Tag Archives: VAT-latest-from-courts

VAT: DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – The Brian Lawton case

By Marcus Ward 25 November 2024

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Brian Lawton the issue was whether a second claim under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme was valid.

Background

Mr Lawton appealed against the refusal of HMRC to pay a claim submitted in respect of the conversion of a barn into a dwelling and subsequent extensions. Unfortunately, the project faced delays and increased costs due to the Covid-19 pandemic. He claimed a refund of VAT in June 2021, which HMRC repaid. The appellant submitted a second planning application for an extension, which was approved, and the work was completed in October 2022. He then made a second VAT claim October 2022 which HMRC refused.

The issue

Whether it was possible to make more than one single VAT refund claim via the scheme when the project was split into two specific phases. Planning permission was granted for two developments, the:

first permission was for the conversion of a barn to a dwelling
second permission was for an extension to existing barn conversion for two bedrooms

– whether the second claim was ineligible for a refund as an extension to an existing dwelling and whether decision to disallow claim for a VAT refund was correct.

Arguments

Lawton contended that it was possible to make two separate claims due to the distinct nature of the projects, and that his first claim had been erroneous since the barn conversion was uninhabitable.

HMRC’s view was that the second claim related to an extension to a dwelling and not the actual conversion and was consequently ineligible.

Decision

Despite the FTT being sympathetic to BL’s predicament in progressing the first application development at the time of the Covid pandemic and the lockdown with the financial and economic challenges these brought about, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal considered that HMRC were entitled to insist that only one claim was made under the scheme in circumstances where there has been no repayment in error or invoices and works carried out before the claim was submitted and left out of account in error or invoices issued late by a contractor.

It considered that the first claim was the only one which could be made and was restricted to the stage of development that Lawton had submitted and was covered by the completion certificate of March 2021, being “the conversion of a barn to a dwelling”.

The court emphasised that completion for VAT purposes must align with original planning permissions and agreed with HMRC’s position that extensions to existing dwellings do not qualify for refunds under the scheme.

Legislation

The VAT Act 1994, Section 35.

Commentary

This case highlights how important both timing and adhering precisely to the rules of the scheme are. The cost of a self-build can be significant and recovering any VAT incurred is important to ensure budgets are met as far as possible.

Further reading

Background to the scheme here, ten top tips here and further information and other cases on the scheme:

VAT: Zero-rated exports. The Procurement International case

By Marcus Ward 7 November 2024

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Procurement International Ltd (PIL) the issue was whether the movement of goods constituted a zero-rated export.

Background

Both parties essentially agreed the facts: The Appellant’s business is that of a reward recognition programme fulfiller. The Appellant had a catalogue of available products, and it maintained a stock of the most ordered items in its warehouse. PIL supplied these goods to customers who run reward recognition programmes on behalf of their customers who, in turn, want to reward to their customers and/or employees (reward recipients – RR). The reward programme operators (RPOs) provide a platform through which those entitled to receive rewards can such rewards. The RPO will then place orders PIL for the goods.

A shipper collected the goods from PIL in the UK and shipped them directly to the RR (wherever located). The shipper provided the services of delivery including relevant customs clearances etc. on behalf of the Appellant. PIL had zero-rated the supply of goods sent to RRs located overseas. All goods delivered to RRs outside the UK are delivered duty paid (DDP) or delivered at place (DAP). As may be seen by Incoterms the Appellant remained at risk in respect of the goods and liable for all carriage costs and is responsible for performing or contracting for the performance of all customs (export and import) obligations. The Appellant was responsible for all fees, duties, tariffs, and taxes. Accordingly, the Appellant is responsible for, and at risk until, the goods are delivered “by placing them at the disposal of the buyer at the agreed point, if any, or at the named place of destination or by procuring that the goods are so delivered”.

Contentions

HMRC argued that in situations where the RPO was UK VAT registered, the appellant was making a supply of goods to the RPO at a time when the goods were physically located in the UK, and consequently there was a standard-rated supply. It issued an assessment to recover the output tax considered to be underdeclared.

PIL contended that there was a supply of delivered goods which were zero-rated when the goods were removed to a location outside the UK. It was responsible (via contracts which were accepted to reflect the reality of the transactions) for arranging the transport of the goods.

Decision

The FTT held that there was a single composite supplies of delivered goods, and these were a zero-rated supply of exported goods by PIL. The supplies were not made on terms that the RPOs collected or arranged for collection of the goods to remove them from the UK. The Tribunal found that the RPOs took title to the goods at the time they were delivered to the RR, and not before such that it was PIL and not the RPOs who was the exporter. This meant that the RPOs would be regarded as making their supplies outside the UK and would be responsible for overseas VAT as the Place Of Supply (POS) would be in the country in which it took title to the goods (but that was not an issue in this case).

The appeal was allowed, and the assessment was withdrawn.

Legislation

Domestic legislation relevant here is The VAT Act 1994:

Section 6(2) which fixes the time of supply of goods involving removal as the time they are removed
Section 7 VATA sets out the basis on which the place of supply is determined. Section 7(2) states that: “if the supply of any goods does not involve their removal from or to the United Kingdom they shall be treated as supplied in the United Kingdom if they are in the United Kingdom and otherwise shall be treated as supplied outside the United Kingdom”.
Section 30(6) VATA provides that a supply of goods is zero-rated where such supply is made in the UK and HMRC are satisfied that the person supplying the goods has exported them
For completeness, VAT Regulations 1995, regulation 129 provides the framework for the zero-rating goods removed from the UK by and on behalf of the purchaser of the goods.

Some paragraphs of VAT Notice 703 have the force of law which applies here, namely the sections on:

direct and indirect exports
conditions which must be met in full for goods to be zero-rated as exports
definition of an exporter
the appointment of a freight forwarder or other party to manage the export transactions and declarations on behalf of the supplier of exporter.
the conditions and time limits for zero rating
a situation in which there are multiple transactions leading to one movement of goods

Commentary

The Incoterms set out in the relevant contracts were vital in demonstrating the responsibilities of the parties and consequently, who actually exported the goods. It is crucial when analysing the VAT treatment of transactions to recognise each party’s responsibilities, and importantly, when (and therefore where) the change in possession of the goods takes place.

VAT: Second-hand goods scheme and best judgement – The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited case

By Marcus Ward 7 October 2024

Latest from the courts

The second-hands of time.

In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether the second-hand goods margin scheme (margin scheme) was applicable and whether HMRC’s assessments for £5,474,249 (later reduced to £5,004,595) of underdeclared of output tax were issued in best judgement.

Background

The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited (A&M) sold second-hand wristwatches with the majority of the sales properly accounted for via the margin scheme. However, from information obtained from Italian tax authorities in respect of supply chain fraud, HMRC issued the assessments on the basis that supplies of certain goods did not meet the conditions of the margin scheme so that output tax was due on the full value of the watches rather than the difference between the purchase and sale values. HMRC decided to penalise A&M because the errors were deliberate and prompted and subsequently to issue a PLN on the basis that such conduct was attributable to the director. A&M is a “High Value Dealer” for anti-money laundering purposes.

Contentions

Appellant

The appellant claimed that HMRC did not use best judgement on the grounds that:

the inspector did not impartially consider the evidence
HMRC lacked sufficient evidence to raise an assessment thereby failing to meet the Van Boeckel test
the calculated amounts were no more than unreasonable and random guesses
the inspector did not approach the investigation with an open mind to such an extent that it could not be said that the assessments and penalties were the product of the reasonable behaviours of HMRC
put in terms of the case law: HMRC had acted in a way which no reasonable body of commissioners could have acted or, put another way, had been vindictive, dishonest or capricious

so the assessments and penalties were invalid.

Whilst accepting that a best judgment challenge is a high bar A&M contended that the conduct and mindset of HMRC’s investigating and assessing officer was so unreasonable that it vitiated the whole assessment.

Respondent

HMRC contended that the assessments were based on best judgement and that its focus was not on the supply chain fraud claims (as claimed by A&M). Additionally, a previous inspection in 2014 had raised prior concerns which provided adequate grounds for the assessments. Moreover, A&M was aware of the terms of operation of the second-hand margin scheme and considered that A&M had wilfully misused the scheme in several regards. The scheme had been incorrectly used for goods purchased by way of intracommunity supplies – which had been imported with the appellant claiming input tax on the imports and then including them in the margin scheme. A&M wilfully failed to carry out due diligence on its suppliers.

Best Judgement

It may be helpful if we consider what the words “best judgement” mean. This was best described by Woolf J in Van Boeckel v CEC [1981] STC 290

“What the words ‘best of their judgement’ envisage, in my view, is that the commissioners will fairly consider all material before them and, on that material, come to a decision which is one which is reasonable and not arbitrary as to the amount of tax which is due. As long as there is some material on which the commissioners can reasonably act, then they are not required to carry out investigations which may or may not result in further material being placed before them.”

Technical

The second-hand margin scheme is provided for under The VAT Act 1994, Section 50A, The Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 and certain paragraphs of VAT Notice 718 which have force of law.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. It was found that A&M deliberately rendered inaccurate VAT returns. The director of the company was aware both of how the margin scheme worked and that the terms of the scheme had to be complied with if a supply was to be taxed under the it. A&M was found to have acted deliberately in misusing the scheme by including ineligible supplies. A&M had been lax in the completion of its stock book, and it had not met the record-keeping requirements necessary to use the scheme for the relevant transactions. Additionally, some of its EU suppliers were not registered for VAT, a fact A&M did not take steps to discover, and so related purchases could not qualify for the scheme. Also, it was likely that some of the purchases were of new watches which made them ineligible for the margin scheme.

Re, evidence; the FTT found much of the A&M director’s evidence to have been self-serving and, in parts, evasive and that it did not consider that the integrity of HMRC could be impugned. The court determined that; the inspector was diligent and thorough, HMRC had legitimate concerns regarding A&M’s use of the margin scheme generally and specifically and there was a wider concern that the company was a participant in fraudulent supply chains. The FTT considered that the investigation was proportionately carried out considering these concerns and the assessments raised in exercise of best judgment.

Penalties and PLN

The case further considered penalties: whether the appellant’s conduct was deliberate (yes – appeal dismissed). Whether the Personal Liability Notice (PLN) [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] was appropriate for the conduct attributed to the director – whether his conduct led to penalty (yes – appeal dismissed).

Commentary

This case is a long read, but worthwhile for comments on; the margin scheme use, HMRC’s inspection methods, best judgement, evidence and MTIC amongst other matters.

The VAT treatment of sightseeing passes. The Go City Limited case

By Marcus Ward 3 September 2024

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Go City Ltd the issue was the VAT treatment of passes (“sightseeing packages”) sold by the appellant. Should they be outside the scope of VAT as multi-purpose vouchers (MPVs) or whether “functioning as a ticket”? The difference being the time of supply (tax point).

The issues

The appellant sells passes which enables the buyer to enter London attractions and travel on certain types of transport. The passes were sold at a price lower than the usual admittance price at the attractions. HMRC originally accepted that the supplies were of “face value vouchers” (MPV – see below) via The VAT Act, Schedule 10A, and latterly Schedule 10B, but later changed its view. It raised assessments for the deemed underdeclarations.

Tax point

The difference in VAT treatment is, essentially:

Face value vouchers (FVV) that can be used for more than one type of good or service (multi-purpose – “MPV”) – No VAT due when sold (if sold at or below their monetary value).
FVVs that can only be used for one type of good or service (single-purpose) – VAT due on the value of the voucher when issued.

Moreover, the above means that for single purpose vouchers, VAT is due whether the voucher is actually redeemed or not – there is no way to reduce output tax previously accounted for if the voucher is not used. Whereas for MPVs VAT is only due when they are redeemed. More background on vouchers below.

Contentions

Go City Ltd argued that what was being sold was MPV and output tax was only due when the voucher was redeemed.

HMRC contended that the sale was of a “ticket” (effectively a single purpose voucher) and that output tax was due “up-front”.

Decision

The appeal allowed. The Tribunal concluded that he passes were MPVs and their sale was consequently outside the scope of VAT. No output tax was due at the time they were sold.

The passes were not only outside the scope of VAT because they are MPVs, but also because the supplies take place when the customer uses the pass, and not when it is purchased. The position is essentially the same as in Findmypast and MacDonald Resorts .

Furthermore, the FTT considered the validity of a number of the assessments HMRC issued. These were raised “to protect HMRC’s position” in respect of the alleged underdeclaration of output tax. The court ruled that these assessments were invalid because, at the time they were raised, HMRC did not have a view that the appellant’s returns were incorrect, as a final decision had yet to be made.

Commentary

The correct decision I feel. A long read, but well worth it for interested parties.

Technical background

Face value vouchers

Recent changes, radically alter the UK rules for face value vouchers (FVV). FVVs are vouchers, tokens, stamps (physical or electronic) which entitle the holder to certain goods or services up to the value on the face of the vouchers from the supplier of those goods or services. Examples of FVVs would include vouchers sold by popular group discount websites, vouchers sold by high street retailers, book tokens, stamps and various high street vouchers.

Single or multi-purpose

The most important distinction for FFVs is whether a voucher is a single purpose voucher or multi-purpose voucher. If it is a multi-purpose voucher, then little has changed. If it is a single purpose voucher, however, HMRC will now require output tax to be accounted for at the date it is issued. Single purpose vouchers are vouchers which carry the right to receive only one type of goods or services which are all subject to a single rate of VAT. Multi-purpose vouchers are anything else. The differences can be quite subtle.

For example:

a voucher which entitles you to download an e-book from one seller will be a single purpose voucher. A voucher which entitles you to purchase books (zero rated) or stationery (standard rated) from the same seller will be multi-purpose.
a voucher which entitles you to £100 of food at a restaurant which does not sell takeaways is probably single purpose, whereas if the restaurant has a cold salad bar and the buyer can buy a zero-rated take-away with the voucher (and/or standard rated hot food) then it would likely to be multi-purpose.

VAT: Are freemasons’ aims philanthropic? The United Grand Lodge UT case

By Marcus Ward 10 January 2024

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) the issue was whether subscriptions paid by members of the freemasons are exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 9, section 31, item 1(e) “Subscriptions to trade unions, professional and other public interest bodies” which exempts membership subscriptions paid to a non-profit making organisation which has objects which are of a political, religious, patriotic, philosophical, philanthropic or civic nature. UGLE submitted claims on the basis that its subscription income was exempt (and not standard rated as declared on previous returns) and HMRC declined to make the repayments.

Background

UGLE is an unincorporated association. It has approximately 175,000 members who, in turn, are members of some 6,500 local Lodges.

An organisation which has more than one main aim can still come within the exemption if those aims are all listed and described in the legislation. The fact that the organisation has other aims which are not set out in law does not mean that its services to members are not exempt provided that those other aims are not main aims. If, however, the organisation has a number of aims, all equally important, some of which are covered by the exemption, and some of which are not, then the services supplied by the organisation to its members are wholly outside the exemption.

In the first hearing the First-Tier Tribunal concluded that the services supplied by UGLE were not exempt from VAT. It also held that UGLE does not have a civic aim. The FTT held that if an organisation had more than one aim, its eligibility for the relief would depend on its main (or primary) aim, and if it had multiple main aims, it would only qualify for the relief if all its main aims fell within the listed exemptions. If it had a number of aims which were all equally important (ie; if it had no main aim), then all those aims would have to fall within the list to enable the organisation to qualify for exemption.

The FTT Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The judge decided that the supplies made by UGLE in return for subscription payments were properly standard rated.

It was common ground that the motives of the members in joining the organisation are irrelevant.

It was accepted that since 2000 freemasonry has become more outward looking and since then has become more involved in charitable work among those, and for the benefit of those, who are not freemasons or their dependants. That said, the judge was not satisfied that the charitable works of individual freemasons, such as volunteering to give time to a local charity, were undertaken by them as freemasons rather than simply as public-spirited members of the community.

It was found that UGLE did have aims of a philosophical, philanthropic and civic nature (the promotion of all aspects of the practice of freemasonry and charity was central to UGLE’s activities). However, it was not accepted that these were UGLE’s main or primary aims. At least 48% of payments made by UGLE were to freemasons and their dependants and in the FTT’s judgment such support remained one of the main aims of freemasonry and thus of UGLE. The importance of providing support for freemasons and their dependants who are in need is a central tenet of freemasonry – The duty to help other freemasons is clearly set out in the objects of the four central masonic charities. The evidence showed that the provision of relief to freemasons and their dependants was the more important than donations to good causes unconnected with freemasonry.

Civic aims

There was nothing in the evidence which indicates any civic aim. UGLE cannot be said to be an organisation that has aims pertaining to the citizen and the state. Indeed, freemasons are prohibited from discussing matters of religion and politics in lodges.

Consequently, as one of UGLE’s main aims could not be described as philosophical, philanthropic, or civic, its membership subscriptions were standard rated. Making payments to freemasons was more akin to self-insurance, rather than philanthropic in nature.

UT – Grounds for appeal

There were two specific grounds:

The FTT failed to address or give reasons for rejecting UGLE’s case that it had one main philosophical aim and that its activities in support of the Masonic charities were in service of the philosophy of Freemasonry, in particular the third of the three Grand Principles, Relief, and thus fell within its philosophical aim.
Even if its activities related to UGLE’s charities could be treated as an aim which was not in service of its main philosophical aim, the activities of UGLE in support of the Masonic charities fall within the ordinary meaning of the word ‘philanthropic’. The FTT misdirected itself in law by failing to apply the ordinary meaning of the word and instead adopted a meaning of ‘philanthropic’ which is too narrow.

On the first ground the UT decided that this is not a situation in which the FTT had simply failed to set out every step of its reasoning, rather, the FTT did not give reasons for rejecting an important aspect of the Appellant’ case and found that the FTT therefore erred in law

On the second; The UT accepted that an aim may be considered to be philanthropic if an organisation aims to provide relief to specific categories of persons. However, it considered that there is a qualitative difference between organisations which raise and distribute funds for identified groups of persons and an organisation that raises funds from within the members that constitute that organisation with the aim of essentially re-distributing a large part of the funds back to some of those members and members’ dependents. That cannot be considered to be philanthropic in the sense of benevolence to the world at large, a love of mankind etc.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The UT rejected the contention that the FTT applied too narrow an interpretation of philanthropic. Consequently, UGLE’s membership income was standard rated for VAT purposes.

VAT: Is a cosmetic treatment exempt medical care? The Illuminate Skin Clinics Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 12 July 2023

Latest from the courts

In the Illuminate Skin Clinics Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether cosmetic procedures qualified as exempt medical treatment.

Background

The Appellant runs a private, ie; non-NHS clinic offering a range of aesthetic, skincare and wellness treatments advertised as: fat freezing, thread lifts, chemical peels, fillers, facials, intravenous drips and boosters. The Appellant’s sole director and shareholder, Dr Shotter, complies with Item 1 (below) in terms of qualifications, ie; she is enrolled on the register of medical professionals.

The list of treatments included:

Botox
Dermal fillers
CoolSculpting
Microsclerotherapy
Prescription skincare
Chemical peels
Microdermabrasion
Thread lifting
Thermavein
Aqualyx
Platelet-rich plasma treatment.

HMRC contended that these supplies were standard rated because there is no medical purpose behind the treatments, and they are carried out for purely cosmetic purposes. An assessment was raised for output tax on this income.

The Appellant argued that what it provided was exempt medical care via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 1 – “The supply of services consisting in the provision of medical care by a person registered or enrolled in any of the following:

The register of medical practitioners…”

And its contention was that the primary purpose of the treatments was “the protection, maintenance or restoration of the health of the person concerned”

In the Mainpay case it was established that “medical” care means “diagnosing, treating and, in so far as possible, curing diseases or health disorders”

Decision

Although there may have been a beneficial psychological impact on undergoing such treatments and this may have been the reason for a patient to proceed (and they may be recommended by qualified medical professionals) this, in itself, was insufficient to persuade the judge that the services were exempt. Consequety, the appeal was rejected and the assessment was upheld.

The FTT found that there was very little evidence of diagnosis. This was important to the overall analysis because diagnosis is the starting point of medical care. Without diagnosis, “treatment”, in the sense of the exemption, is not something which is being done responsively to a disease or a health disorder.

The fact that people go to the clinic feeling unhappy with some aspect of their appearance, and (at least sometimes) are happier when something is done at the clinic about that aspect of their appearance, does not mean that the treatment is medical, or has a therapeutic aim.

It was telling that the differentiation, in Dr Shotter’s own words, between what the clinic does from what “a GP or other health professional” does is; diagnosis. It also highlighted the general trend or purpose of the clinic’s activity – helping people to feel better about their appearance, in contexts where their appearance is not itself a health condition, or threatening to their health in a way which mandates treatment of their appearance by a GP or another health professional.

Helping someone to achieve goals in relation to their appearance, which is what this clinic did, is not treating someone’s mental health status, but is going to their self-esteem and self-confidence. It is a misuse of language to say that this is healthcare in the sense that it would fall within Item 1 of Group 7.

Commentary

There has been an ongoing debate as to what constitutes medical care. Over 20 years ago I was advising a large London clinic on this very point and much turned on whether patients’ mental health was improved by undergoing what many would regard as cosmetic procedures. We were somewhat handicapped in our arguments by the fact that many of the patients were lap dancers undergoing breast augmentation on the direction of the owner of the club…

It is worth remembering that not all services provided by a medically registered practitioner are exempt. The question of whether the medical care exemption is engaged in any given case will turn on the particular facts.

Further recent cases on medical exemption here and here.

VAT: Business or non-business? The 3D Crowd CIC case

By Marcus Ward 4 July 2023

Latest from the courts

Business or non-business?

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of 3D Crowd CIC (3D) the issue was whether a donation of goods, with a subsequent intention to sell similar goods constituted a business activity such that input tax incurred in relation to it was recoverable.

Background

3D was formed at the beginning of the Covid 19 pandemic to produce face protection via the process of 3D printing. Such protection was in high demand, but there was a shortage of suitable products for healthcare workers. The appellant produced 130,000 face shields in the first six weeks of production; which was an admirable feat. However, it was not possible to sell this equipment without the appropriate accreditation. Consequently, to alleviate demand, 3D donated the PPE to the NHS.

By the time accreditation was given the demand for PPE had reduced so it was not possible to sell the 3D printed face coverings as initially intended.

Technical

The issue of business versus non-business has been a contentious issue in the VAT world from day one. This classification is important for two reasons. If an activity is a business (an economic activity) it could be subject to VAT and, as in this case, if an activity is non-business there is usually a restriction of input tax.

Contentions

3D said that input tax could be recovered on costs which involved no direct onward supply of goods or services, but which laid the groundwork for them. That is, the input tax could be attributed to an intended taxable supply, even though that intention was not fulfilled by circumstances outside its control.

HMRC argued that per Longbridge the correct test for determining whether an activity is a business activity is whether there is a direct link between the services or goods supplied and a payment received by the supplier. In this case, there was not so no input tax was reclaimable. HMRC also referred to the decision in Wakefield College, supporting the proposition that an activity is only a business activity if it results in the supply of goods or services for a consideration.

Decision

The FTT found that the VAT incurred on supplies made to 3D, constituted elements:

in connection with 3D seeking CE certification
related to general overheads
related to VAT incurred on materials bought to produce the PPE

Input tax incurred on the costs of accreditation is recoverable because these were incurred in order to sell PPE in the future and for no other purpose. The fact that these costs are not linked to a particular supply (and is in the nature of preparing the ground for future supplies) was irrelevant per The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, para 10.

The VAT incurred on the general overhead costs and on the costs of producing the PPE was incurred in part for business purposes and party for non-business (donations) and should be apportioned using a method agreed between 3D and HMRC.

Commentary

Another case highlighting the difficulty in identifying the distinction between business and non-business and the complexity of input tax attribution. The altruistic efforts of the CIC is to be admired, but such charitable (in the broad sense) activities do not always get their just reward in VAT terms.

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

By Marcus Ward 9 May 2023

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. 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: The importance of due diligence. The 50 Five (UK) Limited case

By Marcus Ward 10 May 2022

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of 50 Five (UK) Limited the issue was the VAT rate applicable to energy saving materials. An additional twist was that there was a sale of the business between the tax point of the relevant supplies and HMRC’s assessment.

Background

The appeal was brought in the name of the Appellant in respect of assessments raised by HMRC against the company prior to the date on which it was purchased by the present owners. The present owners were not made aware of the assessment at the time of purchase. It had not been disclosed to them as part of the due diligence which was undertaken.

The Appellant’s business was that of supply and installation of heating and hot water systems. The customers were supplied with fully installed systems. The Appellant did not ask the customers to separately source the parts for such systems and then simply fit them. These supplies were treated as those of energy saving materials and the reduced rate of 5% was applied.

HMRC raised an assessment after taking the view that the supply should have properly been standard rated at 20%.

Decision

The FTT decided that legislation which permits the sale of energy saving materials at the reduced rate of VAT apply only where the supply of those materials is independent of an installation service. In this case, as the Appellant was the provider of the goods, and also the installer, the supply to the end customer was standard rated (a composite supply).

It was noted that this outcome was counter intuitive and the result does indeed seem unfair to the taxpayer, but as there was no reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding, it was struck out. The assessment and interest was now payable by the new owners.

Commentary

An unfortunate outcome for the new owners, but it highlights three VAT issues:

always carry out appropriate due diligence when buying a business. VAT is often an issue and if the buyer had discovered the assessment, it could have either abandoned the purchase, or negotiated on the price
never assume that a lesser rate of VAT applies without carrying out appropriate research or seeking advice
always consider whether a supply is separate or composite. This is a difficult area of the tax as the amount of case law testifies

The only recourse the new owners have now is taking action against the sellers of the business.

VAT: Roof panels are not insulation. The Greenspace case

By Marcus Ward 2 December 2021

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Greenspace Limited the issue was whether insulated roof panels were “energy-saving materials” per VAT Act 1994, sect 29A, Schedule 7A, group 2, items 1 and 2 and thus liable at the reduced rate of 5%. Or rather at the standard rate of 20% on the basis that they were a supply of a roof itself.

Background

The appellant supplied and installed roof panels for conservatories which comprised a layer of close-cell extruded polystyrene foam (Styrofoam) around 71mm thick. The Styrofoam was covered with a thin aluminium layer and a protective powder coating which are together around 2mm thick. The supplies were made to residential customers and the panels were fitted onto their pre-existing conservatory roofs. The Panels were slotted into place on the existing roof structure and Greenspace did not replace its customers’ existing roof framework when doing this; the struts and glazing bars that supported the previous glass or polycarbonate panels were left in place. Consequently, the Panels were not self-supporting and could only be used if the customer already had an existing conservatory roof structure.

The decision

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided in 2020 that the panels were not “insulation for a roof” but were a new roof in their own right, and that the appellant’s supplies did not therefore qualify for the reduced rate of VAT (unlike insulation that could be separately attached to a roof, the panels actually formed the roof).

The UT dismissed the new appeal and found that the FTT had not been obliged to compare the roof after Greenspace had installed its panels to the original roof. The frame that was retained could not itself be described as a roof, and the provision of the Thermotec panels which made the conservatory weatherproof as well as insulating it could properly be categorised as the provision of a new roof.

One of Greenspace’s grounds of appeal was that the FTT decision was vitiated by the assumption that because the panels took the form of roof coverings, they were necessarily incapable of constituting “insulation for … roofs”. The appellant argued that as this was a flawed assumption (that Greenspace’s supplies “must” be treated as something more than insulation) the decision should be set aside. This contention was rejected by the UT judge.

Commentary

A fine distinction is often required to be made to establish the correct VAT treatment of a supply. In this case a degree of semantics was required to determine whether the panels were energy-saving materials (even when they certainly saved energy). On such small things turned the assessment of £2.6 million here. It always pays to double check VAT treatments rather than making assumptions.