Tag Archives: vat-latest

VAT: Tax point of telecommunications – The Lycamobile case

By   7 August 2024
0

Latest from the courts

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

Background

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

Contentions

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

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

Decision

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

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

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

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

Commentary

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

VAT: Charity exemption for show admittance – The Yorkshire Agricultural Society case

By   9 May 2023
0

Latest from the courts

In the Yorkshire Agricultural Society First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether payments for entry into the annual The Great Yorkshire Show qualified as exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 12, item 1 –

“The supply of goods and services by a charity in connection with an event—

      1. that is organised for charitable purposes by a charity or jointly by more than one charity,
      2. whose primary purpose is the raising of money, and
      3. that is promoted as being primarily for the raising of money.”

HMRC raised an assessment on the grounds that the supply of admittance fell outwith the exemption so it was standard rated. It appears that this view was formed solely on the basis that the events were not advertised as fundraisers.

The exemption covers events whose primary purpose is the raising of money and which are promoted primarily for that purpose. HMRC contended that the events were not advertised as fundraisers and therefore the exemption did not apply. Not surprisingly, the appellant contended that all of the tests at Group 12 were fully met.

The FTT found difficulty in understanding HMRC’s argument. It was apparent from the relevant: tickets, posters and souvenir programmes all featured the words “The Great Yorkshire Show raises funds for the Yorkshire Agricultural Society to help support farming and the countryside”.

Decision

The FTT spent little time finding for the taxpayer and allowing the appeal. The assessment was withdrawn. There was a separate issue of the assessment being out of time, which was academic given the initial decision. However, The Tribunal was critical of HMRC’s approach to the time limit test (details in the linked decision). HMRC’s argument was that apparently, the taxpayer had brought the assessment on itself by not providing the information which HMRC wanted. The Judge commented: “That is not the same as HMRC being in possession of information which justified it in issuing the Assessment. It is an inversion of the statutory test”.

HMRC’s performance (or lack of it)

Apart from the clear outcome of this case, it also demonstrated how HMRC can get it so wrong. The FTT stated that it was striking that there was very little by way of substantive challenge by HMRC to the appellant’s evidence, nor any detailed exploration of it in cross-examination. The FTT, which is a fact-finding jurisdiction, asked a series of its own questions to establish some facts about the Society’s activities and the Show in better detail. No-one from HMRC filed a witness statement or gave evidence, even though HMRC, in its application to amend its Statement of Case, had said that the decision-maker would be giving evidence. The decision-maker did not give evidence. HMRC were wrong on the assessment and the time limit statutory test and did not cover itself in glory at the hearing.

Commentary

More evidence that if any business receives an assessment, it is always a good idea to get it reviewed. Time and time again we see HMRC make basic errors and misunderstand the VAT position. We have an excellent record on challenging HMRC decisions. Charities have a hard time of it with VAT, and while it is accurate to say that some of the legislation and interpretation is often complex for NFPs, HMRC do not help by taking such ridiculous cases.

VAT: Was an option to tax valid? The Rolldeen Estates Ltd case

By   18 April 2023
1

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Rolldeen Estates Ltd there were a number of issues, inter alia; whether the appellant’s option to tax (OTT) was valid, if not, whether HMRC had the power to deem it valid, whether HMRC acted unreasonably and whether appellant estopped from relying on earlier meeting with an HMRC officer.

Background

The letting of property is an exempt supply, however, a landlord the owner can OTT the property and charge VAT on that supply.  If the OTT is exercised, the supplier is able to reclaim input VAT on costs such as repairs and maintenance, but charges output VAT on its supplies.  The OTT provisions are set out at The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10.

The appellant in this case had previously submitted an OTT form VAT1614A and charged VAT on the rent to its tenant. Subsequently, the property was sold without charging VAT. HMRC issued an assessment for output tax on the sale value.

Schedule 10

A taxpayer does not need HMRC’s permission to OTT, unless that person has already made exempt supplies in relation to that property – in particular, if the property has already been let without VAT having been charged.  In that scenario, the person must apply to HMRC for permission to exercise the OTT, and permission will only be given if HMRC are satisfied that the input tax is fairly attributed as between the exempt period and the taxable period. When OTT the company stated that no previous exempt supplies of the relevant property had been made and this was also confirmed in subsequent correspondence with HMRC.

Appellant’s contentions

The company informed HMRC that the OTT was invalid so that no VAT was due on the sale. Evidence was provided which demonstrated that Rolldeen had made exempt supplies before the date of the OTT so that HMRC’s permission had therefore been required before it could be opted. No permission had been given and therefore there was no valid OTT in place even though the appellant had purported to exercise that option. Also, the appellant submitted that it was unreasonable of HMRC to have exercised the discretion to deem the OTT to have effect, because they had failed to take into account the fact that during an inspection, HMRC had known that Rolldeen had made exempt supplies before OTT.

HMRC’s view

VATA, Schedule 10, para 30 allows HMRC retrospectively to dispense with the requirement for prior permission, and to treat a “purported option as if it had instead been validly exercised”.  HMRC issued a decision stating that it was exercising its discretion under Schedule 10, para 30 to treat the relevant property as opted with effect from the date of the VAT1614A and that VAT was due on the sale and the assessment was appropriate.

Decision

The FTT found that:

  • after an inspection by HMRC it knew that prior exempt supplies had been made
  • although HMRC knew exempt supplies had already been made Rolldeen was estopped* from relying on that fact, because both parties had shared a “common assumption” that the OTT had been valid
  • para 30 could be used to retrospectively validate the OTT (albeit only in relation to supplies made after 1 June 2008).  In this case that was sufficient as the sale of the property occurred on in March 2015
  • HMRC had not acted unreasonably because they had not taken into account their own failure to carry out a compliance check
  • this is exactly the sort of situation for which para 30 was designed
  • it was entirely reasonable and appropriate of HMRC to deem the purported option to have been validly exercised

The appeal was rejected and the assessment was valid.

Commentary

Again, proof, if proof is needed, that OTT can be a complex and costly area of the tax and care must always be taken. Advice should always be sought, as once an OTT is made, there is usually no going back.

An interesting point in this case was that no case law was cited on this issue and the FTT was unable to identify any.

* The principle of “estoppel” means that a person may be prevented from relying on a particular fact or argument in certain circumstances.

VAT: TOGC and deliberate errors – The Apollinaire case

By   19 December 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the First -Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Apollinaire Ltd and Mr Z H Hashmi the issues were:

  • whether the appellant’s input tax claim was valid
  • were the director’s actions “deliberate”
  • was a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) appropriate?

Background

Mr Hashmi (the sole director of Apollinaire) asserted that he sold his business, Snow Whyte Limited to a Mr Singh as a going concern, together with the trading name “Benny Hamish”. The purchase price was never paid.  He alleged that Mr Singh traded for approximately one month and then sold stock worth £573,756 to Apollinaire. The appellant submitted an input tax claim for the purchase of the goods. HMRC refused to make the repayment and raised penalties for deliberate errors. HMRC subsequently issued a PLN to Mr Hashmi.

Issues

Initially HMRC stated that Mr Singh may not have existed, that there was no sale of Snow Whyte Ltd by Mr Hashmi to Mr Singh and similarly, no sale back to Mr Hashmi. However, this submission was later amended to argue that Mr Hashmi controlled the movement of the stock at all times and that the issue was whether the transfer of stock from Snow Whyte Limited was a Transfer Of a Going Concern (TOGC), whether or not Mr Singh existed.

Mr Hashmi appealed, contending that the transactions took place as described to HMRC.

Decision

Unsurprisingly, given Mr Hashmi’s previous history of dissolving companies, but continuing to trade under the same name as those companies (listed at para 14 of the decision) and failing to submit returns and payments, the FTT accepted HMRC’s version of events. Further, there was insufficient evidence to support the transactions (if they took place) and the judge fund that the appellant’s evidence was not credible. If the events did take place, there was no input tax to claim as all the tests (where relevant here) for a TOGC (Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995, Regulation 5) were met:

  • the assets were sold as a business as a going concern
  • the assets were used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business
  • there was no break in trading
  • both entities traded under the same name
  • both entities operated from the same premises
  • both entities had the same employees and tills

The appeal was dismissed.

Penalties

The FTT further decided that HMRC’s penalties and PLN [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] were appropriate. The claim for input tax was deliberately overstated and that Mr Hashmi was the controlling mind of both entities and was personally liable as the sole company director of Apollinaire.

HMRC relied on case law: Clynes v Revenue and Customs[2016] UKFTT 369 (TC) which reads as follows:

“On its normal meaning, the use of the term indicates that for there to be a deliberate inaccuracy on a person’s part, the person must have acted consciously, with full intention or set purpose or in a considered way…

…Our view is that, depending on the circumstances, an inaccuracy may also be held to be deliberate where it is found that the person consciously or intentionally chose not to find out the correct position, in particular, where the circumstances are such that the person knew he should do so.” 

Commentary

This case is a reverse of the usual TOGC disputes as HMRC sought to establish that there was no taxable supply so no VAT was due. It underlines that:

  • care should always be taken with applying TOGC treatment (or appreciating the results of failing to recognise a TOGC)
  • penalties for deliberate errors can be significant and swingeing
  • directors can, and are, held personally responsible for actions taken by a company

Deregistration – When a business leaves the VAT club

By   6 December 2022
0

This article considers when and how to deregister from VAT and the consequences of doing so.

General points

Deregistration may be mandatory or voluntary depending on circumstances. Although it may be attractive for certain businesses too deregister if possible, this is not always the case. The main reason to remain registered is to recover input tax on purchases made by a business. This is particularly relevant if that business’ sales are:

  • to other VAT registered businesses which can recover any VAT charged
  • supplies are UK VAT free (eg; zero rated)
  • made to recipients outside the UK

Businesses which make sales to the public (B2C) are usually better off leaving the VAT club even if this means not being able to recover input tax incurred.

A business applies for deregistration online through its VAT account, or it can also complete a form VAT7 to deregister by post.

NB: These rules apply to businesses belonging in the UK.  There are different rules for overseas business which are outside the scope of this article.

The Rules

Compulsory deregistration

A business must deregister if it ceases to make taxable supplies. This is usually when a business has been sold, but there may be other circumstances, eg; if a business starts to make only exempt supplies, or a charity stops making business supplies and continues with only non-business activities or when an independent body corporate joins a VAT group. In such circumstances there is a requirement to notify HMRC within 30 days of ceasing to make taxable supplies.

We have seen, on a number of occasions, HMRC attempting to compulsorily deregister a business because either; it has not made any taxable supplies (although it has the intention of doing so) or it is only making a small amount of taxable supplies. In the first example, as long as the business can demonstrate that it intends to make taxable supplies in the future it is entitled to remain VAT registered. This is often the position with; speculative property developers, business models where there is a long lead in period, or business such as exploration/exploitation of earth resources.

Voluntary deregistration

A business may apply for deregistration if it expects its taxable turnover in the next twelve to be below the deregistration threshold. This is currently £83,000. It must be able to satisfy HMRC that this is the case. Such an application may be made at any time and the actual date of leaving the club is agreed with HMRC. It should be noted that when calculating taxable income, certain supplies are excluded. These are usually exempt supplies but depending on the facts, other income may also be ignored.

Consequences of deregistration

  • Final return

A deregistered business is required to submit a final VAT return for the period up to and including the deregistration date. This is called a Period 99/99 return.

  • Output tax

From the date of deregistration a business must stop charging VAT and is required to keep its VAT records for a minimum of six years. It is an offence to show VAT on invoices when a business is not VAT registered.

  • Input tax

Once deregistered a business can no longer recover input tax. The sole exception being when purchases relate to the time the business was VAT registered. This tends to be VAT on invoices not received until after deregistration, but were part of the business’ expenses prior to deregistration. Such a claim is made on a form VAT427

  • Self-supply (Deemed supply)

An often overlooked VAT charge is the self-supply of assets on hand at the date of deregistration. A business must account for VAT on any stock and other assets it has on this date if:

  1. It could reclaim VAT when it bought them (regardless of whether such a claim was made)
  2. the total VAT due on these assets is over £1,000

These assets will include items such as; certain land and property (usually commercial property which is subject to an option to tax or is less than three year old), un-sold stock, plant, furniture, commercial vehicles, computers, equipment, materials, etc, but does not include intangible assets such as patents, copyrights and goodwill. The business accounts for VAT on the market value of these assets but cannot treat this as input tax, thus creating a VAT cost.

We usually advise that, if commercially possible, assets are sold prior to deregistration. This avoids the self-supply hit and if the purchaser is able to recover the VAT charged the position is VAT neutral to all parties, including HMRC. It is worth remembering that the self-supply only applies to assets on which VAT was charged on purchase and that there is a de minimis limit. We counsel that care is taken to ensure planning is in place prior to deregistration as it is not possible to plan retrospectively and once deregistered the position is crystallised.

  • Re-registration

HMRC will automatically re-register a business if it realises it should not have cancelled (eg; the anticipated turnover exceeds the deregistration threshold). It will be required to account for any VAT it should have paid in the meantime.

  • Option To Tax

An option to tax remains valid after a registration has been cancelled. A business must monitor its income from an opted property to see whether it exceeds the registration threshold and needs to register again.

  • Capital Goods Scheme (CGS)

If a business owns any capital items when it cancels its registration, it may, because of the rules about deemed supplies (see self-supply above) have to make a final adjustment in respect of any items which are still within the adjustment period. This adjustment is made on the final return.

  • Cash Accounting

A business will have two months to submit its final return after it deregisters. On this return the business must account for all outstanding VAT on supplies made and received prior to deregistration. This applies even if it has not been paid. However, it can also reclaim any VAT provided that you have the VAT invoices. If some of the outstanding VAT relates to bad debts a business may claim relief.

  • Partial exemption

If a business is partly exempt its final adjustment period will run from the day following its last full tax year to the date of deregistration.  If a business has not incurred any exempt input tax in its previous tax year, the final adjustment period will run from the first day of the accounting period in the final tax year in which it first incurred exempt input tax to the date of deregistration.

  • Flat Rate Scheme

If a business deregisters it leaves this scheme the day before its deregistration date. It must, therefore, account for output tax on its final VAT return for sales made on the last day of registration (which must be accounted for outside of the scheme).

  • Self-Billing

If your customers issue VAT invoices on your behalf under self-billing arrangements (or prepare authenticated receipts for you to issue) a deregistering business must tell them immediately that it is no longer registered. They must not charge VAT on any further supplies you make. There are financial penalties if a business issues a VAT invoice or a VAT-inclusive authenticated receipt for supplies it makes after its registration has been cancelled.

  • Bad Debt Relief (BDR)

A business can claim relief on bad debts it identifies after it has deregistered, provided it:

  • has previously accounted for VAT on the supplies
  • can meet the usual BDR conditions 

No claim may be made more than four years from the date when the relief became claimable.

Summary

As may be seen, there is a lot to consider before applying for voluntary deregistration, not all of it good news. Of course, apart from not having to charge output tax, a degree of administration is avoided when leaving the club, so the pros and cons should be weighed up.  Planning at an early stage can assist in avoiding in nasty VAT surprises and we would always counsel consulting an adviser before an irrevocable action is taken. As usual in VAT, if a business gets it wrong there may be an unexpected tax bill as well as penalties and interest.

VAT: New process to support repayment claims

By   14 November 2022
0

HMRC has announced a useful new tool for speeding up repayment payments.

When a business submits a repayment return (when input tax exceeds output tax) HMRC may carry out a “pre-cred” (pre-credibility check) inspection or queries. This is to ensure that a claim is valid before money is released.

If not subject to a visit, a business is likely to be asked for information to support a claim. Such requests are more common if a business normally submits payment returns or it is a first return. The requested information is usually in the form of copy purchase invoices or import documentation.

Prior to the changes, HMRC sent a letter by snail mail and the information would also be returned by post. This was often subject to delays and “misunderstandings”.

From this month, HMRC has launched an online form so that a claimant, or an agent, can upload documents to support the claim via the Government Gateway. It is hoped that this will result in businesses receiving a repayment in shorter order.

HMRC require:

  • the VAT registration number
  • the CFSS reference number from the HMRC letter
  • details of the main business activities
  • the date the business began
  • the VAT rates that apply to sales
  • details of any VAT schemes
  • the detailed VAT account
  • the five highest value purchase invoices, and
  • any additional specific information requested by HMRC

Depending on circumstances, HMRC may also need:

  • bank statements
  • export sales invoices or supporting documents
  • import VAT documents
  • hire purchase or lease agreements
  • completion statements and proof of transfer of funds for the purchase of land or property
  • the planning reference and postcode of construction
  • sales invoices where non-standard VAT rates were charged

HMRC aim to look at this information within seven working days and will contact the claimant or agent when a decision is made, or if any further information is required.

Let us hope that speeds up the process.

VAT Treatment of the Energy Bill Relief Scheme

By   14 November 2022
0

HMRC Notice 701/19 has been updated to cover payments under the Energy Bill Relief Scheme.

What is the scheme?

This scheme provides a price reduction to help protect all non-domestic customers in Great Britain from excessively high bills.

All non-domestic customers in Great Britain are eligible for this scheme. This includes businesses, voluntary, and public sector organisations (such as charities, schools, and hospitals).

The scheme administrator will compensate suppliers for the reduced prices that they are charging non-domestic customers and there is no need to take action or apply to the scheme as the price reduction will be applied to bills automatically.

The scheme applies to energy usage from 1 October 2022 up to and including 31 March 2023 with savings first seen in October bills.

VAT Treatment

Payments made to suppliers under the scheme are grant payments and outside the scope of VAT. VAT is only due on the amount suppliers actually charge their customers for energy supplied.

Any VAT incurred by suppliers in relation to the operation of the scheme relates to the taxable supply of energy and is therefore recoverable, subject to normal rules.

If changes are made to the scheme in the future, VAT liability may change.

VAT: What is unjust enrichment?

By   2 November 2022
0

If a business has overdeclared output tax on past returns then it seems reasonable that this should be corrected, either by adjusting a current return or submitting a form VAT652 if the “error” is over £10,000 net.

If it is a genuine adjustment, surely HMRC must recognise the correction and either make a repayment or offset the overdeclaration against a current amount of VAT due.

The answer is yes, but… “unjust enrichment”…

Unjust enrichment

HMRC has a defence of unjust enrichment via The VAT Act 1994, sect 80(3)

“It shall be a defence, in relation to a claim under this section by virtue of subsection (1) or (1A) above, that the crediting of an amount would unjustly enrich the claimant.” 

This means that HMRC can refuse to repay a claim if they can show that it would unjustly enrich the taxpayer.

It should always be borne in mind that if a claimant absorbed the burden of the wrongly charged VAT himself then unjust enrichment cannot be used as a defence against refusal to repay the claim. Loss or damage to a business due to overpaid VAT is considered in detail here.

Meaning

A refusal to repay a VAT claim using the unjust enrichment contention is to prevent a business becoming enriched at the expense of other entities who actually bore the cost of the incorrectly charged VAT. The authorities consider that a taxpayer should not be put into a better position by recovering the VAT than if VAT had not been charged at all. HMRC regard it as appropriate for unjust enrichment to be considered every time a claim is made.

The recipients of the corrected supply may be final consumers but can also be businesses, charities, etc, who were unable to deduct the overcharged VAT as input tax.

The salient point being whether the VAT was added to the price charged by the claimant or whether the claimant would have charged less had he known that his supplies were not liable to VAT.

HMRC consider that the process of establishing whether a claimant will be unjustly enriched by payment of his claim is two-stage procedure.

First stage

Whether the burden of the overdeclared VAT being claimed was passed on to the claimant’s customers, that is, whether the claimant charged the market rate* plus VAT. This is done on the basis of an economic analysis of the market in which the claimant is operating see; Berkshire Golf Club [2015] UKFTT 627 (TC).

If the customer deducted the wrongly invoiced output tax as input tax, HMRC is entitled to assume that the supplier passed the economic burden of the tax charge on to its customers. In this case, the VAT wrongly accounted for is a cost neither to the supplier nor to the customer.

Second stage

This stage occurs if the claimant accepts that he passed the burden of the tax charge on to his customers but argues that doing that caused loss or damage to his business, for example, by loss of customers or of profits, ie; has the taxpayer been economically damaged by having to bear the VAT cost?

The burden of proof of establishing that there is unjust enrichment falls upon HMRC. The standard of proof is the civil standard of proof; on a balance of probabilities.

HMRC will require the claimant to provide all of the relevant information on; pricing, policy and any other relevant documentation that establishes the pricing strategy**. It is to the taxpayer’s advantage to demonstrate that their margins have been depressed, as they have been required to charge VAT incorrectly.

Factors that HMRC consider:

  • who are the claimant’s competitors?
  • what is its market? (comparisons made with other competitors’ products)
  • how does the business set its prices?
  • what are the business’ overheads?
  • any other factors that may affect the prices

The reimbursement scheme

This is an undertaking to comply with certain reimbursement arrangements. The full text of the required undertaking is set out here.

This scheme applies where a business accepts, or HMRC prove, that by receiving a refund of sums incorrectly accounted for as output tax the business would be unjustly enriched at its customers’ expense and it wishes to refund the money they overpaid. If a customer was able to deduct all of the mistaken VAT charge as input tax HMRC will not regard them as having borne the burden of the charge.

In such cases HMRC will only make a refund of overpaid VAT if the taxpayer agrees to reimburse those customers in accordance with the terms of the scheme. More details Notice 700/45.

If HMRC repay a claim and the claimant is unable or unwilling to reimburse its customers (who bore the cost) with any amounts paid to him by HMRC then unjust enrichment will always apply. See The Deluxe High Court case.

Prices after a claim

It is worth bearing in mind that where a claimant has kept prices the same after he has found out that no VAT was due on the supplies in question, courts are likely to assume that that is because the business was charging the market rate. That assumption is made on the basis that, if the market rate were less, he would be compelled to reduce his prices. HMRC often check any post-claim price changes (or lack thereof).

Case law (summary)

The salient points from European Court of Justice case law may be summarised as:

  • a person who has wrongly accounted for VAT is entitled to recover it
  • HMRC is entitled to refuse to repay where it can show that the claimant did not bear the economic burden of the wrongly paid tax but passed it on to its customers
  • the invocation of the unjust enrichment defence is the restriction of a personal right derived from EU law, and so it is something that should be done only exceptionally
  • the unjust enrichment defence cannot be invoked simply on the grounds that the VAT was shown separately on an invoice
  • before HMRC can invoke the unjust enrichment defence it must carry out an economic analysis of the market in which the claimant is operating
  • the case law of both the European and the UK courts assumes that, in a free market economy, a trader required to account for a transaction-based tax will charge the market rate, not market rate plus tax

*  The case law of the European Court of Justice and of the courts in the UK begin with the assumption that in a free market economy (and probably even in a managed economy) a business will charge the market rate and account for any VAT out of his profit margin.

** A pricing strategy is a business’s approach to determining the price at which it offers goods or services to the market. Pricing policies ensure businesses remain profitable and they give them the flexibility to price separate products differently.

Pricing policies refer to the processes and methodologies a businesses uses to set prices for their supplies. There are various pricing strategies that may be used, but some of the more common ones include:

  • value-based pricing
  • competitive pricing
  • price skimming
  • cost-plus pricing
  • penetration pricing
  • economy pricing
  • dynamic pricing

Further reading

VAT: DIY housebuilders can make more than one claim – The Ellis case

By   18 October 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Andrew Ellis and Jane Bromley [2021] TC08277, the issue was whether a person constructing their own house can make more than one claim for VAT incurred.

Background

The DIY Housebuilder’s Scheme enables a DIY housebuilder to recover VAT incurred on the construction of a house in which the constructor will live. Details here.

In this case, the specific issue was whether, despite the HMRC guidance notes on the scheme claim form explicitly stating that only one claim can be made, whether two claims may be submitted and paid by the respondent.

The appellant constructed a house over a period of five years (he was a jobbing builder and the work was generally only undertaken at weekends and holidays). To aid cash flow, an initial claim was made, followed by a second two years later.

The relevant legislation is The VAT Act 1994 section 35.

Decision

The appeal was allowed. The FTT found that HMRC’s rule that only one claim could be made under the DIY housebuilder’s scheme was ultra vires and that multiple claims should be permitted.

The judge stated that “…there is no express indication that only one claim may be made. Like many provisions, section 35 VATA is drafted in the singular. Drafting in the singular is an established technique to assist in clarity and to enable the proposal to be dealt with succinctly.  As there is no express indication to the contrary in section 35 VATA, section 6 Interpretation Act 1978 applies to confirm that the reference to “a claim” in section 35 VATA must be read as including “claims”.

Commentary

This is good news for claimants who often must wait a number of years for a house to be built and therefore carry the VAT cost until the end of the project.

This case presumably means that it is possible to make claims as the project progresses and there is no need to wait until completion.

We await comment on this case from HMRC, but it is hoped that clarification will be forthcoming on whether the result of this case will be accepted.