Tag Archives: VAT-inter-company

What is outside the scope of VAT, and what does it mean?

By Marcus Ward 10 January 2025

Put simply, income which is outside the scope (OSC) of VAT is UK VAT free. It means that either there has been no supply in respect of that income (non-business, or ‘NB’), or if there is, it has a place of supply (POS) which is outside the UK. Although VAT free, OSC is distinct from exempt or zero-rated supplies and has a different impact for the entity involved in NB activities.

So, here I consider the different types of OSC income and how it affects the VAT position of the recipient of such a payment.

Charity

Charities and NFP organisations often receive income from various sources and often receive NB income which is OSC. This income is often donations for which the donor does not receive anything (there is no consideration provided by the charity). An organisation such as a charity that is run on a non-profit-making basis may still be regarded as carrying on a business activity for VAT purposes. This is unaffected by the fact that the activity is performed for the benefit of the community. It is therefore important for a charity to determine whether particular transactions are business or NB activities. This applies both when considering registration (if there is only NB activity a charity cannot be registered and therefore cannot recover any input tax) and after registration. ‘Business’ has a wide meaning for VAT purposes – an activity may still be business if the amount charged does no more than cover the cost to the charity of making the supply or where the charge made is less than cost. If the charity makes no charge at all the activity is unlikely to be considered business. A common area of complexity for charities when considering whether their activities are in the course of business is receipt of grant funding (please see below).

Grants

There is no ‘standard’ VAT treatment of grants. The VAT outcome depends on the precise facts of each specific agreement. The most important test is whether the grantor receives any consideration in return for the payment. It may be that the donor recognises the good work a body does and wishes to contribute (akin to a donation) which is OSC. Alternatively, the recipient of the grant may be obliged to provide something in return (a supply which is not OSC). A helpful way of looking at this is to consider, not what the recipient does with grant money, but what it does for it.

Inter-company charges

Charges between VAT group members are OSC. Moreover, charges between non-VAT-grouped companies may also be OSC. These are commonly called ‘management charges’ and the VAT treatment depends on a number of facts. 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 the income is likely to be OSC. Otherwise, it is likely to be a taxable supply. 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?

Place of supply not the UK

If the POS is outside the UK, then the resulting payment for that supply is OSC. The POS rules can be complex and care must be taken in identifying the correct country to declare output tax (this may include the use of the OSS). In some instances, the Reverse Charge is applied. Input tax incurred in relation these supplies is recoverable, subject to the normal rules, and this distinguishes this type of supply from some of the others discussed here.

Transfer Of a Going Concern (TOGC)

A TOGC is deemed to be neither a supply of goods nor services, so consequently, it is OSC. Input tax incurred in respect of the costs of making a TOGC are considered an overhead of the business for partial exemption purposes, so it is not automatically disallowed because it relates to a ‘non-supply’.

Supplies by a non-taxable person

Sales by a business person who is not liable to be VAT registered.

Insurance etc

A payment between persons, which is paid under a contract of indemnity, is OSC, because it does not represent consideration for a supply, eg; sums paid under an insurance policy.

Private transactions

These transactions between individuals or gifts received are OSC.

Statutory fees

These are OSC, an example of such fees are: the London congestion charge, MOT testing, some road tolls, and parking fines.

Input tax recovery

VAT incurred on costs directly relating to OSC activities is not input tax and cannot be recovered (there are no de minimis limits). This is separate to partial exemption and a business/NB calculation is required before a partial exemption calculation is carried out, so it is a two-tier exercise. It may be possible to combine these two calculations, but that is an article for another day.

HMRC has issued new guidance on the amount of input tax claimable when an element is attributable to NB activities. If an entity is involved in both business and NB activities, eg; a charity which provides free advice and also has a shop which sells donated goods, it is unable to recover all of the VAT it incurs. VAT attributable to NB activities is not input tax and cannot be reclaimed. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate the quantum of VAT attributable to business and NB activities. That VAT which cannot be directly attributed is called overhead VAT and must be apportioned between business and NB activities. There are many varied ways of doing this as the VAT legislation does not specify any particular method. It is important to consider all of the available alternatives. Examples of these are; income, expenditure, time, floorspace, transaction count etc (similar to those methods available for partial exemption calculations). Any calculation must be fair and reasonable.

Overall

OSC income should not be recognised in the value box of VAT returns and it does not count towards the VAT registration limit. It is likely to negatively affect the recipient’s input tax recovery position. The distinction between business and non-business is crucial and will significantly impact on an entity’s overall VAT position.

Further reading

The following articles consider case law and other relevant business/NB issues:

Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft

Healthwatch Hampshire CIC

Pertempts Limited

Northumbria Healthcare

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: Intention is crucial – The Sonaecom case

By Marcus Ward 18 May 2020

We cannot control the future…

The Sonaecom case

In the opinion* of the CJEU AG (C-42/19) the importance of a taxpayer’s intention was of utmost importance, regardless of whether that intention was achieved.

Background

Sonaecom intended to acquire a telecoms provider company. As is usual in such cases, input tax was incurred on consultancy received, from, amongst others; accountants and legal service providers. The intention post acquisition was for Sonaecom to make certain charges to the acquired co. These would have been taxable supplies.

Unfortunately, the intended purchase was aborted.

The issue

The issue before the AG was; as no taxable supplies took place as the deal fell through – to what should the input tax incurred on advice be attributed?

Opinion

In the AG’s view the fact that the acquisition was aborted was no reason for the claim for input tax to denied. This was based on the fact that:

Sonaecom was not a “pure holding company”
There was a genuine intention to make taxable supplies (to the acquired co)
There was a direct and immediate link between the costs and the intended supplies
Although the acquisition costs would exceed the proposed management charges, this was not a reason to invalidate the claim
The above analysis was not affected by the fact that the transaction did not take place

Commentary

There are often issues in relation to intentions of a taxpayer. It is clear, and was emphasised in this case, that intention is all important. Of course, intentions can change over a period of time and commercial and political events may thwart or cause intentions to be re-evaluated. There is often an issue about evidencing an intention. HMRC usually require comprehensive documentary evidence to demonstrate an objective. Such evidence is sometime not available for various reasons. Consequently, it is prudent for businesses to record (board meeting minutes etc at the very least) the commercial reasons for taking a certain course of action. This issue quite often arises in transactions in land and property – which can create additional technical issues.

There is legislation in place to cover situations when intentions, or actual events change and which affect the original input tax position: The Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Regs 108 and 109.

Other areas of VAT which often to raise issues are management charges and holding companies. HMRC apparently continue to be eager to attack taxpayers in these areas and I have looked at the role of holding companies and the VAT treatment here, here and here.

I think it is useful to bear in mind a question which, in itself does not evidence an intention, but provides commercial coherence – Why were the costs incurred if there was no intention to make the acquisition? This does leave aside the future management charges position but goes some way to provide business logic.

It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds, but I would find it very surprising if the court diverges from this AG opinion.

* AG’s Opinion

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) consists of one judge from each Member State, assisted by eleven Advocates General whose role is to consider the written and oral submissions to the court in every case that raises a new point of law, and deliver an impartial opinion to the court on the legal solution.