Tag Archives: zero-rate

The ABC of VAT – property

By Marcus Ward 28 May 2019

A glossary

Anyone who has had even the slightest brush with VAT will know that it is a very complex tax. Now, multiply that complexity by the intricacy and occasionally arcane nature of property law and one may see that the outcome will be less than straightforward. I have produced a general guide and an article on residential property VAT Triggerpoints

I hope the following glossary will help with steering through some of the difficulties.

Annex– a building which is joined to or is next to a larger main building usually an extension or addition to a building
Assign – to transfer the right or interest in a property from one party to another
Break clause – a clause allowing either landlord or tenant to give written notice after a particular date or period of the tenancy in order to end the tenancy
Beneficial owner – party deemed to make a supply of property rather than the legal owner
Blocked input tax – VAT which a developer is unable to recover when constructing a new dwelling. Typically, expenditure on good such as; carpets, fitted furniture, and gas and electrical appliances
Building materials– goods ordinarily incorporated into a property which attracts similar VAT treatment to the construction services.
Capital Goods Scheme(CGS) – a method of calculating the recovery amount of input tax incurred on property over a ten-year period, Details of the CGS here
Certificate – a document issued to a supplier in order to obtain certain zero-rated or reduced-rated building work
Change of number of dwellings– usually a conversion from commercial to residential, or a single house into flats (or flats into a single house) at 5% VAT
Consideration– a thing done or given in exchange for something else = a supply. Usually quantified in money, but in some cases non-monetary consideration
Construction of new dwellings – a zero rated supply
Contract – legal document detailing the agreement of terms between the vendor and buyer
Contractor – entity responsible for building works
Conversion–work on a non-residential building which results in a property designed as a dwelling(s) being created
Covenants – rules governing the property in its title deeds or lease. May impact the definition of dwellings
Curtilage– either a garden, or an area surrounding a building which is deemed to be part of the property
Designed as a dwelling– a property initially designed for residential use, regardless of any subsequent alternative use
Dilapidations – items that have been damaged during a tenancy for which the tenant is responsible for the cost of repair or replacement. Usually VAT free
DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – a scheme which ‘self-builders’ to recover VAT on a new build dwelling or conversion. Details here
Dwelling– a building deemed to be residential
Empty house – if, in the ten years before work on a dwelling starts, it has not been lived in, the work may be subject to 5% rather than 20% VAT
Exempt– a supply that is VAT free. It usually results in attributable input tax falling to be irrecoverable
Facade– a wall (or two walls on a corner plot) which may be retained without affecting the zero rating of a new dwelling construction
Grant– a supply of an interest in land
Holiday home – the sale or long lease of a holiday home cannot be zero-rated even if it is designed as a dwelling
Housing Association – a non-profit organisation which rents residential property to people on low incomes or with particular needs
In the course of construction– meaningful works that have occurred in relation to the construction of a building (but prior to its completion)
Incorporated goods – goods sold with a new dwelling which are zero rated and to which the input tax block does not apply. See white goods
Input tax– VAT incurred on expenditure associated with property
Interest in, or right over, land– the right to access to and use of, land. Usually via ownership or lease
Lease – legal document governing the occupation by the tenant of a premises for a specific length of time
Licence to occupy– a permission to use land that does not amount to a tenancy
Live-work units – a property that combines a dwelling and commercial or industrial working space. Usually subject to apportionment
Major interest–a supply of a freehold interest or a lease exceeding 21 years
Multiple occupancy dwelling – a dwelling which is designed for occupation by persons not forming a single household
New building–a commercial building less than three years old the sale of which is mandatorily standard
Non-residential– a commercial building which is not used as a dwelling
Open market value – likely sale price with a willing seller and buyer, with a reasonable period of marketing and no special factors affecting the property
Option to tax (OTT) – act of changing the exempt sale or letting of a commercial into a taxable supply. The purpose is to either; recover input tax or avoid input tax being charged. Details here
OTT disapplication– the legal removal of a vendor’s option to tax
OTT not applicable – the OTT does not apply to residential buildings (so VAT can never apply to dwellings)
OTT revocation– the ability to revoke an option to tax after six months or twenty years
Partial exemption– a calculation to attribute input tax to exempt and taxable. Generally, VAT incurred in respect of exempt supplies is irrecoverable
Person constructing – a developer, contractor or sub-contractor who constructs a building
Premium – upfront payment for a supply of property
Relevant Charitable Purpose (RCP)–the use by a charity for non-business purposes or for use as a village hall or similar
Relevant Residential Purpose (RRP)– dwelling used for certain defined residential purposes, eg; children’s home, a hospice or student accommodation
Reverse surrender– a tenant surrenders an onerous lease to the landlord and makes a payment to surrender
Share of freehold – where the freehold of the property is owned by a company and the shareholders are the owners of the property
Single household dwelling– a building designed for occupation by a single household
Snagging – the correction of building faults. Usually follows the VAT liability of the original work
Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) – tax paid by a purchaser of a property. SDLT is increased if the sale of a commercial property is the subject of an option to tax
Substantial reconstruction– certain significant works to a listed building
Surrender– a tenant surrenders the lease to the landlord in return for payment
Taxable supply– a supply subject to VAT at the standard, reduced or zero-rate
Use as a dwelling – a building which was designed or adapted for use as someone’s home and is so used
Vendor – entity selling a property
Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC) – the VAT free sale of the assets of a business as a going concern. This may include a tenanted property
Zero-rated– a taxable supply subject to VAT at a rate of 0%

We strongly recommend that advice is obtained if any property transaction is being undertaken.

Details of our land and property services may be found here.

VAT: Worldwide rates and registration limits

By Marcus Ward 20 May 2019

It can be difficult finding the answer to simple questions on VAT/GST. So, I provide a summary below of the rates of VAT applicable in the major countries which apply VAT/GST and the amount of income per year that a domestic business may receive before it is required to VAT register. You, or your clients, will need to be aware of these if they have a Place Of Supply (POS) overseas. I hope that it is useful to have this information all in one place – a “cut out and keep” type document!

Worldwide VAT/GST rates			Annual turnover limit for Registration
	Standard rate	Reduced rates	National currency	Limit
Australia	10.0	0.0	AUD	75 000
Austria	20.0	10.0/13.0	EUR	30 000
Belgium	21.0	0.0/6.0/12.0	EUR	25 000
Canada	5.0	0.0	CAD	30 000
Chile	19.0	N/A	CLP	None
Czech Republic	21.0	10.0/15.0	CZK	1 000 000
Denmark	25.0	0.0	DKK	50 000
Estonia	20.0	0.0/9.0	EUR	40 000
Finland	24.0	0.0/10.0/14.0	EUR	10 000
France	20.0	2.1/5.5/10.0	EUR	82 800
Germany	19.0	7.0	EUR	17 500
Greece	24.0	6.0/13.0	EUR	10 000
Hungary	27.0	5.0/18.0	HUF	8 000 000
Iceland	24.0	0.0/11.0	ISK	2 000 000
Ireland	23.0	0.0/4.8/9.0/13.5	EUR	75 000
Israel	17.0	0.0	ILS	99 003
Italy	22.0	4.0/5.0/10.0	EUR	65 000
Japan	8.0	N/A	JPY	10 000 000
Korea	10.0	0.0	KRW	30 000 000
Latvia	21.0	5.0/12.0	EUR	40 000
Lithuania	21.0	5.9/9.0	EUR	45 000
Luxembourg	17.0	3.0/8.0/14.0	EUR	30 000
Mexico	16.0	0.0	MXN	None
Netherlands	21.0	9.0	EUR	1 345
New Zealand	15.0	0.0	NZD	60 000
Norway	25.0	0.0/12.0/15.0	NOK	50 000
Poland	23.0	5.0/8.0	PLN	200 000
Portugal	23.0	6.0/13.0	EUR	10 000
Slovak Republic	20.0	10.0	EUR	49 790
Slovenia	22.0	9.5	EUR	50 000
Spain	21.0	4.0/10.0	EUR	None
Sweden	25.0	0.0/6.0/12.0	SEK	30 000
Switzerland	7.7	0.0/2.5/3.7	CHF	100 000
Turkey	18.0	1.0/8.0	TRY	None
United Kingdom	20.0	0.0/5.0	GBP	85 000

Source National Delegates – position as at 1 January 2019

Notes

Reduced rates include zero-rates applicable to domestic supplies (ie; exemption with right to deduct input tax). They do not include zero-rated exports or other supplies subject to similar treatment such as international transport.

Registration/collection thresholds identified in this table are general concessions that relieve domestic suppliers from the requirement to register for and/or to collect VAT/GST until such time as they exceed the turnover threshold. Thresholds shown in this table apply to businesses established in the country. In most countries, the registration threshold does not apply to foreign businesses ie;. businesses having no seat, place of business, fixed establishment, domicile or habitual residence within the country.

VAT: Zero rating of prescriptions

By Marcus Ward 29 April 2019

Latest from the courts

The UK is unique in the EU for the zero rating of medicines prescribed by a registered medical practitioner.

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Pearl Chemist Ltd (Pearl) the issue was whether the development of new technology and legislation affected the zero rating of prescriptions written by UK registered and non-UK registered doctors and the interpretation of “registered medical practitioner”.

Background

Pearl is authorised to dispense medicines prescribed online by doctors based in countries based in the European Economic Area. It contracted with a third party which operated websites which offered medical screening and services, primarily for conditions such as erectile dysfunction, hair loss and obesity/weight loss.

Customers of the third party could obtain an online consultation with qualified doctors. If the doctor decided to issue a prescription, the written prescription would be sent to Pearl who would then despatch the medicine directly to the individual customer on behalf of the third party. Pearl treated all these supplies as zero-rated. The relevant law covering such prescriptions changed in 2008 such that it was now possible to dispense drugs prescribed by a qualified doctor based outside the UK.

HMRC formed the view that these supplies were not covered by the UK zero rating on the basis that an EU qualified doctor who is not registered with the GMC is not a registered medical practitioner. An assessment for output tax was issued in respect of supplies made against prescriptions written by non-UK doctors.

The issues

The issues, broadly were:

Are qualified doctors based outside the UK covered by the description “registered medical practitioner” in UK legislation?
If not, does this breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality? (Whether there is clear discrimination between identical supplies made on the prescription of UK doctors and doctors from other EU countries)

Decision

The judge ruled that the UK zero rating does not cover prescriptions written by non-UK doctors as they are not within the definition of “registered medical practitioner” Consequently, the supplies must be standard rated in the UK. However, the exclusion of medicines prescribed by overseas doctors from the zero-rating constitutes a breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality. This seemed good news for Pearl, but…the Tribunal stated that it was unable to provide an effective remedy for that breach and accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed HRMC’s assessment.

Commentary

This decision seems rather harsh on the appellant. It appears that the judge ruled that she had no power to override UK Parliament’s intention despite the inherent “unfairness” of the outcome of this intention where identical supplies were treated differently depending on where the prescription was written.

Certainly an odd one and I wonder if this is the last of this matter. Any business in a similar situation may need to review its position on the basis of this decision.

VAT Success Stories

By Marcus Ward 1 April 2019

I often write about how it is important to seek VAT advice at the right time, see triggerpoints. So, I thought that I’d give some practical examples on where we have saved our clients money, time and aggravation.

Investment company

HMRC denied claims for input tax incurred on costs relating to the potential acquisition of an overseas business and threatened to deregister the plc as it was not, currently, making taxable supplies. Additionally, HMRC contended that even if VAT registration was appropriate, the input tax incurred did not relate to taxable supplies and was therefore blocked.

We were able to persuade HMRC that our client had a right to be VAT registered because It intended to make taxable supplies (supplies with a place of supply outside the UK which would have been taxable if made in the UK) and that the input tax was recoverable as it related to these intended taxable supplies (management charges to the acquired business). This is a hot topic at the moment, but we were able to eventually demonstrate, with considerable and detailed evidence that there was a true intention.

This meant that UK VAT registration was correct and input tax running into hundreds of thousands of pounds incurred in the UK was repaid.

Restaurant

We identified and submitted a claim for a West End restaurant for nearly £200,000 overpaid output tax. We finally agreed the repayment with HMRC after dealing with issues such as the quantum of the claim and unjust enrichment.

Developer

Our property developing client specialises in very high-end residential projects in exclusive parts of London. They built a dwelling using an existing façade and part of a side elevation. We contended that it was a new build (zero rated sale and no VAT on construction costs and full input tax recovery on other costs). HMRC took the view that it was work on an existing dwelling so that 5% applied and input tax was not recoverable. After site visits, detailed plans, current and historical photograph evidence HMRC accepted the holy grail of new build. The overall cost of the project was tens of millions.

Charity

A charity client was supplying services to the NHS. The issue was whether they were standard rated supplies of staff or exempt medical services. We argued successfully that, despite previous rulings, the supplies were exempt, which benefited all parties. Our client was able to deregister from VAT, but not only that, we persuaded HMRC that input tax previously claimed could be kept. This was a rather pleasant surprise outcome. We also avoided any penalties and interest so that VAT did not represent a cost to the charity in any way. If the VAT was required to be repaid to HMRC it is likely that the charity would have been wound up.

Shoot

A group of friends met to shoot game as a hobby. They made financial contributions to the syndicate in order to take part. HMRC considered that this was a business activity and threatened to go back over 40 years and assess for output tax on the syndicate’s takings which amounted to many hundreds of thousands of pounds and would have meant the shoot could not continue. We appealed the decision to retrospectively register the syndicate.

After a four-year battle HMRC settled on the steps of the Tribunal. We were able to demonstrate that the syndicate was run on a cost sharing basis and is not “an activity likely to be carried out by a private undertaking on a market, organised within a professional framework and generally performed in the interest of generating a profit.” – A happy client.

Chemist

We assisted a chemist client who, for unfortunate reasons, had not been able to submit proper VAT returns for a number of years. We were able to reconstruct the VAT records which showed a repayment of circa £500,000 of VAT was due. We successfully negotiated with HMRC and assisted with the inspection which was generated by the claim.

The message? Never accept a HMRC decision, and seek good advice!

VAT: Place of supply of “erotic services”

By Marcus Ward 19 February 2019

Latest from the courts

Readers of a nervous disposition may want to look away now.

In the case of Geelen C-568/17 (in French) the advocate General (AG) was asked for an opinion on the supply of what was coyly called webcam sessions.

Background

The defendant in the main proceedings, Mr Geelen, was a VAT registered person in The Netherlands. He provided the services of the organisation and provision of interactive erotic sessions broadcast live over the Internet. The models were located in the Philippines and Mr Geelen provided them with the necessary hardware and software to transmit the sessions over the Internet. Customers contacted the models via a website after creating an account for this purpose. The sessions were broadcast live and were interactive, which meant that customers had the opportunity to communicate with the models and give them instructions. The services provided by the defendant were intended for the Dutch market. I set out the arrangements here, as I am sure that none of my readers will be aware of such things * polite cough *

This is interesting as an example of technology overtaking legislation which was enacted before such services could even be contemplated (well, by the people drafting the VAT legislation anyway).

The issue

The issue was where was the place of supply of these services. If they were in The Netherlands, then Dutch VAT would apply, but if they were deemed to be outside the EU, no EU VAT would be payable. The tax authorities considered that such services were subject to VAT in The Netherlands and issued a tax assessment notice.

Technical

Generally, the rule is that for B2C services the place of supply (POS) is where the supplier belongs. However, there is an exception for cultural, artistic, and entertainment activities. These are taxed where performed (outside the EU in this case if the exception is applicable).

Opinion

It was the AG’s opinion that, in the first place, there was no doubt that the services in question were entertaining…

However, he opined that the only way to provide cultural activities, entertainment, education, etc. was either to bring service users together at the actual place of service delivery, or to provide a service at the location of the users.

The technological development that has taken place since the relevant legislation was drafted has enabled services in which beneficiaries participate remotely, sometimes even actively, in a cultural, entertainment or other event, without necessarily doing so in real time. In a cultural reference: The “unity of action, time and place”, to refer to the categories of classical theatre, was thus upset.

In the AG’s opinion, these services were not intended to be covered by the exception. Consequently, these were not services “supplied where performed” and the general B2C rules applied, so the POS was The Netherlands and Dutch VAT was applicable. It was concluded that performance does not take place where the models are based, or where the consumer was located, but where Mr Geelen brought together all elements of the supply.

Summary

The legislation must be interpreted as meaning that the services of organising and providing live interactive webcam sex do not constitute services for entertainment purposes within the meaning of the relevant provisions.

VAT: Yet more cases on food

By Marcus Ward 11 February 2019

Latest from the courts

Like London buses, few cases on the VAT liability of food, then a veritable deluge (although I am unsure whether there can be a deluge of buses…).

Following Eat Ltd and my summary, two further food cases have been heard at First Tier Tribunal (FTT). These are on the subjects of juicing and brownies.

Juice

In The Core (Swindon) the issue was whether fruit and vegetable juices sold as meal replacements were beverages and therefore standard rated or whether they were not beverages and therefore zero-rated as food.

Background

The appellant provides “juice cleanse programmes” (JCPs) which consist of fresh drinkable products made from juicing raw fruits and vegetables and are intended to replace normal meals. The relevant test was how the product was objectively “held out for sale” by the supplier.

What needed to be considered was:

How is the product marketed?
Why it is consumed by the customer?
What is the use to which it is put?

Case law

Similar products were considered in Fluff, Ltd. Roger Skinner and Bioconcepts where the above tests were set out.

Decision

Judging the JCPs by reference to the above tests the Tribunal found that the purchasers of the JCPs purchase them as meal replacements. Customers do not purchase them as beverages (they drink water in addition to consuming the products). They do not therefore purchase them in order to increase their bodily fluid, or to slake their thirst, or to fortify themselves or to give pleasure. The products are deliberately made palatable, in order not to deter consumers from drinking them, and they are not unpleasant to drink, but they are not consumed for pleasure. Customers purchase and consume them as a meal replacement, not as a beverage. As a consequence, they were zero rated food.

Brownies

In Pulsin’ Ltd the issue was whether a raw choc brownies was a cake (zero rated) or a biscuit (standard rated). So, shades of the infamous Jaffa Cake case.

Background

The products in question were individually wrapped bars produced by cold compression of predominantly: dates, cashews, cacao, various syrups, concentrated grape juice and brown rice bran. All ingredients used are intended to be as natural, unprocessed, hypoallergenic and as nutritionally beneficial as possible.

Case law

The cases set out above were also referred to in this case, along with Kinnerton which I considered here although the judge dismissed HMRC’s contention that the decision in that case was helpful in this.

Decision

The judge formed the view that the products do show enough characteristics of cakes to be so categorised. Therefore, all variants of the raw choc brownies were properly classified as cakes and are therefore eligible to be zero rated.

Commentary

What was interesting here was the judge’s comments on the current position regarding food and VAT.

“It is the Tribunal’s view that the current state of the law on the taxation of food items is not fit for purpose and will necessarily present apparently anomalous results as tastes and attitudes to eating change. The Tribunal fundamentally disagrees with HMRC’s guidance that the borderline between cake and confectionary presents few problems. The lines set and perceived by HMRC in the application of this out of date provision (as recognised by them in their anguished consideration of flapjacks and cereal bars) drives anomalous outcomes….”

And so say all of us…

The zero rating of food is complicated as the provision under VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1 provide for a wide general description (qualifying for zero rating) subject to excepted items (which must therefore be standard rated) with exclusions and overriding items to those exceptions (which then requalify to be zero rated).

VAT: Zero rated food – a summary

By Marcus Ward 8 February 2019

Food – What’s hot and what’s not?

Further to my article on the recent Eat case I have had a number of queries on what “hot” food can be zero rated. So, as a brief overview of the current position a quick look at types of food:

Pasties, sausage rolls, pies or other pastries

If they are hot and straight from the oven: Although the pasty is hot, it is not being kept warm, so therefore there is no VAT
Left to cool to room temperature: The pasty is not being kept warm, so no VAT is chargeable.
Kept hot in a cabinet, on a hot plate or under a heat lamp: The pasty is being kept warm so VAT is due

Sandwiches

Cold food is zero-rated for tax purposes so no VAT.
Heated for a customer – standard rated per the Eat case.

Bread

Freshly baked, cooling or cold – the bread is not kept warm, even though it may be straight from the oven, so would be VAT free.

Rotisserie chicken

If hot from the spit; VAT on takeaway food intended to be served hot is VATable.
Kept hot in a cabinet, on a hot plate or under a heat lamp – As the food is kept hot and served hot, VAT is applicable.
Left to cool to room temperature – If the chicken is cooked then left to cool, such as in bags in a supermarket, it will be VAT free.

Takeaways

such as fish and chips: VAT remains on all takeaway food served hot.

Catering

All supplies of catering is subject to VAT regardless of what food and drink is being provided. This includes all restaurants and cafés.

This is a general guide and, as case law shows, there will always be products on the “borderline”.

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 – A Christmas Tale

By Marcus Ward 17 December 2018

Well, it is Christmas…. and at Christmas tradition dictates that you repeat the same nonsense every year….

Dear Marcus

My business, if that is what it is, has become large enough for me to fear that HMRC might take an interest in my activities. May I explain what I do and then you can write to me with your advice? If you think a face to face meeting would be better, I can be found in most decent sized department stores from mid-September to 24 December.

First of all, I am based in Greenland, but I do bring a stock of goods, mainly toys, to the UK and I distribute them. Am I making supplies in the UK?

If I do this for philanthropic reasons, am I a charity, and if so, does that mean I do not pay VAT?

The toys are of course mainly for children and I wonder if zero rating might apply? I have heard that small T shirts are zero rated so what about a train set – it is small and intended for children. Does it matter if adults play with it? My friend Rudolph has told me that there is a peculiar rule about gifts. He says that if I give them away regularly and they cost more than £150 I might have to account for VAT. Is that right?

My next question concerns barter transactions. Dads often leave me a food item such as a mince pie and a drink and there is an unwritten rule that I should then leave something in return. If I’m given Tesco’s own brand sherry I will leave polyester underpants but if I’m left a glass of Glenfiddich I will be more generous and leave best woollen socks. Have I made a supply and what is the value please? My feeling is that the food items are not solicited so VAT might not be due and, in any event; isn’t food zero-rated, or is it catering? Oh, and what if the food is hot?

Transport is a big worry for me. Lots of children ask me for a ride on my airborne transport. I suppose I could manage to fit twelve passengers in. Does that mean my services are zero-rated? If I do this free of charge will I need to charge air passenger duty? Does it matter if I stay within the UK, or the EU? My transport is the equivalent of six horse power and if I refuel with fodder in the UK will I be liable for fuel scale charges? After dropping the passengers off I suppose I will be accused of using fuel for the private journey back home. Somebody has told me that if I buy hay labelled as animal food I can avoid VAT but if I buy the much cheaper bedding hay I will need to pay VAT. Please comment.

May I also ask about VAT registration? I know the limit is £85,000 per annum but do blips count? If I do make supplies at all, I do nothing for 364 days and then, in one day (well night really) I blast through the limit and then drop back to nil turnover. May I be excused from registration? If I do need to register should I use AnNOEL Accounting? At least I can get only one penalty per annum if I get the sums wrong.

I would like to make a claim for input tax on clothing. I feel that my red clothing not only protects me from the extreme cold, but it is akin to a uniform and should be allowable. These are not clothes that I would choose to wear except for my fairly unusual job. If lady barristers can claim for black skirts, I think I should be able to claim for red dress. And what about my annual haircut? That costs a fortune. I only let my hair grow that long because it is expected of me.

Insurance worries me too. You know that I carry some very expensive goods on my transport. Play Stations, Mountain Bikes, i-pads and Accrington Stanley replica shirts for example. My parent company in Greenland takes out insurance there and they make a charge to me. If I am required to register for VAT in England will I need to apply the Reverse Charge? This seems to be a daft idea if I understand it correctly. Does it mean I have to charge myself VAT on something that is not VATable and then claim it back again?

Next you’ll be telling me that Father Christmas isn’t real……….

HAPPY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!

Excise Duty: Your Christmas drink of choice, or perhaps not

By Marcus Ward 17 December 2018

Advocate General (AG) Manuel Sanchez-Bordona has released his opinion in the Bene Factum case (The link is to Lithuanian, so you ‘may” need to translate…).

A curious matter and one which brings into focus the drinking habits of people across the EU. Now, as those who know me will be aware, I am not adverse to a good single malt, nor a decent claret, but I do wonder sometimes where people draw the line.

Background

It transpires that in Lithuania people who choose not to drink, or cannot afford, even the cheapest alcoholic items have turned to drinking perfume and mouthwash which contain isopropyl alcohol. This has a similar effect on the human body to what most people would regard as being from more usual beer, wine or spirits etc. Sounds delicious eh?

Issue

The issue was whether these products where subject to Excise Duty, or, as the appellant contended, they were duty free as cosmetic products.

Decision

The AG found that isopropyl alcohol is almost unpalatable to most people. The fact that Bene Factum held out, advertised and marketed to people to drink the products did not affect the fact that the main purpose of the goods was for their use as cosmetics and mouthwash. What must be considered is Excise Duty depends on an objective classification to determine whether it is intended for human consumption. This classification is not affected by the fact that Bene Factum actively encouraged people to drink these products rather than use them for cosmetic purposes.

Consequently, the goods where not subject to Excise Duty. Good news for Lithuanian alcohol connoisseurs! It remains to see if the court follows this opinion, in most cases they do, but one never knows.

Commentary

If there is anybody out there who is getting ready for their Christmas party, looks at some cosmetic products and considers taking a swig, I make the following comments:

Probably best to stick supermarket own brand booze if money is an issue
I expect that these things taste absolutely terrible (although I have not sampled them)
I tend to stick to things that are to be applied externally doing just that with them without ingestion
If you can’t decide whether to gargle with something or drink it, I counsel spitting it out
If these goods come to the UK, at least they will be even cheaper being duty free. I am not sure that is a good thing.