Popcorn is standard rated, but microwavable popcorn is VAT free.
Tag Archives: vat-relief
Recovery of VAT on company cars
Further to our guide to the recovery of input tax on motoring expenses we are often asked about the specifics of a business acquiring a motor car. So, this article sets out the different rules.
Purchase of a car
If a business purchases a car outright, regardless of how this is funded, no input tax is claimable at all. However, If the taxpayer is either a taxi or driving instructor business, VAT falls to be 100% recoverable.
Hire Purchase (HP)
This is treated as a supply of goods as the ownership of the car passes at the end of the agreement. Similarly, to an outright purchase, input tax is blocked for all taxpayers except taxi and driving instructor businesses.
Lease hire
If the car is ‘qualifying car’, and is returned at the end of the agreement it is a supply of services; a lease. There is a specific rule which means that 50% of the VAT is recoverable on the rental payments if it is used for business purpose. The 50% block is to cover the private use of the car. Again, a 100% reclaim is possible if it is to be used for hire with a driver for carrying passengers or providing driving instruction.
The 50% block applies to all the VAT on charges paid for the rental of the car. This includes:
- optional services — unless they’re supplied and identified separately from the leasing supply on the tax invoice
- excess mileage charge — if it forms part of a supply of leasing but not if it was incurred on an excess mileage charge that forms part of a separate supply of maintenance
Personal Contract Purchase (PCP)
This is a little more complex because a PCP can either be treated as a supply of goods (the car), or a supply of services (a lease) depending on the terms of the contract. The following treatment is based on the Mercedes Benz Financial Services case.
The difference between services or goods:
This distinction depends on the level of the final payment. This is known as the Guaranteed Minimum Future Value (GMFV).
Services
- If the final optional payment (known as a balloon payment) is set at or above the anticipated market value (the GMFV) of the car at the time the option is to be exercised, the contract will be deemed a supply of leasing services with VAT on each instalment. A business can therefore recover 50% of input tax on each monthly payment. A balloon payment is the final “lump sum” which the agreement sets out is to be paid if a customer chooses to own the car at the end of the agreement.
Goods
- If the final optional payment is set below the anticipated market value, such that any rational customer would choose to buy the car, the contract is a supply of goods with a separate supply of finance. VAT is therefore due on the supply of goods in full at the beginning of the contract and the finance element is exempt. In such cases input tax is 100% blocked.
The distinction
It is often difficult to distinguish between services and goods in relation to PCP cars. We find that the wording of contracts is often arcane and unhelpful (and not particularly drafted with VAT in mind). If the supply is not determinable by reference to the agreement documentation, a simple and practical solution is to consider the invoice. Broadly, if it is a lease the supplier will charge VAT on the monthly payments, but a purchase would mean VAT is charged in full up front at the tax point.
Input tax on repairs
If a vehicle is used for business purposes, there is a 100% reclaim of the VAT charged on repairs and maintenance as long as the business paid for the work and the vehicle is used for some business purposes. It does not matter if the vehicle is used for some private motoring or if a business has chosen not to reclaim input tax on road fuel.
VAT: How to characterise a supply – The tests
In the age-old matter of whether a supply is separate/composite/compound for VAT purposes which and what is the nature of that supply, the Court of Appeal case of Gray & Farrar International LLP has provided very helpful guidance. A background to facts of the initial hearing here (although this decision was overturned by both the UT and the CoA).
I have previously considered these types of supply here, here, here, here, and here. Although not specifically concerning composite/separate supplies, the case sets out a hierarchy of tests to be applied in characterising a single supply for VAT purposes which now sets the standard. These test are:
- The Mesto predominance test should be the primary test to be applied in characterising a supply for VAT purposes.
- The principal/ancillary test is an available, though not the primary, test. It is only capable of being applied in cases where it is possible to identify a principal element to which all the other elements are minor or ancillary. In cases where it can apply, it is likely to yield the same result as the predominance test.
- The “overarching” test is not clearly established in the ECJ jurisprudence, but as a consideration the point should at least be taken into account in deciding averments of predominance in relation to individual elements, and may well be a useful test in its own right.
Comments
The Mesto Test
CJEU Mesto Zamberk Financini (Case C-18/12)
The primary test to be applied when characterising a single supply for VAT purposes is to determine the predominant element from the point of view of the typical consumer with regard to the qualitative and not merely the quantitative importance of the constituent elements.
Principal/ancillary
If a distinct supply represents 50% or more of the overall cost, it can not be considered ancillary to the principal supply. In such cases an apportionment will usually be required.
Overarching
A generic description of the supply which is distinct from the individual elements. In many cases the tax treatment of that overarching single supply according to that description will be self-evident.
CPP
One must also have regard to the Card Protection Plan Ltd case. This has become a landmark case in determining the VAT treatment for single and multiple supplies. In this case the ECJ ruled that standard rated handling charges were not distinct from the supply of exempt insurance. It was noted that ‘a supply that comprises a single service from an economic point of view should not be artificially split’. Notably many subsequent court decisions have since followed this outcome thereby suggesting a general lean towards viewing cases as single supplies where there are reasonable grounds to do so.
VAT refunds guidance
VAT Claims
HMRC has completely rewritten its manual VRM7000 on VAT repayments and set-off.
When a business makes a claim for VAT (for whatever reason) HMRC have the power to set-off a payment against other amounts due.
HMRC also has a discretion to take account of any taxpayer liabilities in other regimes HMRC administers such as corporation tax or excise duty.
In summary, the new guidance covers:
- Inherent set-off via The VAT General Regulations 1995, Section 80(2A) and Regulation 29. This is where, say, a supply was incorrectly treated as standard rated when it was exempt. It would not be possible to claim the overcharged output tax (subject to unjust enrichment) without recognising the potential overclaim of input tax as a result of partial exemption.
- Set-off under The VAT Gen Regs 1995, Section 81(3) HMRC. This covers HMRC liability to only pay a claim after setting off any VAT, penalties, interest or surcharge owed to it. Section 81(3) is mandatory and applies to the current liabilities of a taxpayer, regardless of the period incurred.
- Set-off under section 81(3A). This is a special provision which requires HMRC to set any liabilities that would otherwise be out-of-time to assess, against any amounts for which HMRC is liable under a claim. It does this by disregarding the assessment time limit, to undo all the consequences of a mistake.
- VAT group set-offs. When a company leaves a VAT group, it is still jointly and severally liable under section 43(1) VAT Act 1994 for any outstanding debts of the group incurred while the company was a member. Any VAT claim by the ex-member will be subject to set-off against these group debts.
- Set-offs against other taxes and duties. HMRC has the discretion under Section 130 of the Finance Act 2008 to set-off debts due from any other tax regimes HMRC is responsible for. This is subject to the insolvency rules in section 131 Finance Act 2008. A taxpayer should always check that no further liabilities have arisen since the claim was made.
- Transfers of rights to claim to another person (Section 133 of the Finance Act 2008) – A claim will be subject to set-off of any outstanding liabilities to HMRC from both transferor and transferee. NB: HMRC policy is to make reasonable efforts to recover outstanding debts from the original creditor before applying set-off to the current creditors claim.
A VAT Did you know?
The sale of ducks is zero rated, but racing pigeons are standard rated.
Call for evidence: VAT energy saving materials relief
HMRC require feedback on improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions.
The three key objectives are:
- improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions
- cost effectiveness
- alignment with broader VAT principles
HMRC is asking for responses by 31 May 2023, either via email or post.
VAT: Charity exemption for show admittance – The Yorkshire Agricultural Society case
Latest from the courts
In the Yorkshire Agricultural Society First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether payments for entry into the annual The Great Yorkshire Show qualified as exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 12, item 1 –
“The supply of goods and services by a charity in connection with an event—
-
-
- that is organised for charitable purposes by a charity or jointly by more than one charity,
- whose primary purpose is the raising of money, and
- that is promoted as being primarily for the raising of money.”
-
HMRC raised an assessment on the grounds that the supply of admittance fell outwith the exemption so it was standard rated. It appears that this view was formed solely on the basis that the events were not advertised as fundraisers.
The exemption covers events whose primary purpose is the raising of money and which are promoted primarily for that purpose. HMRC contended that the events were not advertised as fundraisers and therefore the exemption did not apply. Not surprisingly, the appellant contended that all of the tests at Group 12 were fully met.
The FTT found difficulty in understanding HMRC’s argument. It was apparent from the relevant: tickets, posters and souvenir programmes all featured the words “The Great Yorkshire Show raises funds for the Yorkshire Agricultural Society to help support farming and the countryside”.
Decision
The FTT spent little time finding for the taxpayer and allowing the appeal. The assessment was withdrawn. There was a separate issue of the assessment being out of time, which was academic given the initial decision. However, The Tribunal was critical of HMRC’s approach to the time limit test (details in the linked decision). HMRC’s argument was that apparently, the taxpayer had brought the assessment on itself by not providing the information which HMRC wanted. The Judge commented: “That is not the same as HMRC being in possession of information which justified it in issuing the Assessment. It is an inversion of the statutory test”.
HMRC’s performance (or lack of it)
Apart from the clear outcome of this case, it also demonstrated how HMRC can get it so wrong. The FTT stated that it was striking that there was very little by way of substantive challenge by HMRC to the appellant’s evidence, nor any detailed exploration of it in cross-examination. The FTT, which is a fact-finding jurisdiction, asked a series of its own questions to establish some facts about the Society’s activities and the Show in better detail. No-one from HMRC filed a witness statement or gave evidence, even though HMRC, in its application to amend its Statement of Case, had said that the decision-maker would be giving evidence. The decision-maker did not give evidence. HMRC were wrong on the assessment and the time limit statutory test and did not cover itself in glory at the hearing.
Commentary
More evidence that if any business receives an assessment, it is always a good idea to get it reviewed. Time and time again we see HMRC make basic errors and misunderstand the VAT position. We have an excellent record on challenging HMRC decisions. Charities have a hard time of it with VAT, and while it is accurate to say that some of the legislation and interpretation is often complex for NFPs, HMRC do not help by taking such ridiculous cases.
VAT: Place of supply – The Sports Invest case
Latest from the courts
In the First-Tier Tribunal case of Sports Invest UK Ltd the issue was the place of supply (POS) of a football agent’s services (commission received for a player’s transfer).
The POS is often complex from a VAT perspective and depends on the place of belonging (POB) of the supplier and the recipient of the supply. These rules determine if VAT is charged, where VAT is charged and the rate of VAT applicable, additionally, they may impose requirements to register for VAT in different jurisdictions.
Background
Sports Invest was a football agent based in the UK. It received fees in respect of negotiating the transfer of a player: João Mário from a Portuguese club: Sporting Lisbon to an Italian club: Internazionale (Inter Milan). The appellant signed a representation contract with the player which entitled it to commission, and a separate agreement with Inter Milan entitling it to a fee because the player was permanently transferred.
The Issues
To whom did Sports Invest make a supply – club or player? What was the supply? Was there one or two separate supplies? What was the POS?
As appears normal for transactions in the world of football the contractual arrangements were complex, but, in essence as a matter of commercial and economic reality, Sports Invest had agreed the commission with the player in case it was excluded from the deal. However, this did not occur, and the deal was concluded as anticipated. Inter Milan paid The Appellant’s fee in full, but did this affect the agreement between Sports Invest and the player? That is, as HMRC contended, did Inter Milan pay Sports Invest on the player’s behalf (third party consideration) such that there were two supplies; one to the player and one to the cub?
The FTT stated that there was no suggestion that the contracts were “sham documents”.
VAT Liability
The arrangements mattered, as pre-Brexit, a supply of services by a business with a POB in the UK to an individual (B2C) in another EU Member State would have been subject to UK VAT; the POS being where the supplier belonged. HMRC assessed for an element of the fee that it saw related to the supply to the player. The remainder of the fee paid by the club was accepted to be consideration for a UK VAT free supply by the agent to the club (B2B).
Decision
The court found that there was one single supply by The Appellant to Inter Milan. This being the case, the supply was B2B and the POS was where the recipient belonged and so that the entire supply was UK VAT free. There was no (UK) supply to the individual player as that agreement was superseded by the contractual arrangements which were actually put in place and the player owed the agent nothing as the potential payment under that contract was waived.
The appeal against the assessment was upheld.
Commentary
The court’s decision appears to be logical as the supply was to the club who were receiving “something” (the employment contract with the player) and paying for it. The other “safeguarding” agreement appeared to be simple good commercial practice and was ultimately “not required”. This case highlights the often complex issues of; establishing the nature of transactions, the identity of the recipient(s), agency arrangements, the POS and the legal, commercial and economic reality of contracts.
VAT: Are Turmeric shots zero rated food? The Innate-Essence Limited case
Latest from the courts
In the Innate-Essence Limited (t/a The Turmeric Co) First Tier tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether turmeric shots were zero rated food via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, general item 1 or a standard rated beverage per item 4 of the Excepted items.
The Legislation
“General items Item No 1 Food of a kind used for human consumption. …
Excepted Items Item No … 4 Other beverages (including fruit juices and bottled waters) and syrups, concentrates, essences, powders, crystals or other products for the preparation of beverages.”
The Product
Turmeric roots are crushed and the pulp sieved to extract the liquid. No additional liquids such as apple juice, orange juice or water are added during the production process.
The Shots contain:
- small quantities of crushed, whole fresh watermelon and lemons which act as a base and provides a natural preservative effect
- fresh pineapple juice
- flax oil and black pepper
All the ingredients are cold pressed to retain the maximum nutritional value of the raw ingredients. The Shots are not pasteurised as this would negatively affect the nutritional content of the Shots. No sugar or sweeteners are added to the Shots. The Shots are sold in small 60ml plastic bottles and it was stated that they provided long term health benefits.
The court applied the many tests derived from case law on similar products, and as is usual in these types of cases, the essence of the decision was on whether the Exception for beverages applied to The Shots.
Whether a product is a beverage (standard rated) is typically based on tests established in the Bioconcepts case (via VFOOD7520) as there is no definition of “beverage” in the legislation. The tests:
- it must be a drinkable liquid that is commonly consumed
- it must be characteristically taken to increase bodily liquid levels, or
- taken to slake the thirst, or
- consumed to fortify, or
- consumed to give pleasure
The principle of the tests is based on the idea that a drinkable liquid is not automatically a beverage, but could be a liquid food that is not a beverage.
The Tribunal found that the Shots were not beverages but zero rated food items. As The judge put it: “In our view, the marketing and customer reviews demonstrate clear consistency in the use to which the Shots are put. The Shots are consumed in one go on a regular, long-term basis for the sole purpose of the claimed health and wellbeing benefits. The purpose of the Shots is entirely functional: to maximise the consumers daily ingestion of curcumin which is achieved by cold pressing the raw ingredients into a liquid. We consider it highly unlikely that a consumer would attempt to ingest the same quantity of raw turmeric in solid form.
The Shots are marketed on the basis of the nutritional content of the high-quality ingredients (primarily raw turmeric) that are stated to support health and wellbeing. The Shots contain black pepper and flax oil, two ingredients that are not commonly found in beverages. The Shots are marketed as requiring regular daily consumption over a long period of time (at least three months) to provide the consumer with the claimed long-term health and wellbeing benefits. A one-off purchase of a Shot would not achieve the stated benefits of drinking a Shot”.
The Tribunal also went to consider the “lunch time pints in pubs” (The Kalron case) issue, but I would rather not comment on whether this is a usual substitute for a lunch…
The appeal was allowed.
Commentary
Yet another food/beverage case. Case law insists that each product must be considered in significant detail to correctly identify the VAT liability and even then, a dispute with HMRC may not be avoided. Very small differences in content, marketing, processes etc can affect the VAT treatment. As new products hit the shop shelves at an increasing rate I suspect that we will be treated to many more such cases in the future. If your business produces or sells similar products, it will be worth considering whether this case assists in any contention for zero rating.
VAT: Updated Road Fuel Scale Charges
HMRC has published updated Road Fuel Scale Charge (RFSC) tables for the recovery of input tax on motoring costs which start on 1 May 2023.
RFSC
A scale charge is a way of accounting for output tax on road fuel bought by a business for cars which is then put to private use. If a business uses the scale charge, it can recover all the VAT charged on road fuel without having to split mileage between business and private use. The charge is calculated on a flat rate basis according to the carbon dioxide emissions of the car.