Tag Archives: VAT-PLN

VAT: Personal Liability Notices

By   16 December 2024
0

A Personal Liability Notice (PLN) can be issued by HMRC to a company’s director(s) to transfer the liability to pay VAT or a VAT penalty from the company to an individual. A PLN can also be issued to a member of an LLP.

When a PLN is issued

An officer or officers of a company may be personally liable to pay all or part of the company penalty where:

  • a company is liable to a penalty for a deliberate wrongdoing and
  • the wrongdoing is attributable to the deliberate action of an officer or officers of the company

Additionally, one of the two circumstances below must also apply

  • the officer gained or attempted to gain personally from the wrongdoing, or
  • the company is insolvent or likely to become insolvent

Any grounds for suspicion that the company may become insolvent should to be supported by evidence, for example, where there are cash flow problems, insufficient assets to cover liabilities, or evidence of phoenixism.

An officer’s liability to pay a penalty also applies to inaccuracy penalties.

Liable persons

The company officers are known in HMRC guidance as “liable officers”. These include:

  • elected officers
  • managers
  • directors
  • company secretary
  • any other person managing or purporting to manage any of the company’s affairs.

LLP officers are members.

A PLN’s power gives HMRC the right to recover all or part of the penalty from the liable officer rather than the company/LLP itself.

Where there is more than one deliberate wrongdoing, each deliberate wrongdoing must be considered separately for the purpose of establishing whether it should be attributed to an officer or officers.

Wrongdoings

There are four types of wrongdoings:

  • the issue of an invoice showing VAT by an unauthorised person
  • misuse of a product so that it attracts a higher rate of excise duty
  • the handling of goods on which payment of excise duty is outstanding
  • knowingly disposing of, or causing or permitting the disposal of, material at an unauthorised waste site

The wrongdoing must arise from the deliberate action of an officer of the company.

Personal gain

Once HMRC has attributed the deliberate wrongdoing to one or more company officers it must consider whether any of the officers, by fact or implication, have gained or attempted to gain personally from the wrongdoing. It is sufficient to show that each officer has gained or attempted to gain. It will not however always be possible to establish the full extent to which each officer has gained or attempted to gain, in which case HMRC would issue the PLN based on best judgment of the amount they attempted to gain personally, eg:

  • the officer may accept that there was an actual or attempted personal gain from a deliberate wrongdoing that can be attributed to them, or
  • it may be clear from business records or the officer’s lifestyle that they gained or attempted to gain personally from the results of the deliberate wrongdoing

Appeals

A liable officer can appeal against

  • a decision to pursue them for all or part of the penalty assessed on the company, as set out in the PLN, including whether the penalty is attributable to them, and
  • the amount of the penalty HMRC has allocated to them
  • They cannot however appeal against a decision that they have gained or attempted to gain personally from the deliberate wrongdoing, or that the company is likely to go into liquidation

PLNs are subject to the same procedures as company penalties.

Legislation

Finance Act 2008, Schedule 41: Penalties: failure to notify and certain VAT and Excise wrongdoing.

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

By   7 October 2024
0

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.

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