Further to my article on apportionment valuation and case review here and Transfer Pricing valuation I thought it useful to consider HMRC’s internal guidance on its approach to valuation.
Sometimes
a single monetary consideration may represent payment for two or more supplies at
different VAT rates. In such cases, a business is required to allocate a “fair
proportion” of the total payment to each of the supplies. This requirement is set
out at in The VAT Act 1994, Section 19(4).
“Where
a supply of any goods or services is not the only matter to which a
consideration in money relates, the supply shall be deemed to be for such part
of the consideration as is properly attributable to it.”
Although
this section requires an apportionment of the consideration to be performed, it
does not prescribe the methods by which this is to be achieved. The most common
methods are based upon the costs incurred in making the supplies or the usual
selling prices of the supplies.
Examples
of methods that have been found to be of general application are contained in VAT Notice 700
para 8. A business is not obliged to adopt any of these suggested methods,
and HMRC may accept alternative proposals provided that they achieve a fair and
reasonable result that can be supported by valid calculation.
Some sectors have special methods called margin schemes to determine apportionment of the monetary consideration. Details of these found in their notices and guidance. The schemes include:
Basics
Before it is possible to perform an
apportionment calculation, there are four basic questions that need to be
addressed to determine whether an apportionment is appropriate and if so, what
supplies it relates to.
- Is there more than one supply?
- Is there a single consideration?
- Can any part of the payment be treated as outside the scope of VAT?
- What are the liabilities of the supplies in question?
The issue of whether there is a single
or multiple supply has created problems from the outset of the tax. The volume of case law illustrates that each
decision is based on the facts of each case and there cannot be a one-size fits
all approach to this issue. The most important and recent cases are here:
Card
Protection Plan Ltd
Stocks Fly
Fishery
Metropolitan
International Schools
The Ice Rink
Company Ltd
General Healthcare Group Limited