Tag Archives: VAT-contract

VAT: Tax point of telecommunications – The Lycamobile case

By Marcus Ward 7 August 2024

Latest from the courts

In the Lycamobile UK Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether VAT was chargeable on the supply of a “Plan Bundle” at the time when it was sold and by reference to the whole of the consideration that was paid for it, or whether VAT was instead chargeable only when, and only to the extent that, the allowances in the Plan Bundle were actually used. The time of supply (tax point) was important because not only would it dictate when output tax was due, but more importantly here, if the appeal succeeded, there would be no supply of the element of the bundle which was not used, so no output tax would be due on it.

Background

The Plan Bundles comprised rights to future telecommunication services; telephone calls, text messages and data (together, “Allowances”). There were hundreds of different Plan Bundles sold by the Appellant and the precise composition of those Plan Bundles varied.

Contentions

Lycamobile considered that that the services contained within each Plan Bundle were supplied only as and when the Allowances were used, so that the consideration which was received for each Plan Bundle would be recognised for VAT purposes only to the extent that the Plan Bundle was actually used. In the alternative, these supplies could be considered as multi-purpose vouchers such that output tax was not due when they were issued, but when the service was used. Very briefly, the contention was that it was possible that not all of the use would be standard rated in the UK.

Unsurprisingly, HMRC argued that that those services were supplied when the relevant Plan Bundle was sold (up-front) and output tax was due on the amount paid, regardless of usage.

Decision

The Tribunal placed emphasis on “the legal and economic context” and “the purpose of the customers in paying their consideration”.

It decided that the terms of the Plan Bundle created a legal relationship between Lycamobile and the customer. The Bundle was itself the provision of telecommunication services when sold. The customers were aware that they were entitled to use their Allowances and could decide whether to, or not. As a consequence, consumption was aligned with payment and created a tax point at the time of that payment. There was a direct link between those services and the consideration paid by the customer.

The Tribunal also considered the vouchers point. There were significant changes to the rules for Face Value Vouchers on 1 January 2019 (the supplies spanned this date), but the FTT found that the Plan Bundles were not monetary entitlements for future services under either set of rules, so the tax point rules for vouchers did not apply here.

The appeal was dismissed and HMRC assessments totalling over £51 million were upheld.

Commentary

Not an unexpected result, but an illustration of the importance of; tax points, legal and economic realities, and what customers think they are paying for. All important aspects in analysing what is being provided, and when.

Inter-company charges: Do I add VAT?

By Marcus Ward 18 July 2024

This seemingly straightforward area can throw up lots of VAT issues and touches on a number of complex areas. If we look at inter-company charges (commonly called “management charges”) it is clear that such a charge can cover a lot of different circumstances.

Do I charge VAT on a management charge?

An easy yes or no question one would think, however, this being VAT, the answer is; it depends. Typically, management charges represent a charge by a holding company to its subsidiaries of; a share of overhead costs, the provision of actual management/advisory services or office facilities or similar (the list can obviously be quite extensive).

Consideration for a supply

The starting point is; is something (goods or services) supplied in return for the payment? If the answer is no, then no VAT will be due. However, this may impact on the ability to recover input tax in the hands of the entity making the charge. It is often the case that a management charge is used as a mechanism for transferring “value” from one company to another. If it is done in an arbitrary manner with no written agreement in place, and nothing identifiable is provided, and VAT is charged, HMRC may challenge the VAT treatment and any input recovery of the company making the payment.

Composite of separate supply?

This is a complex area of the tax and is perpetually the subject of a considerable amount of case law. This has been so since the early days of VAT and there appears no signs of disputes slowing down. I have written about such cases here here here here and here

“Usually” if a combination of goods or services are supplied it is considered as a single supply and is subject to the standard rate. However, case law insists that sometimes different supplies need to be divided and a different rate of VAT applied to each separate supply. This may be the case for instance, when an exempt supply of non-opted property (eg; a designated office with an exclusive right to occupy) is provided alongside standard rated advice.

Approach

What is important is not how a management charge is calculated, but what the supply actually is (if it is one). The calculation, whether based on a simple pro-rata amount between separate subsidiaries, or via a complex mechanism set out in a written agreement has no impact on the VAT treatment. As always in VAT, the basic question is: what is actually provided?

Can the VAT treatment of a supply change when recharged?

Simply put; yes. For example, if the holding company pays insurance (VAT free) and charges it on as part of a composite supply, then VAT will be added to an original non-VAT bearing cost. It may also occur when staff are employed (no VAT on salaries paid) but the staff are supplied to a subsidiary company and VAT is added (but see below).

Staff

The provision of staff is usually a standard rated supply. However, there are two points to consider. One is joint contracts of employment which I look at below, the other is the actual definition of the provision of staff. Care must be taken when analysing what is being provided. The question here is; are staff being provided, or; is the supply the services that those staff carry out? This is relevant, say, if the services the staff carry out are exempt. There are a number of tests here, but the main issue is; which entity directs and manages the staff?

Directors

There can be different rules for directors compared to staff.

If a holding company provides a subsidiary company with a director to serve as such, the normal rules relating to supplies of staff apply and VAT applies.

However, there are different rules for common directors. An individual may act as a director of a number of companies. There may be an arrangement where a holding company pays the director’s fees and then recover appropriate proportions from subsidiaries. In such circumstances, the individual’s services are supplied by the individual to the companies of which (s)he a director. The services are supplied directly to the relevant businesses by the individual and not from one company to another. Therefore, there is no supply between the companies and so no VAT is due on the share of money recovered from each subsidiary.

Accounting adjustments

Just because no “cash” changes hands, this does not mean there is no supply. Inter-company recharges may involve the netting off of supplies so that no cash settlement is made. However, consideration is passing in both directions, so, prima facie, supplies have been made. This applies when there are accounting adjustments in both parties’ accounts.

Inter-company loans

The making of any advance or the granting of any credit is exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, item 2. This exemption covers most normal types of credit, eg; loans and overdrafts.

Planning

Planning may be required if;

the subsidiary cannot reclaim all VAT charged to it as input tax
there are cashflow/timing disadvantages
there are management or administrative complexities

Specific planning

VAT grouping

If commercially acceptable, the holding company and subsidiary companies may form a VAT group. By doing so any charges made between VAT group members are disregarded and no VAT is chargeable on them.

There are pros and cons in forming a VAT group and a brief overview is provided here

A specific development in case law does mean care must be taken when considering input tax recovery in holdco, details here

Joint contracts of employment

If members of staff are employed via joint contracts or employment no VAT is applicable to any charges made between the two (or more) employers. In addition, where each of a number of associated companies employs its own staff, but one company (the paymaster) pays salaries behalf of the others who then pay their share of the costs to the paymaster the recovery of monies paid out by the paymaster is VAT free as it is treated as a disbursement.

Disbursements

Looking at disbursements is a whole article in itself, and in fact there is a helpful one here

But, briefly, if a charge qualifies as a disbursement, then the costs is passed on “in the same state” so if it is VAT free, the onward charge is also VAT free, as opposed to perhaps changing the VAT liability as set out above. It is important to understand the differences between a disbursement and a recharge as a VAT saving may be obtained.

Overseas

The above considers management charges within the UK. There are different rules for making or receiving management charges to/from overseas businesses. These charges are usually, but not always, VAT free (an example is the renal of opted office space which is land related, so is always standard rated) and it is worth checking the VAT treatment before these are made/received. VAT free services received from overseas may be liable to the reverse charge.

Same legal entity

There is no supply if management charges are made between branches of the same legal entity.

Charities

There may be more planning for charities and NFP entities via cost-sharing arrangements, but this is outside the scope of this article.

Summary

As may be seen, the answer to a simple question may be complex and the answer dependent upon the precise facts of the case. It is unusual to have two scenarios that precisely mirror each other, so each structure needs to be reviewed individually. Inter-company management charges must be recognised, especially if the recipient is partly exempt. Please contact us if you have any queries or would like more information on any of the above.

VAT – Understanding land and property issues

By Marcus Ward 8 July 2024

Help!

Supplies relating to property may be, or have been; 20%, 17.5%, 15.%, 10% 5%, zero-rated, exempt, or outside the scope of VAT – all impacting, in different ways, upon the VAT position of a supplier and customer. In addition, the law permits certain exempt supplies to be changed to 20% without the agreement of the customer. As soon as a taxpayer is provided with a choice, there is a chance of making the wrong one! Even very slight differences in circumstances may result in a different and potentially unexpected VAT outcome, and it is an unfortunate fact of business life that VAT cannot be ignored.

Why is VAT important?

The fact that the rules are complex, ever-changing, and the amounts involved in property transactions are usually high means that there is an increased risk of making errors. This is increased by the fact that these are often one-off transactions by a business, and in-house, in depth tax knowledge is sometimes absent. Such activities can result in large penalties and interest payments, plus unwanted attentions from VAT inspectors. Uncertainty regarding VAT may affect budgets and an unforeseen VAT bill (and additional SDLT) may risk the profitability of a venture.

Problem areas

Certain transactions tend to create more VAT issues than others. These include;

whether a property sale can qualify as a VAT free Transfer Of a Going Concern (TOGC)
conversions of properties from commercial to residential use
whether to opt to tax (OTT) a commercial property
the recovery of VAT charged on a property purchase
supplies between landlord and tenants
the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS)
the anti-avoidance rules
mixed developments
apportionment of VAT rates
changes in number of dwellings in a building(s)
changes in intention of use of a building
sale of partially completed developments
partial exemption
charity use
non-business use
relevant residential use
the place of supply (POS) of services
holiday lets
serviced apartments
contracts
new build residential
DIY Housebuilders
tax points (time of supply)
HMRC queries
deposits
and even seemingly straightforward: VAT registration

Additionally, the VAT treatment of building services throws up its own set of VAT complications.

The above are just examples and the list is not exhaustive.

VAT Planning

The usual adage is “right tax, right time”. This, more often than not, means considering the VAT treatment of a transaction well in advance of that transaction taking place. Unfortunately, with VAT there is usually very little planning that can be done after the event. For peace of mind a consultation with a VAT adviser can steer you through the complexities and, if there are issues, to minimise the impact of VAT on a project. Assistance of a VAT adviser is usually crucial if there are any disputes with VAT inspectors. Experience insists that this is an area which HMRC have raised significant revenue from penalties and interest where taxpayers get it wrong.

Don’t leave it to chance!

For more information, please see our Land & Property services

Incoterms: What are they, and how can they be of use for VAT?

By Marcus Ward 12 September 2022

VAT – Cross border sales of goods

Incoterms stands for International Commercial Terms.

These are published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and describe agreed commercial terms. These rules set out the responsibilities of buyers and sellers for the supply of goods under a contract. They are very commonly used in cross-border commercial transactions in order that both sides in a transaction are aware of the contractual position. They help businesses avoid costly misunderstandings by clarifying the tasks, costs and risks involved in the delivery of goods from sellers to buyers. The latest terms were published in 2010 and came into effect in 2011.

The use of Incoterms for assistance for VAT purposes

One of the most difficult areas of providing VAT advice is obtaining sufficient detailed information to advise accurately and comprehensively. Quite often advisers are given what a client believes to be the arrangements for a transaction. This may differ from the actual facts, or the understanding of the other party in the transaction.

Pragmatically, this uncertainty about the details may be increased if; a number of different people within an organisation are involved, it is a new or one-off type of transaction, there are language difficulties, or communication and documentation is less than ideal. In such cases, incoterms will provide invaluable information which gives clarity and certainty and usually give a sound basis on which to advise. This enables the adviser to establish the place of supply (POS) and therefore what VAT treatment needs to be applied.

So what is this set of pre-defined international contract terms?

They are 11 pre-defined terms which are subdivided into two categories:

Group 1 – Incoterms that apply to any mode of transport are:

EXW – Ex Works (named place)

The seller makes the goods available at their premises. This term places the maximum obligation on the buyer and minimum obligations on the seller. EXW means that a buyer incurs the risks for bringing the goods to their final destination. The buyer arranges the pickup of the freight from the supplier’s designated ship site, owns the in-transit freight, and is responsible for clearing the goods through Customs. The buyer is also responsible for completing all the export documentation.

Most jurisdictions require companies to provide proof of export for VAT purposes. In an EXW shipment, the buyer is under no obligation to provide such proof, or indeed to even export the goods. It is therefore of utmost importance that these matters are discussed with the buyer before the contract is agreed.

FCA – Free Carrier (named place of delivery)

The seller delivers the goods, cleared for export, at a named place. This can be to a carrier nominated by the buyer, or to another party nominated by the buyer.

It should be noted that the chosen place of delivery has an impact on the obligations of loading and unloading the goods at that place. If delivery occurs at the seller’s premises, the seller is responsible for loading the goods on to the buyer’s carrier. However, if delivery occurs at any other place, the seller is deemed to have delivered the goods once their transport has arrived at the named place; the buyer is responsible for both unloading the goods and loading them onto their own carrier.

CPT – Carriage Paid To (named place of destination)

The seller pays for the carriage of the goods up to the named place of destination. Risk transfers to buyer upon handing goods over to the first carrier at the place of shipment in the country of Export. The Shipper is responsible for origin costs including export clearance and freight costs for carriage to named place (usually a destination port or airport). The shipper is not responsible for delivery to the final destination (generally the buyer’s facilities), or for buying insurance. If the buyer does require the seller to obtain insurance, the Incoterm CIP should be considered.

CIP – Carriage and Insurance Paid to (named place of destination)

This term is broadly similar to the above CPT term, with the exception that the seller is required to obtain insurance for the goods while in transit. CIP requires the seller to insure the goods for 110% of their value.

DAT – Delivered At Terminal (named terminal at port or place of destination)

This term means that the seller covers all the costs of transport (export fees, carriage, unloading from main carrier at destination port and destination port charges) and assumes all risk until destination port or terminal. The terminal can be a Port, Airport, or inland freight interchange. Import duty/VAT/customs costs are to be borne by the buyer.

DAP – Delivered At Place (named place of destination)

The seller is responsible for arranging carriage and for delivering the goods, ready for unloading from the arriving conveyance, at the named place. Duties are not paid by the seller under this term. The seller bears all risks involved in bringing the goods to the named place.

DDP – Delivered Duty Paid (named place of destination)

The seller is responsible for delivering the goods to the named place in the country of the buyer, and pays all costs in bringing the goods to the destination including import duties and VAT. The seller is not responsible for unloading. This term places the maximum obligations on the seller and minimum obligations on the buyer. With the delivery at the named place of destination all the risks and responsibilities are transferred to the buyer and it is considered that the seller has completed his obligations.

Group 2 – Incoterms that apply to sea and inland waterway transport only:

FAS – Free Alongside Ship (named port of shipment)

The seller delivers when the goods are placed alongside the buyer’s vessel at the named port of shipment. This means that the buyer has to bear all costs and risks of loss of or damage to the goods from that moment. The FAS term requires the seller to clear the goods for export. However, if the parties wish the buyer to clear the goods for export, this should be made clear by adding explicit wording to this effect in the contract of sale. This term can be used only for sea or inland waterway transport.

FOB – Free On Board (named port of shipment)

FOB means that the seller pays for delivery of goods to the vessel including loading. The seller must also arrange for export clearance. The buyer pays cost of marine freight transport, insurance, unloading and transport cost from the arrival port to destination. The buyer arranges for the vessel, and the shipper must load the goods onto the named vessel at the named port of shipment. Risk passes from the seller to the buyer when the goods are loaded aboard the vessel.

CFR – Cost and Freight (named port of destination)

The seller pays for the carriage of the goods up to the named port of destination. Risk transfers to buyer when the goods have been loaded on board the ship in the country of export. The shipper is responsible for origin costs including export clearance and freight costs for carriage to named port. The shipper is not responsible for delivery to the final destination from the port (generally the buyer’s facilities), or for buying insurance. CFR should only be used for non-containerised sea freight, for all other modes of transport it should be replaced with CPT.

CIF – Cost, Insurance and Freight (named port of destination)

This term is broadly similar to the above CFR term, with the exception that the seller is required to obtain insurance for the goods while in transit to the named port of destination. CIF requires the seller to insure the goods for 110% of their. CIF should only be used for non-containerised sea freight; for all other modes of transport it should be replaced with CIP.

Allocations of costs to buyer/seller via incoterms

Once the Incoterm has been established, the VAT treatment is usually immediately apparent.

Summary Chart

VAT: Uber Supreme Court case

By Marcus Ward 23 February 2021

Latest from the courts

As many would have heard, the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals driving taxis are “workers” rather than third party contractors. Although not a VAT case, it has This decision has highlighted a number of VAT issues.

Agent versus principal

The main matter in VAT terms is; which party is making the supply? This is often a point of dispute with HMRC, especially with taxi businesses, driving schools, the operation of online platforms, travel and accommodation, and many other types of businesses. It is one of the most common areas of disagreement as many cases have demonstrated, eg; here, here, here, and here.

The difference

VAT legislation does not define agency for the purposes of the tax.

As is often the case in these types of arrangements, there are some matters that point towards a business acting as agent, and others indicating that the proper VAT treatment is that of principal. The important difference, of course, being whether output tax is due on the “commission” received by an agent (20% in Uber’s case), or on the full payment made to it by the end user.

Uber contended that the drivers were independent contractors who work under contracts made directly with the customers and are not employees. Thus, they (Uber) acted as agent. One main argument advanced by them was that the drivers were free to work for other businesses (although in reality this was very unlikely due to the market share held by Uber).

Contract

It also demonstrates both the importance of a contract (or lack of one in Uber’s case), and how all parties act in relation to it. There have been many VAT cases on how much weight should be given to a written agreement versus what the relevant parties actually agree, how they act, how the services are performed and what the customer thinks is the position (who [s]he thinks is providing the service).

Decision

Finding that the drivers work for, and under contracts with, Uber, the following aspects supported its decision – Uber sets the fare, the terms are set by Uber and drivers have no input, Uber restricts communications between driver and passenger, and Uber exercises significant control over the way in which the services are delivered.

Update

A similar decision has been made in the Dutch courts in the Deliveroo case.

Next steps

Commentary

We wait to hear how HMRC will proceed as a result of this case. There is a chance that it may attack taxi firms which they have previously accepted as agent on the grounds that they are principals – providing the service via their ‘employees/workers” and so assessing output tax on the full value of the fare paid.

VAT: Unjust enrichment. The Deluxe case

By Marcus Ward 13 January 2021

Latest from the courts

In the Deluxe Property Holdings Limited High Court case (Deluxe) the issue was whether a VAT claim needed to be passed back to the supplier after a correction – whether the unjust enrichment applied.

Background

Deluxe employed SCL Construction Limited (SCL) to carry out building works. SCL raised invoices in respect of the construction of student accommodation at 20%. It was, however, common ground that the works were in fact zero-rated. SCL recovered the overcharged VAT from HMRC via a VAT Act 1994 Section 80 claim. SCL undertook to repay the amount of VAT to Deluxe via section 10 of VAT Notice 700/45. Without such written reimbursement undertaking, HMRC would have been entitled to refuse the claim. SCL did not make the payment to Deluxe.

Issue

The issue between the parties was whether:

SCL holds the accounting credit obtained from HMRC on trust for Deluxe, or;
the claim is only in debt, in which case SCL sought to set-off such the claim against other monies that it alleges are owed by Deluxe

Decision

The court ruled that SCL had undertaken to reimburse its customer all of the amount credited by HMRC without any deduction, for whatever purpose. Further, SCL had undertaken that it could not use the credit for any other purpose. It was a payment made by HMRC for the sole and express purpose of allowing SCL to reimburse the mistakenly charged VAT to Deluxe and was clearly intended to restrict SCL’s freedom of disposal so that the credit was to be exclusively used for the stated purpose without set-off.

Although SCL gave its undertaking to HMRC rather than to Deluxe to pass on the money, it held the repayment on trust for Deluxe and gave rise to a Quistclose Trust*

Additionally, a constructive trust arose because it would be unacceptable for SCL to derive a benefit of the VAT repayment.

The court found that SCL has acted in breach of trust and is liable as trustee to restore the trust fund and transfer to Deluxe the balance of the trust property without offsetting it against amounts that it claimed it was owed by Deluxe.

Commentary

This is a logical and expected decision and the reasoning is helpful for similar disputes.

* A trust may arise where one person, A, advances money to another, B, on the understanding that B is not to have the free disposal of the money and that it may only be applied for the purpose stated by A. The effect of the trust is to reserve in A the beneficial interest in the money, so providing him with some proprietary security for his advance.