Tag Archives: partial-exemption

Overages – what are they and what is the VAT treatment?

By Marcus Ward 4 August 2023

Land and property transactions are often complex and high value for VAT purposes. One area which we have been increasingly involved with is overages.

What is an overage?

An overage is an agreement whereby a purchaser of land agrees to pay the vendor an additional sum of money, in addition to the purchase price, following the occurrence of a future specified event that enhances the value of the land. This entitles the seller to a proportion of the enhanced value following the initial sale. Overages may also be called clawbacks, or uplifts.

Overages are popular with landowners who sell with the benefit of development potential and with buyers who may be able to purchase land at an initial low price with a condition that further payment will be made contingent on land increasing in value in the future – this may be as a result, of, say, obtaining Planning Permission.

VAT Treatment

This is not free from doubt. HMRC’s current view is that the VAT treatment of the overage follows the VAT treatment of the initial supply. This means that it is deemed to be additional consideration for the original supply, so if the land was subject to an Option To Tax (OTT) when originally disposed of the overage payment would be subject to VAT at 20%. Conversely, if the land was sold on an exempt basis, the overage is similarly VAT free and it is important to recognise this and not to charge VAT unnecessarily which would create difficulties for the buyer (because it would not be a VAT-able supply, HMRC would disallow a claim for input tax).

It is crucial to identify this VAT outcome, especially as there could be a long period between the original sale and the overage and there may be a succession of overage payments. Comprehensive records should be made and retained on the VAT status of land sold.

Uncertainty

Uncertainty arises because HMRC have changed its view on overages. The original interpretation was that there were two separate supplies, each with distinct VAT treatments. As there was no link to the original supply, the overage was mandatorily standard rated, even if the initial supply was exempt.

Additionally, take the position where the original sale was standard rated due to an OTT on the land, and the buyer subsequently built and sold new dwellings (which effectively disapplies the OTT via para 3, Notice 742A) it could be argued that the overage should be exempt as it is linked to the sale of the new houses.

We understand that HMRC’s analysis is that VAT treatment of overages is determined at the time of the original supply such that it cannot be affected by subsequent events.

In our view, the “new” HMRC view may be open to challenge – We await updated published guidance on this.

VAT refunds guidance

By Marcus Ward 13 June 2023

VAT Claims

HMRC has completely rewritten its manual VRM7000 on VAT repayments and set-off.

When a business makes a claim for VAT (for whatever reason) HMRC have the power to set-off a payment against other amounts due.

HMRC also has a discretion to take account of any taxpayer liabilities in other regimes HMRC administers such as corporation tax or excise duty.

In summary, the new guidance covers:

Inherent set-off via The VAT General Regulations 1995, Section 80(2A) and Regulation 29. This is where, say, a supply was incorrectly treated as standard rated when it was exempt. It would not be possible to claim the overcharged output tax (subject to unjust enrichment) without recognising the potential overclaim of input tax as a result of partial exemption.
Set-off under The VAT Gen Regs 1995, Section 81(3) HMRC. This covers HMRC liability to only pay a claim after setting off any VAT, penalties, interest or surcharge owed to it. Section 81(3) is mandatory and applies to the current liabilities of a taxpayer, regardless of the period incurred.
Set-off under section 81(3A). This is a special provision which requires HMRC to set any liabilities that would otherwise be out-of-time to assess, against any amounts for which HMRC is liable under a claim. It does this by disregarding the assessment time limit, to undo all the consequences of a mistake.
VAT group set-offs. When a company leaves a VAT group, it is still jointly and severally liable under section 43(1) VAT Act 1994 for any outstanding debts of the group incurred while the company was a member. Any VAT claim by the ex-member will be subject to set-off against these group debts.
Set-offs against other taxes and duties. HMRC has the discretion under Section 130 of the Finance Act 2008 to set-off debts due from any other tax regimes HMRC is responsible for. This is subject to the insolvency rules in section 131 Finance Act 2008. A taxpayer should always check that no further liabilities have arisen since the claim was made.
Transfers of rights to claim to another person (Section 133 of the Finance Act 2008) – A claim will be subject to set-off of any outstanding liabilities to HMRC from both transferor and transferee. NB: HMRC policy is to make reasonable efforts to recover outstanding debts from the original creditor before applying set-off to the current creditors claim.

VAT: Charity exemption for show admittance – The Yorkshire Agricultural Society case

By Marcus Ward 9 May 2023

Latest from the courts

In the Yorkshire Agricultural Society First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether payments for entry into the annual The Great Yorkshire Show qualified as exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 12, item 1 –

“The supply of goods and services by a charity in connection with an event—

1. 1. that is organised for charitable purposes by a charity or jointly by more than one charity,
  2. whose primary purpose is the raising of money, and
  3. that is promoted as being primarily for the raising of money.”

HMRC raised an assessment on the grounds that the supply of admittance fell outwith the exemption so it was standard rated. It appears that this view was formed solely on the basis that the events were not advertised as fundraisers.

The exemption covers events whose primary purpose is the raising of money and which are promoted primarily for that purpose. HMRC contended that the events were not advertised as fundraisers and therefore the exemption did not apply. Not surprisingly, the appellant contended that all of the tests at Group 12 were fully met.

The FTT found difficulty in understanding HMRC’s argument. It was apparent from the relevant: tickets, posters and souvenir programmes all featured the words “The Great Yorkshire Show raises funds for the Yorkshire Agricultural Society to help support farming and the countryside”.

Decision

The FTT spent little time finding for the taxpayer and allowing the appeal. The assessment was withdrawn. There was a separate issue of the assessment being out of time, which was academic given the initial decision. However, The Tribunal was critical of HMRC’s approach to the time limit test (details in the linked decision). HMRC’s argument was that apparently, the taxpayer had brought the assessment on itself by not providing the information which HMRC wanted. The Judge commented: “That is not the same as HMRC being in possession of information which justified it in issuing the Assessment. It is an inversion of the statutory test”.

HMRC’s performance (or lack of it)

Apart from the clear outcome of this case, it also demonstrated how HMRC can get it so wrong. The FTT stated that it was striking that there was very little by way of substantive challenge by HMRC to the appellant’s evidence, nor any detailed exploration of it in cross-examination. The FTT, which is a fact-finding jurisdiction, asked a series of its own questions to establish some facts about the Society’s activities and the Show in better detail. No-one from HMRC filed a witness statement or gave evidence, even though HMRC, in its application to amend its Statement of Case, had said that the decision-maker would be giving evidence. The decision-maker did not give evidence. HMRC were wrong on the assessment and the time limit statutory test and did not cover itself in glory at the hearing.

Commentary

More evidence that if any business receives an assessment, it is always a good idea to get it reviewed. Time and time again we see HMRC make basic errors and misunderstand the VAT position. We have an excellent record on challenging HMRC decisions. Charities have a hard time of it with VAT, and while it is accurate to say that some of the legislation and interpretation is often complex for NFPs, HMRC do not help by taking such ridiculous cases.

VAT: Was an option to tax valid? The Rolldeen Estates Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 18 April 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Rolldeen Estates Ltd there were a number of issues, inter alia; whether the appellant’s option to tax (OTT) was valid, if not, whether HMRC had the power to deem it valid, whether HMRC acted unreasonably and whether appellant estopped from relying on earlier meeting with an HMRC officer.

Background

The letting of property is an exempt supply, however, a landlord the owner can OTT the property and charge VAT on that supply. If the OTT is exercised, the supplier is able to reclaim input VAT on costs such as repairs and maintenance, but charges output VAT on its supplies. The OTT provisions are set out at The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10.

The appellant in this case had previously submitted an OTT form VAT1614A and charged VAT on the rent to its tenant. Subsequently, the property was sold without charging VAT. HMRC issued an assessment for output tax on the sale value.

Schedule 10

A taxpayer does not need HMRC’s permission to OTT, unless that person has already made exempt supplies in relation to that property – in particular, if the property has already been let without VAT having been charged. In that scenario, the person must apply to HMRC for permission to exercise the OTT, and permission will only be given if HMRC are satisfied that the input tax is fairly attributed as between the exempt period and the taxable period. When OTT the company stated that no previous exempt supplies of the relevant property had been made and this was also confirmed in subsequent correspondence with HMRC.

Appellant’s contentions

The company informed HMRC that the OTT was invalid so that no VAT was due on the sale. Evidence was provided which demonstrated that Rolldeen had made exempt supplies before the date of the OTT so that HMRC’s permission had therefore been required before it could be opted. No permission had been given and therefore there was no valid OTT in place even though the appellant had purported to exercise that option. Also, the appellant submitted that it was unreasonable of HMRC to have exercised the discretion to deem the OTT to have effect, because they had failed to take into account the fact that during an inspection, HMRC had known that Rolldeen had made exempt supplies before OTT.

HMRC’s view

VATA, Schedule 10, para 30 allows HMRC retrospectively to dispense with the requirement for prior permission, and to treat a “purported option as if it had instead been validly exercised”. HMRC issued a decision stating that it was exercising its discretion under Schedule 10, para 30 to treat the relevant property as opted with effect from the date of the VAT1614A and that VAT was due on the sale and the assessment was appropriate.

Decision

The FTT found that:

after an inspection by HMRC it knew that prior exempt supplies had been made
although HMRC knew exempt supplies had already been made Rolldeen was estopped* from relying on that fact, because both parties had shared a “common assumption” that the OTT had been valid
para 30 could be used to retrospectively validate the OTT (albeit only in relation to supplies made after 1 June 2008). In this case that was sufficient as the sale of the property occurred on in March 2015
HMRC had not acted unreasonably because they had not taken into account their own failure to carry out a compliance check
this is exactly the sort of situation for which para 30 was designed
it was entirely reasonable and appropriate of HMRC to deem the purported option to have been validly exercised

The appeal was rejected and the assessment was valid.

Commentary

Again, proof, if proof is needed, that OTT can be a complex and costly area of the tax and care must always be taken. Advice should always be sought, as once an OTT is made, there is usually no going back.

An interesting point in this case was that no case law was cited on this issue and the FTT was unable to identify any.

* The principle of “estoppel” means that a person may be prevented from relying on a particular fact or argument in certain circumstances.

VAT: Exemption of fund management services

By Marcus Ward 8 February 2023

HM Treasury has published a consultation paper on the treatment of the service of management of special investment funds (SIFs).

SIF meaning in VAT terms

There is no definition of a SIF in existing legislation.

Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Trust plc (case C-363/05) ruled on the interpretation of the term ‘Special Investment Funds as defined by Member States’.

The key points in this judgment are:

the term ‘special investment funds’ is capable of including closed-ended investment funds, such as investment trust companies (ITCs)
Member States have a discretion to define ‘special investment funds’ for the VAT exemption but, in doing so, must pay due regard to:
the purpose of the exemption
the principle of fiscal neutrality.

According to the Court, the purpose of the exemption is to facilitate investment in securities for investors through investment undertakings. This requires there to be VAT neutrality between the direct investment in securities and investment through collective investment undertakings, as the latter incurs a management charge. Furthermore, there must be equality of VAT treatment for funds which are similar to, and in competition with, funds falling within the scope of the exemption.

As a result of the case, the exemption was extended so that there was a level VAT playing field for all similar collective investment undertakings which compete in the UK retail market. This includes closed and open-ended collective investment undertakings, umbrellas and sub-funds, as well as some pension schemes.

The fund management exemption is limited to the management of SIFs. Consequently, the management of other investment funds will generally be standard-rated.

Legislation

The current VAT fund management regime is provided for by UK legislation, retained EU law and case law. The VAT Act 1994 implemented the Directive. Schedule 9, Group 5, Items 9 and 10 of the Act lists specific types of funds, the management of which is exempted from VAT.

Place of supply

This is important for SIFs management as if the supply is in respect of overseas funds the services are excluded from the exemption (they are outside the scope of UK VAT) when received overseas. This means that there is no output tax on the supply, but unlike exemption, it affords full recovery on input tax incurred in the UK. The perfect VAT outcome.

HMRC Consultation

The technical consultation sets out proposed reform of the legislation that provides for the VAT treatment of fund management. This is required because the fund management industry continues to innovate and introduced new types of funds to the marketplace, and the existing approach has struggled to keep pace with the evolution of the industry and proliferation of fund types.

The purpose of the exercise is to improve the legislative basis of the current VAT treatment of fund management.

Danger?

It is proposed that the following criteria for a fund to be considered a SIF would be legislated for:

a) the fund must be a collective investment

b) the fund must operate on the principle of risk-spreading

c) the return on the investment must depend on the performance of the investments, and the holders must bear the risk connected with the fund; and

d) the fund must be subject to the same conditions of competition and appeal to the same circle of investors as a UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities), that is funds intended for retail investors

There is a danger that if the exemption is broadened, fund managers which can now recover input tax may be denied so in the future.

If you have any queries, please contact us.

VAT: Is the supply of football pitches an exempt right over land? The Netbusters case.

By Marcus Ward 11 November 2020

Latest from the courts.

In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Netbusters (UK) Limited the issue was whether the supply was the standard rated provision of sporting facilities, or an exempt right over land.

Background

Netbusters organised football and netball leagues and provided the playing facilities (artificial pitches for football and courts for netball). The hire of the facilities was for a defined period of time and no other party had the right to access the pitches during those times. The hire could be a block, or one-off booking. The appellant contended that the supplies were exempt via VAT Act 1994, Sch 9, Group 1 – “The grant of any interest in or right over land or of any licence to occupy land…” However, item 1 Note (para m) excludes the “the grant of facilities for playing any sport or participating in any physical recreation” in which case they become standard rated. To add complexity, Note 16 overrides the exception for sporting facilities (so they are exempt) if the grant of the facilities is for:

“(a) a continuous period of use exceeding 24 hours; or
(b) a series of 10 or more periods, whether or not exceeding 24 hours in total, where the following conditions are satisfied—
(i) each period is in respect of the same activity carried on at the same place;
(ii) the interval between each period is not less than one day and not more than 14 days;
(iii) consideration is payable by reference to the whole series and is evidenced by written agreement;
(iv) the grantee has exclusive use of the facilities; and
(v) the grantee is a school, a club, an association or an organisation representing affiliated clubs or constituent associations.”

I have a simplified flowchart which may assist if you, or your clients, need to look at these types of supplies further.

Another issue was whether Netbusters’ league/tournament management services which were, in principle, available independently of pitch hire, but in practice rarely were provided in that way, were separate supplies or composite. There was a single price payable for both pitch hire and league management services.

The appellant contended that its supplies were exempt via VAT Act 1994, Sch 9, Group 1 or that Revenue and Customs Brief 8 (2014): sports leagues, is applicable which states “HMRC accepts that the decision of the FTT is applicable to all traders who operate in circumstances akin to Goals Soccer Centres plc. This includes traders who hire the pitches from third parties such as local authorities, schools and clubs…”

HMRC argued that there was no intention to create a tenancy and the agreements between the parties did not provide for exclusive use of the premises, so the supplies fell to be standard rated.

Decision

The appeal was allowed; the supply was a singe exempt supply because the objective character of the supplies were properly categorised as the granting of interests in, rights over or licenses to occupy land. It was found to be significant Netbusters (or its customers) had the ability to exclude others from the pitches during the period of the matches.

It was therefore unnecessary to consider whether Netbusters’ supplies grants of facilities satisfy all the conditions set out in Note 16 (although the FTT were disinclined to do this anyway as a consequence of the way respondent prepared its case).

Commentary

The issue of the nature sporting rights has a long and acrimonious history both in the UK and EU courts. Any business providing similar services are advised to review the VAT treatment applied.

VAT: HMRC Toolkits updated

By Marcus Ward 4 June 2020

HMRC has updated the following online toolkits for June 2020:

Input tax

Output tax and

Partial exemption

The Toolkits

These toolkits can be a useful resource. Although designed for agents and advisers, they can equally be of assistance to businesses when completing VAT returns. The contents are based on HMRC’s view of how tax law should be applied, so they should not be used as a substitute for proper professional advice. These toolkits set out areas of risk, provide general checklists, details of record keeping and links to HMRC information. Many find that these toolkits are more user friendly than “traditional” HMRC guidance and they address many contentious areas.

Overview

For a helpful general guide to input tax and checklist please see here. And an introduction to partial exemption here.

VAT – Input tax claims. Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 1 June 2020

Latest from the courts

In the recent First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Aitmatov Academy an otherwise unremarkable case illustrates the care required when making input tax claims.

The quantum of the claim was low and the technical issues not particularly complex, however, it underlined some basic rules for making a VAT claim.

Background

A doctor organised a cultural event at the House of Lords for which no charge was made to attendees. The event organiser as shown on the event form was the doctor. Aitmatov Academy was shown as an organisation associated with the event. It was agreed that the attendees were not potential customers of Aitmatov Academy and that the overall purpose of the event was cultural and not advertising.

Issues

HMRC disallowed the claim. The issues were:

HMRC contended that the expenses were not incurred by the taxpayer but by the doctor personally (the doctor was not VAT registered)
that if the VAT was incurred by the Academy, it was not directly attributed to a taxable supply
that if the VAT was directly attributed to a taxable supply, it was business entertaining, on which input tax is blocked

Decision

The FTT found that the Academy incurred the cost and consequently must have concluded that the Academy was the recipient of the supply, not the doctor.

However, the judge decided that the awards ceremony was not directly or indirectly linked to taxable supplies made or intended to be made by the Academy, and therefore that the referable input tax should not be allowed. Consequently, the court did not need to consider whether the event qualified as business entertainment.

On a separate point, the appellant contended that, as a similar claim had been paid by HMRC previously, she could not see the difference that caused input VAT in this case to be disallowed. The Tribunal explained that its role is to apply the law in this specific instance and as such it cannot look at what happened in an early case which is not the subject of an appeal.

Commentary

A helpful reminder of some of the tests that need to be passed in order for an input tax claim to be valid. I have written about some common issues with claims and provided a checklist. Broadly, in addition to the tests in this case, a business needs to consider:

whether there was actually a supply
is the documentation correct?
time limits
the VAT liability of the supply
the place of supply
partial exemption
non-business activity – particularly charity and NFP bodies
if the claim is specifically blocked (eg; cars, and certain schemes)

I have also looked at which input tax is specifically barred.

Finally, “entertainment” is a topic all of its own. I have considered what is claimable here in article which includes a useful flowchart.

As always, the message is; if a business is to avoid penalties and interest, if there is any doubt over the validity of a claim, seek advice!

VAT Notice 700/57 Administrative agreements with trade bodies – Update

By Marcus Ward 5 May 2020

HMRC has published an updated version of VAT Notice 700/57: Administrative agreements with trade bodies.

This is an unusual publication as it lists situations where there are, or can be, deviations from “normal” VAT rules.

The agreements in the Notice permit members of trade bodies to use procedures which take into account their individual circumstances so they may meet their obligations under VAT law. The agreements apply only to areas where HMRC can exercise discretion, and HMRC say that they convey no direct financial advantage or relief from the legal requirements of the tax. However, there can be benefits a business can derive from the arrangements, including, but not limited to; simplification, cashflow, compliance and management.

The agreements can provide unique solutions to particular problems and reduce the burdens on businesses. Some of them might usefully be applied by other businesses, but it should be born in mind that a business cannot adopt any special method based on these agreements unless HMRC has given approval in advance.

The trade bodies covered in the Notice are:

London Bullion Market Association

Brewers’ Society

Association of British Factors and Discounters

Finance Houses Association Ltd

Association of British Insurers

Association of Investment Trust Companies

British Printing Industries Federation

Marine, Aviation and Transport Insurance Underwriters

Association of British Insurers, Lloyd’s of London, the Institute of London Underwriters and British Insurance and Investment Association

National Caravan Council Limited and the British Holiday and Home Park Association Limited

Association of Unit Trust and Investment Managers

British Bankers’ Association

British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association

Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders

Gaming Board for Great Britain and the British Casino Association

British Phonographic Industry

Thoroughbred Breeders Association and the British Horseracing Board

Meat and Livestock Commission

Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited

Retail Motor Industry Federation

if you or your clients are involved in business covered by, or similar to, the above entities, it maybe worthwhile considering whether any specialised trade agreements may be of benefit.

VAT: Retrospective claims – standard of proof. NHS Lothian case

By Marcus Ward 24 April 2020

Latest from the courts

An interesting and helpful comment was made by the judge in the NHS Lothian Health Board Court of Session (the Scottish equivalent of the Court of Appeal) case.

Background

The case involved a claim for overpaid VAT going back to 1974. The primary issue was not the existence of the taxpayer’s claim to recover overpaid VAT, but the quantification of that claim, and in particular whether the claim can be quantified with sufficient accuracy to permit an order for repayment of tax to be made. In the previous case it was held that the onus of proving that an amount of tax had been paid and not recovered rested upon the taxpayer and that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities and Lord Drummond Young agreed with that proposition here.

Judgement

The specific comments which will be of assistance with businesses with similar clams were:

“The fundamental problem in such cases is that primary evidence does not exist owing to the lapse of time. The absence of such evidence, at least in cases such as the present, is not the fault of the taxpayer, and the lack of evidence should not be held against the taxpayer,”

Outcome

The court urged Tax Tribunals (First Tier Tribunal – FTT and Upper Tribunal – UT) to apply a flexible approach to the burden and standard of proof when making decisions in similar cases; of which there is a considerable number. This approach should apply to so called “Fleming” claims and others in respect of overpaid output tax. We understand that 700 such claims were made by NHS authorities in Great Britain alone, and circa 200 of these remain unresolved.

Commentary

In most cases, a taxpayer is only required to retain records for six years. So the comments made in this case should bolster the chances of success for claims made by other businesses, whether they be for overpaid output tax or underclaimed input tax. There are many and varied reasons why sufficiently detailed could be unavailable; we are looking at a potential 46-year time span. In 1974 record keeping was a different world and physical/manual records were usually the only option. It seems only reasonable that HMRC should make the allowances suggested in this case when it is agreed that a claim is valid in all other respects.

Action

If you, or your client, have had a claim rejected on the basis of insufficient supporting primary evidence, it may be worthwhile revisiting it on the basis of this decision. It sets out helpful and clear guidance and provides businesses with effective, appropriate tax relief where applicable.