Tag Archives: UT

VAT: Roof panels are not insulation. The Greenspace case

By Marcus Ward 2 December 2021

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Greenspace Limited the issue was whether insulated roof panels were “energy-saving materials” per VAT Act 1994, sect 29A, Schedule 7A, group 2, items 1 and 2 and thus liable at the reduced rate of 5%. Or rather at the standard rate of 20% on the basis that they were a supply of a roof itself.

Background

The appellant supplied and installed roof panels for conservatories which comprised a layer of close-cell extruded polystyrene foam (Styrofoam) around 71mm thick. The Styrofoam was covered with a thin aluminium layer and a protective powder coating which are together around 2mm thick. The supplies were made to residential customers and the panels were fitted onto their pre-existing conservatory roofs. The Panels were slotted into place on the existing roof structure and Greenspace did not replace its customers’ existing roof framework when doing this; the struts and glazing bars that supported the previous glass or polycarbonate panels were left in place. Consequently, the Panels were not self-supporting and could only be used if the customer already had an existing conservatory roof structure.

The decision

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided in 2020 that the panels were not “insulation for a roof” but were a new roof in their own right, and that the appellant’s supplies did not therefore qualify for the reduced rate of VAT (unlike insulation that could be separately attached to a roof, the panels actually formed the roof).

The UT dismissed the new appeal and found that the FTT had not been obliged to compare the roof after Greenspace had installed its panels to the original roof. The frame that was retained could not itself be described as a roof, and the provision of the Thermotec panels which made the conservatory weatherproof as well as insulating it could properly be categorised as the provision of a new roof.

One of Greenspace’s grounds of appeal was that the FTT decision was vitiated by the assumption that because the panels took the form of roof coverings, they were necessarily incapable of constituting “insulation for … roofs”. The appellant argued that as this was a flawed assumption (that Greenspace’s supplies “must” be treated as something more than insulation) the decision should be set aside. This contention was rejected by the UT judge.

Commentary

A fine distinction is often required to be made to establish the correct VAT treatment of a supply. In this case a degree of semantics was required to determine whether the panels were energy-saving materials (even when they certainly saved energy). On such small things turned the assessment of £2.6 million here. It always pays to double check VAT treatments rather than making assumptions.

VAT: Farm in business? The Babylon case

By Marcus Ward 21 September 2021

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Babylon Farm Ltd (the farm) the issue was whether the appellant was in business and consequently was able to recover certain input tax.

Background

Yet another case on whether there was any business activity in a company. Please see here, here, here and here for previous cases on this issue. The farm sold hay which it cut from another person’s fields to a connected party. The value of the one-off annual sale was £440 pa. The appellant also contended that it was also undertaking preparatory acts for the new business activities and that it would be able to levy management charges. Another new business activity was the creation of an investment and insurance product.

The farm built a new barn on which it claimed input tax of £19,760.

HMRC considered that no business was being carried on and decided to deregister the farm thus refusing to pay the input tax claim. The farm challenged this decision and contended that taxable supplies were being made, and there was also an intention to make taxable supplies in the future.

Legislation

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 of the VAT Act 1994 requires HMRC to be satisfied that a person is either making taxable supplies or is carrying on a business and intends to make such supplies in the course or furtherance of a business in order to be registered for VAT. There are a number of tests set out in case law (mainly The Lord Fisher case) to establish whether a person is in business:

Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
Are the taxable supplies that are being made of a kind which, subject to differences of detail, are commonly made by those who seek to profit from them?

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The farm was not in business and could not recover input tax on the costs of the new barn.

The judge stated that he could see no legal basis for the farm to be in business. The hay that the farm sold was taken from the customer’s own land and therefore belonged to him already. It was also noted that no invoices were raised, no payment for the hay had been made for a number of years and the single customer was a director of Babylon Farm Limited so the farm was not operating in an open market. The sale of hay had not been conducted on a basis that followed sound and recognised business principles or on a basis that was predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for consideration. As a consequence, the farm was not operating as a business during the relevant period.

On the intention point; neither of the intended activities had yet resulted in any chargeable services being provided and both were to be carried on through companies that had been formed for these purposes (not the farm). Both businesses remained at a formative stage and neither company has generated any revenue. This was insufficient to retain the VAT registration.

Commentary

The decision was hardly a surprise and one wonders how it reached the UT. HMRC were always going to challenge an input tax claim of that quantum with no output tax (and such a low value of sales which may not have been made in any event).

VAT: Education and catering – University Of Southampton Students’ Union case

By Marcus Ward 6 November 2020

Latest from the courts

In the University Of Southampton Students’ Union (USSU) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was the VAT treatment of supplies of hot food and coffee; whether the appellant was an eligible institution making principal supplies of education or vocational training and/or whether supplies of hot food and coffee closely related to such principal supplies.

Background

USSU argued that both the supply of hot food and coffee by the USSU shop are exempt via The VAT Act 1994 Schedule 9, group 6, Item 4(a) and note 1(e) as supplies made by an eligible body which makes principal supplies of vocational training, and which are closely related to the (exempt) principal supply of education by the University of Southampton or vocational training by USSU. In the alternative, exemption applies for matters closely related to supplies of education by a third party via a published HMRC concession (and its supplies were within HMRC’s conditions for such a concession).

HMRC disagreed and claimed that these supplies were not closely related to education and that USSU was not an eligible body (no ring fencing of the profits such that they were not necessarily reinvested in its own supplies of education). Therefore, the supplies were properly taxable, and they declined to pay the appellant’s claim of overpaid output tax. The respondent also cited the Loughborough Students’ UnionUpper Tribunal (UT) case.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed for the following reasons:

USSU did not satisfy the definition of vocational training
the supplies of hot food and coffee were not closely related to a supply of education or vocational training
USSU did not satisfy the definition of an “eligible body”

Commentary

Superficially, the claim seemed good. Para 5.5 of PN 709/1 states: “If you’re a student union and you’re supplying catering (including hot takeaway food) to students both on behalf, and with the agreement, of the parent institution, as a concession you can treat your supplies in the same way as the parent institution itself. This means that you can treat your supplies as exempt when made by unions at universities.. This means that most supplies of food and drink made by the union, where the food is sold for consumption in the course of catering will be exempt… For example, food and drink sold from canteens, refectories and other catering outlets (excluding bars), plus food and drink sold from vending machines situated in canteens and similar areas.”

However, the Notice then goes on to add “But it does not cover food and drink sold from campus shops, bars, tuck shops, other similar outlets and certain vending machines…”

This appeal looks a close-run thing, but it demonstrates that small differences in detail can produce different VAT outcomes. We urge all Student Unions and other entities “attached” to education providers to review their position.

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: Are sales from Student Union shops exempt?

By Marcus Ward 5 November 2018

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Loughborough Students’ Union (LSU) the issue was whether sales of certain goods from Student Union shops were exempt as being closely related to education. This case is a practical issue considering the exemption I set out recently here

The two issues before the UT were:

were the shops eligible bodies, and
were the sales closely related to education supplies?

Background

The appeal by LSU was against a decision of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissing its appeal against HMRC’s decision to deny its claim for repayment of output tax in respect of sales of; stationery, art materials and other items from the shops which LSU operates on campus.

Legislation

The legislation (where relevant to this case) is:

VAT Act 1994, Group 6, Item No 1, item 4

1 The provision by an eligible body of (a) education; …

4 The supply of any goods or services (other than examination services) which are closely related to a supply of a description falling within item 1 (the principal supply) by or to the eligible body making the principal supply…

Decision

Not surprisingly, the appeal was dismissed. because even if LSU was an eligible body (which the judge was doubtful about) the exemption only applied to an eligible body which itself provided education, which clearly LSU did not. Consequently, the supplies for which exemption was sought were not closely related to any principal supply. Further, the judge was not persuaded that even if the supplies were closely connected to education, that they were essential (as required) to education. Food, newspapers and household goods for eg, are “ends in themselves” and not ancillary to education; the education provided by the University would be just as good if the students did not buy these items from the LSU shops.

Commentary

The appeal seems to have been a long-shot and predictably, it failed. Care must always be taken with the VAT treatment of goods and services closely connected to education. This is an area I am often asked for an opinion on by schools, academies, colleges and universities and there is not one single one-size fits all answer.

Our offering to education bodies here

VAT – Zipvit Court of Appeal decision

By Marcus Ward 18 July 2018

Latest from the courts

The Zipvit Court of Appeal (CA) case here

Background

A full background of this long running case may be found here

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

The decisions in the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) went against Zipvit so the appeal went to the CA.

Decision

The CA upheld the decisions in the previous courts. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the relevant VAT had been “due or paid” on the supplies received from RM. It further appeared that evidence which was not present at earlier hearings showed that the amounts paid were exclusive of VAT which meant that VAT was not embedded in the consideration paid.

Importance

In the words of the judge Lord Justice Henderson the appeal raised some important questions of principle in the law of VAT. They arise when supplies of goods or services, which were wrongly assumed by the parties to the relevant transactions and by HMR to be exempt from VAT at the time of supply, are later discovered to have been subject to the standard rate of tax when they were made, following a decision to that effect by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Where the recipient of those goods or services was itself a registered trader which made taxable supplies on which it accounted for output tax, the basic question is whether, once the true position has become known, the recipient is in principle entitled to recover as an input tax credit the tax element of the consideration which it paid for the original supplies. If so, does it make any difference if the supplier has failed to pay the tax which should have been paid on the original supplies, and if the recipient is in consequence unable to produce a tax invoice from the supplier showing the amount of the input tax which it seeks to recover?

So a fundamental tenet of VAT was considered, as well as the matter of this being the lead case behind which many others were stood. I understand that the quantum of claims submitted is circa £1 billion in total so there was a lot riding on this decision.

Commentary

In my view, this is an important case for the above technical reasons and the whole decision bears reading in order to understand some of the intricacies of a business claiming input tax.

Beyblades – a Customs Duty case

By Marcus Ward 17 July 2018

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal (CA) case of Hasbro European Trading BV (Hasbro) the issue was whether Customs Duty (CD) was due on the import of Beyblades. If they fall within the definition of a toy CD is payable at 4.7%. However, if they are more accurately classified as a game they are treated as duty free – so a significant difference in import cost dependent on what, superficially, appears to be a somewhat question of semantics.

Beyblades

For the purposes of the case, it is important to understand what a Beyblade is and how it is used.

Beyblade is the brand name for a line of spinning tops originally developed and manufactured by Tomy in Japan. The main novelty is that they are a series of items which are customisable, with interchangeable parts. A Beyblade is set in motion by means of a rip-cord powered launcher.

A “game” is played with two players. Each player is allowed a number of Beyblades to choose from during a match. Players may use any parts available to them to make their Beyblades), but may not switch parts once a match has started. The first player to reach seven points wins. Points are awarded to the player based on how their Beyblade knocks out the opponent’s

One point is awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade stops spinning
One point is awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade is knocked out of the stadium or into a pocket on the edge of the ring
Two points are awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade breaks during a game

The Arguments

The case concerned the classification of Beyblades’. The appellant, Hasbro contended that Beyblades are correctly classified as “articles for … table or parlour games” under heading 9504 of the Combined Nomenclature. In contrast, HMRC maintained that Beyblades should be classified as “other toys” under heading 9503, The First-tier Tribunal FTT and the Upper Tribunal (U’) both previously agreed with HMRC’s analysis.

Classification

There are “explanatory notes” to the Harmonised System (HSENNs). The CA ruled that the classification rule which prefers the most specific description does not apply at the level of the HSENs: they are an important guide to interpretation, but do not have force of law.

The Decision

The CA allowed the appeal and went against the decisions in the FTT and UT. The judge concluded that “In the circumstances, it seems to me to fall to us to decide which of the alternative headings provides the more specific description. In my view, it is heading 9504. As I see it, “articles for … parlour games” encompasses a more limited range of goods than “toys” and “more clearly identifies Beyblades”, particularly since, as I say, “articles for … parlour games” reflects the fact that Beyblades are meant to be used in games…”. The fact that Beyblades are used in a competitive scenario seems to have swung the decision which knocked out HMRC. Consequently, there was no CD payable as they fell to be duty free.

Commentary

It does beg the question; why did this issue need to get to the CA for the appellant to finally win (but of course, this isn’t the first case which has raised that question). Perseverance was clearly the key word here. If you are convinced that HMRC is wrong on ay matter, it really does pay to challenge any ruling.

Tax Tribunal backlog continues to increase

By Marcus Ward 26 April 2018

Both the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) which both hear VAT cases, report an increase in the number of cases waiting to be heard. In the case of the FTT the increase is 507 last year which means 28,521 cases are outstanding. The increase of UT cases outstanding is around 40%.

These are not all VAT cases and it is likely that the backlog is predominantly caused by

HMRC’s increased willingness to attack what they see as tax avoidance and evasion (see here)
More businesses being prepared to go to court
HMRC’s determination to “win on every point” rather than, perhaps, seeking a negotiated settlement, and
The increasing complexity of cases heard.

This backlog works in HMRCs favour as in the majority of cases the disputed tax must be paid before a hearing can take place. Delays may also cause anxiety and the burden of devoting resources to appeals which may cause the applicant to withdraw. It is not usually an inexpensive process to go to court and some cases can take a number of years to resolve.

In the current climate, it is more important than ever to challenge HMRC’s decisions. We have found that in the majority of cases we have been able to reduce HMRC assessments, in many cases, to zero. We always work on the basis that it is very important to try to resolve matters with HMRC before going to Tribunal. This is an increasingly difficult task given the political pressure on HMRC to reduce the tax gap (the difference between the amount of tax that should, in theory, be collected by HMRC, against what is actually collected) and the seemingly common tactic of HMRC becoming “entrenched” and being unprepared to shift their position.

Please contact us if you have a dispute with HMRC or are being challenged on any technical points. It is better to deal with these as soon as possible to avoid going to court.

VAT – Latest on the Nesquik case

By Marcus Ward 23 February 2018

Latest from the courts

I covered the Nesquik first Tier Tribunal (FTT) case here Well, legal matters have since moved on and the case reached the Upper Tribunal (UT) recently. Nestlé UK Limited the manufacturer of Nesquik appealed against the FTT’s decision that its fruit flavoured products are subject to 20% VAT despite the chocolate flavour being zero rated.

Unfortunately for Nestlé , the UT decision went against it and banana and strawberry Nesquik remains standard rated. Similar contentions (to those in the FTT case) were advanced by the taxpayer, however the UT dismissed Nestlé’s appeal.

The Tribunal recognised that there is not currently a logical and consistent regime which applies to VAT on food (there is a long list of examples which include gingerbread men, smoothies, various types of crisps, not to mention Jaffa cakes….). I think most advisers could not agree more with the judge and I echo the comments I made after the FTT case: the entire legislation relating to food needs a complete overhaul.

Full details of the case here

VAT: Timeshare is exempt

By Marcus Ward 19 February 2018

Latest from the courts

The Fortyseven Park Street Ltd (FPSL) Upper Tribunal case.

Brief technical overview

In general terms the provision of a “timeshare” in the UK is standard rated for VAT. This is because HMRC regard supplies of this type to be similar to hotels, inns, boarding houses and are treated as “serviced flats” (other than those for permanent residential use). The appellant sought to argue that what it provided was not “similar” to a hotel or boarding house.

Background

The issue in the FPSL case was whether “Fractional Interests” (akin to timeshares) in a property amount to an exempt supply of that property. The Fractional Interests entitled FPSL’s clients up to 21 days a year in block of apartments in Mayfair.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) determined that here were three main issues:

The FTT decided that the supplies of the Fractional Interests fell within the exemption from VAT provided for the leasing or letting of immovable property.
However, the FTT further found that the land exemption was excluded because the grant of the Fractional Interests was the provision of accommodation in a similar establishment to an hotel.
The therefore FTT dismissed FPSL’s argument that under the principle of fiscal neutrality the supplies of the Fractional Interests should be treated in the same way (exempt) as more traditional timeshare interests.

Decision

The UT decided that the relevant interests provided amounted to an exempt supply of the property. This was on the basis that the judges concluded that the grant of the Fractional Interest was the grant of a right to occupy a residence and to exclude others from enjoying such a right, and was thus within the concept of the “letting of immovable property”. It was also found that the supply was a passive activity and not outside the land exemption by reason of FPSL having added significant value to the service despite providing; certain additional facilities, services (eg; concierge) and benefits to clients – this was not, it was decided, a situation where the appellant had actively exploited the asset to add value to the supply (which may have made it taxable). The UT also ruled that as the concierge was provided by a third party, it could not be combined to form a single supply made by FPSL thus emphasising the fact that this was a more passive activity.

It was noted that there was a distinction in this case from supplies of boutique hotels (which are standard rated hotel accommodation) because residents were contracting for the supply of a long-term right to occupy an apartment and not a series of short-term stays and that the high amount paid for the Fractional Interest brought with it certain financial obligations which are not found in the hotel industry.

Commentary

This is an interesting case and the decision somewhat surprising. There is a subtle distinction between what was provided here and serviced flats or hotel accommodation, but the UT found it sufficient to apply exempt treatment. If you, or your clients may be affected by this decision, please contact us.