has been updated. The Notice sets out how and when a business can apply zero-rate exported goods.
Information on the types of fuel that the Extra Statutory Concession 9.2 does not apply to, and when you cannot zero rate the export of a motor vehicle has been updated.
And: Information on evidence relating to zero rating and direct exports – paragraphs 6.1, 6.5, 7.3 and 7.4.
Latest from the courts
In the Derby Quad Ltd First-Tier tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether the appellant’s supplies of admission to a screening were of a theatrical performance which would be cultural and exempt, or akin to a cinema presentation which is standard rated.
Background
A RSC live performance of The Tempest performed at Stratford-upon-Avon was live screened at The Quad venue in Derby by way of a broadcast – A so-called live event performed by a company other than DQ. The Quad is a comprehensive creative centre with indie cinema, art gallery, café-bar and event spaces for hire. DQ pays theatre companies a percentage of the proceeds from ticket sales to the screenings, and a small flat fee per simultaneous screening to help offset the satellite transmission costs.
The core of the dispute was whether the live events were a ‘live performance’ as required by The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 13 item 2(b) for exemption.
The Arguments
The appellant contended that a live event was different from a cinematic film where the admission price is subject to VAT – it is an “experience”. The event is thought of as an experience on its own and is of artistic merit. It allows for audience participation and interaction even remotely.
To support this, it was stated that 84% percent of audiences “felt real excitement” because they knew the performance was being broadcast live that evening. Watching the show with others was also an important factor. Audiences tended to applaud at the end of the screening and they appear to feel connected to the performance and the audience. Further, the majority of audiences attending live events enjoyed the collective experience of watching as a group. This differs from audiences at cinemacasts of films and or recordings who typically watch as an individual or as a couple.
HMRC’s position was that admission charges to cinematic performances, and to live performances broadcast from other locations, were taxable.
Decision
The differences in the experiences of members of the audience and the actors/performers between a live theatre performance and at a live event are ones of kind, and not just degree, as they go to the essence of what makes and constitutes a theatrical performance and require interaction. A live event is, consequently, not capable of being a ‘theatrical performance’.
The actors in Stratford would receive no feedback from the audience in The Quad in a way they would from the audience at the live ‘physical’ event.
The FTT found that this is not a modern variant of a theatre performance and the appeal was dismissed.
Commentary
An interesting case which highlights the fact that subtle variations of supplies, and their interpretations can significantly affect the VAT outcome. In light of technical advances in this area we will need to watch how the definition of ‘theatrical performances’ develops.
HMRC’s Form VAT1614J has been updated. This form is used to revoke an option to tax (OTT) land or buildings for VAT purposes after 20 years have passed. There is a new address to which the form and supporting documents are sent:
BT VAT
HM Revenue and Customs
BX9 1WR
Scanned copies of the form can be emailed to: optiontotaxnationalunit@hmrc.gov.uk
Background: Revoking an option where more than 20 years have elapsed since it first had effect.
A business may revoke an OTT without prior permission from HMRC where more than 20 years have elapsed since the option first had effect. This is done by submitting the Form VAT1614J.
When the OTT first has effect: An OTT first had effect on the day it was exercised, or any later day that was specified when opting to tax.
Who can revoke: The relevant guidance VAT Notice 742A – which has the force of law here states that the ‘Taxpayer’ can revoke the OTT. The taxpayer is defined as the person who exercised the option to tax or is treated as making that option by virtue of a real estate election.
When the revocation will take effect: The revocation will take effect from the day that the taxpayer specifies when HMRC is notified, but this cannot be any earlier than the day on which the taxpayer notifies HMRC.
Outcomes of revoking an Option To Tax
Revocation of option: The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10, 25(1)(a).
Unfortunately, there is no “general” rule that charities are relieved of the burden of VAT.
In fact, charities have to contend with VAT in much the same way as any business. However, because of the nature of a charity’s activities, VAT is not usually neutral and often becomes an additional cost. VAT for charities often creates complex and time consuming technical issues which a “normal” business does not have to consider.
There are only a relatively limited number of zero rated reliefs specifically for charities and not for profit bodies, so it is important that these are taken advantage of. These are broadly:
* HMRC have set out its views on digital/online advertising in Revenue and Customs Brief 13 (2020): VAT charity digital advertising relief.
There are also special exemptions applicable to supplies made by charities:
Although treating certain income as exempt from VAT may seem attractive to a charity, it nearly always creates an additional cost as a result of the amount of input tax which may be claimed being restricted. Partial exemption is a complex area of the tax, as are calculations on business/non-business activities which fundamentally affect a charity’s VAT position.
The reduced VAT rate (5%) is also available for charities in certain circumstances:
Additionally, there are certain Extra Statutory Concessions (*ESCs) which benefit charities. These zero rate supplies made to charities, these are:
* ESCs are formal, published concessions but have no legal force.
We strongly advise that any charity seeks assistance on dealing with VAT to ensure that no more tax than necessary is paid and that penalties are avoided. Charities have an important role in the world, and it is unfair that VAT should represent such a burden and cost to them.
We know that burying a deceased person is exempt, but exhumation is standard rated and we now know, thanks to the UK Funerals On-line Ltd FTT case, that the service of the repatriation of the body of a deceased person can be viewed as either an exempt supply of funeral services or a zero-rated supply of transport services.
This being the case, zero rating trumps exemption via of The VAT Act 1994, section 30(1).
Introduction
The tour operators’ margin scheme (TOMS) is a special scheme for businesses that buy in and re-sell travel, accommodation and certain other services as principals or undisclosed agents (ie; that act in their own name). In many cases, it enables VAT to be accounted for on travel supplies without businesses having to register and account for VAT in every country in which the services and goods are enjoyed. It does, however, apply to travel/accommodation services enjoyed within the UK and wholly outside the UK.
Under the scheme:
Who must use the TOMS?
TOMS does not only apply to ‘traditional’ tour operators. It applies to any business which is making the type of supplies set out below even if this is not its main business activity. For example, it must be used by
The CJEC has confirmed that to make the application of the TOMS depend upon whether a trader was formally classified as a travel agent or tour operator would create distortion of competition. Ancillary travel services which constitute ‘a small proportion of the package price compared to accommodation’ would not lead to a hotelier falling within the provisions, but where, in return for a package price, a hotelier habitually offers his customers travel to the hotel from distant pick-up points in addition to accommodation, such services cannot be treated as purely ancillary.
Supplies covered by the TOMS
The TOMS must be used by a person acting as a principal or undisclosed agent for
‘Margin scheme supplies’ are those supplies which are
by a tour operator in an EU country in which he has established his business or has a fixed establishment.
A ‘traveller’ is a person, including a business or local authority, who receives supplies of transport and/or accommodation, other than for the purpose of re-supply.
Examples
If meeting the above conditions, the following are always treated as margin scheme supplies.
Other supplies meeting the above conditions may be treated as margin scheme supplies but only if provided as part of a package with one or more of the supplies listed above. These include
This scheme is complex and specialist advice should always be sought before advising clients.
Whether a service is “related to land” is important because there are distinct rules for this type of supply compared to the General Rule. The place of supply (POS) of land related services is where the land is located, regardless of where the supplier or recipient belong.
The rule applies only to services which relate directly to a specific site of land. This means a service where the land is a central and essential part of the service or where the service is intended to legally or physically alter a property.
It does not apply if a supply of services has only an indirect connection with land, or if the land related service is only an incidental component of a more comprehensive supply of services.
What is land?
For the purpose of determining the POS, land (also called immoveable property in legislation) means:
What services directly relate to land?
HMRC provide the following examples:
The following HMRC examples are not deemed to be land related services:
These examples are mainly derived from case law and the department’s understanding of the legislation and they are not exhaustive.
The Reverse Charge
If an overseas supplier provides land related services in GB, the POS is GB and the reverse charge applies if the recipient is GB VAT registered.
If a GB supplier provides services directly related to land where the land is located outside GB, the POS is not GB. This means that there is a supply in another country. VAT rules in different countries vary (even across the EU) – some countries use the reverse charge mechanism, but others require the GB supplier to VAT register in the country of the POS (where the land is physically located).
Popcorn is standard rated, but microwavable popcorn is VAT free.
In the age-old matter of whether a supply is separate/composite/compound for VAT purposes which and what is the nature of that supply, the Court of Appeal case of Gray & Farrar International LLP has provided very helpful guidance. A background to facts of the initial hearing here (although this decision was overturned by both the UT and the CoA).
I have previously considered these types of supply here, here, here, here, and here. Although not specifically concerning composite/separate supplies, the case sets out a hierarchy of tests to be applied in characterising a single supply for VAT purposes which now sets the standard. These test are:
Comments
The Mesto Test
CJEU Mesto Zamberk Financini (Case C-18/12)
The primary test to be applied when characterising a single supply for VAT purposes is to determine the predominant element from the point of view of the typical consumer with regard to the qualitative and not merely the quantitative importance of the constituent elements.
Principal/ancillary
If a distinct supply represents 50% or more of the overall cost, it can not be considered ancillary to the principal supply. In such cases an apportionment will usually be required.
Overarching
A generic description of the supply which is distinct from the individual elements. In many cases the tax treatment of that overarching single supply according to that description will be self-evident.
CPP
One must also have regard to the Card Protection Plan Ltd case. This has become a landmark case in determining the VAT treatment for single and multiple supplies. In this case the ECJ ruled that standard rated handling charges were not distinct from the supply of exempt insurance. It was noted that ‘a supply that comprises a single service from an economic point of view should not be artificially split’. Notably many subsequent court decisions have since followed this outcome thereby suggesting a general lean towards viewing cases as single supplies where there are reasonable grounds to do so.
In this hot weather it is important to drink sufficient fluids. If you buy a bottle of water, you will pay VAT, but milk is zero rated.