Tag Archives: VAT-best-judgement

VAT: Second-hand goods scheme and best judgement – The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited case

By   7 October 2024
0

Latest from the courts

The second-hands of time.

In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether the second-hand goods margin scheme (margin scheme) was applicable and whether HMRC’s assessments for £5,474,249 (later reduced to £5,004,595) of underdeclared of output tax were issued in best judgement.

Background

The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited (A&M) sold second-hand wristwatches with the majority of the sales properly accounted for via the margin scheme. However, from information obtained from Italian tax authorities in respect of supply chain fraud, HMRC issued the assessments on the basis that supplies of certain goods did not meet the conditions of the margin scheme so that output tax was due on the full value of the watches rather than the difference between the purchase and sale values. HMRC decided to penalise A&M because the errors were deliberate and prompted and subsequently to issue a PLN on the basis that such conduct was attributable to the director. A&M is a “High Value Dealer” for anti-money laundering purposes.

Contentions

Appellant

The appellant claimed that HMRC did not use best judgement on the grounds that:

  • the inspector did not impartially consider the evidence
  • HMRC lacked sufficient evidence to raise an assessment thereby failing to meet the Van Boeckel test
  • the calculated amounts were no more than unreasonable and random guesses
  • the inspector did not approach the investigation with an open mind to such an extent that it could not be said that the assessments and penalties were the product of the reasonable behaviours of HMRC
  • put in terms of the case law: HMRC had acted in a way which no reasonable body of commissioners could have acted or, put another way, had been vindictive, dishonest or capricious

so the assessments and penalties were invalid.

Whilst accepting that a best judgment challenge is a high bar A&M contended that the conduct and mindset of HMRC’s investigating and assessing officer was so unreasonable that it vitiated the whole assessment.

Respondent

HMRC contended that the assessments were based on best judgement and that its focus was not on the supply chain fraud claims (as claimed by A&M). Additionally, a previous inspection in 2014 had raised prior concerns which provided adequate grounds for the assessments. Moreover, A&M was aware of the terms of operation of the second-hand margin scheme and considered that A&M had wilfully misused the scheme in several regards. The scheme had been incorrectly used for goods purchased by way of intracommunity supplies – which had been imported with the appellant claiming input tax on the imports and then including them in the margin scheme. A&M wilfully failed to carry out due diligence on its suppliers.

Best Judgement

It may be helpful if we consider what the words “best judgement” mean. This was best described by Woolf J in Van Boeckel v CEC [1981] STC 290

“What the words ‘best of their judgement’ envisage, in my view, is that the commissioners will fairly consider all material before them and, on that material, come to a decision which is one which is reasonable and not arbitrary as to the amount of tax which is due. As long as there is some material on which the commissioners can reasonably act, then they are not required to carry out investigations which may or may not result in further material being placed before them.”

Technical

The second-hand margin scheme is provided for under The VAT Act 1994, Section 50A, The Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 and certain paragraphs of VAT Notice 718 which have force of law.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. It was found that A&M deliberately rendered inaccurate VAT returns. The director of the company was aware both of how the margin scheme worked and that the terms of the scheme had to be complied with if a supply was to be taxed under the it. A&M was found to have acted deliberately in misusing the scheme by including ineligible supplies. A&M had been lax in the completion of its stock book, and it had not met the record-keeping requirements necessary to use the scheme for the relevant transactions. Additionally, some of its EU suppliers were not registered for VAT, a fact A&M did not take steps to discover, and so related purchases could not qualify for the scheme. Also, it was likely that some of the purchases were of new watches which made them ineligible for the margin scheme.

Re, evidence; the FTT found much of the A&M director’s evidence to have been self-serving and, in parts, evasive and that it did not consider that the integrity of HMRC could be impugned. The court determined that; the inspector was diligent and thorough, HMRC had legitimate concerns regarding A&M’s use of the margin scheme generally and specifically and there was a wider concern that the company was a participant in fraudulent supply chains. The FTT considered that the investigation was proportionately carried out considering these concerns and the assessments raised in exercise of best judgment.

Penalties and PLN

The case further considered penalties: whether the appellant’s conduct was deliberate (yes – appeal dismissed). Whether the Personal Liability Notice (PLN) [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] was appropriate for the conduct attributed to the director – whether his conduct led to penalty (yes – appeal dismissed).

Commentary

This case is a long read, but worthwhile for comments on; the margin scheme use, HMRC’s inspection methods, best judgement, evidence and MTIC amongst other matters.

VAT: Best judgement; what is it, and why is it important?

By   13 November 2023
0

If HMRC carry out an inspection and decide that VAT has been underdeclared (eg: either by understating sales, applying the incorrect VAT rate, or overclaiming input tax) an inspector has the power to issue an assessment to recover VAT that it is considered underdeclared. This is set out in The VAT Act 73(1)

“Where a person has failed to make any returns … or where it appears to the Commissioners that such returns are incomplete or incorrect, they may assess the amount of VAT from him to the best of their judgment and notify it to him”.

So, the law requires that when an inspector makes an assessment (s)he must ensure that the assessment is made to the best of their judgement, otherwise it is invalid and will not stand.

Guidance to surviving a VAT inspection here.

HMRC’s methods of assessing cash businesses here.

Definition of best judgment

Per Van Boeckel vs HMCE (1981) the judge set out three tests:

  1. HMRC must make a value judgment on the material set before it honestly and bona fide and not knowingly set an inflated figure and then expect the taxpayer to disprove it on appeal
  2. there must be material available
  3. HMRC is not expected to do the work of the taxpayer but instead fairly interpret the material before it and come to a reasonable conclusion rather than an arbitrary one

If any of these three tests are failed, then best judgement has not been employed. However, the onus is on the appellant to disprove the assessment.

There were further comments on the matter:

“There are…obligations placed on the Commissioners to properly come to a view on the amount of tax that was due to the best of their judgement. In particular:

  • a value judgement must be made on the material put before them
  • they must perform their function honestly
  • there must be material on which to base their judgement
  • but they should not be required to do the job of the taxpayer, or carry out extensive investigations

This means that the assessing inspector must fairly consider all material placed before them and, on that material, come to a decision that is reasonable and not arbitrary, taking into account the circumstances of the business. In some cases, some “guesswork” may be required, but it should be honestly made based on the information available and should not be spurious, but HMRC must be permitted a margin of discretion.

Experience insists that it is usually more successful if the quantum of a best judgement assessment is challenged.

Where a business successfully disputes the amount of an assessment and the assessment is reduced, it will rarely fail the best judgement test.

In the case of MH Rahman (Khayam Restaurant) CO 2329/97 the High Court recognised the practice whereby the tribunal adopts a two-step approach, looking initially at the question of best judgement and then at the amount of the assessment. The message of the High Court appeared to be that the Tribunal should concern itself more with the amount of an assessment rather than best judgement.

Arguments which may be employed to reduce a best judgement assessment are, inter alia:

  • period of calculation is unrepresentative
  • wastage
  • discounts
  • staff use
  • theft
  • seasonal trends
  • competition
  • sales
  • opening hours
  • client base, etc

HMRC’s guidance to its own officers states that: Any assessments made must satisfy the best judgement criteria. This means that given a set of conditions or circumstances, “you must take any necessary action and produce a result that is deemed to be reasonable and not arbitrary”.

In other words, best judgement is not the equivalent of the best result or the most favourable conclusion. It is a reasonable process by which an assessment is successfully reached.

In the case of CA McCourtie LON/92/191 the Tribunal considered the principles set out in Van Boeckel and put forward three further propositions:

  • the facts should be objectively gathered and intelligently interpreted
  • the calculations should be arithmetically sound, and
  • any sampling technique should be representative

Tribunals will not treat an assessment as invalid merely because they disagree as to how the judgement should have been exercised. It is possible that a Tribunal may substitute its own judgement for HMRC’s in respect of the amount of the assessment. However, this does not necessarily mean that because a different quantum for the assessment was arrived at that the assessment failed the best judgement test.

Further, it is not the function of the Tribunal to engage in a process that looks afresh at the totality of the evidential material before it (M & A Georgiou t/a Mario’s Chippery, QB October 1995 [1995] STC 1101).

It should be also noted that even if one aspect of an assessment is found not to be made to best judgement this should not automatically invalidate the whole assessment – Pegasus Birds [2004] EWCA Civ1015.

Summary

There are significant difficulties in arguing that an inspector did not use best judgement and it is a high bar to get over.

In order to succeed on appeal, it would be required to be demonstrated, to the judge’s satisfaction, that the assessment was raised:

  • dishonestly
  • vindictively
  • capriciously
  • arbitrarily
  • spuriously
  • via an estimate or a guess in which all elements or best judgement are absent
  • wholly unreasonably

and that this action applies to the assessment in its entirety.

VAT: The importance of accurate accounts – The Euro Systems case

By   3 December 2019
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Euro Systems (Scotland) Ltd (ESSL) the issue was whether the systems and controls of the appellant could be relied on, or whether an exercise carried out by HMRC which reconciled VAT declarations with unaudited accounts was to be preferred.

Background

HMRC issued an assessment which was a combination of input VAT claimed being overclaimed, and output tax being understated. This was on the basis that the inspector had concerns over the accuracy of records being kept, these were mainly spreadsheets and Sage. A comparison between annual accounts and the relevant returns was made leading to the assessed amount. ESSL had grown quickly, and HMRC considered that the record keeping had not kept pace. An additional point was; why was the business continuing in a VAT repayment situation if it was growing steadily and making profits as per the annual accounts?

The bookkeeping and other administration was carried out by an unqualified and unsupervised receptionist.

The appellant’s director said that the information used to generate the VAT returns was the same as that provided to a firm of chartered accountants to prepare the annual accounts for ESSL, additionally, it had several corruptions within the Sage system, which resulted in a loss of data.

Decision

It was accepted that the appellant had carried out a lot of work to investigate the records due to the corruption of Sage and manually listing many thousand invoices to support input tax claims. However, due to the number of errors and inaccuracies, the records could not be relied on and the figures from HMRC were to be preferred as the accounts had some inherent integrity from being based on double-entry accounting.

The assessment was consequently made in HMRC’s “best judgement”.

Best judgement is set out in the Van Boeckel test:

Van Boeckel “does not envisage that burden being placed on the commissioners of carrying out exhaustive investigations”.

“What the words “best of their judgment” envisage … is that the commissioners will fairly consider all material placed before them and, on that material, come to a decision which is one which is reasonable and not arbitrary as to the amount of tax which is due.”

Subject to an adjustment for the duplication of some figures by HMRC the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Similar reconciliations to the one carried out here, plus bank reconciliations and similar, are a staple in a standard VAT inspection. How these are carried out, and the weight given to them can be contentious and they are often used for more than a broad-brush credibility exercise. We have a good track record in having this type of assessment reduced or removed and, in nearly every case, it is worthwhile challenging any such assessment.

Of course, this case provides a reminder, should one be required, that accurate and timely records are vital to ensure tax compliance and, as we always say: Right Tax, Right Time!

VAT: Apportionment and best judgement – The Homsub case

By   3 October 2019
0

Latest from the courts

In the Homsub Ltd case the issue was the apportionment of values when a supply comprises goods at different VAT rates.

Further to the M & S case here is another First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case on the value of food and drink in meal deals. It also considered whether HMRC exercised ‘best judgement’ when it carried out an invigilation exercise to establish the percentage split between supplies subject to VAT and those which were not.

Background

Homsub is a franchisee in respect of Subway products, essentially being hot and cold food, which can be consumed either on or off their premises.

HMRC had concerns that the correct amount of output tax was being declared on sales. Consequently, it carried out an invigilation exercise as follows: The invigilators recorded, in respect of each of the five outlets, each sale made and annotated it with whether it was eat in or take out. A record was also made as to whether the food was hot or cold. Those differences needed to be recorded because of the different VAT treatment in respect of hot food and cold food on the one hand and eat in and take out food on the other. All eat in food is taxable, while some takeaways are zero rated. Further information here.

Contentions

Homsub complained that the methodology adopted by HMRC was flawed as it was not sufficiently refined to give rise to a reasonably reliable overall picture. It was argued that the exercise should have been undertaken by reference to transaction values, rather than the number of transactions. That is – HMRC should have looked at the value of supplies made which did attract VAT as compared to the value of supplies made which did not attract VAT.

The court identified that the true area of concern on the part of the respondents was that Subway sometimes had promotions called “Meal Deals” whereby several products would be bundled together for a single headline price.

Homsub contended that a meal deal offer was available to customers whereby for the all in price of £3 a customer could purchase a sandwich (hot or cold) and a drink (which could be a fizzy drink or hot beverage upon which VAT would be due). If the meal deal involved hot food, then it would be subject to VAT.

HMRC’s issue was that because of the way in which the appellant’s till was set up, it treated £2.99 of each meal deal as attributable to the sandwich (VAT free if cold) and only 1p to the accompanying drink which, if subject to VAT, would mean that the VAT would be one fifth of one penny.

Outcomes

Homsub stated that it is entitled to run its business as it sees fit and to make such commercial decisions as best suit its business. The appellant said that it is entitled to sell loss leaders, as do many major retailers, or to sell stock at less than cost price if that somehow serves the best overall commercial interests of the business.

The court ruled that this was not a true loss leader situation. This was a transaction were goods are packaged together to be sold at a single price. What must be done is to look at the reality of the transaction when apportioning the part of the money paid by the customer between the various components within the package of goods sold. Consequently, Homsub needed to apportion the sales value in a different way. This would not necessarily be on the basis of the relevant retail prices. This is because accurate apportionment is difficult, especially as, as Homsub explained, that labour is by far the largest cost component within the cost of a sandwich and the overall meal deal package, that is; much more staff labour was devoted to preparing sandwiches than serving drinks.

If the case stopped there, there would be additional output tax for Homsub to pay. However…

Methodology and best judgement

The court decided that the assessment methodology adopted by HMRC was significantly flawed and potentially misleading. A simple count of transactions that did attract VAT and those which did not attract VAT might be capable of being appropriate in certain kinds of business, but not in this case. Further, a statistician or forensic accountant would be ‘alarmed to find that the methodology used by HMRC was considered to be either acceptable or such as to give rise to a reasonably reliable result’. In court, the representative of HMRC was forced to agree with this interpretation- which must have caused embarrassment. The court also said that it was not its function to go on to undertake any kind of assessment to ascertain what, if any, additional VAT might be due.

Decision

In the court’s judgement the methodology was flawed to such an extent that it would be wholly unreasonable, and unfair to the appellant, to base a best judgement assessment thereon. The appeal was therefore allowed.

Commentary

Always have assessments of this sort reviewed. There is significant case law on ‘best judgement’ most salient being: Van Boeckel v C&E [1981] and Rahman v HMRC. Additionally, HMRC often make certain assumptions on assessments based on invigilation and mark up exercises. These can be challenged, as can the methodology. As examples, HMRC need to recognise, inter alia;

  • seasonal trade variations
  • discounts
  • customer preferences (in this case, Homsub explained that at some of its shops’ locations a lot of customers were students and preferred to take away rather than eating in)
  • representative periods
  • sales/special offers
  • the times invigilations were carried out (were they representative of all trade?)
  • the number of invigilations and ‘test meals’ – were they sufficient to establish a fair overall picture of the business?
  • own and staff use
  • business promotions
  • loss of goods (destroyed, waste, stolen etc)
  • gross/net
  • gifts to customers
  • alternative methods
  • HMRC staff experience etc

All of these and other situations can affect expected sale values.

I have further set out how HMRC operate in these situations here.

I have a success rate of over 90% in getting these types of assessments reduced or completely withdrawn. Please do not simply accept HMRC’s decision, nor the, increasingly, bullying stance they can adopt. Always challenge!