Tag Archives: vat-relief

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!

VAT: Additional time for zero rating exported goods due to the coronavirus

By Marcus Ward 19 May 2020

COVID-19 Update

HMRC has published concessions in VEXP30310 relating to the conditions for the zero rating of exports.

Background

Most exports of goods from the UK are subject to zero rating. However, in order for VAT free treatment to apply, certain conditions must be met, otherwise 20% VAT applies to the sale. One of the conditions is that the goods must be exported within specified time limits.

Time limits

Generally, goods can be zero rated provided that:

they are exported within 3 months of the time of supply, and;
valid evidence of export is obtained within 3 months of the time of supply

COVID-19

During the pandemic, it may not be possible for businesses to export goods within the prescribed time. HMRC recognises that some intended exports have been delayed due to circumstances outside a business’ control. Therefore, the guidance sets out the circumstances in which HMRC may agree to additional time for the export before any tax is collected.

Additional time

The time limits for the export of goods from the UK are set out in legislation. However, HMRC has discretion to permit non-observance of the conditions and time limits for export of goods – VAT Act 1994, Section 30(10). HMRC has said that it will use its discretion to temporarily waive the prescribed time limits for export on a case by case basis. The goods must, however, have either already been exported or will be as soon as is reasonably practicable after the date a business is notified that HMRC is temporarily waiving the tax. An application for HMRC to waive the time limits must be made in writing.

Conditions

HMRC will permit a temporary waiver of time limits if the following conditions are met:

it has not been possible to export goods within the prescribed time limit due to the COVID-19 emergency

Examples include:

the UK or another Government has imposed restrictions on the movement of goods or people due to COVID-19 that prevent the goods being exported to the intended destination
cancellation of the intended mode of transport for reasons directly related to COVID-19
a participant in the export is ill due to COVID-19 and a substitute cannot be found

This list is not exhaustive.

2. the goods have been/will be exported or removed at the earliest opportunity

3. all other conditions for zero rating exports or removals are met – exporters’ responsibilities here

Expiry

Any waiver will expire

one month after any government-imposed restrictions are lifted or
one month after any COVID-19 impediment to the export or removal ceases, or
there ceases to be an intention to export or remove the goods from the UK (Information on intention here)

whichever is the earlier.

If a business considers there are extenuating circumstances that mean additional time is needed to export goods beyond that permitted by the extension, it should contact HMRC setting out the details in full.

Evidence

A business must retain evidence that supports its case for the waiver (eg; cancellation notes demonstrating that the transport intended to use to take goods out of the UK did not take place, or screen shots of government rules preventing the export or removal of the goods).

Please contact us if you require any further advice or assistance.

VAT: Intention is crucial – The Sonaecom case

By Marcus Ward 18 May 2020

We cannot control the future…

The Sonaecom case

In the opinion* of the CJEU AG (C-42/19) the importance of a taxpayer’s intention was of utmost importance, regardless of whether that intention was achieved.

Background

Sonaecom intended to acquire a telecoms provider company. As is usual in such cases, input tax was incurred on consultancy received, from, amongst others; accountants and legal service providers. The intention post acquisition was for Sonaecom to make certain charges to the acquired co. These would have been taxable supplies.

Unfortunately, the intended purchase was aborted.

The issue

The issue before the AG was; as no taxable supplies took place as the deal fell through – to what should the input tax incurred on advice be attributed?

Opinion

In the AG’s view the fact that the acquisition was aborted was no reason for the claim for input tax to denied. This was based on the fact that:

Sonaecom was not a “pure holding company”
There was a genuine intention to make taxable supplies (to the acquired co)
There was a direct and immediate link between the costs and the intended supplies
Although the acquisition costs would exceed the proposed management charges, this was not a reason to invalidate the claim
The above analysis was not affected by the fact that the transaction did not take place

Commentary

There are often issues in relation to intentions of a taxpayer. It is clear, and was emphasised in this case, that intention is all important. Of course, intentions can change over a period of time and commercial and political events may thwart or cause intentions to be re-evaluated. There is often an issue about evidencing an intention. HMRC usually require comprehensive documentary evidence to demonstrate an objective. Such evidence is sometime not available for various reasons. Consequently, it is prudent for businesses to record (board meeting minutes etc at the very least) the commercial reasons for taking a certain course of action. This issue quite often arises in transactions in land and property – which can create additional technical issues.

There is legislation in place to cover situations when intentions, or actual events change and which affect the original input tax position: The Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Regs 108 and 109.

Other areas of VAT which often to raise issues are management charges and holding companies. HMRC apparently continue to be eager to attack taxpayers in these areas and I have looked at the role of holding companies and the VAT treatment here, here and here.

I think it is useful to bear in mind a question which, in itself does not evidence an intention, but provides commercial coherence – Why were the costs incurred if there was no intention to make the acquisition? This does leave aside the future management charges position but goes some way to provide business logic.

It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds, but I would find it very surprising if the court diverges from this AG opinion.

* AG’s Opinion

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) consists of one judge from each Member State, assisted by eleven Advocates General whose role is to consider the written and oral submissions to the court in every case that raises a new point of law, and deliver an impartial opinion to the court on the legal solution.

VAT: Where do I belong?

By Marcus Ward 7 May 2020

The place of belonging

The concept of “belonging” is very important in VAT as it determines where a supply takes place and thus the rate applicable and the country in which is due. (The so-called “Place Of Supply, or POS). It is necessary, for most supplies, to establish where both the supplier, and the recipient belongs. Because this is a complex area of VAT it is not difficult to be overpaying tax in one country, not paying tax where it is properly due, or missing the tax issue completely.

A relevant business person `belongs’ in the relevant country. A `relevant country’ means:

the country in which the person has a business establishment, or some other fixed establishment (if it has none in any other country);
if the person has a business establishment, or some other fixed establishment or establishments, in more than one country, the country of the relevant establishment (ie; the establishment most directly concerned with the supply); and
otherwise, the country of the person’s usual place of residence (in the case of a body corporate, where it is legally constituted)

A person who is not a relevant business person `belongs’ in the country of his usual place of residence. The `belonging’ definition applies equally to a supplier and the recipient of a supply, where relevant.

Business establishment is not defined in the legislation but is taken by HMRC to mean the principal place of business. It is usually the head office, headquarters or ‘seat’ from which the business is run. There can only be one such place and it may take the form of an office, showroom or factory.

Fixed establishment is also not defined in the legislation but is taken by HMRC to mean an establishment (other than the business establishment) which has both the technical and human resources necessary for providing and receiving services on a permanent basis. A business may therefore have several fixed establishments, including a branch of the business or an agency. A temporary presence of human and technical resources does not create a fixed establishment in the UK.

Usual place of residence. A body corporate has its usual place of residence where it is legally constituted. The usual place of residence of an individual is not defined in the legislation. HMRC interpret the phrase according to the ordinary usage of the words, ie; normally the country where the individual has set up home with his/her family and is in full-time employment. An individual is not resident in a country if only visiting as a tourist.

More than one establishment. Where the supplier/recipient has establishments in more than one country, the supplies made from/received at each establishment must be considered separately. For each supply of services, the establishment which is actually providing/receiving the services is normally the one most directly connected with the supply but all facts should be considered including

for suppliers, from which establishment the services are actually provided
for recipients; at which establishment the services are actually consumed, effectively used or enjoyed
which establishment appears on the contracts, correspondence and invoices
where directors or others who entered into the contract are permanently based, and
at which establishment decisions are taken and controls are exercised over the performance of the contract

However, where an establishment is actually providing/receiving the supply of services, it is normally that establishment which is most directly connected with the supply, even if the contractual position is different.

VAT groups

A VAT group is treated as a single entity. This also applies when applying the ‘place of belonging’. As a result, a group has establishments wherever any member of the group has establishments.

This is an area which often leads to uncertainty, and therefore VAT issues. It is also an area where VAT planning may; save time, resources and avoid unexpected VAT costs, either in the UK or another country.

For more on our International Services