Latest from the courts
In the Regency Factors plc Court Of Appeal (CoA) case the issue was the validity of the appellant’s claim for Bad Debt Relief (BDR) on amounts it had not received after the issue of an invoice.
Technical
BDR is a mechanism which goes some way to protect a business from payment defaulters. Under the normal rules of VAT, 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). The specific relief for unpaid VAT is via the BDR scheme.
A guide to BDR here.
Commentary on the Upper Tribunal (UT) hearing in this case here.
Background
In the CoA case the issue was whether the appellant met the conditions in The VAT General Regulations 1995, Reg 168 for claiming BDR via The VAT Act 1994, section 36.
Regency provided a factoring service to its clients for which it is paid a fee. VAT invoices for those fees were issued to clients when the invoices which are being factored are assigned to Regency for collection.
Regency appealed against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) which dismissed Regency’s appeal against VAT assessments made by HMRC to withdraw BDR which Regency had claimed in its VAT returns.
The UT held that the BDR claim was not valid because
- there was no bad debt; and
- Regency had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the making of a claim.
Regency appealed against the decision of the UT on the second point.
Decision
The CoA decided that as Regency’s record keeping was insufficient to support a BDR claim. Specifically, although it did keep the records required by Regulation 168 (2), it did not keep a single VAT BDR account which is required by Regulation 168 (3). The ruling commented that this requirement was a legitimate feature of the scheme as it enables an inspector to check the claim easily. It is not acceptable for a claimant to simply have a pile of unsorted documents which may, or may not, evidence a valid claim.
The court also said that it was possible for HMRC to allow a discretionary claim (clearly, they did not use that discretion in this case) and that the legal requirement was not a barrier to Regency making a proper BDR claim. The appeal was dismissed.
“In short, Regency had the opportunity to prove its claim for bad debt relief in the FTT… but it failed to do so. It is not entitled to a second opportunity”.
Commentary
As always with VAT, accurate record-keeping is essential. As the tax is transaction based, it is vital to keep comprehensive evidence of those transactions and associated payments. Failure to do so may result in:
- assessments and penalties
- give HMRC the opportunity to refuse otherwise legitimate input tax recovery
- refuse other VAT claims (in this case BDR).
- confusion and uncertainty which often creates costs in time and other resources, and extended relations with HMRC, which is in no business’ interest.
If Regency had taken “one step further” with its record keeping, BDR would have been paid by HMRC.