Tag Archives: vat-free

VAT Latest from the courts – what is an economic activity by a charity?

By Marcus Ward 5 September 2016

In the VAT case of Longridge on the Thames (Longbridge) here the Court of Appeal considered previous decisions at the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and Upper Tribunal (UT) on whether Longbridge carried on an economic activity. This is an important case as it goes some way in determining the meaning of “business” in light of the term “economic activity” used in EC legislation. The term “business” is only used in UK legislation, The Principal VAT Directive refers to “economic activity” rather than business, and since UK domestic legislation must conform to the Directive both terms must be seen as having the same meaning. Since the very first days of VAT there have been disagreements over what constitutes a “business”. I have previously commented on this matter here

Background

Longbridge is a charity. It uses volunteers to provide boating activities (mainly to young people) on the Thames. The fees charged by Longbridge were often at below cost and the charity relied on donations to continue its operations. It constructed a new building and sought VAT zero rating of these costs on the basis that the building was to be used for non-business purposes. Consequently, it was crucial to the relief claimed that the charity was not carrying out a business in VAT terms. The FTT and the UT found that the charity’s “predominant concern” was not to make supplies for a consideration and therefore it was not in business. These findings were based on long standing case law, the most salient being; Lord Fisher and Morrison’s Academy Boarding Houses Association. Lord Fisher set out a series of tests which HMRC rely on to determine whether a business exists – considered here and here

Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed HMRC’s appeal. It decided that Longridge was carrying on an economic activity and therefore the construction of the new building could not be zero rated. The decision is worth considering in full, however, the court held that there was a “direct link” between the fees paid and service the recipients received, even if it was subsidised in certain instances and that Longbridge was furthering its charitable objectives. The requirement for a direct link was clearly demonstrated in The Apple and Pear Development Council case. The establishment of the direct link meant that Longridge was carrying in business (in UK law).

Commentary

The important test for whether an economic activity is being carried on is now; the direct link between payment and service. There is no longer the requirement to consider the test of “predominant concern” and in fact it was stated in the decision by the judges that this test is “unhelpful and may be misleading.” We must now ignore; the motive of the provider of the service, its status as a charity, the amount charged, whether subsidies are received by the charity, and whether volunteers are involved in the relevant activities.

This is a very big change in the analysis of whether a business exists and basically means that previous cases on this matter were wrongly decided. It brings the UK into line with the EC on the definition of an economic activity and therefore provides clarity on this matter – which has long been an area which has desperately required it.

It means that, unless the decision is reversed at the Supreme Court, we say goodbye to the unloved Lord Fisher tests. However, this may be very bad news for charities and not for profit entities that have relied on these tests to avoid VAT registration and charging VAT on their supplies. It is likely that many more charities will be dragged into the VAT net. It remains to be seen whether this case will trigger a renewed targeting effort on charities by HMRC, but what is clear is that charities need to be conscious of this new turn of events and consider their position. We strongly recommend that any bodies which have had previous discussions with HMRC on this point and any entity which is affected by this decision take professional advice immediately.

VAT – Latest from the courts: impact of outside the scope income

By Marcus Ward 25 July 2016

Outside the scope (of VAT) income leads to loss of input tax: Upper Tribunal (UT) decision

In the recent UT case of VCS it was decided that input tax relating to outside the scope activities of the appellant was not recoverable.

Background

VCS is a car park operator, which manages and operates car parking for its clients on private land. Inter alia, providing parking control services, including the issue of parking permits and enforcement action (solely at the discretion of VCS).

In practice, most of VCS’s revenue is derived not from providing parking permits, but from parking charge notices (“PCNs”) which it issues to motorists who are in breach of the rules for parking in the car parks. In the period considered, approximately 92% of VCS’s income came from PCNs, and just 8% from parking permits. In March 2013 the Court of Appeal (CoA) decided that the PCN revenue was not subject to VAT. This was because VAT is chargeable only in respect of revenue from the supply of goods or services. The CoA held that the PCN revenue was not earned in respect of supplies of services liable to VAT. Rather, the PCN revenue represented damages for breach of contracts between VCS and the motorists and/or damages for trespass by the motorists.

Decision

The UT agreed with the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that that VCS was not entitled to recover input tax that related to outside the scope (PCN) income and that it was reasonable to assume that since 92% of the income generated by VCS was outside the scope of VAT, only 8% of the input tax incurred on its costs should be deductible.

Commentary

It is clear that there is a direct link between the general overheads of the business in respect of which VCS incurred input VAT and both VCS’s taxable supplies of parking permits and the PCN income. The appellant’s contention that a taxable person (such as VCS) is entitled to deduct all the input tax if the goods or services are used to any extent for the purposes of taxed transactions was doomed to failure and the chairman stated that “…we accept HMRC’s interpretation of Article 168 PVD. Accordingly, where purchased goods or services are used by a taxable person both for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible (ie; taxable supplies) and for transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible (ie; where the transactions do not constitute economic activity or do not constitute taxable supplies (even though they may be transactions undertaken in the course of a taxable person’s business) or where the supplies are exempt), VAT may only be deducted in so far as (that is, to the extent that) it is attributable to taxable supplies.”.

There are no surprises in this decision, but it serves as a timely reminder that not only is “VAT free” income not always a beneficial treatment, but any income that does not relate to a business’s’ taxable supplies can create costs and complexities, whether it be outside the scope, non-business, or exempt.

Outside the scope income can be received by any business in certain circumstances, and it must be recognised in its VAT reporting as this case demonstrates that not all input tax may be recovered and there is no de minimis for input tax attributed to outside the scope and non-business, it is simply not input tax.

Full case Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS)

VAT Worldwide update – Gulf Cooperation Council Countries

By Marcus Ward 7 April 2016

VAT introduction in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.

The following countries have indicated that they intend to introduce a VAT system for the first time from 1 January 2018:

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

This is a likely result of costly military campaigns and a drop in global oil prices. Although it has been agreed that, to limit smuggling and competitiveness, the countries aim to introduce the tax at the same time it is likely that some countries may defer implementation to a later date. It is thought that healthcare, education, social services and a limited list of food items will be excluded and that introductory rate will be 5%.

Tip: Businesses trading with customers and clients in these countries may need to review their tax obligations, budgets, contracts and other arrangements before the introduction of VAT.

VAT – Residential Property Triggerpoints

By Marcus Ward 17 February 2016

VAT and property transactions are uneasy bedfellows at the best of times. Getting the tax wrong, or failing to consider it at all can result in a loss of income of 20% on a project, or forgoing all input tax incurred on a development. Even a simple matter of timing can affect a transaction to a seller’s detriment. Here I take a brief look at issues that can impact residential property transactions. It is important to recognise when VAT may affect a project so I hope that some of these triggerpoints may prove useful.

General points

The following are very general points on residential properties. No two cases are the same, so we strongly recommend that specific advice is obtained.

Refurbishing “old” residential properties

Broadly speaking, the VAT incurred on such work is not reclaimable as the end use of the property will be exempt (either sale or rent). There is no way round this as it is not possible to opt to tax residential dwellings. It may be possible to use the partial exemption de minimis limits if there are any other business activities in the same VAT registration. If this is the only activity of a business, it will not even be permitted to register for VAT. There are special rules if the number of dwellings change as a result of the work (see below).

New residential builds

The first sale (or the grant of a long lease 21 years plus) of a newly constructed dwelling by “the person constructing” is zero rated. This means that any VAT incurred on the construction is recoverable. Care should be taken if the new dwelling is let on a short term basis rather than/before being sold as this will materially affect input tax recovery. Advice should always be taken before such a decision is made as there is planning available to avoid such an outcome. VAT incurred on professional and legal costs of the development may also be recovered such as; architects, solicitors, advisers, agents etc. VAT registration is necessary in these cases and our advice is to VAT register at the earliest stage possible.

The construction of new dwellings is zero rated, along with any building materials supplied by the contractor carrying out the work. The zero rating also extends to sub-contractors. It is not necessary for a certificate to be provided in order to zero rate such building works.

Conversions

There are special rules for refurbishments which create a different number of dwellings (eg; dividing up a single house into flats, or changing the total number of flats in a block, or making one dwelling by amalgamating flats). Generally, it is possible for contractors to invoice for their building work at the reduced rate of 5%. This rate may also apply to conversions. A conversion is defined as work undertaken on a non-residential property, such as a barn, office or church, into one or more self-contained dwellings. Once converted the sale of the residential property will be zero rated and all of the input tax incurred on associated costs is recoverable (similar to a new build).

Renovation of empty residential premises

Reduced rating at 5% is also available for the renovation or alteration of empty residential premises. Such a premises is one that has not been lived in during the two years immediately before the work starts. HMRC will insist on documentary evidence that the property has been empty for that time.

Purchase of a commercial property intended for conversion

If it is intended to convert a commercial property into residential use and the vendor indicates that (s)he will charge VAT (as a result of the option to tax having been exercised) it is possible for the purchaser to disapply the option to tax by the issue of a certain document; form VAT 1614D. This means that the sale will become exempt. Advice should always be sought on this issue by parties on each side of the transaction as it very often creates difficulties and significant VAT and other costs (mainly for the vendor).

Mixed developments

If what is being constructed is a building that is only in part a zero-rated dwelling, a contractor can only zero-rate its work for the qualifying parts. For example, if a building containing a shop with a flat above is constructed, only the construction of the flat can be zero-rated. An apportionment must be made for common areas such as foundations and roof etc. The sale of the residential element when complete is zero rated and the sale of the commercial part will be standard rated if under three years since completion. If the commercial part is over three years old at the date of sale, or is rented rather than sold, the supply will be exempt with the option to tax available – details here. If an exempt supply is made, the recovery of input tax incurred on the development will be compromised and it is important that this recognised and planning put in place to avoid this outcome.

DIY building projects

There is a specific scheme for DIY Housebuilders to recover input tax incurred on the construction of a dwelling for the constructor to live in personally. Details here https://www.marcusward.co/?s=diy

Sale of an incomplete residential development

There are two possible routes to relief if a project is sold before dwellings have been completed (either new build or conversion). This can often be a complex area, however, there is some zero rating relief which may apply, and also it may be possible to apply TOGC (Transfer Of a Going Concern) treatment to the sale. In both cases, it is likely that input tax previously claimed by the developer should not be jeopardised.

Overview

There are VAT complications for the following types of transactions/developments and issues:

work on listed properties
definition of a dwelling
arrangements where consortiums or syndicates are used/profit share
transactions in connection with nursing or children’s homes or similar
“granny flats” in the garden of existing houses
work on charitable buildings/ for charities
converting specific commercial property into residential property – particularly ex-pubs
sales to Housing Associations
sales of “substantially reconstructed protected buildings”
buying VATable buildings
date of completion – zero rating cut off
supplies by members of VAT groups
definition of building materials
input tax on white goods and similar
alterations for people with disabilities
garages with dwellings
land supplied with a property
buying property with existing, continuing leases
beneficial owner versus legal owner supplies
change of intention (buying land/property with the intention of using it for one purpose, but the intention changes after purchase)
where professional/architect’s fees are incurred
planning gains
own use of a property
mobile homes
reverse premiums/surrenders/reverse surrenders re; leases
holiday lets
hotels
business use by purchaser/tenant
contract stage of a property purchase where VAT is potentially chargeable by vendor
timing of supplies
work re; schools, churches, village halls, hospitals, or any other “unusual” structures

This list is not exhaustive, but I hope it gives a broad idea of where VAT needs to be considered “before the event”. As always, I am available to assist.

VAT – Zero rating of charitable building; latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 25 January 2016

A recent case at the Upper Tribunal (UT): Wakefield College here considered whether certain use of the property disqualified it from zero rating.

Background

In order to qualify for zero rating a building it has to be used for “relevant charitable purpose”

This means that it is used otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a business. In broad terms, where a charity has a building constructed which it can show it will use for wholly non business purposes then the construction work will be zero rated by the contractor. This is the case even if there is a small amount of business activity in the building as long as these can be shown to be insignificant (which is taken to be less than 5% of the activities in the whole building) This so called de-minimis of 5% can be of use to a charity. In order for zero rating to apply the charity must issue a certificate to the builder stating the building will be used for non-business purposes.

Although the UT supported HMRC’s appeal against the F-tT decision there was an interesting comment made by the UT. The fact that students paid towards the cost of their courses (albeit subsidised) meant that business supplies were made, and the quantum of these fees exceeded the 5% de minimis meant that the construction works were standard rated. This decision was hardly surprising, however, a comment made by the Tribunal chairman The Honourable Mr Justice Barling Judge Colin Bishopp may provide hope for charities in a similar position to the appellant: he stated that it believed that the relevant legislation should be reconsidered, suggesting that;

“… it cannot be impossible to relieve charities of an unintended tax burden while at the same time protecting commercial organisations from unfair competition and preventing abuse …”.

In my view, it is worth considering the summing up in its entirety as it helpfully summarises the current position and provides some much sought after common sense in this matter:

“We cannot leave this appeal without expressing some disquiet that it should have reached us at all. It is common ground that the College is a charity, and that the bulk of its income is derived from public funds. Because that public funding does not cover all of its costs it is compelled to seek income from other sources; but its doing so does not alter the fact that it remains a charity providing education for young people. If, by careful management or good fortune, it can earn its further income in one way rather than another, or can keep the extent of the income earned in particular ways below an arbitrary threshold, it can escape a tax burden on the construction of a building intended for its charitable purpose, but if it is unable to do so, even to a trivial extent, it is compelled to suffer not some but all of that tax burden. We think it unlikely that Parliament intended such a capricious system. We consider it unlikely, too, that Parliament would consider it a sensible use of public money for the parties to litigate this dispute twice before the FTT and now twice before this tribunal. We do not blame the parties; the College is obliged to maximise the resources available to it for the pursuit of its charitable activities, just as HMRC are obliged to collect tax which is due. Rather, we think the legislation should be reconsidered. It cannot be impossible to relieve 16 charities of an unintended tax burden while at the same time protecting commercial organisations from unfair competition and preventing abuse”.

Action

If any charities, or charity clients have been denied zero rating on a building project, it will be worthwhile monitoring this development. Please contact us if you require further information.

VAT – Where do I belong?!

By Marcus Ward 16 November 2015

The concept of “belonging” is very important in VAT as it determines where a supply takes place and thus the rate applicable and the country in which is due. (The so-called “Place Of Supply, or POS). It is necessary, for most supplies, to establish where both the supplier, and the recipient belongs. Because this is a complex area of VAT it is not difficult to be overpaying tax in one country, not paying tax where it is properly due, or missing the tax issue completely.

A relevant business person `belongs’ in the relevant country. A `relevant country’ means:

the country in which the person has a business establishment, or some other fixed establishment (if it has none in any other country);
if the person has a business establishment, or some other fixed establishment or establishments, in more than one country, the country of the relevant establishment (ie; the establishment most directly concerned with the supply); and
otherwise, the country of the person’s usual place of residence (in the case of a body corporate, where it is legally constituted).

A person who is not a relevant business person `belongs’ in the country of his usual place of residence. The `belonging’ definition applies equally to the recipient of a supply, where relevant.

Business establishment is not defined in the legislation but is taken by HMRC to mean the principal place of business. It is usually the head office, headquarters or ‘seat’ from which the business is run. There can only be one such place and it may take the form of an office, showroom or factory.

Fixed establishment is not defined in the legislation but is taken by HMRC to mean an establishment (other than the business establishment) which has both the technical and human resources necessary for providing and receiving services on a permanent basis. A business may therefore have several fixed establishments, including a branch of the business or an agency. A temporary presence of human and technical resources does not create a fixed establishment in the UK.

Usual place of residence. A body corporate has its usual place of residence where it is legally constituted. The usual place of residence of an individual is not defined in the legislation. HMRC interpret the phrase according to the ordinary usage of the words, ie; normally the country where the individual has set up home with his/her family and is in full-time employment. An individual is not resident in a country if only visiting as a tourist.

More than one establishment. Where the supplier/recipient has establishments in more than one country, the supplies made from/received at each establishment must be considered separately. For each supply of services, the establishment which is actually providing/receiving the services is normally the one most directly connected with the supply but all facts should be considered including

for suppliers, from which establishment the services are actually provided;
for recipients, at which establishment the services are actually consumed, effectively used or enjoyed;
which establishment appears on the contracts, correspondence and invoices;
where directors or others who entered into the contract are permanently based; and
at which establishment decisions are taken and controls are exercised over the performance of the contract.

However, where an establishment is actually providing/receiving the supply of services, it is normally that establishment which is most directly connected with the supply, even if the contractual position is different.

VAT groups

A VAT group is treated as a single entity. This also applies when applying the ‘place of belonging’. As a result, a group has establishments wherever any member of the group has establishments.

This is an area which often leads to uncertainty, and therefore VAT issues. It is also an area where VAT planning may; save time, resources and avoid unexpected VAT costs, either in the UK or another country.

For more on our International Services

VAT Land and Property – Why Opt To Tax?

By Marcus Ward 5 October 2015

Opting to tax provides a unique situation in the VAT world. It is the sole example of where a supplier can choose to add VAT to a supply….. or not.

VAT free supplies

The sale or letting of a property is, in most cases, exempt by default. However it is possible to apply the option to tax (OTT) to commercial property. This has the result of turning an exempt supply into a taxable supply at the standard rate. (It is not possible to OTT a residential property).

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). There are specific rules for circumstances where the optor has previously made exempt supplies of the relevant land or property. In these cases H M Revenue & Customs’ (HMRC) permission must usually be obtained before the option can be made.

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 (after obtaining permission if necessary). The form on which this is done is a VAT1614A. Here

There can be problems in cases where the OTT is taken, but not formally notified.

Disadvantages

The benefit of taking the OTT is the ability to reclaim input tax which would otherwise fall to be irrecoverable. However, one disadvantage is that opting the sale or rent of a property may reduce its marketability as it is likely that entities which are unable to recover VAT would be less inclined to purchase or lease an opted property.

Another is that 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 funded up front.

Also, 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 also in cases of a Transfer of A business as a Going Concern (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.

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. For these reasons, please seek VAT advice at an early stage of negotiations.

More on our land and property services here

VAT – The Future for the EC Digital Single Market

By Marcus Ward 11 May 2015

VAT – The Future for the EC Digital Single Market

The EC has announced its plans for its VAT digital single market in respect of online sales. Full details are here and here.

The highlights are:

• Extension of MOSS to intra-EC and third country online B2C sales of goods.

• Introduction of a new EC-wide VAT threshold to help start-up businesses.

• Ending current distance selling thresholds.

• Allowing for domestic controls, including a single audit of cross-border sales.

• Removal of the VAT exemption for the import of small consignments form third countries.

• Removal of barriers to cross-border sales eg; geo-blocking and costs.

This is likely to have a huge impact on the way businesses deal with VAT on sales of goods to individuals overseas. If the introduction of MOSS is anything to go by, we may be in for a bumpy ride.

VAT – Are e-books books? Update on ECJ’s decision 5 March 2015

By Marcus Ward 5 March 2015

Books are zero rated for VAT purposes, but only (currently) if they are of the traditional dead tree variety. The zero rating does not extend to e-books which are standard rated for VAT. There has been a long standing argument between EC Member States (and between other interested parties) that similar content should not be taxed at different rates solely depending on the method of delivery. This argument is about to be tested in the courts. The UK is not permitted by the EC to extend its current zero rating for printed matter, however, it is expected that the contention in this case will be that the inclusion of new products will not extend the zero rating, but rather the development of technology has created a supply that should be covered by the existing zero rating legislation.

If it is accepted by the courts that all types of book should attract the same rate of VAT, it may mean that the rate will be equalised upwards. So, by the end of the year we could be looking at VAT of 5% being added to books, newspapers and other printed matter which was hitherto VAT free – A “tax on learning” as previous protests had it when there was a threat to tax free books.

UPDATE

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has today ruled that France and Luxembourg must raise their reduced VAT rates on sales of e-book. This will conclude ongoing disputes (see above) between EC countries over whether e-books may be treated similarly to printed books at the nil or reduced rates. The UK and Germany were the main protagonists in challenging those Member States where e-books have been treated the same as printed versions.

Initially, Luxembourg and France began reclassifying e-books at the same rate as printed books – 3% and 5.5% in 2012. Subsequently, Italy and Malta joined them at the start of 2015, reducing the rates to 4% and 5%.

These rates where challenged by the UK and Germany who asked the EC to impose rules to ensure that e-books could not take advantage of the printed book rates. Today, the ECJ published its ruling, stating that since e-books do not have the same physical characteristics as printed books and therefore cannot benefit from the printed book reduced VAT rules.

This decision does seem to go against common sense,but the ECJ’s hands were somewhat tied by the VAT rules which were introduced before e-books existed.

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.