Tag Archives: vat-relief

VAT: New guidance on zero rating exports

By   4 April 2023
2

HMRC has published updated guidance on the evidence required to zero rate the export of goods. VAT Notice 703 sets out the following changes on the documentation which is required for proof of export:

  • Para 6.1 – For VAT zero rating purposes a business must produce official evidence or commercial evidence. Both types generally have equal weight but, if the commercial evidence is found to be lacking sufficient detail, a business will be expected to provide official evidence. An exporter must also provide supplementary evidence to show that a transaction has taken place, and that the transaction relates to the goods physically exported. If the evidence of export provided is found to be unsatisfactory, VAT zero rating will not be allowed and the supplier of the goods will be liable to account for the VAT at the appropriate UK rate.

 

  • Para 6.5 – What must be shown on export evidence (extract from the Notice)

“An accurate description of the exported goods and quantities are required, for example ‘2000 mobile phones (Make ABC and Model Number XYZ2000), value £50,000’.

If the evidence is found to be unsatisfactory you as the supplier will become liable for the VAT due.

If you’ve described goods inaccurately on an export declaration you may be liable for a customs penalty.

The rest of this paragraph has force of law.

The evidence you obtain as proof of export, whether official or commercial, or supporting must clearly identify:

    • the supplier
    • the consignor (where different from the supplier)
    • the customer
    • an accurate and full description of the goods including quantities
    • an accurate and consistent value of the good
    • the export destination, and
    • the mode of transport and route of the export movement

Vague descriptions of good, quantities or values are not acceptable. An accurate value must be shown and not excluded or replaced by a lower or higher amount”.

  • Paras 7.3 and 7.4 on merchandise in baggage and direct exports of personal goods in accompanied baggage have also be amended.

Overview

It is vitally important that exporters obtain the correct evidence that goods have physically left the UK and that all descriptions of the goods are accurate and satisfy HMRC requirements. There has been a significant amount of case law on export documentation (an example here) which illustrates that this is often an area of dispute.

VAT: DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – deadline for claims extended

By   20 March 2023
0

The DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme  is a tax refund mechanism for people who build, or arrange to have built, a house they intend to live in. It also applies to converting commercial property into a house(s). This puts a person who constructs their own home on equal footing with commercial housebuilders. There is no need to be VAT registered in order to make the claim.

One of the main problems was the very strict (and rigorously enforced) deadline of three months for the submission of the claim form. This is from completion of the build (usually this is when the certificate of practical completion is issued) or the building is inhabited, although it can be earlier if the certificate is delayed.

A case on when a house is considered to be complete here.

However, HMRC has announced that this deadline will be extended to six months from a date yet to be announced. This extension is welcome as it is often difficult to collect all the required information and documentation. In addition, the whole process will be digitised some time in the future which will also simplify the process.

The Scheme can be complex, but here is our Top Ten Tips for claimants.

VAT: Evidence for retrospective claims – new guidance

By   14 March 2023
1
HMRC has updated its Manual VRM9300 on historic VAT claims.
These types of claims are often called “Fleming” claims and refer to those made before the introduction of the four (once three) year time cap. Such claims extend beyond the period that businesses were required to keep business records and so these were less likely to have remained available.

Standard of Proof where records are unavailable

Where detailed records are unavailable it does not mean there is a lower standard of proof for a claim. The civil standard of proof (on a balance of probabilities) remains.

However, taxpayers’ estimates, assumptions and extrapolations must be sufficiently robust to support a claim. HMRC and the Tribunals must have regard to the evidence that is available, and each claim must be considered on its individual merits.
HMRC state that it “…is not obliged to accept a figure simply because some input tax is due or because it is the claimant’s ‘best guess’ based on the material available”. The claimant must first establish that its method of valuing the claim is reasonable and provide an identifiable repayable amount.
The guidance considers the judgement in the NHS Lothian [2022] UKSC 28 case and its impact on claims where full evidence is unavailable.
Alternative evidence
It is also worth noting that HMRC have the discretion to accept alternative evidence.

VAT: Exemption of fund management services

By   8 February 2023
0

HM Treasury has published a consultation paper on the treatment of the service of management of special investment funds (SIFs).

SIF meaning in VAT terms

There is no definition of a SIF in existing legislation.

Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Trust plc (case C-363/05) ruled on the interpretation of the term ‘Special Investment Funds as defined by Member States’.

The key points in this judgment are:

  1. the term ‘special investment funds’ is capable of including closed-ended investment funds, such as investment trust companies (ITCs)
  2. Member States have a discretion to define ‘special investment funds’ for the VAT exemption but, in doing so, must pay due regard to:
  3. the purpose of the exemption
  4. the principle of fiscal neutrality.

According to the Court, the purpose of the exemption is to facilitate investment in securities for investors through investment undertakings. This requires there to be VAT neutrality between the direct investment in securities and investment through collective investment undertakings, as the latter incurs a management charge. Furthermore, there must be equality of VAT treatment for funds which are similar to, and in competition with, funds falling within the scope of the exemption.

As a result of the case, the exemption was extended so that there was a level VAT playing field for all similar collective investment undertakings which compete in the UK retail market. This includes closed and open-ended collective investment undertakings, umbrellas and sub-funds, as well as some pension schemes.

The fund management exemption is limited to the management of SIFs. Consequently, the management of other investment funds will generally be standard-rated.

Legislation

The current VAT fund management regime is provided for by UK legislation, retained EU law and case law. The VAT Act 1994 implemented the Directive. Schedule 9, Group 5, Items 9 and 10 of the Act lists specific types of funds, the management of which is exempted from VAT.

Place of supply

This is important for SIFs management as if the supply is in respect of overseas funds the services are excluded from the exemption (they are outside the scope of UK VAT) when received overseas. This means that there is no output tax on the supply, but unlike exemption, it affords full recovery on input tax incurred in the UK. The perfect VAT outcome.

HMRC Consultation

The technical consultation sets out proposed reform of the legislation that provides for the VAT treatment of fund management. This is required because the fund management industry continues to innovate and introduced new types of funds to the marketplace, and the existing approach has struggled to keep pace with the evolution of the industry and proliferation of fund types.

The purpose of the exercise is to improve the legislative basis of the current VAT treatment of fund management.

Danger?

It is proposed that the following criteria for a fund to be considered a SIF would be legislated for:

a) the fund must be a collective investment

b) the fund must operate on the principle of risk-spreading

c) the return on the investment must depend on the performance of the investments, and the holders must bear the risk connected with the fund; and

d) the fund must be subject to the same conditions of competition and appeal to the same circle of investors as a UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities), that is funds intended for retail investors

There is a danger that if the exemption is broadened, fund managers which can now recover input tax may be denied so in the future.

If you have any queries, please contact us.

VAT: DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – The Dunne case

By   6 February 2023
0

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   2 February 2023
0

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   2 February 2023
1

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   24 January 2023
1

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   17 October 2022
0

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   7 February 2022
0

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.