Tag Archives: vat-errors

VAT: Extent of welfare exemption – The Lilias Graham Trust case

By Marcus Ward 3 October 2019

Latest from the courts

Certain welfare services are exempt from VAT via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, Item 9 – services which are directly connected with the care or protection of children. In the The Lilias Graham Trust (LGT) First Tier Tribunal case, the scope of the exemption was considered.

Background

LGT, which has charitable status, operated residential assessment centres, which supported parents (many of whom had mental health issues) in learning how to care for their children.

It was common ground that LGT’s services were as summarised in a letter from Glasgow City Council (where relevant):

LGT is an assessment centre providing assessment services on the parenting capacity of those referred to the service
The assessment services cover families where there is an uncertainty about whether the parent(s) can safely look after their children
LGT is simply acting as an observer watching the parent’s care for their own children and providing information in the form of advice
LGT is not providing any treatment in the form of medical care for any illness or injury
LGT’s recommendation following the assessment provides a recommendation to social workers around whether the parent(s) has sufficient capacity to keep their child safe and healthy
GCC viewed the residential accommodation as a fundamental part of the provision of the assessment services on the parenting capacity of those families which were referred to LGT.

Although the major part of LGT’s income came from the Local Authority fees, it is also subsidised to a degree by grants and donations.

Technical

In this case the odd position was that HMRC was arguing for exemption because, in learning how to care for their children, the services were “closely linked” to welfare services or “directly connected” to them as provided for by the Principal VAT Directive and the VAT Act in turn.

LGT contended that their supplies to a Local Authority (which could recover any VAT charged) were taxable as they did not fall within the welfare definition. LGT admitted that there was a causal relationship between the services provided and the care and protection of children, but the connection was too remote to be deemed to be a direct connection – There were several intervening factors and intermediaries between the service provided and the care and protection of children.

At issue was net input tax of circa £400,000 which would be recoverable by LGT if its supplies were taxable, but not if they were exempt. Guide to partial exemption here.

Decision

The court found that the essential purpose of the supplies made by LGT was to ensure that the child was better cared for and had optimal protection. That is precisely why the Local Authority employed LGT. Its supplies are both closely linked and directly connected with the protection of children as also to their care. Accordingly, the appellant made supplies of welfare services which are exempt from VAT. The fact that LGT provided its services to the Local Authority rather than the parents did not mean that its services should be taxable. Therefore, there was no output tax chargeable to the Local Authority and no input tax recovery by LGT on expenditure attributable to those exempt supplies.

Commentary

In this case, HMRC originally ruled that the services were taxable and LGT were required to VAT register, it even issued a late registration penalty. HMRC clearly subsequently changed its view which put input tax which LGT had recovered at risk. There are often disputes on the extent of the exemption, and sometimes debates on whether a service is supplied, or simply staff providing their services. It is important to understand these sometimes subtle differences as getting it wrong can be costly, as LGT found out.

VAT: Domestic Reverse Charge for builders – introduction delayed

By Marcus Ward 9 September 2019

As you were…

The UK Government has announced that it is to delay the introduction of the VAT Domestic Reverse Charge (DRC) for construction businesses by a year after a coalition of trade bodies and organisations highlighted its potentially damaging consequences. Details of DRC here

The DRC was due to come into force from 1st October this year, but it has been announced via Revenue and Customs Brief 10 (2019): domestic reverse charge VAT for construction services – delay in implementation that it has been deferred for a year. The new implementation date will be 1 October 2020 unless there are further delays.

The move has been welcomed by all parties affected by the rules and HMRC said that it was committed to working closely with the sector to raise awareness and provide additional guidance to make sure all businesses will be ready for the new implementation date.

Invoices etc

HMRC have also recognised that some businesses have already put changes in place to anticipate the original introduction date and appreciate that it may not be possible to reverse these changes before 1 October 2019. Where “genuine errors” have occurred, HMRC has stated that it will take into account the late change in its implementation date.

Comments

The Chief Executive of the Federation of Master Builders said “I’m pleased that the government has made this sensible and pragmatic decision to delay reverse charge VAT until a time when it will have less of a negative impact on the tens of thousands of construction companies across the UK. To plough on with the October 2019 implementation could have been disastrous given that the changes were due to be made just before the UK is expected to leave the EU, quite possibly on ‘no-deal’ terms.” The situation hasn’t been helped by the poor communication and guidance produced by HMRC. Despite the best efforts of construction trade associations to communicate the changes to their members, it’s concerning that so few employers have even heard of reverse charge VAT.”

It has been stated by certain trade bodies that more than two-thirds of construction firms had not heard of the VAT changes and of those who had, around the same number had not prepared for them. My own experience backs this up and talking to other tax people and building businesses it is clear that this is not an issue which has been publicised widely and despite accountancy firms doing their best to bring it to the attention of relevant clients and contacts, many remain unaware.

Commentary

Discussions over Brexit (obviously!) have been blamed for the situation, although there is no word about why HMRC waited until a month before the intended implication to decide to delay the DRC. A lot of work has been carried out on this matter, and changes to documentation, processing and systems have taken place which will need to be reversed before 1 October 2019. At least the delay will provide HMRC with a new chance to let affected parties know next time and gives them time to identify why so many building businesses were unaware of the reverse charge.

Whether the DRC IS introduced next year remains to be seen. To my mind, it does not deal with the major sources of tax leakage in the construction industry and, as usual, complaint business will play by the book and those that do not will find a way round the rules. To exclude labour only services appears to be a folly. Perhaps they will be amended before next year.

VAT EU Gap Report

By Marcus Ward 5 September 2019

Mind the gap

EU countries lost €137 billion in VAT revenues in 2017 according to a study released by the EC on 5 September 2019. The VAT Gap has slightly reduced compared to previous years but remains very high.

This gap represents a loss of 11.2% of the total expected VAT revenue.

During 2017, collected VAT revenues increased at a faster rate of 4.1% than the 2.8% increase of VAT Total Tax Liability (VTTL). As a result, the overall VAT Gap in the EU Member States saw a decrease in absolute values of about EUR 8 billion or 11.2% in percentage terms.

Member States in the EU are losing billions of Euros in VAT revenues because of tax fraud and inadequate tax collection systems according to the latest report. The VAT Gap, which is the difference between expected VAT revenues and VAT actually collected, provides an estimate of revenue loss due to tax fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance, but also due to bankruptcies, financial insolvencies or miscalculations.

In 2017, Member States’ VAT Gaps ranged from 0.6% in Cyprus, 0.7% in Luxembourg, and 1.5% in Sweden to 35.5% in Romania and 33.6% in Greece. Half of EU-28 MS recorded a Gap above 10.1%.

Overall, the VAT Gap as percentage of the VTTL decreased in 25 Member States, with the largest improvements noted in Malta, Poland, and Cyprus and increased in three – namely Greece, Latvia, and Germany.

The variations of VAT Gaps between the Member States reflect the existing differences in terms of; tax compliance, fraud, avoidance, bankruptcies, insolvencies and tax administration. Other circumstances could also have an impact on the size of the VAT Gap such as economic developments and the quality of national statistics.

The UK

In the year 2017, in the UK the VTTL was £158421 millions of which £141590 millions was actually collected. This leaves a VAT gap for the UK of £16831 millions which represents 11% of the amount which is estimated was due to HMRC. About a mid-table performance compared to other Member States.

VAT: What are zero rated animal foodstuffs?

By Marcus Ward 12 August 2019

Modelled by Lola. (R) Collar: models’ own

Latest from the courts

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Westland Horticulture Limited highlights the complexities of; the VAT treatment of food, animal foodstuffs, seeds, crops and how these are all held out for sale. One only has to consider the myriad VAT liabilities of seemingly similar products sold at, say, a garden centre, to realise that this is can be a VAT minefield.

Examples

Food for a budgerigar is standard rated, but pigeon grit is zero rated.
Peanuts and sunflower seeds are zero rated, unless advertised as wild bird food when they are standard rated
Food for a Labrador is standard rated, unless the dog is used as a gun dog when it is zero rated
Lavender seeds are zero rated. Daffodil bulbs are standard rated.

This is a very small list of examples where the VAT treatment of precisely the same product may change depending on use, and/or where a slight difference of the type of goods can have a surprising tax outcome.

A full guide to garden centre liabilities here

The case

HMRC state in Public Notice 701/38 para 5.3

“Most grass seed is zero-rated because of the extensive use of grass as animal feed. This includes supplies to and by garden centres, local authorities and grass seed to be grown on set aside land.

But pre-germinated grass seed and turf are not used for the propagation of animal feed and are therefore standard-rated.”

Zero rating is available per VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, item 3: “…seeds or other means of propagation of plants comprised in animal feeding stuffs”

In Westland’s case, it sold a product called Aftercut Patch Fix, which, although was 90% grass seed, also contained sowing granules and an ingredient called Clinoptilolite which, apparently, neutralises the effects of excess salts and ammonia found in pet urine. The grass seed was of various varieties and is not in itself any different to “ordinary” grass seed sold without any additives.

Having a new puppy, I can verify the damage one small hound can do to lawns and this is a product I may will need to invest in. The product was held out (see below) to help fix damage to grass that, in my case, a small Lola (and larger Libby) can do.

Decision

Unsurprisingly, the judge ruled that the product was standard rated on the grounds (no pun intended) that it was clearly intended to be used on people’s gardens rather than to be planted to grow animal food. Therefore, the zero rating provided via PN 701/38 does not apply.

The Product was physically different to generic grass seed as it contained more than just seed. The product (as distinct from the seed within the product) is therefore not a similar product to generic grass seed for the purposes of fiscal neutrality.

Commentary

A discrete issue you may think. However, the tax in this single case amounted to over half a million pounds. It illustrates how much care must be taken in establishing the correct liability of; food, animal foodstuff, pet food and ornamental versus edible plants, seeds, bulbs, shrubs and trees.

One of the salient tests is how the goods are “held out for sale” (held out)

Held out means the:

way a product is labelled, packaged, displayed, invoiced, advertised or promoted
heading under which the product is listed in a catalogue, web page or price list

In this case, the packaging and description on the appellant’s website was a major factor in the decision.

Manufacturers and retailers may need to review how their products are described, what the contents are and how they are displayed in-store. Even the location of the goods, how they are displayed, and the signage used may affect the VAT treatment (it doesn’t matter if I buy zero rated working dog food and feed it to my two who are never going to do a day’s work in their life….).

VAT: Land and property quiz – Answers

By Marcus Ward 1 August 2019

The “fun” quiz.

The important thing to consider is what the purchaser does, or intends to do, with the land once purchased. This will dictate the input tax recovery position. So, can the input tax be recovered? Answers to quiz questions in the 26 July 2019 post below

Answers

On the purchased land the person constructs:

a dwelling and supplies the house on a 25-year lease

Yes

The lease is 21 years or over, so it is zero rated. However, a lease under 21 years would be an exempt so no recovery. For more details

an office and uses it for his own business supplying FS to a client in China

Yes

However, if the FS supply had been to the UK or another EU Member State, the supply would be exempt so no input tax recovery. This may change in the event of a No-Deal Brexit.

a storage facility and a fully taxable company leases it to another company in the same partly exempt VAT group after opting to tax

Unlikely to be full input tax recovery as the VAT group is itself partly exempt. The Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) may apply.

a block of ten flats with a gym and swimming pool which tenants are entitled to use. Grants 99 years leases on all flats

Yes

The supply is zero rated, notwithstanding there are additional (to usual residential dwellings) facilities.

a dwelling but uses it for short term holiday lets of no more than a fortnight.

Yes

Holiday lets are standard rated, so the business would be taxable. The purchaser would need to VAT register, however.

a warehouse which is sold on completion but without an option to tax being made before the sale

Yes

A ‘new” commercial building (one under three years old) is mandatorily standard rated, so no option to tax is required.

the land is held with the intention of constructing dwellings at some time in the future, which could be over six years

Yes

As long as the intention remains, and can be evidenced, the input tax may be attributed to the future taxable, zero rated, supply.

a factory which is not subjected to an option to tax but is leased to an US company

The place of supply (POS) is the UK as this is where the immovable property is located, regardless of the status of the client. Consequently, this is an exempt supply with no right to input tax recovery.

a block of three flats which are rented for six months before freehold sale

No, or maybe, or yes

The initial supply is exempt, so the input tax is, preliminarily, attributed to the short term lets. However, a simplified form of the partial exemption de minimis limits may be used and, depending on the scale of the development, it is possible that some, or all, of the input tax may be recovered despite the initial exempt supplies.

a sport hall by a school Academy which is leased to sporting charities and also used for its own educational purposes. No option to tax

It would be unlikely that an Academy would be able to recover all the input tax. Because it would make (exempt) business supplies, this would fall outside the VAT Act 1994, Section 33 rules, so there would be no input tax recovery in respect of those activities. There would be an apportionment and only the input tax referable to own use would be recoverable as those supplies of education would be non-business. If the Academy opted to tax the facilities (and was VAT registered), the input tax would be recoverable in full. No input tax referable to business use would be possible if the Academy was using VAT126 claims. VAT and Academies

a manufacturing plant which a company rents to a connected (non-VAT grouped) party which makes and sells toys. The option is taken

Yes

As the connected party is fully taxable the anti-avoidance rules do not apply. If the connected party was not able to recover the VAT charged to it (say it made exempt supplies) the anti-avoidance legislation would kick in and the option would be disapplied, meaning that the input tax in the hands of the developer would not be recoverable.

a car showroom and offices which a company uses for its own business of selling cars, providing finance and brokering insurance

There would be mixed use; car sales are taxable, finance and insurance are exempt, so some of the input tax would probably not be recoverable (dependent upon the de minimis limits). The development would be an overhead of the business. It is likely that the property would be an item covered by the CGS.

a care home for the elderly which a company uses for that purpose

This likely be an exempt supply, so no input tax recovery on supplies which are properly VATable. There may be reliefs on construction costs, however.

a small cabin office and the remaining land is used for a forestry business which will have no sales for ten years (when the trees are grown)

Yes

Although the intended taxable supplies are some way off, as long as the intention can be evidenced, the input tax may be recovered when incurred as it will relate to those intended taxable transactions. If the intention changes, this may impact the initial recovery. More information

a residential block which is immediately transferred to an associated company (an arm’s length transaction) on completion. No tenants are in situ.

Yes

The transfer of the freehold triggers the zero rating. The associated company may then, if it chooses, make exempt supplies without a VAT cost. This type of planning can be very helpful.

So there we have it. How did you get on? I would say that any score over eight is very good.

VAT: Land and property – A “fun” quiz

By Marcus Ward 26 July 2019

VAT: Land and property

I am quite often asked the seemingly straightforward question: Can I recover VAT on this land purchase? So, by way of a little quiz, I look at why this can be a loaded question.

Background

A person purchases bare land in the UK for £450,000 which is subjected to the option to tax. So, VAT of £90,000 is incurred. Your task, should you wish to accept it, is to say yes, no, or maybe to input tax recovery in the following situations (assume the purchaser is VAT registered).

Questions

On the purchased land the person constructs:

a dwelling and supplies the house on a 25-year lease
an office and uses it for his own business supplying FS to a client in China
a storage facility and a fully taxable company leases it to another company in the same partly exempt VAT group after opting to tax
a block of ten flats with a gym and swimming pool which tenants are entitled to use. Grants 99 years leases on all flats
a dwelling but uses it for short term holiday lets of no more than a fortnight.
a warehouse which is sold on completion but without an option to tax being made before the sale
the land is held with the intention of constructing dwellings at some time in the future, which could be over six years
a factory which is not subjected to an option to tax but is leased to an US company
a block of three flats which are rented for six months before freehold sale
a sport hall by a school Academy which is leased to sporting charities and also used for its own educational purposes. No option to tax
a manufacturing plant which a company rents to a connected (non-VAT grouped) party which makes and sells toys. The option is taken
a car showroom and offices which a company uses for its own business of selling cars, providing finance and brokering insurance
a care home for the elderly which a company uses for that purpose
a small cabin office and the remaining land is used for a forestry business which will have no sales for ten years (when the trees are grown)
a residential block which is immediately transferred to an associated company (an arm’s length transaction) on completion. No tenants are in situ.

We are looking at recovery of input tax on the land purchase here, ignoring other (say; construction and professional) costs. That is another article in itself.

The questions have been simplified, usually, they tend to be rather more “involved”.

Answers

…soon!

VAT: Bad Debt Relief – The Total case

By Marcus Ward 1 July 2019

Latest from the courts

Bad Debt Relief (BDR) is often an area that creates disputes with HMRC. The legislation has changed over the years and the current rules are described here.

Background

Broadly speaking, under normal VAT rules, a supplier is required to account for output tax, even if the supply has not been paid for (however, the use of cash accounting or certain retail schemes removes the problem of VAT on bad debts from the supplier). BDR, as the names suggests, is intended to provide relief on the VAT element of a bad debt. Output tax previously claimed may be “reclaimed” by using the BDR mechanism.

The law which governs the claiming of bad debt relief is The VAT Act 1994, Section 36, and Section 26A which covers the repayment of input tax when a customer fails to pay for supplies received within six months of the relevant date, and The VAT Regulations 1995, Parts XIX, XIXA and XIXB.

Conditions for claiming bad debt relief

A business must have accounted for the VAT on the supplies and paid it to HMRC
It must have been written off the debt in its day to day VAT accounts and transferred it to a separate bad debt account
The value of the supply must not be more than the customary selling price
The debt must not have been paid, sold or factored under a valid legal assignment
The debt must have remained unpaid for a period of six months after the date of the supply

The case

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Total Catering Equipment Ltd [2019] TC 07184, heard on 4 June 2019, the issue was whether payments from customers which were diverted by a dishonest employee should be recognised as a payment for a supply of goods (no BDR available as the money was received then stolen) or whether the fact that the business did not actually receive the payment meant that a BDR was appropriate. Total supplied goods to customers, some of whom paid by credit or debit cards. The member of staff responsible for these transactions, set up a separate (from the business) bank account and fraudulently diverted customers; payments into his own account. A BDR claim was made by the appellant when the crime was discovered. The claim was refused by HMRC on the grounds that the employee had received payment “on behalf” of Total before making payment into his own account.

Decision

The judge found for the appellant. The appeal was allowed – it was decided that Total had never actually received payment for the goods supplied, so BDR was available. A distinction was made between the diversion of monies in this case (where the supplier was deemed to never had received the money) and a theft by an employee from, eg; a till or subsequent withdrawals from the business’ bank account (where a business would have received payment before the money was stolen).

Commentary

I have written about VAT and illegal activities here. There can be a fine line between taxable illegal activities and non-taxable illegal activities, and subtleties around tax points (time of supply) misrepresentation and consideration. If you, or your clients have been in the unfortunate position of being on the receiving end of crime, it would be adding insult to injury to have to account for tax on money you do not have. I would always advise that any demands from HMRC, or refusals to refund VAT should be properly reviewed.

VAT: Brexit – Intending Trader registration for overseas businesses

By Marcus Ward 14 June 2019

With the continuing uncertainty over a No-Deal Brexit, which appears to be a more likely prospect given recent political events, HMRC has made a statement on the process of registering non-UK EU businesses as intending traders in the UK.

Background

What is an intending trader?

An intending trader is a person who, on the date of the registration request:

is carrying on a business
has not started making taxable supplies
has an intention to make taxable supplies in the future

If the business satisfies HMRC of its intention, HMRC must VAT register it. VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, 9 (b). It is, in some cases, difficult to convince that there is a genuine intention to make taxable supplies. This often comes down to documentary evidence.

Why do overseas businesses need to register as intending traders?

In the event of a No-deal Brexit, it is assumed that the EU VAT simplification that relieves the current obligation to be registered in the UK will no longer available. As a consequence, the EU supplier will itself become responsible for accounting for VAT on sales deemed to be made in the UK. In order to do this, the business will require a UK VAT registration. As the simplification is in place until Brexit, the registration will be required the very day after the UK leaves the EU – currently 1 November 2019.

Therefore, many EU businesses have applied for UK VAT registration as intending traders. That is, they do not currently make supplies, but intend to in the future (from 1 November 2109).

The issue

The Chartered Institute of Taxation has reported that businesses applying for intending trader registrations are experiencing difficulties with the process.

In response, HMRC have stated:

“Businesses in the position you have described can register for VAT using the Advanced Notification facility, by registering online requesting a voluntary registration from an advanced date of 1 November 2019. In the ‘business activity’ section they should enter trade class/SIC code 99000 European Community. In the free text box they should describe accurately what the business does and ensure there is a positive amount entered in the ‘taxable turnover in the next 12 months’ box. If this is not done the application will be rejected. This information will enable the VAT Registration Team (VRT) to identify and actively manage any registration that is conditional on the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

If there is a change to the date of withdrawal from the EU, the VRT will amend the Advanced Notification date to match this new date. If the UK enters a transitional period or agrees a deal with the EU that allows current arrangements to continue then the registration will be cancelled. The approval of an Advanced Notification registration in these circumstances is only made as a contingency for the UK leaving the EU without a deal and the VAT number may not be used unless that happens. The business will receive an automated notification of an Advanced Notification VAT Registration and the VRT may follow this up with a manual letter to further explain the conditions and both.

With the UK having agreed an extension to the date of withdrawal from the EU, we would not expect businesses to use this facility until closer to the 1st November.”

It is clearly prudent for overseas businesses which make certain supplies in the UK to properly prepare for a No-Deal Brexit. However, experience insists that many have not identified or made provisions for this outcome.

We are able to assist and advise other EU Member State businesses on this process.

VAT: Holiday Lets – don’t get caught out

By Marcus Ward 14 June 2019

Further to the usual complexity with VAT and property, I have been increasingly asked about the VAT position of holiday lets, so this is a timely piece on the subject.

All residential letting is exempt… except holiday lets, which are standard rated at 20%. So, what is the difference? A house is a house, but the VAT treatment depends on how the property is advertised or “held out”.

If a property is held out for holiday accommodation, then the rental income is taxable.

What is holiday accommodation?

Holiday accommodation includes, but is not restricted to; any house, flat, chalet, villa, beach hut, tent, caravan or houseboat. Accommodation advertised or held out as suitable for holiday or leisure use is always treated as holiday accommodation. Also, increasingly, it is common for farms and estates to have cottages and converted barns within their grounds, which are exploited as furnished holiday lets so this use must be recognised for VAT purposes. Residential accommodation that just happens to be situated at a holiday resort is not necessarily holiday accommodation.

This treats holiday lets the same way as; hotels, inns and B&B were VAT applies, which is fair.

Off-season lettings

If holiday accommodation is let during off-season, it should be treated as exempt from VAT provided it is let as residential accommodation for more than 28 days and holiday trade in the area is clearly seasonal.

What does this mean?

If the letting business exceeds the VAT registration threshold, currently £85,000, it must register for VAT. This usually means that either the business would lose a sixth of its income to HMRC or its letting fees would increase by 20% – which is not usually an option in a particularly price sensitive market. The only upside to registration is that VAT incurred on costs relating to the letting (input tax) would be recoverable. This may be on expenditure such as; agents’ fees, maintenance, refurbishments, laundry, websites and advertising etc.

Agents

If a property owner provides a property to a holiday letting agent and the agent itself provides the letting directly to the end users, this does not avoid the standard rating, even if the agent pays a guaranteed rent to the freeholder. This can catch some property owners out.

Sale of the property

When the owner sells the property, although it may have been used for standard rated purposes, the sale is usually treated as exempt. However, zero rating may be available for the first sale or long lease if it is a new dwelling with no occupancy restrictions. The sale of a “pure” holiday property is likely to be standard rated if it is less than three years old. To add to the complexity, it is also possible that the sale may qualify as a VAT free Transfer Of A Going Concern (TOGC). These are important distinctions because they determine, not only if VAT is chargeable, but, if the sale is exempt, there is usually a clawback of input tax previously claimed, potentially visa the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS).

Overseas properties

A final point: please do not forget overseas property lets. My article here sets out the tax risks.

Summary

There are a lot of VAT pitfalls for a business providing holiday lettings. But for a single site business, unless the property is large or very high end, it is likely that the income will below £85,000 and VAT can be ignored. However, it is important to monitor income and costs to establish whether:

registration is required
registration is beneficial (usually, but not exclusively, for major refurbishment projects).

As always, please contact me if you, or your clients, have any queries.

VAT: Domestic reverse charge for building services – Latest

By Marcus Ward 12 June 2019

The new domestic reverse charge for building and construction services will be introduced on 1 October 2019. Details here

HMRC have now published comprehensive guidance which appears to cover all scenarios (but almost certainly there will be transactions which will produce disputes).

Brief Overview

The domestic reverse charge is a major change to the way VAT is collected in the building and construction industry.

It means the customer receiving the service will have to pay VAT to HMRC instead of paying the supplier.

It will only apply to individuals or businesses registered for VAT in the UK.

This will affect a business if it supplies specified services reported under the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS). A business will need to prepare for the change by:

checking whether the reverse charge affects either sales, purchases or both
informing regular clients or suppliers
ensuring a business’ accounting systems and software are updated to deal with the reverse charge
considering whether the change will have an impact on cashflow

The reverse charge does not apply if the service is zero rated or if the customer is not registered for VAT in the UK. It also does not apply to services which are supplied to end users or intermediaries connected with end users. More details here.

Please contact us if you have any queries.