” and that it was the common intention of Eat and its customers that the products were heated for the purpose of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above ambient air temperature. Further, that they were wrapped in foil-backed sheets that keep them warm. This showed an intention on the part of Eat that the products should be consumed whilst they were hot. So, they were hot and standard rated.

Commentary

Only in the world of VAT can something too hot to touch be treated as cold (as certain foods are). However, in this case common sense prevailed and not unsurprisingly, food which was sold hot was treated as hot food! There is a lesson here however. In such cases, the outcome depends on the precise facts of the relevant transactions and that it is unhelpful to make assumptions.

Now, about that proposed pasty tax…

VAT: Latest on holding companies and input tax recovery

By   21 January 2019
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of W Resources plc (WRP) the enduring matter of input tax recovery by a holding company was considered. This follows similar considerations in the cases of Norseman and BAA and HMRC’s updated guidance on the matter. This case considered whether a holding company could recover input tax incurred on certain costs.  This is turn depended on whether the holding company intended to make taxable supplies. Specifically; the intention to recharge professional expenses incurred to two non VAT-grouped subsidiary companies contingent on those companies receiving income at a future time.

Background

WRP acquired two subsidiary companies. The subsidiary company’s business the exploration and exploitation of tungsten in the EU. WRP contended that it incurred the relevant input tax

  • to enable the subsidiaries to raise funds to carry out their exploration activities
  • to exercise financial control over the subsidiaries
  • to obtain geological expertise, project management and supervision and day to day management and supervision for the subsidiaries so that they could carry on their exploration and exploitation activities

HMRC denied the claim of input tax on the basis that the WRP was not carrying on an economic activity or making supplies for a consideration (such that it should not be VAT registered).

It was common ground that, if it was decided that all of the supplies which were made by the WRP to the subsidiary companies (following their acquisition by the appellant) were supplies made for a consideration and in the course of carrying on an “economic activity”, then the input tax which was incurred during the preparatory phase should be recoverable.

So, the issue was – were the intended recharges so uncertain such that there could be no direct link to an economic activity?

Decision 

The appeal was dismissed.

Although the judge distinguished Norseman (above) where there was only a vague intention to make charges to subsidiary companies and here the position was different because there was a fixed intention that WRP would be able to invoice in due course for its supplies of services at an amount quantified by reference to the value of the services received but only if the relevant subsidiary began to generate revenues, the fact that it was uncertain whether the subsidiaries would generate income was to sufficient to break the link between supply and consideration. The fact that the intended charges were contingent was fatal to the appeal.

Commentary

The judge appears to have come to the decision reluctantly and entertained the thought that “the contrary is certainly arguable”. This case demonstrates, yet again, the difficulties in determining future intentions of a business. Such intentions dictate whether a business may VAT register and/or recover input tax. It is often difficult to evidence intentions and HMRC seem intent to challenge input tax recovery in such circumstances and will be buoyed by this result.

This case again emphasises the importance of holding companies having appropriate processes and ensuring that proper documentation is in place to evidence, not only the intention to make taxable supplies of management charges, but that those charges were actually made to subsidiaries.

Often significant costs can be incurred by a holding company in cases such as acquisitions and restructuring.  It is important that these costs are incurred by, and invoiced to, the appropriate entity in order for the VAT on them to be recovered.  Consideration should be given to how the input tax is recovered before it is incurred, and the appropriate structure put in place if possible.

Further information and advice on inter-company charges may be found here