Tag Archives: latest-vat-news

VAT – Latest on the Nesquik case

By   February 23, 2018

Latest from the courts

I covered the Nesquik first Tier Tribunal (FTT) case here Well, legal matters have since moved on and the case reached the Upper Tribunal (UT) recently. Nestlé UK Limited the manufacturer of Nesquik appealed against the FTT’s decision that its fruit flavoured products are subject to 20% VAT despite the chocolate flavour being zero rated.

Unfortunately for Nestlé , the UT decision went against it and banana and strawberry Nesquik remains standard rated. Similar contentions (to those in the FTT case) were advanced by the taxpayer, however the UT dismissed Nestlé’s appeal.

The Tribunal recognised that there is not currently a logical and consistent regime which applies to VAT on food (there is a long list of examples which include gingerbread men, smoothies, various types of crisps, not to mention Jaffa cakes….).  I think most advisers could not agree more with the judge and I echo the comments I made after the FTT case: the entire legislation relating to food needs a complete overhaul.

Full details of the case here

Digitisation of the VAT Retail Export Scheme – Update

By   February 23, 2018

What is the VAT Retail Export Scheme (VAT RES)?

The VAT RES allows:

  • overseas visitors (generally, persons who live outside the EC) to receive a refund of VAT paid on goods exported to destinations outside the EC
  • retailers to zero-rate goods sold to entitled customers when they have the necessary evidence of export and have refunded the VAT to the customer

Such treatment is subject to a number of conditions:

  • the customer must be entitled to use the scheme
  • the goods must be eligible to be purchased under the scheme*
  • the customer must make the purchase in person and complete the form at the retailer’s premises in full
  • the goods must be exported from the ECby the last day of the third month following that in which the goods were purchased
  • the customer must send the retailer or the refund company evidence of export stamped by Customs on an official version of Form VAT 407, an approved version of Form VAT 407 or an officially approved invoice
  • the retailer or the refund company must not zero-rate the supply until the VAT has been refunded to the customer

Typically, a retailer will charge UK VAT to an overseas visitor until the visitor has returned the appropriate documentation which has been suitably stamped at the port of departure from the UK.

* Certain goods are excluded from VAT RES. These include; motor vehicles for personal export, boats sold to visitors who intend to sail them to a destination outside the EC, goods over £600 in value exported for business purposes, goods exported as freight or unaccompanied baggage, unmounted gemstones, bullion, goods consumed in the UK and goods purchased by mail order including those purchased over the Internet. (This list is not exhaustive).

Full details of VAT RES scheme here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-704-vat-retail-exports/vat-notice-704-vat-retail-exports

VAT RES is a voluntary scheme and retailers do not have to operate it. Those who do must ensure that all the conditions set out in the above notice are met. In certain areas (such as the West End of London) businesses which offer VAT RES have a commercial/price advantage over those shops which do not.

So what is new?

HMRC has recently (this month) provided an update on their project to digitise the VAT RES system, to improve the efficiency for both retailers and travellers, and also to help reduce fraud. Details here

https://www.att.org.uk/sites/default/files/180213%20VAT%20Retail%20Export%20Scheme.pdf

We are able to advise further on this matter if required.

VAT: Latest from the courts – Hastings Insurance Place Of Supply

By   February 22, 2018

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Hastings Insurance the issue was where was the place of supply (POS) of services?

The POS rules determine under which VAT regime the supply is treated, whether the associated input tax may be recovered and how the services are reported. Consequently, determining the POS for any supply is vitally important because getting it wrong may not only mean that tax is overpaid in one country, but it is not declared in the appropriate country so that penalties and interest are levied. Getting it wrong also means that the input tax position is likely to be incorrect; meaning that VAT can be over or underclaimed.  The rules for the POS of services are notoriously complicated and even subtle differences in a business’ situation can produce a different VAT outcome.

Background

Hastings is an insurance services company operating in the UK.  The appeal relates to whether the appellant was able to recover input tax it incurred in the UK which was attributable to supplies of; broking, underwriting support and claims handling services made to a Gibraltar based insurance underwriter (Advantage) which supplied motor insurance to UK customers through Hastings. In order to obtain credit for the relevant input tax, the supply to Advantage must have a POS outside the EU, eg: the recipient had a place of belonging in Gibraltar and not the UK. HMRC argued that Advantage belonged in the UK so that the input tax could not have been properly recoverable.  Consequently, the issue was where Advantage “belonged” for VAT purposes.

The POS rules set out where a person “belongs”.

A taxable person belongs:

  • where it has a business establishment, or;
  • if different, where it has a fixed establishment, or;
  • if it has both a business establishment and a fixed establishment (or several such establishments), where the establishment is located which is most directly concerned with the supply

Further details on this point are explained here

Contentions

It was not disputed that Advantage had a business establishment in Gibraltar. The question was whether it also had a fixed establishment in the UK and, if so, whether the supplies of services were made to that fixed establishment rather than to its business establishment in Gibraltar. HMRC contended that Advantage had a fixed establishment in the UK which was “more directly concerned with the supply of insurance” such that the POS was the UK. This was on the basis that Advantage had human and technical resources in the UK which were actually used to provide its services to UK customers. Hastings obviously argued to the contrary; that Advantage had no UK fixed establishment and that services were supplied to, and by, Advantage in Gibraltar.

Technical

It may be helpful to look briefly at CJEU case law which considered what an establishment other than a business establishment is. It is: “characterised by a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources”, where looking at the location of the recipient of the supply, “to enable it to receive and use the services supplied to it for its own needs” or, where looking at the location of the supplier, “to enable it to provide the services which it supplies”. 

Decision

The FTT concluded that the input tax in dispute is recoverable because it was attributable to supplies made to Advantage on the basis that it belonged outside the EU (as interpreted in accordance with the relevant EU rules and case law). After a long and exhaustive analysis of the facts the summary was;

  • The appellant’s human and technical resources, through which it provided the services to Advantage, did not comprise a fixed establishment of Advantage in the UK, whether for the purposes of determining where Advantage made supplies of insurance or where the appellant made the supplies of its services.
  • Even if, contrary to the FTT’s view, those resources comprised a fixed establishment in the UK, there is no reason to depart from the location of Advantage’s business establishment in Gibraltar as the place of belonging/supply in the circumstances of this case.

Summary

If this case affects you or your clients it will be rewarding to consider the details of the arrangements which are helpfully set out fully in the decision. This was, in my opinion, a borderline case which could have been decided differently quiet easily.  A significant amount of the evidence produced was deemed inadmissible; which is an interesting adjunct to the main issue in itself. Whether HMRC take this matter further remains to be seen.  It is always worthwhile reviewing a business’ POS in depth and we are able to assist with this.

The ABC of VAT

By   February 12, 2018

VAT Basics

Jargon Buster

Unfortunately, VAT is littered with phrases, acronyms and jargon which can be impenetrable to people that have to deal with the tax.  I have explained the main terms used below and tried to demystify the gobbledygook!

Accounting period

This is the period of time reported in your VAT Return, usually three months.

Acquisitions

Goods brought into the UK from other EC countries (different from goods brought into the UK from outside of the EC; which are known as imports).

Capital Goods Scheme (CGS)

A mechanism for spreading the input tax incurred on certain goods exceeding £50,000 or property exceeding £250,000 of standard-rated cost.

Consideration

Something that is done or given in exchange for something else. Consideration can be in monetary or non-monetary form. If there is no consideration there is no supply.

Corporate body

An incorporated body, eg; a limited company, limited liability partnership, friendly, industrial or provident society.

Distance sales

When a business in one EC country sells and ships goods directly to consumers in another EC country, eg; internet sales.

Exempt supply

A supply that is exempt from VAT by law eg; rent, insurance and financial services.  It is not a taxable supply and generally does not allow the recovery of VAT incurred on associated expenditure.

Exports

Goods sent to countries outside of the EC.

Dispatches

Goods sent to another EC country.

Imports

Goods brought into the EC from countries outside of the EC.

Input tax

Refers to the VAT you pay on your purchases – goods or services you use when running your business.

Invoice

Document provided by a taxable person to customer/client. It must contain certain information.

New building

A commercial building less than three years old where a freehold disposal is compulsorily standard-rated.

Non-residential

A building not used as a dwelling.

Option to tax

Changes the supply of a commercial property from exempt to standard rated.  This is done solely to recover or avoid input tax attributable.

Output tax

Refers to the VAT you charge on your sales which your clients/customers pay you.

Outside the scope of VAT

Goods and services that are completely outside the scope of VAT altogether, eg; taxes, supplies in other countries, TOGCs and wages paid to employees.

Partial exemption

A business which incurs input tax relating to both taxable and exempt activities is partially exempt and will probably not be able to recover all of its input tax.

Place of supply

The country where a supply of goods or services is deemed to be made for VAT purposes. This is the country in which VAT must be accounted for.

Reduced rate

The rate applied to essential goods and services, such as gas and electricity for residential purposes. Currently at 5%.

Registration

Being VAT registered – accounting for output tax on sales and recovering input tax.  A business needs to VAT register when its turnover exceeds certain limits.

Self-billing

Where a customer raises a self-billing document and sends a copy to its supplier with its payment – rather than the supplier issuing an invoice.

Standard rate

A taxable supply subject to UK VAT at the current standard rate of 20%.

Supply

Providing goods or services in return for consideration, normally monetary.

Supply of goods

When exclusive ownership of goods passes from one person to another.

Supply of services

Supply, for consideration, of something provided which is not goods.

Tax period

(Also known as accounting period) The period of time covered by your VAT return. Usually quarterly or monthly.

Taxable person

Any business which supplies goods or services and is required to be registered for VAT.  This includes; individuals, partnerships, companies, clubs, associations and charities etc.

Taxable supplies

Goods and services supplied by a taxable person which are liable to VAT at the standard, reduced or zero rate. They usually permit the recovery of VAT incurred on the costs incurred in making them.

Taxable turnover

Taxable turnover is the total value, net of VAT, of the taxable supplies you make in the UK within one year.  It is used to establish whether registration is necessary.

Tax point (Time of supply)

The date when a business must account for VAT on supplies and when input tax may be reclaimed. This dictates on what VAT return the transaction is accounted for.

Transfer Of A Going Concern (TOGC)

A sale of a business which continues after transfer.  This is a VAT free transaction if certain tests are met.

Zero-rated

Is a taxable supply but subject to UK VAT at a rate of 0%.

VAT: More flexibility on VAT rates, less red tape for small businesses

By   January 18, 2018

The European Commission (EC) has today proposed new rules which it is claimed will give Member States more flexibility to set VAT rates and to create a better tax environment to help SMEs flourish.

The proposals are the final steps of the EC’s overhaul of VAT rules, with the creation of a single EU VAT area to dramatically reduce the €50 billion lost to VAT fraud each year in the EU, while supporting business and securing government revenues.

Further details: “Action Plan on VAT – Towards a single EU VAT

VAT: Disclosure of Avoidance Schemes – new rules

By   January 15, 2018

What needs to be disclosed, and by whom?

The Disclosure of Avoidance Schemes (VAT & Other Indirect Taxes) rules came into effect this month. HMRC Notice 799 sets out the new disclosure rules which are wider than the previous rules and now apply to all indirect taxes (ie; Insurance Premium Tax, General betting Duty, Pool Betting Duty, Remote Gaming Duty, Machine Games Duty, Gaming Duty, Lottery Duty, Bingo Duty, Air Passenger Duty, Hydrocarbon Oils Duty, Tobacco Products Duty, Duties on Spirits, Beer, Wine, Made-Wine and Cider, Soft Drinks Industry Levy, Aggregates Levy, Landfill Tax, Climate Change Levy and Customs Duties) – not just VAT.

The Notice contains information on what to do if a person promotes or uses arrangements (including any scheme, transaction or series of transactions) from 1 January 2018 that will, or are intended to, provide the user with a VAT or other indirect tax advantage when compared to adopting a different course of action.

The information includes:

  • What arrangements must be disclosed to HMRC
  • Who has responsibility to disclose notifiable proposals or arrangements to HMRC
  • Deciding who is a promoter of notifiable proposals or arrangements
  • Deciding who is an introducer of a notifiable proposal
  • What the obligations are as a promoter of notifiable proposals or arrangements
  • What the obligations are as an introducer of a notifiable proposal
  • What the obligations are as a user of notifiable arrangements including when there is a responsibility to disclose
  • How to make a disclosure to HMRC

It is crucially important to establish who is required to notify HMRC and of what. The rules do not just cover tax advisers but may also affect businesses directly.  

The effect of disclosure

A disclosure under the new rules has no effect on the tax position of any person who uses the arrangements. However, a disclosed arrangement may be challenged by HMRC or may be rendered ineffective by legislative action by Parliament.

Please contact us if you think any of the above affects you.

VAT: How well did HMRC perform?

By   January 15, 2018

The Public Accounts Committee has published its report on HMRC’s Performance in 2016–17. Things are far from rosy…

The report highlights concerns for customer service from growing challenges facing HMRC. It states that HMRC is undertaking 15 major transformation programmes and comments that “With Brexit it faces additional pressures and is having to consider how to change priorities. It needs to be clear about what it will do differently, or not do, and what the impact will be on customer service.”

“Together with the Treasury, HMRC has to make tough decisions on how it allocates limited resources to its operations to increase tax revenues, protect performance levels, prioritise its transformation and estate programmes, and invest in measures to tackle tax evasion, fraud and error.”

Comments from the Committee Chair, Meg Hillier MP do not hold back:

“HMRC’s transformation programme would have been less risky had it not attempted to do everything at the same time. What was already a precarious high-wire act is now being battered by the winds of Brexit, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Action arising from allegations in the so-called Paradise Papers could also significantly increase the authority’s workload.  HMRC accepts something has to give and it now faces difficult decisions on how best to use its limited resources—decisions that must give full consideration to the needs of all taxpayers. In particular we are concerned about the effect on people simply trying to pay their fair share. HMRC’s customer service has improved on the appalling levels of recent years but its claims about call-answering times don’t stack up. Any new deterioration would be wholly unacceptable.”

There are concerns too about the impact of changes in the welfare system, which could increase the financial risks faced by vulnerable Tax Credits claimants. At the same time, the level of Tax Credits fraud and error has gone up and is only going to get worse.

These are serious, pressing challenges for HMRC, requiring swift and coordinated action in Government. As a matter of urgency the authority must set out a coherent plan and demonstrate it is fit for the future.”

Conclusions and recommendations

Specifically, there are eight conclusions and recommendations which are summarised below:

  • The ‘Paradise Papers’ leak suggests potentially serious and extensive allegations of tax evasion and avoidance.

Recommendation: HMRC should obtain the information from the ‘Paradise Papers’ as soon as possible, and report back to the Committee by March 2018 to set out its response, including any additional revenue likely to be at stake.

  • HMRC is unclear how far it can close the tax gap with existing resources.

Recommendation: HMRC should set target levels for reduction of the tax gap, including for the SME sector, and set out how HMRC will be more responsive to emerging risks.

  • HMRC’s transformation programme is not deliverable as planned due to unrealistic assumptions, and increased pressure from the additional workload caused by Brexit.

Recommendation: HMRC should report back to the Committee by March 2018 with clear plans on how it will manage the many challenges it faces due to Brexit and its ongoing transformation programmes and update its original assumptions and amend its forecasts for its transformation programme, particularly those concerning customer demand for its various services.

  • The committee is not convinced that HMRC will obtain value for money from long-term leases, without break clauses, for its new estate of 13 large regional centres.

Recommendation: HMRC and the Government Property Unit should use their strong negotiating position to ensure they gain sufficient flexibility in the terms for the four regional centre leases yet to be signed, and should examine ways to build in greater flexibility from the eight regional centre leases already signed.

  • The committee recognises the improvements in customer service since the unacceptable levels of 2015−16, but are concerned about HMRC’s ability to maintain this level of performance.

Recommendation: HMRC should ensure it continues to deliver a consistent and reasonable level of service to all its customers. The committee will be monitoring performance and will return to this issue.

  • The average time it takes for customers to speak to an adviser when they call is longer than HMRC claims.

Recommendation: HMRC should introduce a new set of measures that better reflect the actual experience of customers. Automated telephony time should be included within the five minute speed to answer target.

  • Vulnerable people receiving Tax Credits are at increased risk of financial problems as they transfer to Universal Credit.

Recommendation: HMRC to report back to the committee by March 2018 to explain how it will take care of the interests of vulnerable people receiving Tax Credits. This should include how it will work with DWP to manage claimants’ transition to Universal Credit, and protect them against aggressive departmental activity to reclaim overpayments due to error and fraud.

  • We are alarmed to hear that the level of Tax Credits error and fraud has risen and is only going to get worse.

Recommendation: HMRC should set out its strategy for tackling Tax Credits error and fraud, given the additional risks posed by transfer to Universal Credit, including a cost-benefit analysis of its approach.

From a VAT perspective, it does seem that customer service has slightly improved from what was a completely awful level the year before. Unfortunately, this service is still unacceptable and frankly, I also find that the time waiting for a telephone call to be answered as stated by HMRC is highly dubious. Personal experience insists that they still have a great deal of work to do in this area and this is reinforced by discussions with other advisers in all areas of tax.

 

VAT – There is no such thing as a free lunch

By   January 3, 2018

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal case of ING Intermediate Holdings Ltd the issue was whether the provision of “free” banking actually constituted a supply for VAT purposes.

Background

The appeal concerned the recoverability of input tax. ING wished to recover (via deduction against the outputs of a separate investment business) a proportion of VAT expenses incurred in connection with a “deposit-taking” business. ING contended that this activity did not involve any VATable supply. HMRC contended, and did so successfully before both prior tribunals, that it is more than a deposit-taking business and involved the provision of banking services.

The issue

The relevant services were supplied to the public, and the user of the services were not charged a fee. Consequently, the essential issue was; whether the “free” banking services were provided for consideration and, if so, how that consideration ought to be quantified for VAT purposes. If there was a consideration, there was a supply, and that supply would be exempt; thus not providing a right to recovery of input tax for the appellant.

Technical

There is no definition of consideration in either the EC Principal VAT Directive or the VAT Act 1994. In the UK, the meaning was originally taken from contract law, but the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has confirmed that the term is to be given the Community meaning and is not to be variously interpreted by Member States. The Community definition used in ECJ cases is taken from the EC 2nd VAT Directive Annex A13 as follows even though this Directive is no longer in force:

“…the expression “consideration” means everything received in return for the supply of goods or the provision of services, including incidental expenses (packing, transport, insurance etc), that is to say not only the cash amounts charged but also, for example, the value of the goods received in exchange or, in the case of goods or services supplied by order of a public authority, the amount of the compensation received.”

NB: In order for there to be consideration, it must be able to be quantifiable and able to be expressed in monetary terms.

Decision

The CA decided that although there was no distinct charge to the users of the service, there was a supply of services for a consideration. That consideration was the difference between what the customer obtained from the relevant account, and what he could have obtained from an account which was not free, but provided better returns (the interest rate offered must have contained some deduction for the services provided). This was capable of being expressed in monetary terms (although it is interesting to note that the CA stated that it would be undesirable to say which method should be applied, although the court was “entirely satisfied” that it could be done).

Consequently there was a supply for VAT purposes and ING’s appeal was therefore dismissed.

Commentary

HMRC quite often argue that there is a supply when in fact, there is no supply. However, they did have a decent argument in this case and I understand that they are likely to apply this to a number of other long running disputes.  Please contact us if you consider that this case could affect your business or your client’s business.

Ding Dong – Avon calling (for VAT)

By   December 21, 2017

Latest from the courts

The CJEU case of Avon Cosmetics Limited considered the validity and completeness of a specific UK derogation called a “Retail Sale Direction”.

Background

Avon Cosmetics Limited (‘Avon’) sells its beauty products in the UK to representatives, known colloquially as ‘Avon Ladies’, who in turn make retail sales to their customers (‘direct selling model’). Many of the Avon Ladies are not registered for VAT. As a result, their profit margins would not normally be subject to VAT. As an example; an Avon Lady may buy goods from Avon at £50 and sell them at £70. In HMRC’s eyes, the £20 difference is not taxed.

“Lost VAT” Derogation

That problem of ‘lost VAT’ at the last stage of the supply chain is typical of direct selling models. In order to deal with the problem, the UK sought and obtained a derogation from the standard rule that VAT is charged on the actual sales price. In Avon’s case that derogation  allowed HMRC to charge Avon VAT, not on the wholesale price paid by the unregistered Avon Ladies, but instead on the retail price at which the Avon Ladies would go on to sell the products to the final consumer. However, the way the derogation is applied does not take into account the costs incurred by the unregistered representatives in their retail selling activities, and the input tax that they would normally have been able to deduct had they been VAT registered (‘notional input tax’). In particular, where Avon Ladies buy products for demonstration purposes (not to resell but to use as a selling aid) they cannot deduct VAT on those purchases as input tax.  The result is that the disregarded notional input tax in relation to such costs ‘sticks’ in the supply chain and increases the overall VAT charged on the direct selling model over that charged on sales through ordinary retail outlets.

Challenge

The appeal by Avon concerns the interpretation and validity of the Derogation.

In particular

  • whether there is an obligation to take into account the notional input tax of direct resellers such as the Avon Ladies
  • whether there was an obligation for the UK to bring the issue of notional input tax to the EC’s attention when it requested the Derogation, and
  • what would be/what are the consequences of failing to comply with either of those obligations?

Result

The CJEU found that neither the derogation authorised by Council Decision 89/534/EEC of 24 May 1989 authorising the UK to apply, in respect of certain supplies to unregistered resellers nor, national measures implementing that decision infringe the principles of proportionality and fiscal neutrality. Therefore, output tax remains due on the ultimate retail sale value, but there is no credit for any VAT incurred by the Avon Ladies.

VAT – A Christmas Tale

By   December 12, 2017
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 12 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.

Can 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!