Tag Archives: vat-tribunal

VAT: What is open market value? The Jupiter case

By Marcus Ward 11 May 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Jupiter Asset Management Group Ltd the issue was the value of management services to an associated third party VAT group.

Background

The value is important because if HMRC believe that a supply between two connected parties (as defined by The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Section 839) is undervalue and the recipient cannot recover the relevant input tax in full, it is permitted via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 6, PART 2, para 1 (1) to substitute open market value (OMV) by way of a Notice.

This paragraph is specifically intended to counter tax avoidance. If a supply between connected persons is made below open market value for a legitimate reason that the trader can substantiate, and which is unconnected with avoidance HMRC has the discretion not to issue a Notice. In Jupiter, HMRC directed that OMV be used to calculate the charge as it considered that value was too low and issued an assessment for underdeclared output tax.

Decision

In the absence of comparable supplies, OMV was to be determined by reference to:

the full cost of making the supplies;
the full cost included the costs incurred on goods and services used in making the supplies and general overhead costs the input tax in respect of which had been recovered
the remuneration paid to the executive directors to the extent that that remuneration related to activities performed by the executive directors in making the supplies of the management services

Consequently, the appeal against the output tax assessment was dismissed.

Commentary

An expected outcome, but ne which emphasises that care should be taken with transactions between connected parties, management charges and inter-company charges in general. This is even more relevant since the decision in the Norseman Gold plc case

VAT: Education and catering – University Of Southampton Students’ Union case

By Marcus Ward 6 November 2020

Latest from the courts

In the University Of Southampton Students’ Union (USSU) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was the VAT treatment of supplies of hot food and coffee; whether the appellant was an eligible institution making principal supplies of education or vocational training and/or whether supplies of hot food and coffee closely related to such principal supplies.

Background

USSU argued that both the supply of hot food and coffee by the USSU shop are exempt via The VAT Act 1994 Schedule 9, group 6, Item 4(a) and note 1(e) as supplies made by an eligible body which makes principal supplies of vocational training, and which are closely related to the (exempt) principal supply of education by the University of Southampton or vocational training by USSU. In the alternative, exemption applies for matters closely related to supplies of education by a third party via a published HMRC concession (and its supplies were within HMRC’s conditions for such a concession).

HMRC disagreed and claimed that these supplies were not closely related to education and that USSU was not an eligible body (no ring fencing of the profits such that they were not necessarily reinvested in its own supplies of education). Therefore, the supplies were properly taxable, and they declined to pay the appellant’s claim of overpaid output tax. The respondent also cited the Loughborough Students’ UnionUpper Tribunal (UT) case.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed for the following reasons:

USSU did not satisfy the definition of vocational training
the supplies of hot food and coffee were not closely related to a supply of education or vocational training
USSU did not satisfy the definition of an “eligible body”

Commentary

Superficially, the claim seemed good. Para 5.5 of PN 709/1 states: “If you’re a student union and you’re supplying catering (including hot takeaway food) to students both on behalf, and with the agreement, of the parent institution, as a concession you can treat your supplies in the same way as the parent institution itself. This means that you can treat your supplies as exempt when made by unions at universities.. This means that most supplies of food and drink made by the union, where the food is sold for consumption in the course of catering will be exempt… For example, food and drink sold from canteens, refectories and other catering outlets (excluding bars), plus food and drink sold from vending machines situated in canteens and similar areas.”

However, the Notice then goes on to add “But it does not cover food and drink sold from campus shops, bars, tuck shops, other similar outlets and certain vending machines…”

This appeal looks a close-run thing, but it demonstrates that small differences in detail can produce different VAT outcomes. We urge all Student Unions and other entities “attached” to education providers to review their position.

VAT – Latest on the coronavirus position

By Marcus Ward 23 March 2020

Update

Clearly VAT is not high on people’s agendas at the moment, but it may be a concern if a business is struggling to pay it in these difficult times.

The government has announced that, along with other measures to reassure and assist business, an easement for paying VAT due. Taxpayers may now defer VAT payments.

Measures

The details:

the next quarter’s VAT has been deferred to the end of the tax year
no business will pay any from now until the end of June
all UK businesses are eligible
the deferral does not cover payments due under the VAT MOSS scheme
no penalties or interest will be due on the tax deferred under these measures
this represents a circa £30 billion cash boost for business
unlike some other countries, the deadline to submit returns has not been deferred – which is unfortunate given the virus’ effect on staff and administrative processes
additional resources have been allocated to deal with time to pay (TTP) applications
the regular inspection of businesses has been suspended until further notice
there has been no announcement on the temporary reduction of VAT rates – but this may happen in the near future
all proceedings in UK First Tier Tribunal (FTT) are stayed for 28 days

Access to the scheme

This is an automatic offer with no applications required. Businesses will not need to make a VAT payment during this period. Taxpayers will be given until the end of the 2020 to 2021 tax year to pay any liabilities that have accumulated during the deferral period. VAT refunds and reclaims will be paid by HMRC as normal.

Businesses who normally pay by direct debit should cancel their direct debit with their bank if they are unable to pay. This must be done in sufficient time so that HMRC do not attempt to automatically collect on receipt of a submitted VAT return.

Commentary

These are very welcome easements for business and the speed and clarity of the statements are very welcomed and should be commended.

VAT: What’s a TOGC (and what’s not)? – The General Distribution Storage case

By Marcus Ward 7 October 2019

Latest from the courts

A Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC) is an area of VAT which produces a lot of issues and is a subject which is returned to on a regular basis in the courts. The General Distribution Storage Ltd (GDSL) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) TC 07352 [2019] case provides a warning that getting it wrong can be costly.

Background

The appellant owned the freehold of a commercial property. This property was rented to a third party. Subsequently, the property was sold with the benefit of the existing lease, to Hartlone Scaffolding Ltd (HSL). Output tax was charged and paid on the value of the sale as the property was subject to an option to tax. HSL also opted to tax before the date of completion. On the same day, HSL sold on the property to Foundry Investments Ltd (FIL) and again, VAT was charged and paid.

FIL made a claim for the input tax charged which caused a pre-credibility enquiry from HMRC. During the inspection, HMRC noted that, although GDSL had charged VAT, it had neither declared, nor paid the VAT to HMRC. An assessment was issued to recover this output tax.

The appellant claimed that no VAT was due because the sale of the tenanted building qualified as a VAT free TOGC, ie; it was not a taxable sale of an opted commercial property, but rather, it was the sale of a property letting business which was a going concern.

Technical

TOGC provisions

Normally the sale of the assets of a VAT registered business will be subject to VAT at the appropriate rate. A TOGC, however is the sale of a business including assets which must be treated as a matter of law, as “neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services” by virtue of meeting certain conditions (summarised below). It is always the seller who is responsible for applying the correct VAT treatment. Transfer Of a Going Concern treatment is not optional. A sale is either a TOGC or it isn’t. It is a rare situation in that the VAT treatment depends on; what the purchaser’s intentions are, what the seller is told, and what the purchaser actually does. All this being outside the seller’s control. Full details of TOGCs here.

TOGC Conditions

The conditions for VAT free treatment of a TOGC:

The assets must be sold as a business, or part of a business, as a going concern
The assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part (HMRC guidance uses the words “intend to use…” which, in some cases may provide additional comfort)
There must be no break in trading
Where the seller is a taxable person (VAT registered) the purchaser must be a taxable person already or immediately become, as a result of the transfer, a taxable person
Where only part of a business is sold it must be capable of separate operation
There must not be a series of immediately consecutive transfers

Where the transfer includes property which is standard-rated, either because the seller has opted to tax it or because it is a ‘new’ or uncompleted commercial building the purchaser must opt to tax the property and notify this to HMRC no later than the date of the supply.

Please note that the above list has been compiled for this article from; the legislation, HMRC guidance and case law. Specific advice must be sought.

Decision

It was decided that TOGC could not apply in these circumstances. The buyer, HSL, at the time of the sale, could not have intended to carry on the property letting business as it immediately sold on the freehold (at a profit) on the same day. As above, TOGC treatment does not apply if there is a “series of immediately consecutive transfers”. The appeal was consequently dismissed, and output tax was therefore properly due.

Commentary

This appears to have been the only available conclusion. It illustrates the importance of considering VAT whenever a supply of property is made. It is unclear why VAT was initially charged and why this was not declared to HMRC (and it if was thought a TOGC, why the VAT position was not subsequently corrected by the issue of a VAT only credit note). This is a complex area of the tax and an easy issue to miss when there are a considerable number of other factors to consider when a business (or property) is sold. Extensive case law (example here and changes to HMRC policy here ) insists that there is often a dichotomy between a commercial interpretation of a going concern and HMRC’s view.

Contracts are important in most TOGC cases, so it really pays to review them from a VAT perspective.

I very strongly advise that specialist advice is obtained in cases where a business, or property is sold. Yes, I know I would say that!

VAT: ‘Intention’ – The Euro Beer case

By Marcus Ward 7 October 2019

Latest from the courts, the Euro Beer Distribution Ltd First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case.

The intention of a taxpayer is extremely important for a number of reasons. It is relevant where:

a VAT registration is requested
input tax is claimed
and in this case; whether deregistration is compulsory

Broadly, immediate action is dependent upon whether a business intends to make taxable supplies in the future. This intention dictates whether registration is possible, whether input tax may be claimed, and whether a business may remain VAT registered. Even if a business has the intention to make taxable supplies, it is sometimes difficult to evidence this to HMRC’s satisfaction.

Background

Euro Beer was in the business of importing and selling alcoholic drinks. It had been in business since 2004 and was also approved and registered as an owner of duty suspended goods under the Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999.

Technical

HMRC compulsorily deregistered Euro Beer via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, para 13 (2) on the grounds that it believed that the appellant had ceased making taxable supplies. Nil returns had been submitted since 2016 and, after enquires, formed the view that there was no intention to make supplies in the future.

Euro Beer contended, unsurprisingly, that there was an intention to make taxable supplies in the future such that continued VAT registration was appropriate. Additionally, the reason for the nil returns was simply, at that time, business had dried up. The appellant provided limited evidence to support its intention. This comprised; emails between the directors and third-party contacts.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed and Euro Beer’s VAT deregistration (and revocation of approval from the Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999) was confirmed as appropriate.

Commentary

This was hardly a surprising decision and one wonders why it got to court. It does, however, emphasise the importance of the concept of intention. This can be a subjective matter and HMRC place significant weight on documentary evidence. There is no question in law that HMRC must register/maintain registration/repay input tax if it is satisfied that there is a business which does not make taxable supplies but ‘intends to make such supplies in the course or furtherance of that business’ – VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, para 9 (b). However, ensuring HMRC is satisfied is often problematic.

This is specifically difficult in the area of land and property. VAT registration and the associated input tax claims of a property developer is often the source of disputes. It is important to differentiate between an intention, and what actually happens. Often business plans change, or the original intention is not fulfilled. In such cases, there is a mechanism for repaying input tax claimed (VAT Gen regs 1995 reg 108) but this is only applicable in certain circumstances. The case of Merseyside Cablevision Ltd (MAN/85/327, VTD 2419) demonstrates that if an intention to make taxable supplies is thwarted, input tax claimed is not clawed back (a person who carries on activities which are preparatory to the carrying on of a business is to be treated as in business and is a taxable person).

It should be noted that a business does not have to specify a date by which it expects to make taxable supplies, or to estimate the value of them.

The lesson is; to document every business decision made:

board minutes, emails, business plans, letters etc
retain all correspondence with; third-parties
provide written advice from legal advisers, accounts etc
invoices demonstrating expenditure in respect of a new venture are persuasive
budgets and considered estimates can be of use
retain all advertising media, offers, promotions and other publicity.

Clearly for land and property additional; planning permission, land registry details, plans, surveys, fees, etc will build up a picture that there is an intention to make taxable supplies.

These are just examples and different business may have alternative evidence.

In commercial terms, it will be difficult for HMRC to be unsatisfied if a business is incurring costs in relation to a project – why would they devote time/staff/advisers/financial resources to something when there is no intention of deriving income?

One final point on the Euro Beer case. The judge stated; ‘an intention to make supplies requires more than a mere hope to be in a position to make supplies at some unspecified time in the future’. It is not enough for a business to ‘generally’ state that there is an intention.

VAT: Bad Debt Relief – The Total case

By Marcus Ward 1 July 2019

Latest from the courts

Bad Debt Relief (BDR) is often an area that creates disputes with HMRC. The legislation has changed over the years and the current rules are described here.

Background

Broadly speaking, under normal VAT rules, 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). BDR, as the names suggests, is intended to provide relief on the VAT element of a bad debt. Output tax previously claimed may be “reclaimed” by using the BDR mechanism.

The law which governs the claiming of bad debt relief is The VAT Act 1994, Section 36, and Section 26A which covers the repayment of input tax when a customer fails to pay for supplies received within six months of the relevant date, and The VAT Regulations 1995, Parts XIX, XIXA and XIXB.

Conditions for claiming bad debt relief

A business must have accounted for the VAT on the supplies and paid it to HMRC
It must have been written off the debt in its day to day VAT accounts and transferred it to a separate bad debt account
The value of the supply must not be more than the customary selling price
The debt must not have been paid, sold or factored under a valid legal assignment
The debt must have remained unpaid for a period of six months after the date of the supply

The case

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Total Catering Equipment Ltd [2019] TC 07184, heard on 4 June 2019, the issue was whether payments from customers which were diverted by a dishonest employee should be recognised as a payment for a supply of goods (no BDR available as the money was received then stolen) or whether the fact that the business did not actually receive the payment meant that a BDR was appropriate. Total supplied goods to customers, some of whom paid by credit or debit cards. The member of staff responsible for these transactions, set up a separate (from the business) bank account and fraudulently diverted customers; payments into his own account. A BDR claim was made by the appellant when the crime was discovered. The claim was refused by HMRC on the grounds that the employee had received payment “on behalf” of Total before making payment into his own account.

Decision

The judge found for the appellant. The appeal was allowed – it was decided that Total had never actually received payment for the goods supplied, so BDR was available. A distinction was made between the diversion of monies in this case (where the supplier was deemed to never had received the money) and a theft by an employee from, eg; a till or subsequent withdrawals from the business’ bank account (where a business would have received payment before the money was stolen).

Commentary

I have written about VAT and illegal activities here. There can be a fine line between taxable illegal activities and non-taxable illegal activities, and subtleties around tax points (time of supply) misrepresentation and consideration. If you, or your clients have been in the unfortunate position of being on the receiving end of crime, it would be adding insult to injury to have to account for tax on money you do not have. I would always advise that any demands from HMRC, or refusals to refund VAT should be properly reviewed.

VAT: What’s hot and what’s not?

By Marcus Ward 4 February 2019

Latest from the courts

In the seemingly never-ending series of cases on hot/cold food comes the latest instalment in the Eat Limited (Eat) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case.

Issue

Via VAT Act 1994 Schedule 8, Group 1, the sale of certain food is zero rated. However, there is an exception for supplies in the course of catering. Anything coming within the definition of catering reverts to the general rule and is taxable at the standard rate.

The definition of catering includes “any supply of hot food for consumption off those premises…” Note 3 (b).

So, the issue here was whether grilled ciabatta rolls and breakfast muffins which were heated by Eat were hot… or not. HMRC decided that the relevant sales were the standard rated sale of hot food and disallowed a retrospective claim by Eat that they should have been correctly zero rated.

The issue here was whether the products had been heated for the purpose of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above ambient air temperature. In considering the purpose of the heating, the Tribunal needed to ascertain the common intention of Eat and the customer.

Background

Eat sells a range of hot and cold food and drink products through its outlets in the UK. The food and drink can either be consumed at the outlet or be taken away for consumption elsewhere.

The breakfast muffins are filled bread rolls. The rolls are supplied to the appellant by a bakery in a condition that enables Eat to finish baking the rolls at their outlets. The specification requires the rolls to be “pale and 90% baked”. The muffin is assembled at a central kitchen from various ingredients, bagged, and then distributed to Eat’s retail outlets. The ciabatta rolls are also supplied to Eat part-baked and a similar process applied. If a customer purchases a breakfast muffin or a ciabatta roll, the product is “finished-off” in the outlet’s grill.

For zero rating to apply, Eat had to prove that its intention and that of its customers, was that the breakfast muffins and grilled ciabatta rolls were not supplied to customers in order to be eaten “hot”.

The products are treated as “hot” if:

They have been heated for the purposes of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above the ambient air temperature; and
They are above that temperature at the time they are provided to the customer.

It was not disputed that the products were above ambient air temperature at the time they were provided to customers,

Case law

There has been considerable litigation on the meaning of hot food. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Sub One Limited (t/a Subway) (in liquidation) v 30 HMRC [2014] EWCA Civ 773 reviews the meaning of the legislation, and in particular whether the “purpose” test in the legislation should be construed objectively or purposively.

Submissions

Eat contended that the common intention of the parties was that the supply of the products was to be finished as being “fresh” rather than partially complete. Any residual heat in the products was merely incidental to that common intention.

HMRC submitted that it was part of the deal between Eat and its customers that the products should be sold hot (and obviously so). Further, that no customer seeks to enter into a bargain in a takeaway restaurant containing a term that the food he or she is to purchase is “to be finished as fresh rather than partially complete”. The customer either wants hot food or does not. Either the supplier proposes to supply hot food, or it does not. It was also noted that in Eat’s advertising (at the point of sale and on its website) that the products were described as “hot”

Decision

The judge decided that this was a “hopeless appeal” and that it was the common intention of Eat and its customers that the products were heated for the purpose of enabling them to be consumed at a temperature above ambient air temperature. Further, that they were wrapped in foil-backed sheets that keep them warm. This showed an intention on the part of Eat that the products should be consumed whilst they were hot. So, they were hot and standard rated.

Commentary

Only in the world of VAT can something too hot to touch be treated as cold (as certain foods are). However, in this case common sense prevailed and not unsurprisingly, food which was sold hot was treated as hot food! There is a lesson here however. In such cases, the outcome depends on the precise facts of the relevant transactions and that it is unhelpful to make assumptions.

Now, about that proposed pasty tax…

VAT Flat Rate Scheme (FRS)– New judgement on retrospective application

By Marcus Ward 14 January 2016

Latest from the courts

In the recent case of KDT Management Ltd an appeal against a decision by HMRC not to allow the appellant to retrospectively apply the percentage of turnover it says was appropriate to its business under the FRS instead of the one it says it mistakenly chose was considered.

HMRC issued an assessment to recover VAT which was alleged to have been omitted from the appellant’s returns because it did not apply certain increases of rate to its turnover under the FRS of accounting for VAT.

It was also an appeal against a decision by HMRC not to allow the appellant to retrospectively apply the percentage of turnover it says was appropriate to its business under the FRS instead of the one it says it mistakenly chose.

The decision was that the appeal against the assessments to VAT and interest were upheld. The appeal against the decision not to backdate was also upheld and the decision was cancelled.

Please contact us if you have been in dispute over the rate applicable on a FRS, or if you think you may be using an inappropriate percentage. This is likely to mainly affect small businesses.

Details of the FRS here

VAT- Is the Upper Tribunal bound by High Court decisions?

By Marcus Ward 6 May 2015

Upper Tribunal versus High Court

In the recent case of Meena Seddon Settlement which involved Inheritance Tax, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) was required to decide whether the Upper Tribunal is bound by decisions made in the High Court. The FTT decision will doubtless affect VAT cases in the future.

It decided to follow a precedent set by the Upper Tribunal over an earlier decision by the High Court.

The taxpayer contended that the matter should be decided on the basis of a previous High Court decision. HMRC argued on the basis of a later Upper Tribunal decision. In normal circumstances, a later decision should take precedence over the earlier if both decisions have the same authority and have fully considered the previous judgments. However, if the taxpayer was correct to say that the Upper Tribunal was bound by precedents set by the High Court, the later decision could be disregarded as being wrong in law.

The FTT decided that it was the intention of Parliament that the Upper Tribunal was not bound to follow High Court precedents. This was notwithstanding the fact that a High Court could have a supervisory role over the Upper Tribunal in cases of judicial review. Therefore, it determined the case on the authority of the later Upper Tribunal decision in favour of HMRC.

The penalty regime….the dark side of VAT!

By Marcus Ward 9 February 2015

I have made a lot of references to penalties in my other articles. So what are they, and how much could they cost if a business gets it wrong?

HMRC detail three categories of inaccuracy. These are significant, as each has its own range of penalty percentages. If an error is found to fall within a lower band, then a lower penalty rate will apply. Where the taxpayer has taken ‘reasonable care,’ even though an error has been made, then usually HMRC will not apply a penalty.

Penalty Categories

– An error, when reasonable care not taken: 30%;

– An error which is deliberate, but not concealed: 70%;

– An error, which is deliberate and concealed: 100%.

Unhelpfully, there is no definition of ‘reasonable care’. However, HMRC have said that they would not expect the same level of knowledge or expertise from a self-employed person, as from a large multi-national. HMRC expect that, where an issue is unclear, advice is sought, and a record maintained of that advice. They also expect that, where an error is made, it is adjusted, and HMRC notified promptly. They have specifically stated that merely to adjust a return will not constitute a full disclosure of an error. Therefore a penalty may still be applicable.

The amount of the penalty is calculated by applying the appropriate penalty rate (above) to the ‘Potential Lost Revenue’ or PLR. This is essentially the additional amount of VAT due or payable, as a result of the inaccuracy, or the failure to notify an under-assessment. Special rules apply where there are a number of errors, and they fall into different penalty bands.

Defending a penalty

The percentage penalty may be reduced by a range of ‘defences:’

– Telling; this includes admitting the document was inaccurate, or that there was an under-assessment, disclosing the inaccuracy in full, and explaining how and why the inaccuracies arose;

– Helping; this includes giving reasonable help in quantifying the inaccuracy, giving positive assistance rather than passive acceptance, actively engaging in work required to quantify the inaccuracy, and volunteering any relevant information;

– Giving Access; this includes providing documents, granting requests for information, allowing access to records and other documents.

Further, where there is an ‘unprompted disclosure’ of the error, HMRC have power to reduce the penalty further. This measure is designed to encourage businesses to have their VAT returns reviewed.

A disclosure is unprompted if it is made at a time when a person had no reason to believe that HMRC have discovered or are about to discover the inaccuracy. The disclosure will be treated as unprompted even if at the time it is made, the full extent of the error is not known, as long as fuller details are provided within a reasonable time.

HMRC have included a provision whereby a penalty can be suspended for up to two years. This will occur for a careless inaccuracy, not a deliberate inaccuracy. HMRC will consider suspension of a penalty where, given the imposition of certain conditions, the business will improve its accuracy. The aim is to improve future compliance, and encourage businesses which genuinely seek to fulfil their obligations.

Appealing a penalty

HMRC have an internal reconsideration procedure. A business should apply to this in the first instance. If the outcome is not satisfactory, the business can pursue an appeal to the Tribunal. A business can appeal whether a penalty is applicable, the amount of the penalty, a decision not to suspend a penalty, and the conditions for suspension.

The normal time limit for penalties to four years. Additionally, where there is deliberate action to evade VAT, a 20 year limit applies. In particular, this applies to a loss of VAT which arises as a result of a deliberate inaccuracy in a document submitted by that person. These are just the penalties for making errors on VAT returns. HMRC have plenty more for anything from late registration to issuing the wrong paperwork.

Help

In my view there is generally a very good chance of success in a business challenging a penalty. Each case should at least be reviewed by an adviser, and experience insists that a robust defence often results in full or part mitigation. We have a very good track record in appealing HMRC decisions and have taken cases right up to High Court. However, most cases can be settled before they get to Tribunal, and indeed, the greatest chance of success is usually at the beginning of the process before HMRC become entrenched.