Tag Archives: vat-construction

VAT Domestic Reverse Charge procedure Notice updated

By   4 March 2025
0
The Notice sets out how the Domestic Reverse Charge (DRC) makes supplies of standard or reduced rated construction services between construction or building businesses subject to the charge. This means that the recipient of the supply will be liable to account for VAT due, instead of the supplier. Consequently, the customer in the construction industry receiving the supply of construction services will be required to pay the VAT directly to HMRC rather than paying it to the supplier. It will be able to reclaim this VAT subject to the normal VAT rules. The DRC will apply throughout the supply chain up to the point where the customer receiving the supply is no longer a business that makes supplies of construction services (a so-called end user).

 

The supplies to which the DRC applies are set out here

The update includes information on recipients of DRC supplies that are not VAT registered. Broadly; if a business buys specified goods or services, it may make it liable to VAT registered on the strength of the value of the DRC. 

VAT: Property – The Option To Tax Guide

By   8 January 2025
0

VAT Bsics

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 (OTT)?

The sale or letting of a property is, in most cases, exempt (VAT free) by default. However, it is possible to apply the 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 (unless it is the first time sale of a new build – in which case it is zero-rated).

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

New HMRC publications: VAT on cladding remediation work

By   6 January 2025
0

In the aftermath of the horrific Grenfell fire, a lot of buildings require unsafe cladding to be replaced.

A new Brief clarifies HMRC’s policy on the deduction of VAT incurred on cladding remediation works which are carried out on existing residential buildings. It sets out:

  • the reason VAT costs are incurred when carrying out remediation works to residential buildings with fire and safety defects
  • the circumstances in which the VAT incurred in providing remediation works can be recovered

Broadly, the distinction is whether the work qualifies as snagging. If it does, the VAT treatment follows the liability of the original building work – zero rated if the original construction was of a zero-rated new residential building, ie; they are supplied in the course of construction of a qualifying building.

If not snagging, the remedial work will be standard rated.

If the work is standard rated, it may be recoverable by the recipient in certain circumstances.

Snagging

HMRC’s definition of snagging is “the carrying out of remedial works to correct faulty workmanship or replace faulty materials”.  Normally, it is carried out by the original developer under the terms of the original contract. This means it is not seen as a separate supply of construction services. Snagging covers faults that are:

  • found soon after the building is completed
  • still covered by the building contract

More details on snagging here.

Furthermore, HMRC has published Guidelines for Compliance GfC11. This guidance covers HMRC’s existing policy on the VAT treatment of remedial works and includes:

  • the definition of snagging
  • an explanation of when you can recover input tax
  • examples to help you work out the VAT treatment of remedial works
  • examples of documents and evidence you should keep
  • information about correcting a submitted return

HMRC state that its policy has not changed.

VAT: Difficulties with DIY Housebuilders’ claim – The Spani case

By   18 September 2023
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Spani v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 00727 (TC) the issue was whether a claim under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme (the scheme) was valid.

Mr Spani appealed against HMRC’s decision to refuse a claim. It was rejected as the respondents concluded that the property was to be used for business purposes because Planning Permission was for a holiday let rather than residential own use. To claim under the scheme, the relevant the property must be used “otherwise than in the course of furtherance of business” – VAT Act 1994, section 35)

Background

The cottage was constructed in Seaford – within the Souths Down National Park and, in order to obtain planning consent, it was required to be made available for letting on a commercial basis for 140 days a year. The appellant contended that it was his primary residence in the UK and any letting (which was interrupted by covid in any case) was/would be incidental to this primary purpose.

The property was listed on Air BnB in order to satisfy the requirements of the planning consent, but the property had not been actively marketed and no lettings had taken place.

Mr Spani contended that the use of the cottage “falls far short of the HMRC’s position that it was the appellant’s intention to use the property for a wholly commercial purpose”. It was simply the appellant’s home in the UK and that an identical property built outside the National Park would not have the Planning Permission holiday let requirement.

Further, if it was a commercial enterprise, Mr Spani could have could have used another reclaim route, viz: registering for VAT and recovering an element of the input tax incurred.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed – The judge opined that “none of these events subsequent to the grant of the Planning Permission and completion certificate detract from the fact that the property was built to be a holiday let (as stipulated by the planning consent) and was therefore constructed in furtherance of a FHL* business”.

Additionally, the FTT stated that: it is plain that the appellant’s plan to live in the property within the FHL regulations does not (and cannot) alter the property into a dwelling… when there is the express prohibition placed on the property to be a dwelling.

The conclusion was that the property was built in furtherance of a business which prohibited a claim.

Commentary

Yet another case highlighting precise requirements of a claim under the scheme and HMRC’s strict application of the rules. Care must always be taken in such cases and we advise professional advice is sought prior to a submission of a claim.

More on similar cases here and here  and Top Ten Tips for the scheme.   

* Furnished Holiday Let

VAT Domestic Reverse Charge technical guide

By   12 December 2022
0

An overview of the Domestic Reverse Charge (DRC) here.

HMRC has published amended guidance on the DRC. The main change involves the supply of scaffolding on zero-rated new build housing. The guidance confirms the change to HMRC’s previous policy and that there will be transitional period up to 1 February 2023 where businesses can use either reverse charge accounting or normal VAT rules.

VAT: The importance of Transfer of a Going Concern rules. The Haymarket case

By   6 June 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Haymarket Media Group Limited (Haymarket) the issue was whether the sale of Teddington TV Studios qualified as a VAT free Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC).

Background

The site in question was subjected to an Option To Tax (OTT) by the supplier. The sale of the property was with the benefit of planning consent for the development of flats and houses on the site after demolition of the TV studios.

Subject of the appeal

The transferor/vendor had previously let a small building on the site to the purchaser’s advisers and, on this basis, the sale was structured to be a TOGC as a property rental business. HMRC raised an assessment as it considered that neither a property rental business, nor a property development business had been transferred.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The FTT found that, despite the short lived and minor letting, this did not constitute a business. Further, that even if this had been a business, the contract required vacant possession so a business could not have been continued.

The contention that a property development business was being carried on was also rejected. Despite significant costs being incurred by Haymarket in obtaining the planning permission, the intention* was always to sell the site to a developer, rather than the appellant carrying out the development itself (there was no meaningful work being carried out on the site). The fact that planning permission was obtained did not mean that there was an ongoing property development business which could be transferred.

* The importance of “intention” in VAT is considered here and here.

Technical

In order for a transaction to qualify for a VAT free TOGC, ALL of the following conditions must be met:

  • 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

In this case, the first, second and third tests was failed leaving the supply to be VAT-able as a result of the OTT.

More on the complex subject of TOGCs including case law here, here, here, and here.

Commentary

TOGCs are often a minefield for taxpayers and their advisers, especially if property is involved. Not only is land law and the relevant VAT legislation complex, but property transactions are usually high value, with a lot of VAT at stake (the VAT in this case was £17 million). Additionally, they are often “one-offs” and frequently outside the usual commercial expertise of people running the business. We strongly advise that comprehensive technical advice is always obtained when TOGC is mooted by one side or the other, particularly when the relevant asset is involved in property letting or development.

VAT: Land and property exemptions

By   5 August 2021
0

Further to my article on VAT: Land and property simplification and HMRC’s call for evidence the ICAEW has reiterated its call for all VAT land and property exemptions to be abolished and recommends the removal of all VAT options.

ICAEW also concludes that following the UK’s departure from the EU the government is in the best position since the introduction of VAT to thoroughly review the structure of the tax.

ICAEW also suggests that all land and property transactions should subject to VAT at either the standard rate or reduced rate, other than those relating to domestic property which should remain zero rated. This approach would remove many of the complexities of the current regime, it concludes.

Commentary

This is one area of the tax that is crying out for simplification and the case put forward by ICAEW has its merits. In my view, the Government should go further and review many complexities of the tax. As one example, the rules in respect of the sale of food products is ridiculously complex and produces odd and unexpected outcomes. Also, other exemptions would benefit from reconsideration, particularly financial services and insurance, but I suspect that the current government has a lot on its plate, much of it of its own making.

VAT: Domestic Reverse Charge for construction services from 1 March 2021

By   17 February 2021
0

A reminder

The twice delayed introduction of the Domestic Reverse Charge (DRC) for the construction industry will be introduced from the first of next month and affected businesses need to have the necessary procedures in place – as it won’t be deferred again.!

Details of the scheme here and here.

Please contact us if you have any queries.

VAT: Interaction of Clawback and the Capital Goods Scheme – The Stichting Schoonzicht case

By   10 March 2020
0

Latest from the courts

The difference between intended use and first actual use of an asset.

In the Dutch case of Stichting Schoonzicht (C‑791/18) the AG was asked to provide an opinion on the interaction between clawback and the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) via Directive 2006/112/EC, Articles 185 and 187. Details of the CGS here. In the UK clawback is set out in The General Regulations 1995, Reg 108.

Background

Stichting Schoonzicht constructed a number of apartments which it intended to sell on completion. This would have been a taxable supply and afforded full input tax recovery on the costs incurred on the development. Unfortunately, due to market conditions, the business was unable to find buyers at the appropriate sale price. Therefore, a decision was made to let some of the flats on a short-term basis until the market picked up. This was done and created an exempt supply. The intention to make taxable supplies remained, but in the meantime, exempt supplies had actually been made. This could affect the original input tax claim. Details of partial exemption here.

Technical 

The Dutch referring court entertained doubts about the compatibility of the ‘first-use full adjustment’ requirement provided for under Netherlands law and the CGS.

So the issue was whether the CGS (Article 187 of the VAT Directive) applied such that any required adjustments to the initial input tax claim could be made via a CGS calculation, or whether, as the Dutch authorities contended, there should be a one-off clawback of the input tax previously claimed.

Decision

In the AG’s opinion, the Dutch tax authorities could clawback 4/7 of the input tax on the construction (as four of the flats were let and three remained unoccupied). The AG decided that the CGS could co-exist with clawback and that EU Member States are allowed to adjust the initial deduction of input tax using clawback where actual use varies from intended use. A distinction was made between clawback and the CGS. The CGS is intended to adjust input tax claims as a result of fluctuations in the taxable use of capital assets over a period of time (ten years for buildings in the UK).

Commentary

In the UK, there are published easements for input tax recovery in similar circumstances: “VAT: Partial Exemption – adjustments when house builders let their dwellings”. However, this is an interesting AG opinion, is worth a read and it will be interesting to see how this develops. However, with prior planning, this situation may be avoided in the UK (where new house sales are zero rated).







VAT: Property and construction – amended HMRC guidance

By   15 November 2019
0

HMRC has issued a new Buildings and Construction VAT Notice 708.

The changes

The changes are:

  • paragraph 1.5 has been included to indicate ‘force of law’
  • paragraph 2.1.1 has been removed (and subsequent paragraphs re-numbered), because it is no longer applicable
  • paragraph 3.2.4 provides new information for facades
  • paragraph 3.3.7 has been amended to remove the Extra-Statutory Concession for connecting utilities to existing buildings
  • paragraphs 6, 8.3.4 and 8.4 have been reworded to improve clarification
  • paragraph 14.7.1 has been amended following changes in the Finance Act 2010

Help

Please contact us if you have any queries on the complex areas of; land, buildings or construction.