Tag Archives: vat-relief

VAT: DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – The Dunne case

By Marcus Ward 6 February 2023

Latest from the courts

The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Daniel Dunne demonstrates the fact that the details of the construction are very important when making a claim under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme (the scheme)

Background

Mr Dunne applied for planning permission (PP) for a rear extension to his existing house, which was granted. After completion of the building works a Building Control Completion Certificate was issued which described the relevant works as “construction of a single storey extension to the rear” of the property. The appellant submitted a scheme claim which HMRC rejected.

Technical

Superficially, the legislation covering the scheme: The VAT Act 1994 section 35 states, as relevant:

“(1) Where—

(a) a person carries out works to which this section applies,

(b) his carrying out of the works is lawful and otherwise than in the course or furtherance of any business, and

(c) VAT is chargeable on the supply. or importation of any goods used by him for the purposes of the works,

the Commissioners shall, on a claim made in that behalf, refund to that person the amount of VAT so chargeable.

(1A) The works to which this section applies are—

- the construction of a building designed as a dwelling or number of dwellings…
- The notes to Group 5 of Schedule 8 shall apply for construing this section as they apply for construing that Group.

The notes to Group 5 of Schedule 8 state, as relevant:

…(2) A building is designed as a dwelling or a number of dwellings where in relation to each dwelling the following conditions are satisfied—

(a) the dwelling consists of self-contained living accommodation;

(b) there is no provision for direct internal access from the dwelling to any other dwelling or part of a dwelling;

c) the separate use, or disposal of the dwelling is not prohibited by the term of any covenant, statutory planning consent or similar provision; and

(d) statutory planning consent has been granted in respect of that dwelling and its construction or conversion has been carried out in accordance with that consent….

…For the purpose of this Group, the construction of a building does not include—

(a) the conversion, reconstruction or alteration of an existing building; or

(b) any enlargement of, or extension to, an existing building except to the extent the enlargement or extension creates an additional dwelling or dwellings; or

(c)…, the construction of an annexe to an existing building…”

excludes a claim as the construction was an extension rather than a “dwelling”. The PP plans showed the extension as a square building connected to the existing residential property by a corridor.

However, Mr Dunne’s evidence was that although the initial plan had been for the rear extension to be attached to the existing property, the plans were changed so that it became a standalone detached building, unconnected to the existing property and the building is therefore a detached bungalow. He discussed the changes informally with the local authority building control, who agreed that he did not need to build the corridor connecting the building to the existing property. The fact that they had issued the planning certificate was, he contended, evidence that the building was compliant with the planning department requirements and so should be regarded as being PP for a dwelling.

HMRC contended that, even without the corridor, the PP was for an extension of the existing building and not for a separate dwelling. An extension is specifically precluded from being the construction of a building by note 16 of the notes to The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5. The construction was not in accordance with the planning consent given by the local authority and so the claim could not be accepted.

The respondents further submitted that the building could not be disposed of separately to the existing building and that although the building had a separate postal address this did not create a separate dwelling.

Decision

The FTT found that for a claim to succeed, it is not sufficient that a standalone building was created; the PP must be for a dwelling. The PP, as informally amended, was for the extension of an existing dwelling and not for the creation of a new dwelling.

The relevant PP correspondence did not contemplate, let alone confirm, that approval was given for a new dwelling. The agreed informal amendment, to remove the connecting corridor from the plans, cannot be interpreted to imply a grant of permission for a dwelling.

The statutory requirements for a claim include the requirement that PP has been granted in respect of a dwelling and that the construction is in accordance with that planning consent. It was found that PP (and its informal amendment) was granted for an extension and not a dwelling, and so it followed that appeal could not succeed.

Commentary

It is crucial for a claim to succeed that all of the conditions of the scheme are met. Any deviation will result in a claim being rejected. It is usually worthwhile having any claim reviewed professionally before submission.

Further

More information and Scheme case law here, here and here, here and here.

VAT: How claims are processed

By Marcus Ward 2 February 2023

Further to my article on repayment interest, I thought it may be helpful if I looked at how HMRC process repayment returns, and what can delay payments.

Once a business submits a repayment return it is subject to a number of set steps:

Step 1

HMRC records the date a return is submitted online via MTD.

Step 2

Automated credibility checks are applied to all claims. HMRC say that most returns pass these tests. If this is the case, they proceed immediately for payment.

Step 3

Credibility queries (or “pre-cred” queries) – returns that fail the automated tests are checked manually and are either resolved by the credibility team, or sent to officers to carry out further investigation.

Step 4

Returns sent for further checks – HMRC say that high priority is given to these verifications and any queries are handled with the minimum involvement of, or inconvenience to, a business. Experience insists that this is not always the case.

Step 5

Credibility queries are returned to the credibility team – results of the officer’s action, including any amendments required, are returned with a certificate detailing the amount of time taken and any official delay. Claims are passed for payment.

Step 6

Payment of the claim – once a claim has been accepted, repayment is made immediately. HMRC’s systems check whether repayment interest is applicable. If it is, the interest is paid automatically at the same time as the repayment.

Commentary

Most issues usually arise when returns show “unexpected” repayments – eg; a business regularly submitting payment returns submits an one-off claim, or when a first return shows a significant repayment. The pre-cred checks are undertaken to protect the revenue, that is; to ensure that the claim is valid before money is released. Normally, these checks involve a request for copies of purchase invoices, a telephone conversation, or a physical visit by an officer. Not unreasonably, the quantum of the claim impacts significantly the way HMRC handle it.

However, delays can occur on both sides. A business will have to reply to all HMRC requests timeously (and this is in its interest) but more often a claim will be ‘lost” in the system, or inspectors take an unacceptable time to deal with queries. I have one claim that is still in the system after being lodged in January 2021, despite us providing all information requested immediately.

Reasons for unexpected repayments

There are a number of reasons why a return may be an unusual repayment, which include, but are not limited to a:

large one-off VAT bearing purchase, eg; machinery, computer system, or land/property
premises refurbishment
concentration of professional/advisory fees
large export order
change in business structure
new line of business
change of a product’s liability
change of government policy
new product launch

VAT: New guidance on repayment interest

By Marcus Ward 2 February 2023

HMRC has published new guidance on repayment interest – in cases where HMRC is late in settling a repayment claim for overpaid VAT.

If HMRC is late in paying an amount representing a repayment, ie; when a return shows more input tax than output tax, or a claim is made for VAT previously overpaid, a business may be entitled to repayment interest on the VAT that it is owed. From 1 January 2023 repayment interest replaced the repayment supplement.

Amount of interest

Repayment interest is paid at the Bank of England base rate minus 1%, with a minimum rate of 0.5%.

Start date

VAT already paid to HMRC

The day after the later of these two dates:

when the VAT was paid to HMRC
the payment deadline for your accounting period

VAT not paid to HMRC

The day after the later of these two dates:

the payment deadline for the accounting period
when the VAT return or claim was submitted

End date

Repayment interest ends when HMRC either repays the VAT or sets it off against a different VAT or tax amount that is deemed to be owed.

Notes

any retrospective claims are subject to the unjust enrichment rules
repayment interest is not due if there are any outstanding VAT returns
HMRC will not pay interest on early payments of VAT
if payment on account businesses pay instalments that exceed VAT owed, repayment interest begins on the date the return was due
in cases where HMRC demand a VAT security, and it is not paid, no repayment interest will be due

VAT: Insurance partial exemption

By Marcus Ward 24 January 2023

HMRC has issued new guidance for the insurance sector. It will be relevant to those dealing with partial exemption for insurers, including business and HMRC when discussing how partial exemption applies in practice for an insurer.

The guidance is intended to help insurers agree a fair and reasonable partial exemption special method (PESM) with the minimum of cost and delay. It also helpfully sets out definitions of various insurance/reinsurance transactions and business structures.

Background

Insurance businesses usually make a mixture of exempt and taxable supplies and may also provide specified services to customers located outside of the UK which incur a right to recover input tax.

When determining how to calculate the recoverable elements of input tax, the starting point is with the standard partial exemption method, as defined within The VAT Regulations 1995, regulation 101, but this will rarely be suitable for the insurance sector.

Many insurance businesses are complex organisations that provide many different services of differing liabilities to customers, often in different countries, using costs form suppliers around the world in different proportions. In addition, certain costs may have little relation to the value of the supplies for which they are incurred.

Therefore, most insurance businesses will need to apply to HMRC for approval to use a PESM.

Fair and reasonable

Partial exemption is the set of rules for determining recoverable input tax on costs which are used, or intended to be used, in making taxable supplies which carry a right of deduction. The first step is usually allocating costs which are directly attributable to taxable or exempt supplies. The balance (overhead input tax, or “the pot”) is required to be apportioned by either a standard method (The “standard method” requires a comparison between the value of taxable and exempt supplies made by the business) or a PESM.

A PESM needs be fair and reasonable, namely:

robust, in that it can cope with reasonably foreseeable changes in business
unambiguous, in that it can deal, definitively with all input tax likely to be incurred
operable, in that the business can apply it without undue difficulty
auditable, in that HMRC can check it without undue difficulty
fair, in that it reflects the economic use of costs in making taxable and exempt supplies

HMRC will only agree the use of a PESM if a business declares that it has taken reasonable steps to ensure the method is fair and reasonable. HMRC cannot confirm that a special method is fair and reasonable but will make enquiries based on an assessment of risk and will never knowingly approve an unfair or unreasonable special method.

Attribution of input tax

In the insurance sector, relatively few costs are either used wholly to make taxable or exempt supplies.

The VAT regulations (see above) require direct attribution to be carried out before cost allocation to sectors. However, direct attribution at this stage can cause difficulties where tax departments are unaware of how particular costs are used and have a large number of such costs to review.

It has therefore been agreed between HMRC and the Association of British Insurers that, whilst direct attribution must still take place, it need not always be the first step, and could, for some costs, follow the allocation stage. Methods could refer to direct attribution both pre- and post-allocation, so that costs are dealt with in the most appropriate way. The underlying principle is that the method must be both fair and reasonable.

Types of PESMs

The guidance gives the following examples of special methods:

sectors and sub-sectors
multi pot
time spent
headcount
values
number of transactions
floor space
cost accounting system
pro-rata
combinations of the above methods

with descriptions of each method.

VAT: Partial exemption de minimis relief

By Marcus Ward 17 October 2022

VAT Basics

The VAT a business incurs on running costs is called input tax. For most businesses this is reclaimed on VAT returns from HMRC if it relates to standard rated, reduced rated, zero rated or certain outside the scope sales that a business makes.

However, a business which makes exempt sales may not be in a position to recover all of the input tax which it incurred. This is because input tax which relates to exempt supplies is generally irrecoverable.

This may affect any business which is involved in:

Property letting and sales – generally all types of supply of land
Financial services
Insurance
Betting, gaming and lotteries
Education
Health and welfare
Sport, sports competitions and physical education
Cultural services

(This list is not exhaustive)

A business in this position is called partly exempt. (If a business is fully exempt, it can neither VAT register nor recover any VAT at all). Input tax which directly relates to exempt supplies is irrecoverable. In addition, an element of that business’ general overheads, eg; light, heat, telephone, computers, professional fees, etc are deemed to be, in part, attributable to exempt supplies and a calculation must be performed to establish the element which falls to be irrecoverable. Such apportionment is called a partial exemption standard method. There are a number of alternative methods that may be used (so called “special methods”) but these must be agreed with HMRC.

De Minimis

There is, however, a relief available for a business in the form of de minimis limits. Broadly, if the total of the irrecoverable directly attributable (to exempt suppliers) and the element of overhead input tax which has been established using a partial exemption method falls below de minimis, all of that input tax may be recovered in the normal way.

The de minimis limit is currently £7,500 per annum of input tax. As a result, after carrying out the partial exemption method should the result fall below £7,500 and half of the total input tax for a year it is recoverable in full. This calculation is required on a quarterly basis (for businesses which render returns on a quarterly basis) with a review of the year, called an annual adjustment carried out at the end of a business’ partial exemption year. The quarterly

VAT: Bad Debt Relief. The Regency Factors case

By Marcus Ward 7 February 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Regency Factors plc Court Of Appeal (CoA) case the issue was the validity of the appellant’s claim for Bad Debt Relief (BDR) on amounts it had not received after the issue of an invoice.

Technical

BDR is a mechanism which goes some way to protect a business from payment defaulters. Under the normal rules of VAT, a supplier is required to account for output tax, even if the supply has not been paid for (however, the use of cash accounting or certain retail schemes removes the problem of VAT on bad debts from the supplier). The specific relief for unpaid VAT is via the BDR scheme.

A guide to BDR here.

Commentary on the Upper Tribunal (UT) hearing in this case here.

Background

In the CoA case the issue was whether the appellant met the conditions in The VAT General Regulations 1995, Reg 168 for claiming BDR via The VAT Act 1994, section 36.

Regency provided a factoring service to its clients for which it is paid a fee. VAT invoices for those fees were issued to clients when the invoices which are being factored are assigned to Regency for collection.

Regency appealed against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) which dismissed Regency’s appeal against VAT assessments made by HMRC to withdraw BDR which Regency had claimed in its VAT returns.

The UT held that the BDR claim was not valid because

there was no bad debt; and
Regency had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the making of a claim.

Regency appealed against the decision of the UT on the second point.

Decision

The CoA decided that as Regency’s record keeping was insufficient to support a BDR claim. Specifically, although it did keep the records required by Regulation 168 (2), it did not keep a single VAT BDR account which is required by Regulation 168 (3). The ruling commented that this requirement was a legitimate feature of the scheme as it enables an inspector to check the claim easily. It is not acceptable for a claimant to simply have a pile of unsorted documents which may, or may not, evidence a valid claim.

The court also said that it was possible for HMRC to allow a discretionary claim (clearly, they did not use that discretion in this case) and that the legal requirement was not a barrier to Regency making a proper BDR claim. The appeal was dismissed.

“In short, Regency had the opportunity to prove its claim for bad debt relief in the FTT… but it failed to do so. It is not entitled to a second opportunity”.

Commentary

As always with VAT, accurate record-keeping is essential. As the tax is transaction based, it is vital to keep comprehensive evidence of those transactions and associated payments. Failure to do so may result in:

assessments and penalties
give HMRC the opportunity to refuse otherwise legitimate input tax recovery
refuse other VAT claims (in this case BDR).
confusion and uncertainty which often creates costs in time and other resources, and extended relations with HMRC, which is in no business’ interest.

If Regency had taken “one step further” with its record keeping, BDR would have been paid by HMRC.

Oops! – Top Ten VAT howlers

By Marcus Ward 2 November 2021

I am often asked what the most frequent VAT errors made by a business are. I usually reply along the lines of “a general poor understanding of VAT, considering the tax too late or just plain missing a VAT issue”. While this is unquestionably true, a little further thought results in this top ten list of VAT horrors:

Not considering that HMRC may be wrong. There is a general assumption that HMRC know what they are doing. While this is true in most cases, the complexity and fast moving nature of the tax can often catch an inspector out. Added to this is the fact that in most cases inspectors refer to HMRC guidance (which is HMRC’s interpretation of the law) rather to the legislation itself. Reference to the legislation isn’t always straightforward either, as often EC rather than UK domestic legislation is cited to support an analysis. The moral to the story is that tax is complicated for the regulator as well, and no business should feel fearful or reticent about challenging a HMRC decision.
Missing a VAT issue altogether. A lot of errors are as a result of VAT not being considered at all. This is usually in relation to unusual or one-off transactions (particularly land and property or sales of businesses). Not recognising a VAT triggerpoint can result in an unexpected VAT bill, penalties and interest, plus a possible reduction of income of 20% or an added 20% in costs. Of course, one of the basic howlers is not registering at the correct time. Beware the late registration penalty, plus even more stringent penalties if HMRC consider that not registering has been done deliberately.
Not considering alternative structures. If VAT is looked at early enough, there is very often ways to avoid VAT representing a cost. Even if this is not possible, there may be ways of mitigating a VAT hit.
Assuming that all transactions with overseas customers are VAT free. There is no “one size fits all” treatment for cross border transactions. There are different rules for goods and services and a vast array of different rules for different services. The increase in trading via the internet has only added to the complexity in this area, and with new technology only likely to increase the rate of new types of supply it is crucial to consider the implications of tax; in the UK and elsewhere.
Leaving VAT planning to the last minute. VAT is time sensitive and it is not usually possible to plan retrospectively. Once an event has occurred it is normally too late to amend any transactions or structures. VAT shouldn’t wag the commercial dog, but failure to deal with it at the right time may be either a deal-breaker or a costly mistake.
Getting the option to tax wrong. Opting to tax is one area of VAT where a taxpayer has a choice. This affords the possibility of making the wrong choice, for whatever reasons. Not opting to tax when beneficial, or opting when it is detrimental can hugely impact on the profitability of a project. Not many businesses can carry the cost of, say, not being able to recover VAT on the purchase of a property, or not being able to recover input tax on a big refurbishment. Additionally, seeing expected income being reduced by 20% will usually wipe out any profit in a transaction.
Not realising a business is partly exempt. For a business, exemption is a VAT cost, not a relief. Apart from the complexity of partial exemption, a partly exempt business will not be permitted to reclaim all of the input tax it incurs and this represents an actual cost. In fact, a business which only makes exempt supplies will not be able to VAT register, so all input tax will be lost. There is a lot of planning that may be employed for partly exempt businesses and not taking advantage of this often creates additional VAT costs.
Relying on the partial exemption standard method to the business’ disadvantage. A partly exempt business has the opportunity to consider many methods to calculate irrecoverable input tax. The default method, the “standard method” often provides an unfair and costly result. I recommend that any partly exempt business obtains a review of its activities from a specialist. I have been able to save significant amounts for clients simply by agreeing an alternative partial exemption method with HMRC.
Not taking advantage of the available reliefs. There are a range of reliefs available, if one knows where to look. From Bad Debt Relief, Zero Rating (VAT nirvana!) and certain de minimis limits to charity reliefs and the Flat Rate Scheme, there are a number of easements and simplifications which could save a business money and reduce administrative and time costs.
Forgetting the impact of the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS). The range of costs covered by this scheme has been expanded recently. Broadly, VAT incurred on certain expenditure is required to be adjusted over a five or ten year period. Failure to recognise this could either result in assessments and penalties, or a position whereby input tax has been under-claimed. The CGS also “passes on” when a TOGC occurs, so extra caution is necessary in these cases.

So, you may ask: “How do I make sure that I avoid these VAT pitfalls?” – And you would be right to ask.

Of course, I would recommend that you engage a VAT specialist to help reduce the exposure to VAT costs!

Businesses still owe £Billions after VAT deferral

By Marcus Ward 27 July 2021

Over 25% of VAT registered businesses that were permitted to delay VAT payments as a result of the pandemic still owe HMRC the tax deferred.

The now closed payment scheme permitted VAT registered persons to defer VAT payments due between March and June 2020 and around 600,000 businesses took advantage of the relief. The deadline was 30 June 2021, and it has been stated that over a quarter of business have failed to contact HMRC about their debts and have not made the necessary payments.

The total outstanding, according to The Treasury, is £2.7 billion which represents circa 9% of the VAT take. Of the tax deferred under the scheme, £17.8 billion has been paid and around £13 billion is being paid via monthly instalments.

HMRC have announced its approach to collection VAT debt after Covid19.

It has also become clear is that businesses and consumers have fallen into default during and after the pandemic. It is anticipated that the ability to settle of debts on time will decrease and it is apparent that many debts will never be settled. Consequently, it appears timely to look at the available relief. An article on VAT Bad Debt Relief here.

We would urge, that even if a business cannot make a payment, that it still submits VAT returns on time. It is tempting to accept a centrally issued assessment if it is for a lesser amount than the actual VAT due for the period. However, such action can, and often does, lead to penalties and increased interest from HMRC.

VAT: Brexit latest

By Marcus Ward 23 June 2020

The European Commission (EC) has published an updated Notice to Stakeholders which covers the UK leaving the EU.

The original document which was published in 2018 has been amended to reflect the latest developments which mainly include the official Brexit on 1 February 2020 and the current transition period, which, as matters stand, will end on 31 December 2020. Until that date, EU law in its entirety applies to the UK

The Notice includes:

The legal position from 1 January 2021
VAT rules for cross-border services
The VAT General Rule
MOSS
Refunds of VAT
Separation provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement
The supply of other services
Refund requests relating to VAT paid before the end of the transition period

The Notice states that; “…during the transition period, the EU and the UK will negotiate an agreement on a new partnership, providing notably for a free trade area. However, it is not certain whether such an agreement will be concluded and will enter into force at the end of the transition period”. I think that this is likely to be a charitable conclusion!

The EC advises businesses:

when they are established in the EU, to familiarise themselves with the rules applicable to services supplied to and received from third countries (which the UK will become from 1 January 2021)
when they are established in the UK, to examine whether new liability rules will apply to them with regard to their services supplied in the EU
to take the necessary steps in respect of services covered by MOSS
consider the changes in the VAT refund request procedures

The Notice does not cover the supply of goods nor digital services themself.

General

After the end of the transition period, the EU rules on VAT for services no longer apply to, and in, the UK. This has, particular consequences for the treatment of taxable transactions in services and VAT.

Businesses need to understand the probable changes and make preparations for a No-Deal Brexit.

VAT – Input tax claims. Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 1 June 2020

Latest from the courts

In the recent First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Aitmatov Academy an otherwise unremarkable case illustrates the care required when making input tax claims.

The quantum of the claim was low and the technical issues not particularly complex, however, it underlined some basic rules for making a VAT claim.

Background

A doctor organised a cultural event at the House of Lords for which no charge was made to attendees. The event organiser as shown on the event form was the doctor. Aitmatov Academy was shown as an organisation associated with the event. It was agreed that the attendees were not potential customers of Aitmatov Academy and that the overall purpose of the event was cultural and not advertising.

Issues

HMRC disallowed the claim. The issues were:

HMRC contended that the expenses were not incurred by the taxpayer but by the doctor personally (the doctor was not VAT registered)
that if the VAT was incurred by the Academy, it was not directly attributed to a taxable supply
that if the VAT was directly attributed to a taxable supply, it was business entertaining, on which input tax is blocked

Decision

The FTT found that the Academy incurred the cost and consequently must have concluded that the Academy was the recipient of the supply, not the doctor.

However, the judge decided that the awards ceremony was not directly or indirectly linked to taxable supplies made or intended to be made by the Academy, and therefore that the referable input tax should not be allowed. Consequently, the court did not need to consider whether the event qualified as business entertainment.

On a separate point, the appellant contended that, as a similar claim had been paid by HMRC previously, she could not see the difference that caused input VAT in this case to be disallowed. The Tribunal explained that its role is to apply the law in this specific instance and as such it cannot look at what happened in an early case which is not the subject of an appeal.

Commentary

A helpful reminder of some of the tests that need to be passed in order for an input tax claim to be valid. I have written about some common issues with claims and provided a checklist. Broadly, in addition to the tests in this case, a business needs to consider:

whether there was actually a supply
is the documentation correct?
time limits
the VAT liability of the supply
the place of supply
partial exemption
non-business activity – particularly charity and NFP bodies
if the claim is specifically blocked (eg; cars, and certain schemes)

I have also looked at which input tax is specifically barred.

Finally, “entertainment” is a topic all of its own. I have considered what is claimable here in article which includes a useful flowchart.

As always, the message is; if a business is to avoid penalties and interest, if there is any doubt over the validity of a claim, seek advice!