Tag Archives: vat-relief

VAT: Apportionment and best judgement – The Homsub case

By   3 October 2019
0

Latest from the courts

In the Homsub Ltd case the issue was the apportionment of values when a supply comprises goods at different VAT rates.

Further to the M & S case here is another First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case on the value of food and drink in meal deals. It also considered whether HMRC exercised ‘best judgement’ when it carried out an invigilation exercise to establish the percentage split between supplies subject to VAT and those which were not.

Background

Homsub is a franchisee in respect of Subway products, essentially being hot and cold food, which can be consumed either on or off their premises.

HMRC had concerns that the correct amount of output tax was being declared on sales. Consequently, it carried out an invigilation exercise as follows: The invigilators recorded, in respect of each of the five outlets, each sale made and annotated it with whether it was eat in or take out. A record was also made as to whether the food was hot or cold. Those differences needed to be recorded because of the different VAT treatment in respect of hot food and cold food on the one hand and eat in and take out food on the other. All eat in food is taxable, while some takeaways are zero rated. Further information here.

Contentions

Homsub complained that the methodology adopted by HMRC was flawed as it was not sufficiently refined to give rise to a reasonably reliable overall picture. It was argued that the exercise should have been undertaken by reference to transaction values, rather than the number of transactions. That is – HMRC should have looked at the value of supplies made which did attract VAT as compared to the value of supplies made which did not attract VAT.

The court identified that the true area of concern on the part of the respondents was that Subway sometimes had promotions called “Meal Deals” whereby several products would be bundled together for a single headline price.

Homsub contended that a meal deal offer was available to customers whereby for the all in price of £3 a customer could purchase a sandwich (hot or cold) and a drink (which could be a fizzy drink or hot beverage upon which VAT would be due). If the meal deal involved hot food, then it would be subject to VAT.

HMRC’s issue was that because of the way in which the appellant’s till was set up, it treated £2.99 of each meal deal as attributable to the sandwich (VAT free if cold) and only 1p to the accompanying drink which, if subject to VAT, would mean that the VAT would be one fifth of one penny.

Outcomes

Homsub stated that it is entitled to run its business as it sees fit and to make such commercial decisions as best suit its business. The appellant said that it is entitled to sell loss leaders, as do many major retailers, or to sell stock at less than cost price if that somehow serves the best overall commercial interests of the business.

The court ruled that this was not a true loss leader situation. This was a transaction were goods are packaged together to be sold at a single price. What must be done is to look at the reality of the transaction when apportioning the part of the money paid by the customer between the various components within the package of goods sold. Consequently, Homsub needed to apportion the sales value in a different way. This would not necessarily be on the basis of the relevant retail prices. This is because accurate apportionment is difficult, especially as, as Homsub explained, that labour is by far the largest cost component within the cost of a sandwich and the overall meal deal package, that is; much more staff labour was devoted to preparing sandwiches than serving drinks.

If the case stopped there, there would be additional output tax for Homsub to pay. However…

Methodology and best judgement

The court decided that the assessment methodology adopted by HMRC was significantly flawed and potentially misleading. A simple count of transactions that did attract VAT and those which did not attract VAT might be capable of being appropriate in certain kinds of business, but not in this case. Further, a statistician or forensic accountant would be ‘alarmed to find that the methodology used by HMRC was considered to be either acceptable or such as to give rise to a reasonably reliable result’. In court, the representative of HMRC was forced to agree with this interpretation- which must have caused embarrassment. The court also said that it was not its function to go on to undertake any kind of assessment to ascertain what, if any, additional VAT might be due.

Decision

In the court’s judgement the methodology was flawed to such an extent that it would be wholly unreasonable, and unfair to the appellant, to base a best judgement assessment thereon. The appeal was therefore allowed.

Commentary

Always have assessments of this sort reviewed. There is significant case law on ‘best judgement’ most salient being: Van Boeckel v C&E [1981] and Rahman v HMRC. Additionally, HMRC often make certain assumptions on assessments based on invigilation and mark up exercises. These can be challenged, as can the methodology. As examples, HMRC need to recognise, inter alia;

  • seasonal trade variations
  • discounts
  • customer preferences (in this case, Homsub explained that at some of its shops’ locations a lot of customers were students and preferred to take away rather than eating in)
  • representative periods
  • sales/special offers
  • the times invigilations were carried out (were they representative of all trade?)
  • the number of invigilations and ‘test meals’ – were they sufficient to establish a fair overall picture of the business?
  • own and staff use
  • business promotions
  • loss of goods (destroyed, waste, stolen etc)
  • gross/net
  • gifts to customers
  • alternative methods
  • HMRC staff experience etc

All of these and other situations can affect expected sale values.

I have further set out how HMRC operate in these situations here.

I have a success rate of over 90% in getting these types of assessments reduced or completely withdrawn. Please do not simply accept HMRC’s decision, nor the, increasingly, bullying stance they can adopt. Always challenge!

VAT: Extent of welfare exemption – The Lilias Graham Trust case

By   3 October 2019
0

Latest from the courts

Certain welfare services are exempt from VAT via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, Item 9 – services which are directly connected with the care or protection of children. In the The Lilias Graham Trust (LGT) First Tier Tribunal case, the scope of the exemption was considered.

Background

LGT, which has charitable status, operated residential assessment centres, which supported parents (many of whom had mental health issues) in learning how to care for their children.

It was common ground that LGT’s services were as summarised in a letter from Glasgow City Council (where relevant):

  • LGT is an assessment centre providing assessment services on the parenting capacity of those referred to the service
  • The assessment services cover families where there is an uncertainty about whether the parent(s) can safely look after their children
  • LGT is simply acting as an observer watching the parent’s care for their own children and providing information in the form of advice
  • LGT is not providing any treatment in the form of medical care for any illness or injury
  • LGT’s recommendation following the assessment provides a recommendation to social workers around whether the parent(s) has sufficient capacity to keep their child safe and healthy
  • GCC viewed the residential accommodation as a fundamental part of the provision of the assessment services on the parenting capacity of those families which were referred to LGT.

Although the major part of LGT’s income came from the Local Authority fees, it is also subsidised to a degree by grants and donations.

Technical

In this case the odd position was that HMRC was arguing for exemption because, in learning how to care for their children, the services were “closely linked” to welfare services or “directly connected” to them as provided for by the Principal VAT Directive and the VAT Act in turn.

LGT contended that their supplies to a Local Authority (which could recover any VAT charged) were taxable as they did not fall within the welfare definition. LGT admitted that there was a causal relationship between the services provided and the care and protection of children, but the connection was too remote to be deemed to be a direct connection – There were several intervening factors and intermediaries between the service provided and the care and protection of children.

At issue was net input tax of circa £400,000 which would be recoverable by LGT if its supplies were taxable, but not if they were exempt. Guide to partial exemption here.

Decision

The court found that the essential purpose of the supplies made by LGT was to ensure that the child was better cared for and had optimal protection. That is precisely why the Local Authority employed LGT. Its supplies are both closely linked and directly connected with the protection of children as also to their care. Accordingly, the appellant made supplies of welfare services which are exempt from VAT. The fact that LGT provided its services to the Local Authority rather than the parents did not mean that its services should be taxable. Therefore, there was no output tax chargeable to the Local Authority and no input tax recovery by LGT on expenditure attributable to those exempt supplies.

Commentary

In this case, HMRC originally ruled that the services were taxable and LGT were required to VAT register, it even issued a late registration penalty. HMRC clearly subsequently changed its view which put input tax which LGT had recovered at risk. There are often disputes on the extent of the exemption, and sometimes debates on whether a service is supplied, or simply staff providing their services. It is important to understand these sometimes subtle differences as getting it wrong can be costly, as LGT found out.

Claiming VAT from the EU after Brexit

By   1 October 2019
0

More work, confusion and administration for VAT after Brexit. 

After a No-Deal Brexit it will not be possible to recover input tax incurred in other EU Member States by using HMRC’s online service. This is known as; the electronic cross-border refund system which enables a business that incurs VAT on expenditure in a Member State where it is not established and makes no supplies, to recover that VAT directly from that Member State (the Member State of refund).

HMRC state that this will be the case after 5pm on 31 October 2019, but we shall have to wait and see on the precise timing.

HMRC has published meagre guidance on the new method of recovering overseas VAT (for some of us at a certain age, it is the “old” EC 8th Directive method).

Claiming a refund after Brexit

Unhelpfully, each EU Member State has its own process for refunding VAT to businesses based outside the EU (as UK businesses will be post Brexit). This is similar to the existing EC 13th Directive claims. A UK Business will need to use the process for the EU country where it is claiming a refund; even for unclaimed expenses incurred before Brexit.

A business will have to wade through the requirements and the EC provides assistance here.

This will be a complete headache for claimants and underlines the benefits of a harmonised system. Each claim form is different in each Member State, each form must be completed in the language of the country in which VAT is being claimed, and these forms are very bureaucratic; some run to over ten pages…. It will also be necessary to obtain and provide a Certificate of Status (CoS).

In summary

CoS

HMRC can issue a form VAT66A which may be used by claimants to prove that they are engaged in business activities at the time of the claim. A CoS is only valid for twelve months. Once it has expired you will need to submit a new CoS.

EC 13th Directive claim

A non-EU based business may make a claim for recovery of VAT incurred in the EU. Typically, these are costs such as; employee travel and subsistence, service charges, exhibition costs, imports of goods, training, purchases of goods in the UK, and clinical trials etc.

The scheme is available for any businesses that are not VAT registered anywhere in the EU, have no place of business or other residence in the EU and do not make any supplies there.

The usual rules that apply to UK business claiming input tax also apply to 13th Directive claims. Consequently, the likes of; business entertainment, car purchase, non-business use and supplies used for exempt activities are usually barred.

Process

The business must obtain a CoS to accompany a claim. The application form is a VAT65A and is available here  Original invoices which show the VAT charged must be submitted with the claim form and business certificate. Applications without a certificate, or certificates and claim forms received after the relevant deadline are not accepted. It is possible for a business to appoint an agent to register to enable them to make refund applications on behalf of that business.

VAT: Digital services to EU customers after Brexit

By   1 October 2019
0

HMRC has published guidance on how to account for digital sales to EU customers when the UK’s MOSS system becomes redundant. Full document here.

After Brexit, businesses will no longer be able to use the Mini One Stop Shop (MOSS) to declare sales and pay VAT due in EU Member States.

The final return period for MOSS will be the period ending 31 December 2019.

A business will be able to use MOSS to:

  • submit a final return by 20 January 2020
  • amend the final return until 14 February 2020
  • update registration details until 14 February 2020
  • view previous returns

For sales made after Brexit, a business will need to register for either:

  • VAT MOSS in any EU member state
  • VAT in each EU member state where you sell digital services to consumers.

Registration deadline

A business will need to register by the 10th day of the month following its first sale to an EU customer after Brexit.

A business cannot register before Brexit.

The EC website may be used to:

  • check whether a business should register for Union or Non-Union MOSS
  • find out who to contact to register for VAT MOSS in an EU member state.

Further details are provided in the HMRC guidance.

The above assumes that the UK will leave the EU, and that there will be no agreements on VAT before Brexit

What are digital services?

Radio and television broadcasting services

These include:

  • the supply of audio and audio-visual content
  • live streaming

Telecommunications services

This means transmission of signals of any nature by wire, optical, electromagnetic or other system and includes:

  • fixed and mobile telephone services
  • Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
  • voice mail, call waiting, call forwarding, caller identification, 3-way calling and other call management services
  • paging services
  • access to the internet

Electronically supplied services

These rules only apply to e-services that you supply electronically and includes things like:

  • supplies of images or text, such as photos, screensavers
  • supplies of music, films and games
  • online magazines
  • website supply or web hosting services
  • distance maintenance of programmes and equipment
  • supplies of software and software updates
  • advertising space on a website

VAT: Disaggregation – The Caton case

By   12 September 2019
0

Latest from the courts.

In the Charles John Caton First Tier tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether HMRC were correct in deciding that a business was artificially split to avoid VAT registration (so called disaggregation, details here).

Background 

The appellant ran a café known as The Commonwealth for a number of years. Subsequently, his wife opened a restaurant in adjoining premises. HMRC decided that this was a single business and required a backdated VAT registration. This resulted in a retrospective VAT return and associated penalties for late registration.

HMRC pointed to the leases, the liability insurance and the alcohol licence, which are all in Mr Caton’s name, together with the fact he signed a questionnaire stating that he was sole proprietor of the restaurant, and the fact that the washing up area is shared, and say that these show that there was only one business. They also said that the fact that Mrs Caton did not have a bank account and therefore card takings from the restaurant went into Mr Caton’s bank account further bolsters their case.

The appellant proffered the following facts to support the contention that there were two separate businesses: There were separate staff in the restaurant and the café. Those for the cafe were hired by Mr Caton, and are his responsibility, and those for the restaurant were hired by Mrs Caton and are her responsibility. The cooking is done completely separately, by different people using different cooking areas. The menus are completely different, and when the café sells the restaurant ‘specials’ they are rung up on the till with a marker that shows they are restaurant sales. Although the majority of the food is ordered from the same place, there are separate orders (even though these orders are placed at the same time and paid for using Mr Caton’s bank account). Mrs Caton decides on the menu for the restaurant and the prices. She keeps the cash generated from the sales in the cafe, and this is not banked in Mr Caton’s account. Depending on the ratio of cash sales to card sales in any given month, she may need to pay some of it to Mr Caton for the rent, rates etc, but any surplus she keeps.There were two tills, one for the restaurant and one for the cafe.

The Law

The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 1A provides that:

(1)  Paragraph 2 below is for the purpose of preventing the maintenance or creation of any artificial separation of business activities carried on by two or more persons from resulting in an avoidance of VAT.

(2) In determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above whether any separation of business activities is artificial, regard shall be had to the extent to which the different persons carrying on those activities are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links.

VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 2 provides that:

(1)… if the Commissioners make a direction under this paragraph, the persons named in the direction shall be treated as a single taxable person carrying on the activities of a business described in the direction…

Decision

The judge decided that she considered the facts that point to the businesses being run and owned as two separate operations were significantly stronger that facts that point to a joint ownership. And the appeal was allowed.

Commentary

These types of cases are decided on the precise facts. I think that this one must have been a close call. It appears the fact that may have swung it was that the judge commented “We find it extremely surprising, in this case, that HMRC have never met with Mrs Caton or, in correspondence, asked her for any details. Mr Caton and HMRC have both told us that he has consistently maintained from the first meeting the fact that Mrs Caton runs the restaurant. We find it impossible that HMRC could be in possession of facts sufficient to make a reasonable decision on this case without hearing from Mrs Caton.” That approach by HMRC is never going to play well in court. It strikes me that this type of approach is increasing in the department. Whether this is down to lack of training, resources or simple corner cutting to save time I cannot say.

If HMRC issue a direction under VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 2 that two or more businesses should be treated as one, it is always worth having that decision reviewed. This is especially relevant in cases such as this where customers are the final consumers making the VAT sticking tax.

VAT DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – useful information

By   9 September 2019
0

The DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme is a tax refund scheme 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). Details here.

However, there are often uncertainties and disputes over precisely what tax may be claimed on various expenditure. To this end, HMRC has published a comprehensive list of items, sorted alphabetically, which should avoid a lot of potential disagreements on claims.

It should be noted that a claim for services can only be made for conversions (at the reduced rate of 5%) as any services in respect of a new build property should be zero rated.

What else can a housebuilder not claim for?

There is no claim available for:

  • building projects outside the UK
  • materials or services that are not subject to VAT, eg; are zero-rated or exempt or provided by a non VAT-registered supplier
  • professional or supervisory fees, eg; architects and surveyors
  • the hire of plant, tools and equipment, eg; generators, scaffolding and skips
  • building materials that aren’t permanently attached to or, part of, the building itself
  • some fitted furniture, electrical and gas appliances, carpets or garden ornaments
  • supplies for which you do not have a VAT invoice.

If you would like assistance with making a claim, please contact us.

VAT: Exempt medical treatment – The Skin Rich case

By   9 September 2019
0

Latest from the courts

In the Skin Rich Ltd [2019] TC 07310 First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether Botox and nail treatments could be exempt as health and welfare services: “The supply of services consisting in the provision of medical care” by a “registered person” (principally, doctors, opticians, osteopaths, chiropractors and nurses).

Background

Skin Rich Ltd operated a skin culture and aesthetics clinic offering a range of specialist skin treatments including, but not limited to, Botox and dermal filler treatments or ‘Injectables’ and fungal nail treatments it contended were exempt from VAT.

The appellant employed several medical professionals to administer the injectables arguing it was a medical procedure and exempt under VATA 1994, Sch. 9, Grp. 7, items 1 and 2. It was not enough, however, that the services were provided by persons registered as appropriate, they had to be providing “medical care” in order to meet the terms of the exemption. Their principal purpose had to be the protection, including the maintenance or restoration of health. Whilst it was conceded a cosmetic benefit would not preclude a treatment having a primary purpose to protect, restore or maintain the health of an individual.

Decision

The FTT dismissed the appeal that Botox services and fungal nail treatment supplied by them were exempt under VATA 1994, Sch. 9, Grp. 7, items 1 and 2, or alternatively item 4. Consequently, output tax was due on the full value of these supplies. The FTT was not persuaded the services were principally to protect, restore or maintain the health of an individual. They did not, therefore, meet the definition of medical care established by the relevant case law. Furthermore, they did not consider the taxpayer to be “state regulated” as required by item 4.

Commentary

This can be a difficult area of the tax. I have dealt with a number of cases where apparent cosmetic surgery (breast augmentation and liposuction etc) were argued to have beneficial mental health outcomes. Case law on this matter is sometimes conflicting. Care should be taken when determining the VAT liability of certain procedures. The tests are more than something being “sort of medical”.

This was not an unexpected outcome, but presumably the appellant thought that, for the tax involved, it was worth going to court.

VAT and Customs Duty: Brexit latest

By   20 August 2019
0

HMRC has been issuing guidance in readiness for Brexit, and in particular, a No Deal Brexit.

They generally provide information on preparations and actions required by business that trade cross-border.

Imports

If a business bring goods into the UK from the EU there are actions you should take before and after you’ve imported the goods. This applies to:

  • importers
  • freight forwarders
  • fast parcel operators
  • customs agents
  • traders who move their own goods

(This guidance does not apply to moving goods between Ireland and Northern Ireland). A border on the island of Ireland is a whole other matter.

The full guidance for importers.

Exports

Again, this guidance relates to:

  • exporters
  • freight forwarders
  • fast parcel operators
  • customs agents
  • traders who move their own goods.

The full guidance for exporters.

Email updates on Brexit

We recommend that business falling within the above definitions sign up the free HMRC Brexit email alert service.

This service covers: information about Brexit including the Article 50 process, negotiations, and announcements about policy changes as a result of Brexit.

It is crucial that businesses understand the impact of a No Deal Brexit and make preparations for all eventualities of the political negotiations. Sign up here

VAT: What is an economic activity? The Pertemps’ case

By   12 August 2019
0

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Pertemps Limited the issue was whether the operation of the respondent’s salary sacrifice scheme to provide travel and subsistence payments to employees was a supply for VAT purposes and, indeed, whether it was an economic activity at all.

I have considered what is an economic activity (business) many times, examples here, here, here and here. It is a perennial VAT issue and goes to the very heart of the tax. EU legislation talks of economic activity, which is taken to be “business activity” in the UK. There is no legal definition of either economic or business activity so case law on this point is very important.

Background

Employees of the respondent were offered the option of;

  • being paid a salary, from which they would have to meet any travel and subsistence expenses, or
  • participating in Pertemps’ scheme where they would be paid their travel and subsistence expenses but receive a reduced salary.

The amount of the reduction was equal to the amount of the expense payment plus a fixed amount to defray the costs of running the scheme. The issue was whether the charge for using the scheme was taxable.

HMRC’s appeal against the FTT decision [2018] UKFTT 369 (TC) was based on the view that the scheme involved a taxable supply of services by Pertemps to its participating employees such that output tax was due of the fixed payments. The FTT concluded that Pertemps did supply services to the employees. but the supply was not within the scope of VAT because the operation of the scheme was not an economic activity. It allowed Pertemps’ appeal. The FTT also held that, if there had been a supply, it would have been exempt.

Decision

The UT decided that, although the FTT erred in law when it concluded that Pertemps made a supply of services to the employees who participated in the scheme, it was correct when it concluded that Pertemps was not carrying on any economic activity when it provided the scheme for employees. The charge only arose in the context of the employment relationship, and it could not be compared to an open market supply of accountancy services.

Therefore, HMRC’s appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Care should always be taken with salary sacrifice schemes. Some, but not all, sacrifices are subject to output tax. HMRC internal guidance on the subject here. This case is a helpful clarification on the matter of certain charges to staff. It also adds another layer to the age-old issue of what constitutes a business activity. VAT is only due on business supplies, and it is crucial to appreciate what is, and isn’t an economic activity. This is especially important in respect of charities and NFP bodies.

VAT: What are zero rated animal foodstuffs?

By   12 August 2019
0

Modelled by Lola. (R) Collar: models’ own

Latest from the courts

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Westland Horticulture Limited highlights the complexities of; the VAT treatment of food, animal foodstuffs, seeds, crops and how these are all held out for sale. One only has to consider the myriad VAT liabilities of seemingly similar products sold at, say, a garden centre, to realise that this is can be a VAT minefield.

Examples

  • Food for a budgerigar is standard rated, but pigeon grit is zero rated.
  • Peanuts and sunflower seeds are zero rated, unless advertised as wild bird food when they are standard rated
  • Food for a Labrador is standard rated, unless the dog is used as a gun dog when it is zero rated
  • Lavender seeds are zero rated. Daffodil bulbs are standard rated.

This is a very small list of examples where the VAT treatment of precisely the same product may change depending on use, and/or where a slight difference of the type of goods can have a surprising tax outcome.

A full guide to garden centre liabilities here

The case

HMRC state in Public Notice 701/38 para 5.3

“Most grass seed is zero-rated because of the extensive use of grass as animal feed. This includes supplies to and by garden centres, local authorities and grass seed to be grown on set aside land.

But pre-germinated grass seed and turf are not used for the propagation of animal feed and are therefore standard-rated.”

Zero rating is available per VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, item 3: “…seeds or other means of propagation of plants comprised in animal feeding stuffs”

In Westland’s case, it sold a product called Aftercut Patch Fix, which, although was 90% grass seed, also contained sowing granules and an ingredient called Clinoptilolite which, apparently, neutralises the effects of excess salts and ammonia found in pet urine. The grass seed was of various varieties and is not in itself any different to “ordinary” grass seed sold without any additives.

Having a new puppy, I can verify the damage one small hound can do to lawns and this is a product I may will need to invest in. The product was held out (see below) to help fix damage to grass that, in my case, a small Lola (and larger Libby) can do.

Decision

Unsurprisingly, the judge ruled that the product was standard rated on the grounds (no pun intended) that it was clearly intended to be used on people’s gardens rather than to be planted to grow animal food. Therefore, the zero rating provided via PN 701/38 does not apply.

The Product was physically different to generic grass seed as it contained more than just seed. The product (as distinct from the seed within the product) is therefore not a similar product to generic grass seed for the purposes of fiscal neutrality.

Commentary

A discrete issue you may think. However, the tax in this single case amounted to over half a million pounds. It illustrates how much care must be taken in establishing the correct liability of; food, animal foodstuff, pet food and ornamental versus edible plants, seeds, bulbs, shrubs and trees.

One of the salient tests is how the goods are “held out for sale” (held out)

Held out means the:

  • way a product is labelled, packaged, displayed, invoiced, advertised or promoted
  • heading under which the product is listed in a catalogue, web page or price list

In this case, the packaging and description on the appellant’s website was a major factor in the decision.

Manufacturers and retailers may need to review how their products are described, what the contents are and how they are displayed in-store. Even the location of the goods, how they are displayed, and the signage used may affect the VAT treatment (it doesn’t matter if I buy zero rated working dog food and feed it to my two who are never going to do a day’s work in their life….).