Tag Archives: value-added-tax

VAT: Changes to EU 13th Directive claims

By Marcus Ward 17 December 2018

HMRC has announced procedural changes to overseas businesses reclaiming VAT incurred in the UK RCB 12 (2018)

The main changes are in relation to HMRC’s firmer stance on what constitutes an acceptable Certificate Of Status (CoS).

CoS

HMRC issues form VAT66A which can be used by overseas claimants to prove that they are engaged in business activities at the time of the claim.

The CoS must be the original and contain the:

name, address and official stamp of the authorising body
claimants name and address
nature of the claimant’s business
claimant’s business registration number

The CoS is only valid for twelve months. Once it has expired you will need to submit a new CoS.

What is a 13th Directive claim?

A non-EU based business may make a claim for recovery of VAT incurred in the UK. Typically, these are costs such as; employee travel and subsistence, service charges, exhibition costs, imports of goods, training, purchases of goods in the UK, and clinical trials etc.

Who can claim?

The scheme is available for any businesses that are not VAT registered anywhere in the EU, have no place of business or other residence in the EU and do not make any supplies in the UK.

What cannot be claimed?

The usual rules that apply to UK business claiming input tax also apply to 13th Directive claims. Consequently, the likes of; business entertainment, car purchase, non-business use and supplies used for exempt activities are usually barred.

Process

The business must obtain a CoS from its local tax or government department to accompany a claim. The application form is a VAT65A and is available here Original invoices which show the VAT charged must be submitted with the claim form and business certificate. Applications without a certificate, or certificates and claim forms received after the deadline are not accepted by HMRC. It is possible for a business to appoint an agent to register to enable them to make refund applications on behalf of that business.

Deadline

Claim periods run annually up to 30 June and must be submitted by 31 December of the same year. Consequently, any UK VAT incurred in the twelve months to 30 June 2018 must be submitted by 31 December 2018. With the usual Christmas rush and distractions, it may be easy to overlook this deadline and some claims may be significant. Unfortunately, this is not a rapid process and even if claims are accurate and the supporting documents are in all in order the claim often takes some time to be repaid. Although the deadline is the end of the year HMRC say that it will allow an additional three months for submission of a CoS.

Note

There is a similar scheme for businesses incurring VAT in the UK which are based in other EU Member States. However, the process and deadlines are different. Additionally, if you are a UK business incurring VAT (or its equivalent) overseas, there are mechanisms for its recovery. Please contact us if you would like further information.

Excise Duty: Your Christmas drink of choice, or perhaps not

By Marcus Ward 17 December 2018

Advocate General (AG) Manuel Sanchez-Bordona has released his opinion in the Bene Factum case (The link is to Lithuanian, so you ‘may” need to translate…).

A curious matter and one which brings into focus the drinking habits of people across the EU. Now, as those who know me will be aware, I am not adverse to a good single malt, nor a decent claret, but I do wonder sometimes where people draw the line.

Background

It transpires that in Lithuania people who choose not to drink, or cannot afford, even the cheapest alcoholic items have turned to drinking perfume and mouthwash which contain isopropyl alcohol. This has a similar effect on the human body to what most people would regard as being from more usual beer, wine or spirits etc. Sounds delicious eh?

Issue

The issue was whether these products where subject to Excise Duty, or, as the appellant contended, they were duty free as cosmetic products.

Decision

The AG found that isopropyl alcohol is almost unpalatable to most people. The fact that Bene Factum held out, advertised and marketed to people to drink the products did not affect the fact that the main purpose of the goods was for their use as cosmetics and mouthwash. What must be considered is Excise Duty depends on an objective classification to determine whether it is intended for human consumption. This classification is not affected by the fact that Bene Factum actively encouraged people to drink these products rather than use them for cosmetic purposes.

Consequently, the goods where not subject to Excise Duty. Good news for Lithuanian alcohol connoisseurs! It remains to see if the court follows this opinion, in most cases they do, but one never knows.

Commentary

If there is anybody out there who is getting ready for their Christmas party, looks at some cosmetic products and considers taking a swig, I make the following comments:

Probably best to stick supermarket own brand booze if money is an issue
I expect that these things taste absolutely terrible (although I have not sampled them)
I tend to stick to things that are to be applied externally doing just that with them without ingestion
If you can’t decide whether to gargle with something or drink it, I counsel spitting it out
If these goods come to the UK, at least they will be even cheaper being duty free. I am not sure that is a good thing.

Education – New funding rules impact on VAT

By Marcus Ward 9 December 2018

The government has announced it will amend the VAT law from 1 August 2019 to ensure continuity of VAT treatment for English Higher Education (HE) providers under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. The change in legislation applies to English HE providers who register with the Office for Students (OfS) in the Approved (fee cap) category.

Background

VAT exemption currently applies to UK universities and their colleges, institutions conducted by higher education corporations (HECs) and other institutions that are designated as eligible to receive support from central funding.

There are changes to the way that HE providers are funded by the OfS from the start of the 2019 to 2020 academic year. These changes require an amendment to be made to the statutory definition of an eligible body in Note 1(c) of Group 6 of Schedule 9 to the VAT Act 1994.

Paragraph 4.1 of VAT Notice 701/30 (Education and Vocational training) explains that an eligible body includes ‘a school, university, sixth form college, tertiary college or further education (FE) college or other centrally funded higher or FE institution’ (defined as such under the Education Acts).

Revised VAT treatment

Note 1(c) to Group 6 of Schedule 9 to the VAT Act 1994 is being amended in respect of HE institutions in England (only).

The exemptions that relate to FE will be unaffected, although some providers of FE that also provide HE may register with the OfS in the Approved (fee cap) category.

Note 1(c) currently refers to bodies that fall within subsections 91(5)(b) and (c) of the Further and Higher Education Act (FHEA) 1992, but subsection 91(5)(c) of FHEA 1992 will no longer apply to England once the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 fully commences.

Sub-section 91(5)(b) of FHEA 1992 will be amended so that this only applies to institutions in Wales.

In order to be bodies entitled to exempt their supplies, those English HE providers who are currently exempt by virtue of being HECs or designated institutions will in future need to be registered by the OfS in the Approved (fee cap) category.

All English HE providers who will become registered in the Approved (fee cap) category will also become entitled to exempt their supplies in future.

The overall impact of the change is to ensure that those HE providers that are currently eligible to receive central funding can continue to exempt their supplies of education.

institutions which currently fall within section 91 FHEA 1992 will have to show that they are registered with the Office for Students in order to exempt their services

HEMore details are available in VAT Information Sheet 08/18

See our education offering here

VAT: More on agent or principal – The All Answers Limited case

By Marcus Ward 9 December 2018

Latest from the courts

In the All Answers Limited (AAL) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether AAL acted as an agent as it contended, or was a principal as HMRC argued. It also considered the position of contracts in certain situations. There have been a huge number of cases on this point, many of which I have commented on. Some of them here here and here

Background

AAL runs an online business which provides essays, coursework and dissertations to students. The FTT found many euphemisms used for this service, but the service which the student paid for effectively passed off other peoples’ work as the students own in order to obtain a certain grade which was decided by the student. Or in other words; cheating. AAL arranged for one of its circa 400 writers, which were usually other students, teachers or lecturers etc (who should have known better) to provide the required work.

Technical

AAL contended that it was acting as the students’ agent in respect of making arrangements to provide the written work. Consequently, it would only account for output tax on the “commission” retained, rather than on the full value of the amount paid by the student – a significant difference. The contracts produced as evidence fully supported the agency analysis. The Terms and Conditions between AAL and the writer provided that the appellant acts as the writer’s agent to sell his/her services and to enter into “relationships” with clients on the writer’s behalf and to collect payment on the writer’s behalf.

HMRC’s view was that there were no agency services supplied and that the economic reality should be examined rather than relying solely on the relevant contracts. The respondent argued that the notion of agency, so carefully woven into the AAL’s Terms and Conditions, lacked both factual and economic reality because the only service provider was the appellant who choose to use a sub-contractor to provide it with the work which AAL ultimately supplied to the client as principal.

The Decision

Unsurprisingly, the judge concluded that the appellant was acting as principal, not agent and so AAL’s appeal was dismissed. In the ruling, certain comments were made which illustrate how the decision was arrived at and are useful to consider when looking at agency/principal positions.

In respect of the T&Cs, the judge observed “…an agreement which is not a sham may nonetheless be artificial and intended to deflect attention from the true positions taken by both the client and the writer, to whom the appellant profitably lends a willing hand, with no concern for ethics or morality”.

And in respect of the business model: “It could not be stressed more strongly during the appeal before us, and in the documents emanating from the appellant, that its business model is based upon the identity of the client and the identity of the person who is to write the requested piece of academic work, not being made known to one another…” In such circumstances it is difficult to conclude that any agency services are being carried out.

Commentary

As in nearly all agent/principal cases, the VAT position is determined according to the facts of each individual case. Slight variations may produce different VAT outcomes, so it is crucial to look at the detail of each business activity. Contracts are a useful starting point, but as this case shows, if a contract is deliberately drafted to produce a VAT outcome that is not supported by the actual facts of a transaction then it must be disregarded in favour of an analysis of the economic reality. It seems that in this case, AAL desired agency treatment in order to significantly reduce its output tax (which was sticking tax as the recipient was unable to recover it as input tax). Its advisers drafted the relevant contract with this in mind. The FTT saw through that and, came to this sensible decision.

VAT: EC adopts short term fixes

By Marcus Ward 5 December 2018

The European Council (EC) will adopt short-term fixes to the current VAT system.

The EC agreed three short legislative acts aimed at adjusting some of the EU’s VAT rules in order to fix four specific issues pending the introduction of a new VAT system. These relate to:

call-off stock. The text provides for a simplified and uniform treatment for call-off stock arrangements, where a vendor transfers stock to a warehouse at the disposal of a known acquirer in another member state
the VAT identification number. To benefit from a VAT free treatment for the intra-EU supply of goods, the identification number of the customer will become an additional condition
chain transactions. To enhance legal certainty in determining the VAT treatment of chain transactions, the texts establish uniform criteria
proof of intra-EU supply. A common framework is established for the documentary evidence required to claim a VAT exemption for intra-EU supplies

These adjustments are due to apply from 1 January 2020.

In parallel, discussions are ongoing on a definitive VAT system to replace the current ‘transitional’ VAT arrangements, applied since 1993. Pending introduction of the new system, the four short-term quick fixes are proposed.

VAT: Time of supply (tax point). Baumgarten Sports case

By Marcus Ward 4 December 2018

Latest from the courts

In the Baumgarten Sports EJEU case, the matter was the time of supply of a German football agent’s services.

Background

As is common in the football world, clubs make payments to agents in order to obtain the services of footballers. When the agent places a player with a football club, it receives commission from that club, provided that the player subsequently signs an employment contract and holds a licence issued by the Deutsche Fußball Liga GmbH (German Football League). The commission is paid to the company in instalments every six months for as long as the player remains under a contract with that club.

The arguments

The German tax authorities took the view that a tax point was created when Baumgarten Sports services were complete – when the contract was signed, and that output tax was due in full at that time The appellant contended that the rules for “successive payments” applied and that VAT was due on each six monthly payment.

Legislation

The issue is covered by Articles 63 and 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’).

Decision

The supply of services gave rise to successive payments, the chargeable event for VAT occurs and VAT becomes chargeable on expiry of the periods to which those payments relate (re; Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company, C‑463/14).

The chargeable event (tax point) and chargeability of a tax on the supply of the agent’s services must be regarded as occurring, not when the player is placed, but on expiry of the periods to which the payments made by the club relate.

Commentary

It is useful to look at the UK tax point rules for services, which I have summarised here:

VAT must normally be accounted for in the VAT period in which the tax point occurs and at the rate of VAT in force at that time. Small businesses may, however, account for VAT on the basis of cash paid and received.

Although the principal purpose of the time of supply rules is to fix the time for accounting for, and claiming VAT, the rules have other uses including

calculating turnover for VAT registration purposes
establishing the period to which supplies (including exempt supplies) are to be allocated for partial exemption purposes, and
establishing when and if input tax may be deducted

The tax point for a transaction is the date the transaction takes place for VAT purposes. This is important because it crystallises the date when output tax should be declared and when input tax may be reclaimed. Unsurprisingly, get it wrong and there could be penalties and interest, or VAT is declared too early or input tax claimed late – both situations are to be avoided, especially in large value and/or complex situations.

The basic tax point for a supply of services is the date the services are performed.

Actual tax point

Where a VAT invoice is raised or payment is made before the basic tax point, there is an earlier actual tax point created at the time the invoice is issued or payment received, whichever occurs first.

14 Day Rule

There is also an actual tax point where a VAT invoice is issued within 14 days after the basic tax point. This overrides the basic tax point.

Continuous supply of services

If services are supplied on a continuous basis and payments are received regularly or from time to time, there is a tax point every time:

A VAT invoice is issued
a payment is received, whichever happens first

Deposits

Care should be taken when accounting for deposits. The VAT rules vary depending on the nature of the deposit. In some circumstances deposits may catch out the unwary, these could be, inter alia; auctions, stakeholder/escrow/solicitor accounts in property transactions, and refundable/non-refundable deposits. There are also other special provisions for particular supplies of goods and services, for eg; TOMS.

Summary

The tax point may be summarised (in most circumstances) as the earliest of:

The date an invoice is issued
The date payment is received
The date title to goods is passed, or services are completed.

Planning

Tax point planning can be very important to a business. the aims in summary are:

Deferring a supplier’s tax point where possible
Timing of a tax point to benefit both parties to a transaction wherever possible
Applying the cash accounting scheme (or withdrawal from it)
Using specific documentation to avoid creating tax points for certain supplies
Correctly identifying the nature of a supply to benefit from certain tax point rules
Generating positive cashflow between “related” entities where permitted
Broadly; generate output tax as early as possible in a VAT period, and incur input tax as late as possible
Planning for VAT rate changes
Ensure that a business does not incur penalties for errors by applying the tax point rules correctly.

As always, please contact us if you have any queries.

VAT: HMRC slammed over MTD

By Marcus Ward 22 November 2018

The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee has published its report “Making Tax Digital for VAT: Treating Small Businesses Fairly”. It does not make good reading for HMRC and it concludes that SME will suffer as a result of the rushed introduction of Making Tax Digital (MTD). The main conclusion is that the government should delay the introduction of MTD.

MTD for VAT will cost far more than was predicted in HMRC’s impact assessments. The Committee also criticised HMRC, saying it “inadequately considered the needs and concerns of smaller businesses”.

The report said HMRC neglected its duty to support small businesses through the implementation of the controversial measures, suggesting it “will make life even more difficult” for them.

In addition, the Committee said it “remained unconvinced” of the government’s logic used to justify the “speed and rigidity with which the programme is being introduced”.

Recommendations

A summary

Defer the introduction of mandatory MTD by at least one year
Plan a staged transition for businesses to join MTD and future stages which allows for businesses, not just HMRC, to be fully ready
Wait until at least April 2022 to implement the next stages of MTD
Publish its plan for the long-term development of MTD to encourage businesses to choose digitalisation for productivity, efficiency and modernisation reasons rather than just tax compliance.

The start date of MTD for most businesses is just three days after Brexit, so this also is very unhelpful for SMEs.

Full report

EC clamp down on yacht and aircraft VAT abuse

By Marcus Ward 8 November 2018

The European Commission (EC) has stepped up its agenda to tackle tax avoidance in the yacht and aircraft sectors by implementing infringement proceedings on tax breaks being applied in the pleasure craft industries of the Isle of Man. These provisions can generate major distortions of competition, as highlighted by last year’s ‘Paradise Papers’ leaks.

The EC has sent a formal notice to the UK in respect of the Isle of Man’s abusive VAT practices relating to sales and leasing of aircraft.

Background

Input tax is only deductible when it relates to business use of an asset. The EC says that supplies of aircraft, including leasing services, intended expressly for private use, should not be effectively VAT free. The EC believes that the UK has not taken sufficient action against abusive VAT practices in the Isle of Man on supplies and leasing of aircraft. This perceived abuse is facilitated by UK national rules which do not comply with EU law.

Broadly, arrangements are made such that a (seemingly) artificial leasing businesses is put in place and through which individuals rent their own jets from themselves. The most high-profile example of this structure is one used by Lewis Hamilton for his private jet.

Features of such arrangements are said to be:

Users of the scheme recover 100% of import VAT when it appears that an adjustment should be made for the proportion of the amount of private use intended for the aircraft
VAT should be declared and paid to any European Member States whose airports are used for leisure flights.
The leasing businesses set up for jets usually appear to be a letterbox companies with no real economic purpose. Consequently, it is unlikely that such entities should be entitled to reclaim VAT from the Isle of Man.

It is understood that the Isle of Man government has called in the HMRC which will review of 231 tax refunds issued to private jet owners since 2011 valued at circa $1billion of VAT.

Representatives of the EC are due to visit the Isle of Man this month. Similar action is being taken against Italy in respect of the lease of yachts and excise duty rates for motor boats.

What happens next?

The UK now has two months to respond to the arguments put forward by the EC regarding VAT on aircraft. If the UK authorities do not act within those two months, the EC will send a reasoned opinion. If the UK does not act within the next two months on the reasoned opinion the EC may bring the case before the Court of Justice of the EU.

Pierre Moscovici, the Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs Union, said: “It’s simply not fair that some individuals and companies can get away with not paying the correct amount of VAT on products like yachts and aircraft. Favourable tax treatment for private boats and aircraft is clearly at odds with our commonly agreed tax rules and heavily distorts competition in the maritime and aviation sectors. With this in mind, the Commission is taking action to clamp down on rules that try to circumvent EU law in these areas.”

For More Information

On the general infringements procedure, MEMO/12/12.

On the EU infringements procedure.

Commentary

We do not design, sell or advocate such schemes. Our view is that these and similar structures are, quite rightly, open to attack from the relevant authorities. They do not reflect well on those that put these structures in place nor those that benefit from them. Using a leasing scheme as such is not necessarily abusive. However, if one takes the other elements in the targeted schemes into consideration, such as the absence in motive of setting up those companies and the fact that those companies do not seem to have any substance, it is likely to lead to the action we see from the EC and its view that these schemes are abusive.

How Brexit will impact on these and similar situations remains to be seen.

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

Combined Nomenclature – 2019 version published

By Marcus Ward 5 November 2018

The European Commission (EC) has published the latest version of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) applicable from 1 January 2019.

The CN forms the basis for the declaration of goods

at importation or exportation or
when subject to intra-Union trade statistics

This determines which rate of Customs Duty applies and how the goods are treated for statistical purposes. The CN is a vital working tool for business and the Member States’ Customs administrations.

The CN is updated every year and is published as a Commission Implementing Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The latest version is now available as Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1602 in EU Official Journal L 273 on 31 October 2018 and applies from 1 January 2019.

Businesses which import, and/or export need to be aware of any changes as they could affect the amount of Customs Duty payable. We recommend that such a business’s import/export agent or carrier should be contacted in the first instance.