Tag Archives: vat

Latest European VAT rates

By   2 November 2021
0

NB: Not all countries listed are part of the European Union (EU).

Country VAT rates
Albania 20%
Andorra 4.5%
Austria 20% Reduced rates 19%, 10%, 13%
Belarus 20%
Belgium 21% Reduced rates of 12%, 6%
Bosnia & Herzegovina 17%
Bulgaria 25% Reduced rates 13%, 5%
Croatia 25% Reduced rates 13%, 5%
Cyprus 19% Reduced rates 9%, 5%
Czech Republic 21% Reduced rates 15%, 10%
Denmark 25% Reduced rate 0%
Estonia 20% Reduced rate 9%
Finland 24% Reduced rates 14%, 10%
France 20% Reduced rates 10%, 5.5%
Germany 19% Reduced rate 7%
Georgia 18%
Greece 24% Reduced rates 13%, 6%
Hungary 27% Reduced rates 18%, 5%
Iceland 24% Reduced rate 12%
Ireland 23% Reduced rates 13.5%, 9%
Italy 22% Reduced rates 10%, 5%
Latvia 21% Reduced rates 12%, 5%
Liechtenstein 7.7% Reduced rate 2.5%
Lithuania 21% Reduced rates 9%, 5%
Luxembourg 17% Reduced rates 14%, 8%
North Macedonia 18%
Malta 18% Reduced rates 7%, 5%
Monaco 20% Reduced rates 10%, 5.5%, 2.1%
Montenegro 21%
Netherlands 21% Reduced rates 9%
Norway 25% Reduced rates 12%, 6%
Poland 23% Reduced rates of 8%, 5%
Portugal 23% Reduced rates 13%, 6%
Romania 19% Reduced rates of 9%, 5%
Russia 20%
Serbia 20% Reduced rate 10%
Slovakia 20% Reduced rate 10%
Slovenia 22% Reduced rates 9.5%, 5%
Spain 21% Reduced rates 10%
Sweden 25% Reduced rates 12%, 6%
Switzerland 7.7% Reduced rates 3.7%, 2.5%
Ukraine 20%
United Kingdom 20% Reduced rates 12.5%, 5% 0%

Oops! – Top Ten VAT howlers

By   2 November 2021
0

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3.  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.
  4.  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.
  5.  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.
  6.  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.
  7.  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.
  8.  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.
  9.  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.
  10.  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!

VAT: DIY housebuilders can make more than one claim – The Ellis case

By   18 October 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Andrew Ellis and Jane Bromley [2021] TC08277, the issue was whether a person constructing their own house can make more than one claim for VAT incurred.

Background

The DIY Housebuilder’s Scheme enables a DIY housebuilder to recover VAT incurred on the construction of a house in which the constructor will live. Details here.

In this case, the specific issue was whether, despite the HMRC guidance notes on the scheme claim form explicitly stating that only one claim can be made, whether two claims may be submitted and paid by the respondent.

The appellant constructed a house over a period of five years (he was a jobbing builder and the work was generally only undertaken at weekends and holidays). To aid cash flow, an initial claim was made, followed by a second two years later.

The relevant legislation is The VAT Act 1994 section 35.

Decision

The appeal was allowed. The FTT found that HMRC’s rule that only one claim could be made under the DIY housebuilder’s scheme was ultra vires and that multiple claims should be permitted.

The judge stated that “…there is no express indication that only one claim may be made. Like many provisions, section 35 VATA is drafted in the singular. Drafting in the singular is an established technique to assist in clarity and to enable the proposal to be dealt with succinctly.  As there is no express indication to the contrary in section 35 VATA, section 6 Interpretation Act 1978 applies to confirm that the reference to “a claim” in section 35 VATA must be read as including “claims”.

Commentary

This is good news for claimants who often must wait a number of years for a house to be built and therefore carry the VAT cost until the end of the project.

This case presumably means that it is possible to make claims as the project progresses and there is no need to wait until completion.

We await comment on this case from HMRC, but it is hoped that clarification will be forthcoming on whether the result of this case will be accepted.

VAT: Freeports – what are they? Are they beneficial?

By   12 October 2021
0

Further to the background to Freeports here I consider the latest developments.

What are Freeports?

Freeports are a specific port where normal tax and customs rules do not apply. Imports can enter with simplified customs documentation and without paying tariffs. Businesses operating inside designated areas in and around the port can manufacture goods using the imports, before exporting again without paying the tariff on the original imported goods (however, a tariff may be payable on the finished product when it reaches its final destination).

Freeports are similar to Free zones, or “Enterprise Zones” which are designated areas subject to a broad array of special regulatory requirements, tax breaks and Government support. The difference is that a Freeport is designed to specifically encourage businesses that import, process and then re-export goods, rather than more general business support.

Use

Goods brought into a Freeport are not subject to duties until they leave the port and enter the UK market. Additionally, if the goods are re-exported no duty is payable at all.

If raw materials are brought into a Freeport and processed into final goods before entering the UK market, duties will be paid on the final goods.

Background

If a business chooses to use a Freeport to import or export goods, it will be able to:

  • get relief from duties and import taxes
  • use simplified declarations processes to reduce administrative burdens
  • choose which rate of Customs Duty to use if processing the goods changes their classification

If goods are purchased in the UK, a business will continue to pay duties and import taxes using the normal UK rates.

Where are they?

The eight new Freeports are located at East Midlands Airport, Felixstowe and Harwich, the Humber region, Liverpool City Region, Plymouth, the Solent, the Thames, and Teesside.

Authorisation needed to use a Freeport

A business can apply to use the Freeport customs special procedure (a single authorisation combined with easier declaration requirements) to import goods for:

  • processing and then export or for sale in the UK
  • storage and then export or for sale in the UK

Declaring goods entering the UK Freeport

A form C21 is used to declare goods entering the UK. This can be done before the goods arrive in the UK or when the goods have arrived in the UK.

Declaring goods exported

A business will normally need to submit an exit summary declaration when goods are exported from the UK. When an exit summary declaration is not needed, a business will need to give an onward export notification to HMRC.

Disposing of goods which have been processed or repaired

When a business has finished processing or repairing goods, it must leave the Freeport and dispose of the goods by either:

  • re-exporting them outside the UK
  • declaring them to another customs procedure
  • transferring them to another Freeport Business Authorisation holder
  • destroying them – usually only possible under customs supervision
  • using other simplified disposal methods

VAT on supplies in the Freeport

A business will be able to zero rate supplies within a Freeport of:

  • goods declared to the Freeport
  • services carried out on goods declared to the Freeport

When a zero rated VAT invoice is issued, it must include the reference “Free zone”.

Zero rating of goods applies if:

  • they are declared to the Freeport
  • they are sold from one authorised Freeport business to another in the Freeport
  • both Freeport businesses are registered for VAT (unless they are exempt from registering for VAT and HMRC has approved this exemption)

Benefits

The Government says that Freeports and free zones are intended to stimulate economic activity in their designated areas. Government backed economic studies have found the main advantage of Freeports is that they encourage imports by lowering duty and paperwork costs. Manufacturing businesses that are inside the Freeport can benefit from cheaper imported inputs in comparison to those outside the area. However, some commentators such as the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) suggest that whilst some form of free zones could help with shaping export-oriented and place-based regional development programmes, it is important to ensure that trade is not simply diverted from elsewhere and that wider incentives are needed.

Evasion

Considering that the European Parliament has called for Freeports to be scrapped across the EU because of tax evasion and money laundering and that they are where trade can be conducted untaxed, and ownership can be concealed it is likely that there will be a certain degree of evasion. This a result of the lack of scrutiny on imports and means that high-value items, eg; art, can be bought and easily stored in Freeports without the kind of checks and controls they would normally face.

Summary

Any business that regularly imports and/or exports goods should consider if a Freeport will benefit their business model. This is particularly relevant if work is carried out on imported goods.

VAT: HMRC OSS updates

By   5 October 2021
0

HMRC has issued two new documents which provide practical guidance for users of the One Stop Shop (OSS).

They cover how to pay the VAT due on an OSS return and how to use the service to submit an OSS VAT return if a business is registered for the OSS Union Scheme. A link has been added to allow a business to submit a OSS return directly.

VAT: Are freemasons’ aims philosophical, philanthropic, or civic? The United Grand Lodge case

By   4 October 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) the issue was whether subscriptions paid by members of the freemasons are exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 9, section 31, item 1(e) “Subscriptions to trade unions, professional and other public interest bodies” which exempts membership subscriptions paid to a non-profit making organisation which has objects which are of a political, religious, patriotic, philosophical, philanthropic or civic nature.

Background

So, in this case, for the subscriptions to be exempt, freemasonry’s aims must be philosophical, philanthropic, or civic. UGLE submitted input tax claims on the basis that its subscription income was exempt and HMRC declined to make the repayments.

An organisation which has more than one main aim can still come within the exemption if those aims are all listed and described in the legislation. The fact that the organisation has other aims which are not set out in law does not mean that its services to members are not exempt provided that those other aims are not main aims. If, however, the organisation has a number of aims, all equally important, some of which are covered by the exemption, and some of which are not, then the services supplied by the organisation to its members are wholly outside the exemption.

The contentions

The respondents stated that the aims were not UGLE’s sole main aim or aims, and, even if they were, the aims were not in the public domain.

UGLE claimed that its sole main aim was philosophical in nature; or, in the alternative, the main aims, taken together, were of a philosophical, philanthropic, or civic nature and it did not have any other main aims.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The judge decided that the supplies made by UGLE in return for subscription payments were properly standard rated.

It was common ground that the motives of the members in joining the organisation are irrelevant.

It was accepted that since 2000 freemasonry has become more outward looking and since then has become more involved in charitable work among those, and for the benefit of those, who are not freemasons or their dependants. That said, the judge was not satisfied that the charitable works of individual freemasons, such as volunteering to give time to a local charity, were undertaken by them as freemasons rather than simply as public-spirited members of the community.

It was found that UGLE did have aims of a philosophical, philanthropic and civic nature (the promotion of all aspects of the practice of freemasonry and charity was central to UGLE’s activities). However, it was not accepted that these were UGLE’s main or primary aims. At least 48% of payments made by UGLE were to freemasons and their dependants and in the FTT’s judgment such support remained one of the main aims of freemasonry and thus of UGLE. The importance of providing support for freemasons and their dependants who are in need is a central tenet of freemasonry – The duty to help other freemasons is clearly set out in the objects of the four central masonic charities. The evidence showed that the provision of relief to freemasons and their dependants was the more important than donations to good causes unconnected with freemasonry.

Civic aims

There was nothing in the evidence which indicates any civic aim. UGLE cannot be said to be an organisation that has aims pertaining to the citizen and the state. Indeed, freemasons are prohibited from discussing matters of religion and politics in lodges.

Consequently, as one of UGLE’s main aims could not be described as philosophical, philanthropic, or civic, its membership subscriptions were standard rated. Making payments to freemasons was more akin to self-insurance, rather than philanthropic in nature.

VAT: Zero rating of seeds and plants

By   30 September 2021
0

HMRC have updated VAT Notice 701/38 Seeds and plants that can be zero-rated. This Notice explains how to zero rate supplies of of seeds and plants which are used to grow food for human consumption. The supply of most basic foodstuffs for human or animal consumption is zero-rated. Plants and seeds used for the production of foodstuffs are also zero-rated depending on how they are held out for sale. The Notice explains when the following items can be zero-rated:

  • plants
  • seeds or other means of propagation (spores, rhizomes) used to produce those plants
  • seeds used directly as foods

The main amendments have been made to paragraph 3.5 – Trees and fruit bearing shrubs.

Any businesses supplying such goods (garden centres, nurseries etc) should ensure that the available zero rating is applied as widely as possible within these rules.

VAT: Farm in business? The Babylon case

By   21 September 2021
0

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Babylon Farm Ltd (the farm) the issue was whether the appellant was in business and consequently was able to recover certain input tax.

Background

Yet another case on whether there was any business activity in a company. Please see here, here, here and here for previous cases on this issue. The farm sold hay which it cut from another person’s fields to a connected party. The value of the one-off annual sale was £440 pa. The appellant also contended that it was also undertaking preparatory acts for the new business activities and that it would be able to levy management charges. Another new business activity was the creation of an investment and insurance product.

The farm built a new barn on which it claimed input tax of £19,760.

HMRC considered that no business was being carried on and decided to deregister the farm thus refusing to pay the input tax claim. The farm challenged this decision and contended that taxable supplies were being made, and there was also an intention to make taxable supplies in the future.

Legislation

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 of the VAT Act 1994 requires HMRC to be satisfied that a person is either making taxable supplies or is carrying on a business and intends to make such supplies in the course or furtherance of a business in order to be registered for VAT. There are a number of tests set out in case law (mainly The Lord Fisher case) to establish whether a person is in business:

  1. Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
  2. Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
  3. Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
  4. Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
  5. Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
  6. Are the taxable supplies that are being made of a kind which, subject to differences of detail, are commonly made by those who seek to profit from them?

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The farm was not in business and could not recover input tax on the costs of the new barn.

The judge stated that he could see no legal basis for the farm to be in business. The hay that the farm sold was taken from the customer’s own land and therefore belonged to him already. It was also noted that no invoices were raised, no payment for the hay had been made for a number of years and the single customer was a director of Babylon Farm Limited so the farm was not operating in an open market. The sale of hay had not been conducted on a basis that followed sound and recognised business principles or on a basis that was predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for consideration. As a consequence, the farm was not operating as a business during the relevant period.

On the intention point; neither of the intended activities had yet resulted in any chargeable services being provided and both were to be carried on through companies that had been formed for these purposes (not the farm). Both businesses remained at a formative stage and neither company has generated any revenue. This was insufficient to retain the VAT registration.

Commentary

The decision was hardly a surprise and one wonders how it reached the UT. HMRC were always going to challenge an input tax claim of that quantum with no output tax (and such a low value of sales which may not have been made in any event).