Tag Archives: VAT-rent

Inter-company charges: Do I add VAT?

By   18 July 2024
0
This seemingly straightforward area can throw up lots of VAT issues and touches on a number of complex areas. If we look at inter-company charges (commonly called “management charges”) it is clear that such a charge can cover a lot of different circumstances.
Do I charge VAT on a management charge?

An easy yes or no question one would think, however, this being VAT, the answer is; it depends. Typically, management charges represent a charge by a holding company to its subsidiaries of; a share of overhead costs, the provision of actual management/advisory services or office facilities or similar (the list can obviously be quite extensive).

Consideration for a supply

The starting point is; is something (goods or services) supplied in return for the payment? If the answer is no, then no VAT will be due. However, this may impact on the ability to recover input tax in the hands of the entity making the charge. It is often the case that a management charge is used as a mechanism for transferring “value” from one company to another. If it is done in an arbitrary manner with no written agreement in place, and nothing identifiable is provided, and VAT is charged, HMRC may challenge the VAT treatment and any input recovery of the company making the payment.

Composite of separate supply?

This is a complex area of the tax and is perpetually the subject of a considerable amount of case law. This has been so since the early days of VAT and there appears no signs of disputes slowing down. I have written about such cases here here here here and here

“Usually” if a combination of goods or services are supplied it is considered as a single supply and is subject to the standard rate. However, case law insists that sometimes different supplies need to be divided and a different rate of VAT applied to each separate supply. This may be the case for instance, when an exempt supply of non-opted property (eg; a designated office with an exclusive right to occupy) is provided alongside standard rated advice.

Approach

What is important is not how a management charge is calculated, but what the supply actually is (if it is one). The calculation, whether based on a simple pro-rata amount between separate subsidiaries, or via a complex mechanism set out in a written agreement has no impact on the VAT treatment. As always in VAT, the basic question is: what is actually provided?

Can the VAT treatment of a supply change when recharged?

Simply put; yes. For example, if the holding company pays insurance (VAT free) and charges it on as part of a composite supply, then VAT will be added to an original non-VAT bearing cost. It may also occur when staff are employed (no VAT on salaries paid) but the staff are supplied to a subsidiary company and VAT is added (but see below).

Staff

The provision of staff is usually a standard rated supply. However, there are two points to consider. One is joint contracts of employment which I look at below, the other is the actual definition of the provision of staff. Care must be taken when analysing what is being provided. The question here is; are staff being provided, or; is the supply the services that those staff carry out? This is relevant, say, if the services the staff carry out are exempt. There are a number of tests here, but the main issue is; which entity directs and manages the staff?

Directors

There can be different rules for directors compared to staff.

If a holding company provides a subsidiary company with a director to serve as such, the normal rules relating to supplies of staff apply and VAT applies.

However, there are different rules for common directors. An individual may act as a director of a number of companies. There may be an arrangement where a holding company pays the director’s fees and then recover appropriate proportions from subsidiaries. In such circumstances, the individual’s services are supplied by the individual to the companies of which (s)he a director. The services are supplied directly to the relevant businesses by the individual and not from one company to another. Therefore, there is no supply between the companies and so no VAT is due on the share of money recovered from each subsidiary.

Accounting adjustments

Just because no “cash” changes hands, this does not mean there is no supply. Inter-company recharges may involve the netting off of supplies so that no cash settlement is made. However, consideration is passing in both directions, so, prima facie, supplies have been made. This applies when there are accounting adjustments in both parties’ accounts.

Inter-company loans

The making of any advance or the granting of any credit is exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, item 2. This exemption covers most normal types of credit, eg; loans and overdrafts.

Planning

Planning may be required if;

  • the subsidiary cannot reclaim all VAT charged to it as input tax
  • there are cashflow/timing disadvantages
  • there are management or administrative complexities

Specific planning

VAT grouping

If commercially acceptable, the holding company and subsidiary companies may form a VAT group. By doing so any charges made between VAT group members are disregarded and no VAT is chargeable on them.

There are pros and cons in forming a VAT group and a brief overview is provided here

A specific development in case law does mean care must be taken when considering input tax recovery in holdco, details here

Joint contracts of employment

If members of staff are employed via joint contracts or employment no VAT is applicable to any charges made between the two (or more) employers. In addition, where each of a number of associated companies employs its own staff, but one company (the paymaster) pays salaries behalf of the others who then pay their share of the costs to the paymaster the recovery of monies paid out by the paymaster is VAT free as it is treated as a disbursement.

Disbursements

Looking at disbursements is a whole article in itself, and in fact there is a helpful one here

But, briefly, if a charge qualifies as a disbursement, then the costs is passed on “in the same state” so if it is VAT free, the onward charge is also VAT free, as opposed to perhaps changing the VAT liability as set out above. It is important to understand the differences between a disbursement and a recharge as a VAT saving may be obtained.

Overseas

The above considers management charges within the UK. There are different rules for making or receiving management charges to/from overseas businesses. These charges are usually, but not always, VAT free (an example is the renal of opted office space which is land related, so is always standard rated) and it is worth checking the VAT treatment before these are made/received. VAT free services received from overseas may be liable to the reverse charge.

Same legal entity

There is no supply if management charges are made between branches of the same legal entity.

Charities

There may be more planning for charities and NFP entities via cost-sharing arrangements, but this is outside the scope of this article.

Summary

As may be seen, the answer to a simple question may be complex and the answer dependent upon the precise facts of the case. It is unusual to have two scenarios that precisely mirror each other, so each structure needs to be reviewed individually. Inter-company management charges must be recognised, especially if the recipient is partly exempt. Please contact us if you have any queries or would like more information on any of the above.

VAT treatment of serviced apartments: The Realreed Limited case

By   11 January 2024
0

Latest from the courts

In this First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether serviced apartments qualify for exemption.

Background

Realreed owns a property called Chelsea Cloisters in Sloane Avenue, London. The property comprises; 656 self-contained apartments and some commercial units. 421 of these apartments are let on long leases (no VAT issues arise from these supplies). The appeal concerned the VAT treatment of the letting of the remaining 235 apartments, which include studio, one-bedroom or two-bedroom self-contained rooms. The appellant has, at all times, received a significant number of occupiers from corporate customers when they relocate their employees to London for a specified period, such as a secondment.

The contentions

Realreed argued that the letting of the apartments is a supply of accommodation which is exempt under The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 1, Item 1. Chelsea Cloisters operates like a ‘home from home’ for its tenants: it provides residential accommodation. The physical appearance of the building is very similar to that of other residential buildings in the vicinity. It does not have signage suggesting the serviced accommodation is a hotel or similar establishment. It is rare for hotels (or similar establishments) at the booking point to offer long-term availability in the same way as Realreed does. Chelsea Cloisters does not offer room service, or catering of any form. Tenants have fully functioning kitchens and other self-catering facilities within their apartments and have washing machines and dryers to do all their own laundry. Tenants can, and do, stay for extended periods of time (one for around 20 years). The business has always involved the provision of residential accommodation on a longer-term basis than would typically be found in a hotel, with a much higher degree of personal autonomy for the occupant.

HMRC contended that the use of the Apartments is carved out of the exemption in Item 1 by excepted item (d), which applies to “the provision in an hotel, inn, boarding house or similar establishment of sleeping accommodation”. Note 9 to Group 1 provides that “similar establishment” “includes premises in which there is provided furnished sleeping accommodation whether with or without the provision of board or facilities for the preparation of food, which are used or held out as being suitable for use by visitors or travellers”.

Decision

The court considered that Realreed provided sleeping accommodation in an establishment which is similar to a hotel. The two hallmarks of short-term accommodation coupled with additional services (daily maid service, linen changing, cleaning at the end of a stay, residents bar, concierge) mean that Chelsea Cloisters is an establishment in potential competition with the hotel sector, which also offers short-term accommodation with services.

The FTT found that Realreed provided furnished sleeping accommodation, so the remaining question was whether Chelsea Cloisters is used by or held out as being suitable for use by “visitors or travellers” per Note 9.

The FTT interpreted ‘visitor or traveller’ as referring to a person who is present in a particular place without making it their home, ie; they are not staying there with any degree of permanence. The average length of visit was less than a fortnight which must mean that the apartments were indeed made available to visitors or travellers.

The supplies were therefore standard rated.

Commentary

There is a distinction between leases and other room lettings for VAT. The most important issue is the degree of “permanence”, although other factors have a bearing. Businesses which let rooms should consider the nature of their supplies with reference to this case which helpfully sets out which factors need to be considered.

Is room hire subject to VAT? – The Errol Willy Salons case

By   24 January 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Errol Willy Salons Ltd (2022) TC 08370 the issue was whether the rent of two rooms were an exempt right over land, or the standard rated supply of facilities.

Background

Room hire is usually exempt from VAT unless it is subject to an option to tax. However, it can be subsumed into a different rated another supply if something more than a “bare” room is provided. In such cases, it would follow the VAT treatment of the composite supply.

The Issue

In the Errol Willy Salons case, HMRC formed the view that what was being supplied was facilities (the room occupation being a minor part of the supply) and therefore subject to VAT. In its opinion the economic and social reality was that the beauticians were provided with a licence to trade from the premises. The appellant occupied the ground floor – operating a hairdressing business. The rooms over the saloon were rented to third party beauticians. The occupants furnished the rooms themselves, provided their own equipment, set their own pricing and opening hours. They did have use of certain services and facilities; a receptionist and toilets, but it was understood that the services were rarely used. Unsurprisingly, the appellant disagreed and contended that the other services were incidental or subsidiary to the exempt supply of the room rental.

The decision

The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the assessment. It found that “non-rent” services provided to the beauticians were limited in nature and not essential to the beauticians’ businesses Consequently, the arrangements amounted to a supply of property (a licence to occupy the rooms) rather than a supply of taxable facilities and was therefore exempt.

Commentary

This is the latest in a long line of issues on composite/separate supplies and room hire/facilities disputes, especially in relation to weddings. It is important to establish precisely what is being provided to establish the correct VAT treatment and advice should be ought if there is any doubt about the VAT liability.

The CIOT has long advocated that it is not the case that every package of supplies involving room hire and other things must be a composite supply of something other than an exempt letting of land.

NB: This case is different to hairdresser chair rentals which remain standard rated.

VAT: Input tax recovery. The Mpala Mufwankolo case

By   15 November 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Mr Mufwankolo the dispute was whether the appellant was able to recover VAT charged by the landlord of the property from which he ran his business – a licenced retail outlet on Tottenham High Road.  

Background

The landlord had opted to tax the commercial property and charged VAT on the rent. The appellant was a sole proprietor; however, the lease was in the name of Mr Mufwankolo’s wife, and the rent demands showed her name and not that of the sole proprietor. It was contended by the appellant, but not evidenced, that the lease had originally been in both his and his wife’s names, despite his wife being the sole signatory.

The issues

Could the appellant recover input tax?

  • Did the business receive the supply?
  • Was there appropriate evidence?

It was clear that the business operated from the relevant property and consequently, in normal circumstances, the rent would be a genuine cost component of the business.

The Decision

The FTT found that there was no entitlement to an input tax claim and the appeal was dismissed. The lease was solely in the wife’s name and the business was the applicant as a sole proprietor. (There was an obvious potential for a partnership and an argument that a partnership was originally intended was advanced. The status of registration was challenged in 2003, but, crucially, not pursued).

It was possible for the property to be sub-let by the wife to the husband, however, this did not affect the VAT treatment as matters stood. Additionally, there was no evidence that the appellant actually paid any of the rent, as this was done by the tenant. There were no VAT invoices addressed to the sole proprietor.

Given the facts, there was no supply to the appellant, so there was no input tax to claim, and the issue of acceptable evidence fell away.

It was a certainty that the appeal could not succeed.

Commentary

There were a number of ways that this VAT cost could have easily been avoided had a little thought been given to the VAT arrangements. An oversight that created an avoidable tax hit.

A helpful guide to input tax considerations here: Care with input tax claims.

Legislation

The VAT Act 1994 Section 3 – Taxable person

The VAT Act 1994 Section 4 – Taxable supply

The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (1) – Input tax

The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (6) – Input tax claim evidence

VAT: Holiday Lets – don’t get caught out

By   14 June 2019
0

Further to the usual complexity with VAT and property, I have been increasingly asked about the VAT position of holiday lets, so this is a timely piece on the subject.

All residential letting is exempt… except holiday lets, which are standard rated at 20%. So, what is the difference? A house is a house, but the VAT treatment depends on how the property is advertised or “held out”.

If a property is held out for holiday accommodation, then the rental income is taxable.

What is holiday accommodation?

Holiday accommodation includes, but is not restricted to; any house, flat, chalet, villa, beach hut, tent, caravan or houseboat. Accommodation advertised or held out as suitable for holiday or leisure use is always treated as holiday accommodation. Also, increasingly, it is common for farms and estates to have cottages and converted barns within their grounds, which are exploited as furnished holiday lets so this use must be recognised for VAT purposes. Residential accommodation that just happens to be situated at a holiday resort is not necessarily holiday accommodation.

This treats holiday lets the same way as; hotels, inns and B&B were VAT applies, which is fair.

Off-season lettings

If holiday accommodation is let during off-season, it should be treated as exempt from VAT provided it is let as residential accommodation for more than 28 days and holiday trade in the area is clearly seasonal.

What does this mean?

If the letting business exceeds the VAT registration threshold, currently £85,000, it must register for VAT. This usually means that either the business would lose a sixth of its income to HMRC or its letting fees would increase by 20% – which is not usually an option in a particularly price sensitive market. The only upside to registration is that VAT incurred on costs relating to the letting (input tax) would be recoverable. This may be on expenditure such as; agents’ fees, maintenance, refurbishments, laundry, websites and advertising etc.

Agents

If a property owner provides a property to a holiday letting agent and the agent itself provides the letting directly to the end users, this does not avoid the standard rating, even if the agent pays a guaranteed rent to the freeholder. This can catch some property owners out.

Sale of the property

When the owner sells the property, although it may have been used for standard rated purposes, the sale is usually treated as exempt. However, zero rating may be available for the first sale or long lease if it is a new dwelling with no occupancy restrictions. The sale of a “pure” holiday property is likely to be standard rated if it is less than three years old. To add to the complexity, it is also possible that the sale may qualify as a VAT free Transfer Of A Going Concern (TOGC).  These are important distinctions because they determine, not only if VAT is chargeable, but, if the sale is exempt, there is usually a clawback of input tax previously claimed, potentially visa the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS).

Overseas properties

A final point: please do not forget overseas property lets. My article here sets out the tax risks.

Summary

There are a lot of VAT pitfalls for a business providing holiday lettings. But for a single site business, unless the property is large or very high end, it is likely that the income will below £85,000 and VAT can be ignored. However, it is important to monitor income and costs to establish whether:

  • registration is required
  • registration is beneficial (usually, but not exclusively, for major refurbishment projects).

As always, please contact me if you, or your clients, have any queries.