Tag Archives: vat-penalty

VAT: Change of a business’ registration details – Form VAT484

By   7 March 2023
0
Change in VAT registration details
New HMRC guidance explains how to use form VAT484 to change business details.

You can use this form to change a business’:

  • contact details
  • bank details
  • return dates
  • and if a new person takes over VAT responsibilities

If you take over someone else’s VAT responsibilities

You must use the form VAT484 to tell HMRC within 21 days if you take over the VAT responsibilities of someone who has died or is ill and unable to manage their own affairs.

You must include the details of the date of death or the date the illness started.

Failure to notify HMRC of changes may lead to penalties via The VAT Act 1994, section 69.

VAT: Increase in interest rates

By   11 January 2023
0

As a consequence of the change in the Bank Of England base rate from 3% to 3.5%, HMRC’s interest rates for late payment and repayment will also increase.

These changes will come into effect on:

  • 26 December 2022 for quarterly instalment payments
  • 6 January 2023 for non-quarterly instalments payments

The HMRC publication Information on the interest rates for payments will be updated shortly.

HMRC interest rates are set in legislation and are linked to the Bank of England base rate. Late payment interest is set at base rate plus 2.5%. Repayment interest is set at base rate minus 1%, with a lower limit, or “minimum floor” of 0.5%.

VAT: How to remove penalty points under the new system

By   9 January 2023
0

HMRC has introduced new penalty and interest rules for late returns and payments from 1 January 2023. Details here.

On 4 January 2023 HMRC published guidance on how to remove these points to avoid a penalty. This is particularly important if a business has reached the penalty point threshold.

The penalty thresholds are:

  • annual returns – 2 points
  • quarterly returns – 4 points
  • monthly returns – 5 points

If a business is at the limit and has the maximum points allowed for its accounting periods, it can remove them by meeting two conditions which are:

  • to complete a period of compliance, submitting all returns by the deadline
  • to submit all outstanding returns for the previous 24 months

The guidance sets out how these tests are calculated and applied.

VAT: TOGC and deliberate errors – The Apollinaire case

By   19 December 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the First -Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Apollinaire Ltd and Mr Z H Hashmi the issues were:

  • whether the appellant’s input tax claim was valid
  • were the director’s actions “deliberate”
  • was a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) appropriate?

Background

Mr Hashmi (the sole director of Apollinaire) asserted that he sold his business, Snow Whyte Limited to a Mr Singh as a going concern, together with the trading name “Benny Hamish”. The purchase price was never paid.  He alleged that Mr Singh traded for approximately one month and then sold stock worth £573,756 to Apollinaire. The appellant submitted an input tax claim for the purchase of the goods. HMRC refused to make the repayment and raised penalties for deliberate errors. HMRC subsequently issued a PLN to Mr Hashmi.

Issues

Initially HMRC stated that Mr Singh may not have existed, that there was no sale of Snow Whyte Ltd by Mr Hashmi to Mr Singh and similarly, no sale back to Mr Hashmi. However, this submission was later amended to argue that Mr Hashmi controlled the movement of the stock at all times and that the issue was whether the transfer of stock from Snow Whyte Limited was a Transfer Of a Going Concern (TOGC), whether or not Mr Singh existed.

Mr Hashmi appealed, contending that the transactions took place as described to HMRC.

Decision

Unsurprisingly, given Mr Hashmi’s previous history of dissolving companies, but continuing to trade under the same name as those companies (listed at para 14 of the decision) and failing to submit returns and payments, the FTT accepted HMRC’s version of events. Further, there was insufficient evidence to support the transactions (if they took place) and the judge fund that the appellant’s evidence was not credible. If the events did take place, there was no input tax to claim as all the tests (where relevant here) for a TOGC (Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995, Regulation 5) were met:

  • the assets were sold as a business as a going concern
  • the assets were used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business
  • there was no break in trading
  • both entities traded under the same name
  • both entities operated from the same premises
  • both entities had the same employees and tills

The appeal was dismissed.

Penalties

The FTT further decided that HMRC’s penalties and PLN [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] were appropriate. The claim for input tax was deliberately overstated and that Mr Hashmi was the controlling mind of both entities and was personally liable as the sole company director of Apollinaire.

HMRC relied on case law: Clynes v Revenue and Customs[2016] UKFTT 369 (TC) which reads as follows:

“On its normal meaning, the use of the term indicates that for there to be a deliberate inaccuracy on a person’s part, the person must have acted consciously, with full intention or set purpose or in a considered way…

…Our view is that, depending on the circumstances, an inaccuracy may also be held to be deliberate where it is found that the person consciously or intentionally chose not to find out the correct position, in particular, where the circumstances are such that the person knew he should do so.” 

Commentary

This case is a reverse of the usual TOGC disputes as HMRC sought to establish that there was no taxable supply so no VAT was due. It underlines that:

  • care should always be taken with applying TOGC treatment (or appreciating the results of failing to recognise a TOGC)
  • penalties for deliberate errors can be significant and swingeing
  • directors can, and are, held personally responsible for actions taken by a company

VAT: New penalties and interest for late returns and payments

By   4 November 2022
0

Further to my article on the introduction of changes to penalties for late filing and payments of VAT and follow up guidance, the forthcoming introduction on 1 January 2023 has focussed attention on how they will impact certain businesses.

Late returns

Many businesses who have had to deal with the “old” default surcharge regime realised that it could be disproportionate and create unfair outcomes. The new penalties are, in my view, fairer, and, the changes bring some welcome features and some which are less so.

The good news is that the introduction of the new rules mean that businesses will start with a clean slate, regardless of their position under the default surcharge mechanism – there is no carry over form one set of rules to another.

However, for the first time, late rendering of returns can incur penalties and interest if the returns are either:

  • nil, or
  • repayment

In the previous regime when “non-payment” returns were filed late, this did not trigger a default.

Nil returns

Businesses which did not carry out any activity in the prescribed period, eg; intending traders, businesses temporary closed, or at the end of their life will have to recognise that a late nil return will now trigger points.

Repayment returns

Again, businesses which typically submit repayment returns, such as; new build constructors, exporters, and any business supplying zero rated goods or services will have to recognise tardy submissions will now affect them.

We understand that HMRC is aware of the impact on this sector and is planning to communicate with these businesses to make them aware of the new changes.

An additional point;  from 1 March 2021 the Domestic Reverse Charge was introduced for the construction industry. As a result, an increased number of builders found themselves in a repayment position and will now need to ensure timely returns to avoid penalties.

Late payments – penalties and interest

The new late payment penalties regime will replace the default surcharge, which served as a combined late submission and late payment sanction.

Under the new rules, there will be two separate late payment penalties.

The first penalty has two separate elements:

  1. 2% of the VAT unpaid at day 15
  2. a further 2% of the VAT unpaid at day 30

The second penalty is triggered from day 31. This is charged daily and is based on an annual rate of 4% of any outstanding amount. 

If all outstanding VAT is paid within 15 days of the due date, no late-payment penalty will arise. Although here will however still be late payment interest.

Interest

From 1 January 2023, HMRC will charge late-payment interest from the day a VAT payment is overdue to the day the VAT is paid, calculated at the Bank of England base rate plus 2.5%.

Time-to-Pay arrangements

HMRC offers the option of requesting a Time To Pay arrangement. This will enable a business to stop a penalty from accruing any further by approaching HMRC and agreeing a schedule for paying their outstanding tax.

Period of familiarisation

HMRC say that to give businesses time to get used to the changes, it will not be charging a first late payment penalty for the first year from 1 January 2023 until 31 December 2023, if the tax is paid in full within 30 days of the payment due date.

Appeals

It is anticipated that the number of appeals against late filing/payments will be reduced because of the more proportional approach of the new rules. However, it is still possible to appeal if a taxpayer considers the imposition of penalties and interest is unfair. An appellant needs a reasonable excuse to succeed.

Action

Advisers should ensure that clients affected by the new rules, specifically repayment business and those submitting nil returns, are aware of the impact. I know that a lot of these are habitual late filers and some “save up” returns for when they need a cash injection.

It will also be prudent for advisers to monitor penalty points accrued. We understand that HMRC is looking at how this information could be made available to agents and taxpayers. We expect more details about this in the coming months, including how software can be used to display points.

Repayment supplement

The new system may be fairer, however, the withdrawal of the repayment supplement is not! More details here. (I am still quite cross!)

VAT: Change of registration details – update

By   3 November 2022
0

If any of the following details of a business’ registration changes, HMRC must be notified on form VAT484:

  • name, or trading name
  • address of the business
  • accountant or agent who deals with a business’ VAT
  • members of a partnership, or the name or home address of any of the partners (a form VAT 2 is also required)

The relevant guidance has been updated to reflect the new requirement that such changes must be notified within 30 days of the change taking place. Failure to do so will result in penalties.

Other changes

  • Change of bank details

HMRC must be notified at least 14 days in advance if a business changes its bank details.

  • Taking over someone else’s VAT responsibilities

A person must tell HMRC within 21 days if they take over the VAT responsibilities of someone who has died or is ill and unable to manage their own affairs. Use form VAT484 and post it to the address on the form.

  • VAT group changes

If you join or leave a VAT group, you must first cancel your VAT registration. You will need to use the group’s VAT number once you’ve joined it. The VAT group should tell HMRC about the new member.

  • Change of business structure

You need to tell HMRC if the structure of the business changes, eg; incorporation or a Transfer Of a Going Concern.

VAT: No invoice – no claim. The Tower Bridge GP Ltd case

By   9 August 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal (CoA) case of Tower Bridge GP Ltd the issue was whether the appellant could claim input tax in a situation where it did not (and does not) hold a valid tax invoice.

Background

Tower Bridge was the representative member of a VAT group which contained Cantor Fitzgerald Europe Ltd (CFE). CFE traded in carbon credits. These carbon credit transactions were connected to VAT fraud.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that CFE neither knew, nor should have known, that the transactions it entered into before 15 June 2009 were connected to VAT fraud but that it should have known that its transactions were connected to fraud from 15 June 2009. The appeal relates only to transactions entered into before that date.

CFE purchased carbon credits from Stratex Alliance Limited (“Stratex”) The carbon credits supplied to CFE were to be used by the business for the purpose of its own onward taxable transactions (in carbon credits). The total of VAT involved was £5,605,119.74.

The Stratex invoices were not valid VAT invoices. They did not show a VAT registration number for Stratex, nor did they name CFE as the customer. Although Stratex was a taxable person, it transpired that Stratex was not registered for VAT (and therefore could not include a valid VAT number on its invoices) and that it fraudulently defaulted on its obligation to account to HMRC for the sums charged as output tax on these invoices.

Subsequent investigations by HMRC resulted in Stratex not being able to be traced.

Contentions

The appellant contended that it is entitled to make the deduction either as of right, or because HMRC unlawfully refused to use its discretion to allow the claim by accepting alternative evidence.

HMRC denied Tower Bridge the recovery of the input tax on the Stratex invoices on the basis that the invoices did not meet the formal legal requirements to be valid VAT invoices. HMRC also refused to exercise their discretion to allow recovery of the input tax on the basis that:

  • Stratex was not registered for VAT
  • the transactions were connected to fraud
  • CFE failed to conduct reasonable due diligence in relation to the transactions

Decision

Dismissing this appeal, the CoA ruled that where an invoice does not contain the information required by legislation (The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 No 2518 Part III, Regulation 14), or contains an error in that information, which is incapable of correction, the right to deduct cannot be exercised. The appellant did not have the ability to make a claim as of right.

The Court then considered whether HMRC ought to have permitted Tower Bridge to make a claim using alternative evidence. It found that the attack on HMRC’s exercise of discretion fails for the reasons contended by HMRC (above). These were perfectly legitimate matters for HMRC to take into account in deciding whether to exercise the first discretion in the taxable person’s favour.

CFE had failed to carry out “the most basic of checks on Stratex”.

So, the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

This was hardly a surprising outcome considering that if an exception were to be made, there would be a loss to the public purse consisting of the input tax, with no corresponding gain to the public purse from the output tax that Stratex ought to have paid, but fraudulently did not.

This case demonstrates the importance of obtaining a proper tax invoice and to carry out checks on its validity. Additionally, there is a need to conduct accurate due diligence on the supply chain. I have summarised the importance of Care with input tax claims which includes a helpful list of checks which must be carried out.

VAT: How to avoid MTD penalties

By   15 June 2022
0

HMRC has published a new Factsheet CC/FS69 which sets out compliance checks to be made to avoid penalties for Making Tax Digital (MTD).

Under MTD, VAT-registered businesses must keep certain records digitally and file their VAT returns using compatible software.

The Factsheet covers:

  • signing up to MTD – go to www.gov.uk and search for ‘VAT record keeping’. A business must have functional compatible software in place before you signing up
  • filing VAT return using functional compatible software. This needs to be able to record and store digital records, provide HMRC with information and VAT returns from the data held in those digital records, and receive information from HMRC
  • keep records digitally in an “electronic account” (all transactions must be contained in an electronic account but there is no need to scan paper records like invoices and receipts)
  • use digital links to transfer or exchange data
  • use the checking functions within the software (to ensure returns are correct before being filed)

Penalties

HMRC levy penalties for MTD for the following actions:

  • filing returns not using use functional compatible software. A penalty applies for every return filed in error
  • not keeping records digitally, a penalty applies for every day on which a business does not meet this requirement
  • not using digital links to transfer data between pieces of software, a penalty applies for every day on which a business does not meet this requirement
  • not signing up to MTD

These penalties apply in addition to existing penalties and interest charged for a range of misdemeanours from late returns to deliberate underdeclarations.

New VAT penalties and interest charges

By   18 May 2022
1

Further to my article explaining the changes to late returns and payment penalties, HMRC has now published further guidance on new regime.

These changes, originally intended to be introduced on I April 2022 have been delayed until 1 January 2023 (for VAT periods starting on, or after, this date).

From 1 January 2023, HMRC will charge late-payment interest from the day a VAT payment is overdue to the day the VAT is paid, calculated at the Bank of England base rate plus 2.5%.

Period of familiarisation

HMRC say that to give businesses time to get used to the changes, it will not be charging a first late payment penalty for the first year from 1 January 2023 until 31 December 2023, if the tax is paid in full within 30 days of the payment due date.

More on late returns here and on late payments here.