Tag Archives: VAT-case-law

VAT: Carousel fraud – How to recognise it and how to avoid been caught in it

By Marcus Ward 8 August 2024

VAT carousel fraud, also known as missing trader fraud or missing trader intra-community (MTIC) fraud, is a complex and highly sophisticated process used by organised criminals which involves defrauding governments of money that should be paid in VAT. It involves a series of transactions where goods are repeatedly bought and sold across borders, with the criminal acquiring goods free of VAT (exports of goods are tax free) and then reselling them with VAT added. The fraudster then does not pay output tax to the relevant authority, usually disappearing or closing the business without doing so. It mainly takes place in Europe, but also increasingly in South East Asia.

Round and round

If the goods are not sold to consumers (B2C) but rather, the transactions pass through a series of businesses. To perpetuate a carousel fraud, companies often create a number of sham shell companies to conceal the nature of the transactions in a complex web. The shell companies continue to trade with each other, and the transactions go round and round like a carousel. This can be almost endless. It is possible for the same goods to be traded many times between companies within the carousel fraud scheme network. Often, these transactions do not actually occur – the goods do not actually move from one party to another, but false invoices are issued.

It is common for these criminals to use the fraudulent money they have illegitimately obtained from other large scale illegal activities.

Innocent participants

Unfortunately, carousel fraud can involve innocent businesses. This often mean that these businesses suffer a VAT cost because HMRC will refuse to repay an input tax claim as the matching output tax was not paid by the missing trader. HMRC do this on the basis that the claimant knew, or should have known, that (s)he was involved in a VAT fraud (so perhaps not always so innocent).

Refusal to repay an input tax claim

This option is available to governments using the “Kittel” principle. This refers to a Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case – Axel Kittel & Recolta Recycling SPRL (C-439/04 and C-440/04) where it was held a taxable person must forego his right to reclaim input tax where “it is ascertained, having regard to objective factors, that the taxable person knew or should have known that, by his purchase, he was participating in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT”.

The right of input tax deduction may also be denied where the taxpayer could/should have guessed that their transactions involved VAT fraud.

Due diligence

It is crucial that businesses carry out comprehensive due diligence/risk assessment to avoid buying goods that have been subject to carousel fraud anywhere along the supply chain. It is not enough to avoid a refusal to repay input tax to say to HMRC that a business just “didn’t know” about a previous fraud. The scope of verification of a transaction will depend on its size, value, and the type of business, eg; whether it is a new or existing business partner. Transactions with regular suppliers should also be verified, although there should be be a lower risk of VAT fraud.

HMRC sets out in its internal manuals guidance on due diligence and risk assessment which is helpful. The following quote sets out the authorities’ overview:

“The important thing to remember is that merely making enquiries is not enough. The taxable person must take appropriate action based on the results of those enquiries. Therefore, for example, if the taxable person has undertaken effective due diligence/risk assessment on its supplier and that due diligence/risk assessment shows one or more of the following results in relation to the supplier:

only been trading for a very short period of time,
managed to achieve a large income in that short period of time,
a poor credit rating,
returned only partly completed application or trading forms,
contacted the taxable person out-of-the-blue etc,

and yet the taxable person still goes ahead and trades without making any further enquiries, this could lead to the conclusion that the due diligence/risk assessment was casually undertaken and of no value”.

Carousel VAT fraud investigations

HMRC carries out serious VAT investigations via the procedures set out in Public Notice 160 in cases where they have reason to believe dishonest conduct has taken place. These are often cases where larger amounts of VAT are involved and/or where HMRC suspect fraudulent behaviour. If a business is under investigation for carousel VAT fraud it will receive a letter from HMRC. The consequences of a carousel VAT fraud conviction are serious, and a recipient of such a letter is strongly advised to contact a specialist carousel fraud barrister immediately to provide expert legal guidance.

The Reverse charge (RC) mechanism

Governments take the threat of carousel VAT fraud very seriously and are continually implementing new measures to deter the schemes. The UK has introduced changes to the way that VAT is charged on mobile telephones, computer chips and emissions allowances to help prevent crime (it was common to use these goods and services in carousel fraud).

The RC mechanism requires the purchaser, rather than the supplier, to account for VAT on the supply via a self-supply. Therefore, the supplier does not collect VAT, so it cannot defraud the government.

The future

VAT policy is consistently updated, so businesses must be aware of these changes to ensure compliance. Technology is being progressively used to fight fraud, and again, businesses need to be aware of this and the obligation to upgrade their own technology to comply with, say; real time reporting, eInvoicing, and other innovations. Compliance technology is increasingly employed to detect inconsistent transactions which means that a business must be compliant, because if it isn’t it will be easier for the tax authorities to detect. Even if non-compliance is unintentional the exposure to penalties and interest is increased.

A VAT Did you know?

By Marcus Ward 12 October 2023

We know that burying a deceased person is exempt, but exhumation is standard rated and we now know, thanks to the UK Funerals On-line Ltd FTT case, that the service of the repatriation of the body of a deceased person can be viewed as either an exempt supply of funeral services or a zero-rated supply of transport services.

This being the case, zero rating trumps exemption via of The VAT Act 1994, section 30(1).

VAT: TOGC and deliberate errors – The Apollinaire case

By Marcus Ward 19 December 2022

Latest from the courts

In the First -Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Apollinaire Ltd and Mr Z H Hashmi the issues were:

whether the appellant’s input tax claim was valid
were the director’s actions “deliberate”
was a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) appropriate?

Background

Mr Hashmi (the sole director of Apollinaire) asserted that he sold his business, Snow Whyte Limited to a Mr Singh as a going concern, together with the trading name “Benny Hamish”. The purchase price was never paid. He alleged that Mr Singh traded for approximately one month and then sold stock worth £573,756 to Apollinaire. The appellant submitted an input tax claim for the purchase of the goods. HMRC refused to make the repayment and raised penalties for deliberate errors. HMRC subsequently issued a PLN to Mr Hashmi.

Issues

Initially HMRC stated that Mr Singh may not have existed, that there was no sale of Snow Whyte Ltd by Mr Hashmi to Mr Singh and similarly, no sale back to Mr Hashmi. However, this submission was later amended to argue that Mr Hashmi controlled the movement of the stock at all times and that the issue was whether the transfer of stock from Snow Whyte Limited was a Transfer Of a Going Concern (TOGC), whether or not Mr Singh existed.

Mr Hashmi appealed, contending that the transactions took place as described to HMRC.

Decision

Unsurprisingly, given Mr Hashmi’s previous history of dissolving companies, but continuing to trade under the same name as those companies (listed at para 14 of the decision) and failing to submit returns and payments, the FTT accepted HMRC’s version of events. Further, there was insufficient evidence to support the transactions (if they took place) and the judge fund that the appellant’s evidence was not credible. If the events did take place, there was no input tax to claim as all the tests (where relevant here) for a TOGC (Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995, Regulation 5) were met:

the assets were sold as a business as a going concern
the assets were used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business
there was no break in trading
both entities traded under the same name
both entities operated from the same premises
both entities had the same employees and tills

The appeal was dismissed.

Penalties

The FTT further decided that HMRC’s penalties and PLN [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] were appropriate. The claim for input tax was deliberately overstated and that Mr Hashmi was the controlling mind of both entities and was personally liable as the sole company director of Apollinaire.

HMRC relied on case law: Clynes v Revenue and Customs[2016] UKFTT 369 (TC) which reads as follows:

“On its normal meaning, the use of the term indicates that for there to be a deliberate inaccuracy on a person’s part, the person must have acted consciously, with full intention or set purpose or in a considered way…

…Our view is that, depending on the circumstances, an inaccuracy may also be held to be deliberate where it is found that the person consciously or intentionally chose not to find out the correct position, in particular, where the circumstances are such that the person knew he should do so.”

Commentary

This case is a reverse of the usual TOGC disputes as HMRC sought to establish that there was no taxable supply so no VAT was due. It underlines that:

care should always be taken with applying TOGC treatment (or appreciating the results of failing to recognise a TOGC)
penalties for deliberate errors can be significant and swingeing
directors can, and are, held personally responsible for actions taken by a company

VAT: Is the supply of football pitches an exempt right over land? The Netbusters case.

By Marcus Ward 11 November 2020

Latest from the courts.

In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Netbusters (UK) Limited the issue was whether the supply was the standard rated provision of sporting facilities, or an exempt right over land.

Background

Netbusters organised football and netball leagues and provided the playing facilities (artificial pitches for football and courts for netball). The hire of the facilities was for a defined period of time and no other party had the right to access the pitches during those times. The hire could be a block, or one-off booking. The appellant contended that the supplies were exempt via VAT Act 1994, Sch 9, Group 1 – “The grant of any interest in or right over land or of any licence to occupy land…” However, item 1 Note (para m) excludes the “the grant of facilities for playing any sport or participating in any physical recreation” in which case they become standard rated. To add complexity, Note 16 overrides the exception for sporting facilities (so they are exempt) if the grant of the facilities is for:

“(a) a continuous period of use exceeding 24 hours; or
(b) a series of 10 or more periods, whether or not exceeding 24 hours in total, where the following conditions are satisfied—
(i) each period is in respect of the same activity carried on at the same place;
(ii) the interval between each period is not less than one day and not more than 14 days;
(iii) consideration is payable by reference to the whole series and is evidenced by written agreement;
(iv) the grantee has exclusive use of the facilities; and
(v) the grantee is a school, a club, an association or an organisation representing affiliated clubs or constituent associations.”

I have a simplified flowchart which may assist if you, or your clients, need to look at these types of supplies further.

Another issue was whether Netbusters’ league/tournament management services which were, in principle, available independently of pitch hire, but in practice rarely were provided in that way, were separate supplies or composite. There was a single price payable for both pitch hire and league management services.

The appellant contended that its supplies were exempt via VAT Act 1994, Sch 9, Group 1 or that Revenue and Customs Brief 8 (2014): sports leagues, is applicable which states “HMRC accepts that the decision of the FTT is applicable to all traders who operate in circumstances akin to Goals Soccer Centres plc. This includes traders who hire the pitches from third parties such as local authorities, schools and clubs…”

HMRC argued that there was no intention to create a tenancy and the agreements between the parties did not provide for exclusive use of the premises, so the supplies fell to be standard rated.

Decision

The appeal was allowed; the supply was a singe exempt supply because the objective character of the supplies were properly categorised as the granting of interests in, rights over or licenses to occupy land. It was found to be significant Netbusters (or its customers) had the ability to exclude others from the pitches during the period of the matches.

It was therefore unnecessary to consider whether Netbusters’ supplies grants of facilities satisfy all the conditions set out in Note 16 (although the FTT were disinclined to do this anyway as a consequence of the way respondent prepared its case).

Commentary

The issue of the nature sporting rights has a long and acrimonious history both in the UK and EU courts. Any business providing similar services are advised to review the VAT treatment applied.

VAT: What is a TOGC? Why is it important?

By Marcus Ward 6 June 2019

What is a Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC)?

Normally the sale of the assets of a VAT registered business will be subject to VAT at the appropriate rate. A TOGC, however is the sale of a business including assets which must be treated as a matter of law, as “neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services” by virtue of meeting certain conditions. It is always the seller who is responsible for applying the correct VAT treatment and will be required to support their decision.

Where the sale meets the conditions, the supply is outside the scope of VAT and therefore VAT is not chargeable.

The word ‘business’ has the meaning set out in The VAT Act 1994, section 94 and ‘going concern’ has the meaning that at the point in time to which the description applies, the business is live or operating and has all parts and features necessary to keep it in operation, as distinct from its being only an inert aggregation of assets.

TOGC Conditions

The conditions for VAT free treatment of a TOGC:

The assets must be sold as a business, or part of a business, as a going concern
The assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part (HMRC guidance uses the words “intend to use…” which, in some cases may provide additional comfort)
There must be no break in trading
Where the seller is a taxable person (VAT registered) the purchaser must be a taxable person already or immediately become, as a result of the transfer, a taxable person
Where only part of a business is sold it must be capable of separate operation
There must not be a series of immediately consecutive transfers
Where the transfer includes property which is standard-rated, either because the seller has opted to tax it or because it is a ‘new’ or uncompleted commercial building the purchaser must opt to tax the property and notify this to HMRC no later than the date of the supply. This may be the date of completion or, if earlier, the date of receipt of payment or part payment (eg; a deposit). There are additional anti-avoidance requirements regarding the buyer’s option to tax

Please note that the above list has been compiled for this article from; the legislation, HMRC guidance and case law. Specific advice must be sought.

Property transfer

The sale of a property may qualify for TOGC if the above tests are met. Usually, but not exclusively, a TOGC sale is the sale of a tenanted building when the sale is with the benefit of the existing lease(s) – (the sale of a property rental business rather than of the property itself). Another example of a property TOGC is where a property under construction is sold (a development business). As may be seen, timing with a property TOGC is of utmost importance. For example, an option to tax one day late will invalidate TOGC treatment. A guide to land and property.

What purpose do the TOGC rules serve?

The TOGC provisions are intended to simplify accounting for VAT when a business changes hands. The main purposes are to:

relieve the buyer from the burden of funding VAT on the purchase, helping businesses by improving their cash flow and avoiding the need to separately value assets which may be liable at different rates or are exempt and which have been sold as a whole
protect government revenue by removing a charge to tax and entitlement to input tax where the output tax may not be paid to HMRC, for example, where a business charges tax, which is claimed by the new business but not paid by the selling business

What if it goes wrong?

TOGC treatment is not optional. A sale is either a TOGC or it isn’t. It is a rare situation in that the VAT treatment depends on; what the purchaser’s intentions are, what the seller is told, and what the purchaser actually does. All this being outside the seller’s control.

Add VAT when TOGC treatment applies:

Often, the TOGC point can be missed, especially in complex property transactions.

The addition of VAT is sometimes considered a “safe” VAT position. However, output tax will have been charged incorrectly, which means that when the buyer claims VAT shown on the relevant invoice, this will be disallowed. This can lead to;

potential penalties and interest from HMRC
the buyer having to recover the VAT payment (often the seller, having sold a business can be difficult to track down and then obtain payment from)
significant cash flow issues (HMRC will need to be repaid the input tax claim immediately)
if a property sale, SDLT is likely to be overpaid

Sale treated as a TOGC when it is a taxable supply:

When VAT free TOGC treatment is applied to a taxable supply (possibly as one, or more of the TOGC conditions are not met) then there is a tax underdeclaration. The seller will be assessed by HMRC and penalties and interest are likely to be levied. There is then the seller’s requirement to attempt to obtain the VAT payment from the buyer. Similarly to above, this is not always straightforward or possible and it may be that the contract prohibits additional payment. There is likely to be unexpected funding issues for the buyer if (s)he does decide to make the payment.

Considering the usually high value of sales of businesses, the VAT cost of getting it wrong can be significant.

Summary

This is a complex area of the tax and an easy issue to miss when there are a considerable number of other factors to consider when a business is sold. Extensive case law (example here and changes to HMRC policy here ) insists that there is often a dichotomy between a commercial interpretation of a going concern and HMRC’s view. I sometimes find that the buyer’s intentions change such that the TOGC initially applied becomes invalid when the change in the use of assets (from what was notified to the seller) actually takes place. HMRC is not always sympathetic in these situations. One of the questions I am often asked is: “How long does the buyer have to operate the business after purchase so that TOGC treatment applies?” Unsurprisingly, there is no set answer to this and HMRC do not set a specific period. My view, and it is just my view, is that an absolute minimum time is one VAT quarter.

Contracts are important in most TOGC cases, so it really pays to review them from a VAT perspective.

I very strongly advise that specialist advice is obtained in cases where a business, or property is sold. Yes, I know I would say that!

VAT – Domestic legislation versus EC law – a new case

By Marcus Ward 4 March 2015

In the recent case of VDP Dental Laboratory NV & ors (C-144/13) the ECJ has decided that a Dutch exemption for a supply which is ultra vires in respect of EC VAT legislation does not give a right to input tax deduction via EC legislation. The exemption precludes input VAT recovery, but has the effect of exempting imports and acquisitions into The Netherlands. The ECJ held that a taxable person who is not obliged to charge VAT on the supply of goods because national law (in contravention of Community law) provides for exemption, cannot however, rely on Community law to claim input tax deduction of VAT incurred on purchases incurred in respect of that supply. What this means though is that the exemption in Dutch domestic legislation means that the taxpayer will not be taxed on importations or acquisitions, irrespective of the VAT treatment in the Member State of an EU supplier.

Broadly, this means that a business cannot take advantage of domestic legislation and/or EC law in circumstances where it may benefit.