Tag Archives: value-added-tax

VAT: Input tax recovery on director’s costs

By Marcus Ward 18 March 2019

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: Property – The Option To Tax

By Marcus Ward 13 March 2019

Opting To Tax commercial property

Opting to tax provides a unique situation in the VAT world. It is the only example of where a supplier can choose to add VAT to a supply….. or not.

What is an option to tax?

The sale or letting of a property is, in most cases, exempt (VAT free) by default. However, it is possible to apply the option to tax (OTT) to commercial property. This has the result of turning an exempt supply into a taxable supply at the standard rate. It should be noted that an OTT made in respect of a residential property is disregarded and consequently, the supply of residential properties is always exempt.

Why opt?

Why would a supplier then deliberately choose to add VAT on a supply?

The only purpose of OTT is to enable the optor to recover or avoid input tax incurred in relation to the relevant land or property. The OTT is a decision solely for the property owner or landlord and the purchaser or tenant is not able to affect the OTT unless specific clauses are included in the lease or purchase contracts. Care should be taken to ensure that existing contracts permit the OTT to be taken. Despite a lot of misleading commentary and confusion, it is worth bearing in mind that the recovery or avoidance of input tax is the sole reason to OTT.

Once made the OTT is usually irrevocable for a 20-year period (although there are circumstances where it may be revisited within six months of it being taken – see below). There are specific rules for circumstances where the optor has previously made exempt supplies of the relevant land or property. In these cases, HMRC’s permission must usually be obtained before the option can be made.

What to consider

The important questions to be asked before a property transaction are:

Was VAT incurred on the purchase price?
Is the purchase with the benefit of an existing lease (will the tenant remain?) if so, it may be possible to treat the transaction as a VAT free TOGC (see below)
Is the property subject to the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS here)?
Is it intended to spend significant amounts on the property, eg; refurbishment?
What other costs will be incurred in respect of the property?
If renting the property out – will the lease granted be full tenant repairing?
Will the tenant or purchaser be in a position to recover any or all VAT charged on the rent/sale?

These are the basic questions to be addressed; further factors may need to be considered depending on the facts of a transaction.

Input tax recovery

Input tax relating to an exempt supply is usually irrecoverable. In fact, a business only making exempt supplies is unable to register for VAT. A guide to partial exemption here. So input tax incurred on, say; purchase, refurbishment, legal costs etc would be lost if a property was sold or rented on an exempt basis. In order to recover this tax, it must relate to a taxable supply. If an OTT is taken, the sale or rent of the property will be standard rated which represents a taxable supply. VAT on supply = input tax claim.

Two-part process

The OTT is a two-part process.

The first part is a decision of the business to take the OTT and it is prudent to minute this in Board meeting minutes or similar. Once the decision to OTT is taken VAT may be added to a sale price or rent and a valid tax invoice must be raised.
The second part is to formally notify HMRC. If the OTT is straightforward the form on which this is done is a VAT1614A. Here. In some cases, it is necessary to obtain HMRC’s permission in which case separate forms are required. HMRC guidance here – para 5.

There can be problems in cases where the OTT is taken, but not formally notified.

Timing

It is vital to ensure that an OTT is made at the correct time. Even one day late may affect the VAT treatment. Generally speaking, the OTT must be made before any use of the property, eg; sale or rent. Care should also be taken with deposits which can trigger a tax point before completion.

Disadvantages

As mentioned above (and bears repeating) the benefit of taking the OTT is the ability to recover input tax which would otherwise fall to be irrecoverable. However, there are a number of potential disadvantages.

opting a commercial property may reduce its marketability. It is likely that entities which are unable to recover VAT would be less inclined to purchase or lease an opted property. These entities may be; partly exempt business, those not VAT registered, or charities/NFP organisations.
the payment of VAT by the purchaser may necessitate obtaining additional funding. This may create problems, especially if a VAT charge was not anticipated. Even though, via opting, the VAT charge is usually recoverable, it still has to be paid for up-front.
an OTT will increase the amount of SDLT payable when a property is sold. This is always an absolute cost.

Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC)

I always say that advice should be taken in all property transactions and always in cases of a TOGC or a possible TOGC. This is doubly important where an opted building is being sold, because TOGC treatment only applies to a sale of property when specific tests are met. A TOGC is VAT free but any input tax incurred is recoverable, so this is usually a benefit for all parties.

Revoking an Option To Tax

The cooling off period – If an OTT has been made and the opter changes his/her mind within six months it can be revoked. This is as long as no tax has become chargeable on a supply of the land, that no TOGC has occurred, and the OTT has actually been notified to HMRC. There are additional considerations in certain cases, so these always need to be checked.
No interest has been held for more than six years – An OTT is revoked where the opter has not held an interest in the opted building for a continuous period of six years. The revocation is automatic, and no notification is required.
20 years – It is possible to revoke an OTT which was made more than 20 years ago. Certain conditions must be met, and advice should be taken on how such a revocation affects future input tax recovery.

Summary

Property transactions are high value and often complex. The cost of getting VAT wrong or overlooking it can be very swingeing indeed. I have also seen deals being aborted over VAT issues. of course, if you get it wrong there are penalties to pay too. For these reasons, please seek VAT advice at an early stage of negotiations.

More on our land and property services here

VAT MOSS and No-Deal Brexit

By Marcus Ward 11 March 2019

In the event of an increasingly likely no deal Brexit, changes have been put in place to the existing MOSS (Mini One Stop Shop) arrangements. Details of MOSS here.

These intended changes will affect UK businesses which provide electronically supplied services such as cross-border telecommunication, television and radio broadcasting, or digital services to non-business (eg; individuals) recipients in the EU.

Such services include:

website hosting
supply of software
access to databases
downloading apps or music
online gaming
distance teaching

The existing threshold of £8818 pa introduced by Schedule 4A, para 15(1) of the VAT Act 1994 will be removed via SI2019/404.

This means that if there is a no deal Brexit UK businesses supplying such services will either be required to:

MOSS Non-Union Scheme

A business may use the Non-Union scheme when it supplies cross-border electronically supplied services to consumers in all EU countries (including the EU country selected as the Member State of identification).

The EU countries where a business supplies services to are known as Member States of consumption.

Selecting a member state of identification

A business must designate a Member State of identification. This can be any EU country a business chooses. A business may change the member state of identification at a later date if it wants. Again, this can be any EU country a business chooses.

Registration

A business registers online via the Member State of identification’s portal.

VAT rules

A business will be allocated a VAT number by the EU country chosen to be the Member State of identification and charge VAT at the rate of the EU countries where its customers reside. The same invoicing rules as your Member State of identification must be used (although an invoice is not required in most countries when supplying services under the MOSS scheme).

VAT returns

A business must submit detailed online quarterly VAT returns within 20 days of the end of each return period. The information is then securely transferred from your Member State of identification to the relevant Member State of consumption.

VAT rates

VAT rates can be checked for the supply of telecommunications, broadcasting and electronically supplied services using the Tax Information Communication database.

For further information and to register for MOSS please see here.

VAT: Input tax claims – alternative evidence

By Marcus Ward 7 March 2019

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 Marcus Ward 1 March 2019

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.

Claiming EU VAT refunds after Brexit

By Marcus Ward 25 February 2019

HMRC has confirmed that in the event of a No Deal Brexit businesses belonging in the UK will no longer be able to make claims for VAT incurred in other EU Member States using the electronic refund system.

Businesses claiming via the EU VAT refund electronic system need to submit a refund claim for 2018 by 5pm on 29 March 2019. If claims are submitted after that date HMRC will be unable to send the claim to the relevant EU Member State.

If a business incurs VAT in an EU Member State in 2019 it should not use the EU VAT refund system to make a claim as it is likely to be rejected by that Member State.

After 29 March, a business must claim VAT refunds from EU Member States directly by using the existing process for businesses based outside the EU (similar to the previous EC Eighth Directive claims for those with a good memory and in line with current the EC Thirteenth Directive). This includes outstanding claims that relate to 2018 expenses, and claims relating to 2019.

It is important to understand the process for each EU Member State as it can vary. For example:

the deadline for making your claim may be different
you may need to supply a certificate of Taxable Status to support a claim
you may need to appoint a tax representative in the EU Member State of refund

Check the EU’s Europa website for country specific information on VAT.

This is yet another reason (should one be needed) that a No Deal Brexit will create significant burdens on businesses. It will mean that up to 27 separate claims, in the language of the Member State in which the claim is made, rather than a single application. Good luck everybody!

VAT: Place of supply of “erotic services”

By Marcus Ward 19 February 2019

Latest from the courts

Readers of a nervous disposition may want to look away now.

In the case of Geelen C-568/17 (in French) the advocate General (AG) was asked for an opinion on the supply of what was coyly called webcam sessions.

Background

The defendant in the main proceedings, Mr Geelen, was a VAT registered person in The Netherlands. He provided the services of the organisation and provision of interactive erotic sessions broadcast live over the Internet. The models were located in the Philippines and Mr Geelen provided them with the necessary hardware and software to transmit the sessions over the Internet. Customers contacted the models via a website after creating an account for this purpose. The sessions were broadcast live and were interactive, which meant that customers had the opportunity to communicate with the models and give them instructions. The services provided by the defendant were intended for the Dutch market. I set out the arrangements here, as I am sure that none of my readers will be aware of such things * polite cough *

This is interesting as an example of technology overtaking legislation which was enacted before such services could even be contemplated (well, by the people drafting the VAT legislation anyway).

The issue

The issue was where was the place of supply of these services. If they were in The Netherlands, then Dutch VAT would apply, but if they were deemed to be outside the EU, no EU VAT would be payable. The tax authorities considered that such services were subject to VAT in The Netherlands and issued a tax assessment notice.

Technical

Generally, the rule is that for B2C services the place of supply (POS) is where the supplier belongs. However, there is an exception for cultural, artistic, and entertainment activities. These are taxed where performed (outside the EU in this case if the exception is applicable).

Opinion

It was the AG’s opinion that, in the first place, there was no doubt that the services in question were entertaining…

However, he opined that the only way to provide cultural activities, entertainment, education, etc. was either to bring service users together at the actual place of service delivery, or to provide a service at the location of the users.

The technological development that has taken place since the relevant legislation was drafted has enabled services in which beneficiaries participate remotely, sometimes even actively, in a cultural, entertainment or other event, without necessarily doing so in real time. In a cultural reference: The “unity of action, time and place”, to refer to the categories of classical theatre, was thus upset.

In the AG’s opinion, these services were not intended to be covered by the exception. Consequently, these were not services “supplied where performed” and the general B2C rules applied, so the POS was The Netherlands and Dutch VAT was applicable. It was concluded that performance does not take place where the models are based, or where the consumer was located, but where Mr Geelen brought together all elements of the supply.

Summary

The legislation must be interpreted as meaning that the services of organising and providing live interactive webcam sex do not constitute services for entertainment purposes within the meaning of the relevant provisions.

VAT: Yet more cases on food

By Marcus Ward 11 February 2019

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:

How is the product marketed?
Why it is consumed by the customer?
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 Marcus Ward 8 February 2019

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 Marcus Ward 4 February 2019

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…