HMRC have issued a BB 5(2024) on Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) for business to business (B2B) wholesale supplies.
Ultimately, the policy allowing businesses to choose whether to apply TOMS to B2B wholesale supplies remains unchanged.
HMRC has issued its 1 May 2024 to 30 April 2025 Road Fuel Scale Charges (RFSC)
RFSC
A scale charge is a way of accounting for output tax on road fuel bought by a business for cars which is then put to private use. If a business uses the scale charge, it can recover all the VAT charged on road fuel without having to identify specific business and private use. The charge is calculated on a flat rate basis according to the CO2 emissions of the car.
More on motoring expenses here.
A business will need to calculate the correct RFSC based on a car’s CO2 emissions, and the length of its VAT accounting period. This will be either one, 3, or 12 months. The CO2 emissions figure may be found here if the information is not available in the log book.
Alternatives to using RFSC
Business/private mileage calculation example:
Latest from the courts
In the The Prudential Assurance Company Limited (Pru) Court of Appeal (CoA) case the issues were the “difficult” questions in respect of the relationship between the VAT grouping rules and the time of supply (tax point) legislation. Is VAT is applicable on a continuous supply of services where these services were supplied while the companies were VAT grouped, but invoices were issued after the supplier left the VAT group?
Background
Pru was at the relevant time carrying on with-profits life and insurance business. Silverfleet Capital Limited (Silverfleet) provided Pru with investment management services. Under an agreement dated 30 August 2002, the consideration which Silverfleet received for its services comprised a management fee calculated by reference to the amount of investments made during the period in which services were provided and performance fees, payable in the event that the performance of certain funds exceeded a set benchmark rate of return.
When Silverfleet was rendering its investment management services, Pru was the representative member of a VAT group of which Silverfleet was also a member. However, in 2007 a management buy-out was effected, as a result of which Silverfleet ceased to be a member of Pru’s VAT group. It also ceased to provide management services to Pru.
During 2014 and 2015, the hurdle rate set under the 2002 agreement was passed. Silverfleet accordingly invoiced Prudential at various dates between 2015 and 2016 for fees totalling £9,330,805.92 (“the Performance Fees”) plus VAT at 20%.
The Issues
The CoA considered whether the Performance Fees are subject to VAT.
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided the point in favour of Pru. However, HMRC succeeded in an appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UT). In a decision that decision, the UT concluded that VAT was chargeable on the Performance Fees.
In its decision, the FTT queried whether regulation 90 of the VAT Regulations went so far as to direct that Silverfleet’s services had not been provided within a VAT group and had been “supplied in the course or furtherance of a business that in the VAT group world was not being carried on”. Further, the FTT was “unable to see what feature distinguishes [Prudential’s] case from that of the taxpayer in [B J Rice & Associates v Customs and Excise Commissioners]”.
In contrast, the UT considered that, pursuant to regulation 90 of the VAT Regulations, Silverfleet’s services were to be treated as having been supplied when invoiced and, hence, at a time when Silverfleet and Prudential were no longer members of the same VAT group. That being so, section 43 of VATA 1994 was not, in the UT’s view, in point. The UT also considered that the FTT had erred in regarding itself as bound by B J Rice & Associates v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1996] STC 581 (“B J Rice”) to allow the appeal. Unlike Mr Rice, the UT said in its decision, Silverfleet “was not entirely outside the scope of VAT when the Services were rendered, but rather it was subject to a specific set of assumptions and disregards”.
Pru contended that Silverfleet should not be considered to have made the supply in the course or furtherance of any business carried on by it. The business will instead be assumed to have been carried on by Pru. This was important because if VAT was applicable to the services Pru would not be in a position to recover it (in full at least) due to partial exemption which represented a large VAT cost.
Unsurprisingly, HMRC considered that output tax was due because at the tax point, Silverfleet as no longer part of the VAT group.
Legislation
The VAT Act 1994, section 43 lays down the rules in respect of VAT groups, and The VAT Regulations 1995, regulation 90 makes provision with respect to the time at which continuous supplies of services are to be treated as supplied for VAT purposes.
Section 43 explains that any supply by one member of a VAT group to another is to be “disregarded” and that “any business carried on by a member of the group shall be treated as carried on by the representative member”. Does this mean that no VAT is chargeable on an intra-group supply regardless of whether the supplier has left the group by the time consideration for the supply is the subject of a VAT invoice and paid? Or is section 43 inapplicable in respect of continuous supplies insofar as the consideration is invoiced and received only after the supplier is no longer a member of the VAT group because regulation 90 provides for the services to be treated as supplied at the time of the invoice or payment?
Decision
The appeal was dismissed and HMTC’s assessment was upheld. It was not possible to disregard the supply as intra-group and the tax point rules for the continuous supply of services meant that it was a taxable supply. The decision was not unanimous, with the decision by the judges being a 2:1 majority.
Commentary
This was a close decision and highlights the necessity of considering the interaction between VAT groups and tax points and the implications of timings. The case makes interesting reading in full (well, for VAT people anyway!) for the technical discussions and the disagreement between the judges.
Dead mice, rats and day-old chicks sold for feeding to exotic pets may be zero-rated.
This Guidance provides examples to help with the completion of declarations on the Customs Declarations Service for exports. It has been updated with the addition of a standard pre-lodged export declaration document.
A Warning
There has been a great deal of debate on the subject of VAT and influencers, with HMRC issuing assessments for underdeclared output tax on “gifts” received by them.
What is an influencer?
An influencer is someone who has certain power to affect the purchasing decisions of others because of their; authority, knowledge, position, or relationship with their audience. These individuals are social relationship assets with which brands can collaborate to achieve their marketing objectives.
In recent years the growth of social media means that influencers have grown in importance. According to recent statistics, the projected number of global social media users in 2023 was 4.89 billion. This is a 6.5% rise from the previous year.
What is the VAT issue?
Business gifts to influencers
A business is not required to account for VAT on certain dealings if they meet certain conditions. For free gifts, the condition is that the total cost of all gifts to the same person is less than £50 in a 12-month period. Further, if the goods are “free samples” – used for marketing purposes and provided in a quantity that lets potential customers test the product, then the £50 rule does not apply. If an influencer receives free gifts or samples, there are no VAT implications for them.
HMRC Action
However, we understand that HMRC has decided that, in the majority of cases, the supply of goods to influencers were not ‘free gifts” but rather consideration for a taxable supply of marketing or advertising. They were also not considered free samples as, generally, influencers would not be in the position to test the goods, having no expertise in the field. It is also concluded that influencers, in most cases were “in business“.
The payment for the marketing, promotion or advertising services (the VAT treatment is similar, regardless of how the services are categorised) is by way of the supply of goods, rather than monetary consideration. That is; consideration is flowing in both directions. Consequently, output tax is due on this amount if the influencer is, or should be, VAT registered.
What is the value of the supply?
Non-monetary consideration
Non-monetary consideration includes goods or services supplied as payment, for example in a “barter” (including part exchange) agreement. If the supply is for a consideration not consisting or not wholly consisting of money, its value shall be taken to be such amount in money as, with the addition of the VAT chargeable, is equivalent to the consideration. Where a supply of any goods or services is not the only matter to which a consideration in money relates, the supply is deemed to be for such part of the consideration as is properly attributable to it.
In determining the taxable amount, the only advantages received by a supplier that are relevant are those obtained in return for making the supply should be recognised. Non-monetary consideration has the value of the alternative monetary payment that would normally have been given for the supply.
VAT Registration
If an influencer receives gifts valued at over £90,000 in any 12-month period, or these gifts plus other monetary consideration, VAT registration is mandatory.
More on business promotions here.
Where goods are located in a shop can affect the VAT treatment. Nuts sold in the bakery aisle are VAT free, but those sold with snacks or confectionary are standard rated.
Are Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments subject to VAT? – Usually no, but…
What is TP?
A transfer price is the price charged in a transaction between two parties. The transfer pricing legislation concerns itself with the prices charged in transactions between connected parties as, in such circumstances, the price charged may not necessarily be that which would have been charged if the parties had not been connected.
The UK’s transfer pricing legislation details how transactions between connected parties are handled and in common with many other countries is based on the internationally recognised ‘arm’s length principle’.
The UK allows only for a transfer pricing adjustment to increase taxable profits or reduce a tax loss. It is not possible to decrease profits or increase a tax loss.
The UK’s transfer pricing legislation also applies to transactions between any connected UK entities.
The arm’s length principle applies to transactions between connected parties. For tax purposes such transactions are treated by reference to the profit that would have arisen if the transactions had been carried out under comparable conditions by independent parties.
So, is a TP adjustment additional consideration for a supply?
VAT
Value of the supply – what is the consideration?
TP is a direct tax concept which does not necessarily align with VAT considerations. Unhelpfully, there are no provisions in UK legislation which provides for the VAT treatment of TP adjustments. Additionally, there is no case law on this subject.
As a TP adjustment is solely for direct tax purposes, it does not usually affect the value of the supply for VAT purposes. Consequently, such adjustments are usually outside the scope of VAT.
However, price adjustments of previous supply of goods/services must be recognised for VAT market value rules only when:
VAT Act 1994, Schedule 6, Part 2, para 1 gives HMRC the vires to issue such a Notice.
Latest
We understand that a case: Arcomet Romania is due to be heard by the CJEU on whether TP adjustments represent consideration and we await the outcome which may provide clarity. (Although after Brexit, the previous position: that the UK VAT Act is to be interpreted with EU case law and general principles of EU law has ended. UK courts whilst still relying on the UK VAT Act and its EU VAT Directive principles, will be able to deviate from ECJ case law).
Latest from the courts
In the H Ripley & Co Limited First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether the appellant had satisfactory evidence to support the zero rating of the export of goods (scrap metal).
Background
HMRC denied zero rating on the basis that the appellant did not provide satisfactory evidence to support the fact that the scrap metal was removed from the UK.
The requirements are set out in VAT Notice 725 para 5 and acceptable documentary evidence may include:
or a combination of the above.
HMRC advised the appellant that it had received an information request from the Belgian tax authorities in respect of certain transactions and consequently, HMRC required information on the company’s documents in connection with the supplies. On receipt of the information HMRC concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support zero-rating so the sales were treated as standard rated and the appellant’s repayment claim was reduced to reflect this.
In these circumstances the burden of proof is on the appellant to show that it has satisfied the conditions set out in Notice 725 to zero-rate its supplies and provide documentation to show that the goods were removed from the UK.
Decision
The court noted that it was not HMRC’s position that supplementary evidence could not be provided post the required three-months period but that it was entitled to decline the additional evidence when it was provided some 18 to 30 months after the three-month period. It was clear that the evidence of removal must be obtained within three months and not that the valid evidence is brought into existence within the three-month time limit and obtained at some future date.
Notice 725 sets out the conditions which attach to the entitlement to zero-rate supplies. The FTT considered it to be clear from paragraph 4.3 and 4.4 (which have the force of law) that the onus is on the exporter company claiming zero-rating to gather sufficient evidence of removal within three months of the date of the supply. If it does not do so, it is not entitled to zero-rate the supplies.
Specifically, the court considered:
The appeal was dismissed, and the assessments were upheld because none of the documents either individually or taken as a whole, were sufficient evidence to support zero-rating.
Commentary
Yet another case illustrating the importance of insuring correct documentation is held. It is not sufficient that goods leave the UK, but the detailed evidence requirements must always be met.
Latest from the courts
In the Three Shires Trailers Limited First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issues were whether an input tax claim on the purchase of two Land Rover Discoveries was appropriate when they were converted from commercial vehicles to cars, or was a self-supply triggered?
Background
The vehicles were commercial vehicles when purchased and input tax was recovered. Subsequently, they were converted by the addition of three fold up seats with seat belts behind the driver seat and removing materials which had blacked out the rear windows which reclassified them as cars. This would have subjected them to an input tax block if purchased in that state.
The purpose of buying the vehicles was for the transport of trailers to customers, the collection of trailers from suppliers and to enable personnel of the appellant to attend trade fairs all over the country.
Technical
“A Motor Car” is defined as:
“any motor vehicle of a kind used on public roads which has three or more wheels and either:
(a) is constructed or adapted solely or mainly for the carriage of passengers; or
(b) has to the rear of the driver’s seat roofed accommodation which is fitted with side windows or which is constructed or adapted for the fitting of side windows…”
Issues
The appellant stated that the vehicles were used only for business purposes. Employees were not permitted to use the vehicles for private purposes and did not do so. The vehicles were kept at the business’s premises. He also explained that the vehicles were not converted to cars, if they were cars, they were qualifying cars and if they were non-qualifying cars, the use was only temporary, and they were converted back to commercial vehicles.
Initially, HMRC disallowed the claim because the vehicles became cars and subject to the input tax block.
Subsequently, HMRC’s case was that the vehicles had been converted from commercial vehicles to non-qualifying cars which triggers an irreversible self-supply under Article 5 of the Value Added Tax (Cars) Order 1992 so output tax equalling the claimed input tax was due.
Decision
The FTT decided that, at the time when the vehicles were acquired, they were indisputably commercial vehicles and the appellant was entitled to deduct the input tax on them.
The judge found that, after conversion, the vehicles were intended for use, and were used, only for business purposes. The appellant did not intend that the vehicles should be used for private purposes and so far as he was aware, there was no private use. The vehicles were therefore qualifying motor vehicles eligible for input VAT recovery. No output tax was due on a self-supply.
The appeal was allowed.
Commentary
Another case on the recovery of input tax on car purchases and the difference between commercial vehicles and cars. It is notoriously difficult to persuade HMRC that there is no private use of cars, but it is possible.