Colouring books are zero rated unless they contain swear words, nudity or theft – in which case they are standard rated.
Colouring books are zero rated unless they contain swear words, nudity or theft – in which case they are standard rated.
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:
Depending on circumstances, HMRC may also need:
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.
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:
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:
* 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:
In the Spearmint Rhino case it was ruled that there is no VAT on lap dances, however in Wilton Park Ltdthe decision was that VAT was due.
A new Tribunal case ruled that marshmallows of an unusual size are zero rated, while normal sized marshmallows continue to be standard rated.
Ferret food has recently been ruled to be subject to 20% tax when previously it was VAT free (from 1973).
There has been substantial case law on whether a business acts as agent or principal, the most recent being:
In this brief article I consider the distinction between disclosed and undisclosed agents and the VAT position of each.
Agent
An agent is a person who has been legally empowered to act on behalf of another entity (a principal). An agent may be employed to represent a client in negotiations and other dealings with third parties under his direction. The agent may be given decision-making authority. The relationship between a principal and agent can be disclosed or undisclosed to a third party. A disclosed agent acts in the name of the principal, whereas an undisclosed agent acts in his own name.
VAT Treatment
Disclosed Agents
A disclosed agent acts in the name of the principal and the client is aware that they are dealing with an agent of the principal. The relevant supply is made by the principal to the client. The agent does not make the supply to the client, but rather, to (usually) the principal in respect of commission for its services of acting as the “middle-man” in the transaction.
Output tax is due on the full selling price of the goods or services supplied by the principal. The value is not reduced by any amount paid to the agent. The agent will invoice the principal for his services and in most cases the principal will recover this as input tax (subject to the usual rules).
Undisclosed Agents
The buyer of goods or services will not (usually) know the name of the principal and will deal with the agent in the agent’s own name. The legislation states that ‘where a taxable person acting in his own name but on behalf of another person takes part in a supply of services, he shall be deemed to have received and supplied those services himself’.
This means that the supply of goods or services by an undisclosed agent is treated as a simultaneous supply to, and by, the agent. The agent is treated as both the purchaser (from the principal) and seller (to the client/customer).
The agent treats the goods as its own purchase – incurring VAT charged by the principal and then declares output tax on the onward sale to the client. The input tax charged by the principal is usually recoverable by the undisclosed agent. In some circumstances, the purchase and sale will have different VAT liabilities, eg; the sale of goods may be a VATable UK supply, but the onward sale could be a zero rated export. Generally, the principal is not put in a less advantageous position by operating through an agent.
Summary
It is sometimes difficult to establish whether an entity acts as agent or principal, and if agent, whether it is in a disclosed or undisclosed capacity. Not only is the VAT treatment different, but the distinction effects where goods or services are deemed to be supplied for VAT purposes. The place of supply rules dictates such matters as VAT registration (UK and overseas) whether (and where) VAT is chargeable and the compliance obligations of the principal and agent.
It is important to analyse the terms of the relevant contracts/agreements between the agent and principal to establish the nature of the relationship. However, it also necessary to consider the commercial reality of transactions between the parties as this may differ from the contract.
Financial Services (FS) is a complex area of VAT and the legislation and case law add to that complexity. For ease, I have made a flowchart which I hope may help. The supply of FS intermediary services may be exempt from VAT, but other types of supplies relating to FS are standard rated (advice, marketing, providing information etc). With new technology advancing all the time, this adds more difficulties in establishing the correct VAT treatment. |
HMRC has updated VAT Notice 700/63 – Electronic Invoicing in respect of “information required on a tax invoice” (para 3.2).
The Notice sets out what a business needs to do if it is sending, receiving and storing VAT invoices in an electronic format.
Electronic invoicing offers many advantages over traditional paper invoices. The rapid electronic transmission of documents in a secure environment may provide for:
A business does not need to inform, nor seek permission from, HMRC to use electronic invoicing.
We advise that any business periodically reviews its use of any invoicing system to ensure that:
If a business cannot meet HMRC’s conditions for transmission and storage of electronic invoicing, it must issue paper invoices.
There are penalties for incorrect invoices or systems.
Latest from the courts
In the First-Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Hodge and Deery Limited the issue was whether ground works preparatory to installing flexi vault burial chambers exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, group 8, item 2 – “The making of arrangements for or in connection with the disposal of the remains of the dead.”
Background
The vaulting system was installed in graveyards with unstable soil structures which can result in issues with toxins and in subsidence of an existing grave when another grave is dug in the adjacent plot. The burial plots are ready for use and the element above the plots is landscaped (which was undertaken by a third-party).
The appellant’s case
The appellant considered that the installation of the flexible burial vaults should be treated as the advance digging of multiple graves. It should not be regarded differently from the preparation of “normal” graves. The sole purpose of the preparation of a grave is to dispose of the remains of the dead and it should not matter that the undertaker does not prepare the grave himself.
HMRC’s case
HMRC considered that the installation of flexible burial vaults do not fall within the exemption because:
Decision
The judge considered that the services resulted in the provision of many graves for the disposal of the remains of the dead and that the result of the services satisfied the object of the exemption. The digging of graves is central to the disposal of the remains of the dead, the services are made in connection with the disposal of the remains of the dead and within Item 2.
Commentary
In this case, it did not matter that the services are provided in advance, and nor did it matter that the services are not provided in connection with a specific funeral. It also confirms that the funeral director or undertaker need not provide all the services themselves. It seems obvious that the digging of graves is pivotal to the disposal of the remains of the dead and once it was established that a third party could dig the grave, the appeal was bound to be successful.