Tag Archives: zero-rate

VAT: B2B and B2C – The distinction and importance

By   1 August 2023
0

A key feature of the place of supply rules is the distinction between B2B (business to business) and B2C (business to consumer) supplies. The distinction is important because it determines, inter alia, whether GB VAT is applicable to a supply made by a GB supplier.

Status of the customer:

  • B2C: A supply is B2C when the customer is a private individual, an organisation with only non-business activities or the supply is wholly for private use (eg for the private use of a business owner)
  • B2B: A supply is B2B when the customer has any level of business activity (though if a supply is wholly for private use it remains B2C). It does not matter if the supply is for a non-business activity of the customer or if the customer is not VAT registered. All that matters is the customer has some level of business activity – this includes VAT exempt activity and taxable activity below the VAT registration threshold VAT place of supply.

To apply the B2B treatment a GB supplier must obtain evidence that the customer has business activities. If the supplier cannot obtain any evidence, they should apply B2C treatment.

  • If the customer is VAT registered, the customer’s VAT number is evidence of status and it is good practice to quote this on the supplier’s invoice. A GB supplier should check the customer’s VAT registration number is in the correct format for the country concerned. This can be done via the EC Vies website. for EU customers. NB: Special evidence rules apply to electronically supplied services.
  • If the customer is not VAT registered, a GB supplier should obtain and retain evidence that the customer has business activities. HMRC state “If your customer is unable to provide a VAT number, you can accept alternative evidence.This includes certificates from fiscal authorities, business letterheads or other commercial documents indicating the nature of the customer’s activities”.

A supplier needs to identify where his customer belongs in order to establish the place of supply.

VERY broadly, depending on the nature of the supply, the rule of thumb is that a B2B service is GB VAT free (it is subject to a reverse charge by the recipient as it is deemed to be “supplied where received”) but a B2C service is generally subject to GB VAT, regardless of the place of belonging of the recipient. There are exceptions to these rules however, such as the use and enjoyment provisions, land related services, hire of transport and admission to events.

A VAT Did you know?

By   27 July 2023
0

Popcorn is standard rated, but microwavable popcorn is VAT free.

VAT: How to characterise a supply – The tests

By   27 June 2023
0

In the age-old matter of whether a supply is separate/composite/compound for VAT purposes which and what is the nature of that supply, the Court of Appeal case of Gray & Farrar International LLP has provided very helpful guidance. A background to facts of the initial hearing here (although this decision was overturned by both the UT and the CoA).

I have previously considered these types of supply here, here, here, here, and here. Although not specifically concerning composite/separate supplies, the case sets out a hierarchy of tests to be applied in characterising a single supply for VAT purposes which now sets the standard. These test are:

  1. The Mesto predominance test should be the primary test to be applied in characterising a supply for VAT purposes.
  2. The principal/ancillary test is an available, though not the primary, test. It is only capable of being applied in cases where it is possible to identify a principal element to which all the other elements are minor or ancillary. In cases where it can apply, it is likely to yield the same result as the predominance test.
  3. The “overarching” test is not clearly established in the ECJ jurisprudence, but as a consideration the point should at least be taken into account in deciding averments of predominance in relation to individual elements, and may well be a useful test in its own right.

Comments

The Mesto Test

CJEU Mesto Zamberk Financini (Case C-18/12)

The primary test to be applied when characterising a single supply for VAT purposes is to determine the predominant element from the point of view of the typical consumer with regard to the qualitative and not merely the quantitative importance of the constituent elements.

Principal/ancillary

If a distinct supply represents 50% or more of the overall cost, it can not be considered ancillary to the principal supply. In such cases an apportionment will usually be required.

Overarching

A generic description of the supply which is distinct from the individual elements. In many cases the tax treatment of that overarching single supply according to that description will be self-evident.

CPP

One must also have regard to the Card Protection Plan Ltd case. This has become a landmark case in determining the VAT treatment for single and multiple supplies. In this case the ECJ ruled that standard rated handling charges were not distinct from the supply of exempt insurance. It was noted that ‘a supply that comprises a single service from an economic point of view should not be artificially split’. Notably many subsequent court decisions have since followed this outcome thereby suggesting a general lean towards viewing cases as single supplies where there are reasonable grounds to do so.

A VAT Did you know?

By   26 June 2023
0

In this hot weather it is important to drink sufficient fluids. If you buy a bottle of water, you will pay VAT, but milk is zero rated.

A VAT Did you know?

By   25 May 2023
0

The sale of ducks is zero rated, but racing pigeons are standard rated.

VAT: Updated Fuel & Power Notice 701/19

By   16 May 2023
0

HMRC has updated this Notice to reflect the new de minimis limits (para 6.1.1).

 

Call for evidence: VAT energy saving materials relief

By   9 May 2023
0

HMRC require feedback on improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions.

The three key objectives are:

  1. improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions
  2. cost effectiveness
  3. alignment with broader VAT principles

HMRC is asking for responses by 31 May 2023, either via email or post.

VAT: Place of supply – The Sports Invest case

By   5 May 2023
0

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal case of Sports Invest UK Ltd the issue was the place of supply (POS) of a football agent’s services (commission received for a player’s transfer).

The POS is often complex from a VAT perspective and depends on the place of belonging (POB) of the supplier and the recipient of the supply. These rules determine if VAT is charged, where VAT is charged and the rate of VAT applicable, additionally, they may impose requirements to register for VAT in different jurisdictions.

Background

Sports Invest was a football agent based in the UK. It received fees in respect of negotiating the transfer of a player: João Mário from a Portuguese club: Sporting Lisbon to an Italian club: Internazionale (Inter Milan). The appellant signed a representation contract with the player which entitled it to commission, and a separate agreement with Inter Milan entitling it to a fee because the player was permanently transferred.

The Issues

To whom did Sports Invest make a supply – club or player? What was the supply? Was there one or two separate supplies? What was the POS?

As appears normal for transactions in the world of football the contractual arrangements were complex, but, in essence as a matter of commercial and economic reality, Sports Invest had agreed the commission with the player in case it was excluded from the deal. However, this did not occur, and the deal was concluded as anticipated. Inter Milan paid The Appellant’s fee in full, but did this affect the agreement between Sports Invest and the player? That is, as HMRC contended, did Inter Milan pay Sports Invest on the player’s behalf (third party consideration) such that there were two supplies; one to the player and one to the cub?

The FTT stated that there was no suggestion that the contracts were “sham documents”.

VAT Liability

The arrangements mattered, as pre-Brexit, a supply of services by a business with a POB in the UK to an individual (B2C) in another EU Member State would have been subject to UK VAT; the POS being where the supplier belonged. HMRC assessed for an element of the fee that it saw related to the supply to the player. The remainder of the fee paid by the club was accepted to be consideration for a UK VAT free supply by the agent to the club (B2B).

Decision

The court found that there was one single supply by The Appellant to Inter Milan. This being the case, the supply was B2B and the POS was where the recipient belonged and so that the entire supply was UK VAT free. There was no (UK) supply to the individual player as that agreement was superseded by the contractual arrangements which were actually put in place and the player owed the agent nothing as the potential payment under that contract was waived.

The appeal against the assessment was upheld.

Commentary

The court’s decision appears to be logical as the supply was to the club who were receiving “something” (the employment contract with the player) and paying for it. The other “safeguarding” agreement appeared to be simple good commercial practice and was ultimately “not required”. This case highlights the often complex issues of; establishing the nature of transactions, the identity of the recipient(s), agency arrangements, the POS and the legal, commercial and economic reality of contracts.

 

 

VAT: Are Turmeric shots zero rated food? The Innate-Essence Limited case

By   5 May 2023
0

Latest from the courts

In the Innate-Essence Limited (t/a The Turmeric Co) First Tier tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether turmeric shots were zero rated food via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, general item 1 or a standard rated beverage per item 4 of the Excepted items.

The Legislation

“General items Item No 1 Food of a kind used for human consumption. …

Excepted Items Item No … 4 Other beverages (including fruit juices and bottled waters) and syrups, concentrates, essences, powders, crystals or other products for the preparation of beverages.”

The Product

Turmeric roots are crushed and the pulp sieved to extract the liquid. No additional liquids such as apple juice, orange juice or water are added during the production process.

The Shots contain:

  • small quantities of crushed, whole fresh watermelon and lemons which act as a base and provides a natural preservative effect
  • fresh pineapple juice
  • flax oil and black pepper

All the ingredients are cold pressed to retain the maximum nutritional value of the raw ingredients. The Shots are not pasteurised as this would negatively affect the nutritional content of the Shots. No sugar or sweeteners are added to the Shots. The Shots are sold in small 60ml plastic bottles and it was stated that they  provided long term health benefits.

The court applied the many tests derived from case law on similar products, and as is usual in these types of cases, the essence of the decision was on whether the Exception for beverages applied to The Shots.

Whether a product is a beverage (standard rated) is typically based on tests established in the Bioconcepts case (via VFOOD7520) as there is no definition of “beverage” in the legislation. The tests:

  • it must be a drinkable liquid that is commonly consumed
  • it must be characteristically taken to increase bodily liquid levels, or
  • taken to slake the thirst, or
  • consumed to fortify, or
  • consumed to give pleasure

The principle of the tests is based on the idea that a drinkable liquid is not automatically a beverage, but could be a liquid food that is not a beverage.

The Tribunal found that the Shots were not beverages but zero rated food items. As The judge put it: “In our view, the marketing and customer reviews demonstrate clear consistency in the use to which the Shots are put. The Shots are consumed in one go on a regular, long-term basis for the sole purpose of the claimed health and wellbeing benefits. The purpose of the Shots is entirely functional: to maximise the consumers daily ingestion of curcumin which is achieved by cold pressing the raw ingredients into a liquid. We consider it highly unlikely that a consumer would attempt to ingest the same quantity of raw turmeric in solid form.

The Shots are marketed on the basis of the nutritional content of the high-quality ingredients (primarily raw turmeric) that are stated to support health and wellbeing. The Shots contain black pepper and flax oil, two ingredients that are not commonly found in beverages. The Shots are marketed as requiring regular daily consumption over a long period of time (at least three months) to provide the consumer with the claimed long-term health and wellbeing benefits. A one-off purchase of a Shot would not achieve the stated benefits of drinking a Shot”.

The Tribunal also went to consider the “lunch time pints in pubs” (The Kalron case) issue, but I would rather not comment on whether this is a usual substitute for a lunch…

The appeal was allowed.

Commentary

Yet another food/beverage case. Case law insists that each product must be considered in significant detail to correctly identify the VAT liability and even then, a dispute with HMRC may not be avoided. Very small differences in content, marketing, processes etc can affect the VAT treatment. As new products hit the shop shelves at an increasing rate I suspect that we will be treated to many more such cases in the future. If your business produces or sells similar products, it will be worth considering whether this case assists in any contention for zero rating.

A VAT Did you know?

By   27 April 2023
0

Eels, salmon and trout are VAT free when sold dead or alive, but bream, perch, pike and tench are standard rated.