The sale of a dead horse is VAT free, but a live horse is standard-rated.
(This is not a recommended tax planning scheme).
Tag Archives: vat-relief
VAT: DIY Housebuilder Scheme updated
HMRC has updated its guidance for DIY Housebuilders.
The scheme enables people who build, or convert properties into dwellings for their own use to recover VAT incurred on the project.
More on the Scheme here.
Information about filling in a schedule of invoices before starting a self-build project has been added. This follows other changes to, and cases on, the Scheme which are set out below:
- Changes to the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme
- DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – deadline for claims extended
- The Spani case
- The Dunne case
- The Ellis case
The following article provides help with Scheme claimants:
New centralised HMRC website to manage imports and VAT
HMRC guidance
HMRC has published a website Manage your import duties and VAT accounts, which provides a centralised place from which businesses importing goods can manage payment and guarantee accounts, manage and view authorities, and download duty deferment statements, import VAT certificates, postponed import VAT statements, and notification of adjustment statements. The website can only be accessed via the Government Gateway.
From this site a business can:
- view and manage its cash account (top up and withdraw funds)
- set up a Direct Debit for, and top up a duty deferment account
- request older statements and certificates
- view and manage a general guarantee account
- manage the email address linked to an account
- access secure messages from HMRC related to the account
- set up, manage or view account authorities
Downloads are also available for:
- duty deferment statements
- import VAT certificates (C79)
- postponed import VAT statements
- notification of adjustment statements
To use the service a business must be subscribed to the Customs Declaration service.
Tax points and VAT groups – The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd CoA case
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.
A VAT Did you know?
Dead mice, rats and day-old chicks sold for feeding to exotic pets may be zero-rated.
VAT registration HMRC update
HMRC has updated VAT Notice 700/1 – Who should register for VAT. The publication explains when a business must register for VAT, and how to do it.
The changes are to para 2.7 – Specified Supplies which sets out what needs to be included during the application process when describing business activities.
Businesses affected
Those that supply; finance, insurance services, or investment gold to customers in countries outside the UK, or make supplies of insurance or finance services which are directly linked to the export of goods outside the UK.
Specified Supplies
These are supplies which would be exempt from VAT if they were made in the UK, but are treated as taxable if made outside the UK.
Benefit to business
A business making Specified Supplies may register for VAT on a voluntary basis and claim UK input tax incurred in making those supplies. We strongly recommend that all businesses in the above categories consider registering in the UK.
The amendment
If a business is registering because it makes Specified Supplies, it must ensure that it clearly states ‘SPECIFIED SUPPLIES’ in the free-text box when asked to describe the business activities during the application process. Failure to do this will likely cause delays and create additional HMRC queries.
A VAT Did you know?
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.
VAT and BIK – Double cab pick-ups
VAT and BIK – Double cab pick-ups
The changes to benefit-in-kind tax purposes from 1 July 2024 means that double cab pick-up trucks will no longer be classified as vans but as cars. This brings them into line with the VAT treatment of these vehicles, so here we look at the VAT rules:
HMRC and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) have agreed how the one tonne payload test will be applied in practice to double cab pick-ups.
Cars are treated quite differently for VAT purposes from commercial vehicles:
- most ordinary business cars are subject to a block on input tax recovery which is a proxy for taxing the private use of the car
- the private use of commercial vehicles is taxed either by means of an input tax apportionment or a periodic output charge on actual private use
- a business that converts a commercial vehicle into a car becomes liable to an output tax charge on a “self-supply” of the vehicle to itself para 14 Notice 700/57.
SMMT members will take steps to make dealers aware of the ex-works payloads of their double cab models.
Vehicles are not treated as cars for VAT purposes if they have a payload of one tonne or more. Payload is the difference between a vehicle’s maximum gross weight and its kerbside weight. In practice the change mainly affects those vehicles generally described as double cab pick-ups.
Given the different treatment of cars and commercial vehicles it is important for manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and business customers to know the payload of any double cab vehicle which is bought.
It is especially important to be aware that by adding accessories to the ex-works model they may, by lowering the payload of the vehicle, convert it into a car. This would make the vehicle liable to the self-supply charge. Such conversions are most likely to occur with double cabs that have an ex-works payload of 1000 to 1050 kg.
Accessories fitted by dealers or customers
HMRC will, with one exception, ignore as de minimis the addition of accessories. The exception is the addition of a hard top consisting of metal, fibreglass or similar material, with or without windows. In practice this means that a manufacturer, dealer or customer can fit any accessory to the vehicle, other than a hard top, and still rely upon its payload as being the ex-works payload. HMRC will accord all hardtops a generic weight of 45kgs.
In order to provide simplicity and certainty, HMRC and the SMMT have agreed to simplify the treatment of these vehicles. Full details of the agreement can be found at para 23 Notice 700/57 – Administrative agreements entered into with trade bodies.
Please see the recent The Three Shires Trailers case on input tax recovery and the self-supply of cars/commercial vehicles.
UPDATE!
Double-cab pickups go back to being vans, not cars for BIK (only). A week after the new guidance that classified double-cab pickups as cars rather than vans, the HMG has now reversed this decision on 19 February 2024.
VAT: Evidence for exports. The H Ripley case
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:
- the customer’s order – including customer’s name and delivery address
- inter-company correspondence
- copy sales invoice
- advice note
- packing list
- commercial transport documents from the carrier responsible for removing the goods from the UK, for example an International Consignment Note (CMR) fully completed by the consignor, the haulier and signed by receiving consignee
- details of insurance or freight charges
- bank statements as evidence of payment
- receipted copy of the consignment note as evidence of receipt of goods abroad
- a signed CMR document or note
- a bill of lading
- an airfreight invoice
- an invoice from the carrier of the goods
- official documents issued by a public authority, such as a notary, confirming the arrival of the goods
- any other documents relevant to the removal of the goods in question which you would normally get in the course of business
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:
- Sales Invoices – did not provide clear evidence that the goods were removed from the UK. Despite the invoices confirming the sale of scrap metal to a Belgium registered company it did not follow that the address of the purchaser is the same address as the destination that the goods were sent to.
- Bank Statements – simply provided proof of payment they did not confirm who received the goods nor where the goods were delivered.
- Weighbridge Tickets – merely confirm a consignment of scrap metal was sold to a Belgium based company and the goods were collected by a UK registered vehicle.
- CMRs – none of the CMRs were fully completed by the haulier and signed by the receiving consignee.
- P&O Boarding Cards –a taxpayer must have in its possession valid evidence of export within three months from the time of supply. The boarding cards were not provided to HMRC until 30 May 2018, some 18 to 30 months after the disputed consignments took place. It was not disproportionate for HMRC to state that the time limit for obtaining valid evidence of removal was three months and that the substantive requirements of Notice 725 had not been met. In any event, the court did not accept that the boarding cards evidence the exports of the scrap metal; none of the reference numbers on the boarding card match those used in any of the other documents and none of the lead names on the boarding cards match any of the other names in any other document. The boarding cards do not have any identifying features such that they may be matched with any of the disputed consignments.
- E-mails and WhatsApp messages –none of the messages evidence that the loads were exported. At best they evidence a request from the buyer to a carrier to collect goods from the supplier’s yard and the WhatsApp messages were silent on whether the loads were exported from the UK.
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.
VAT: Input tax claim on Land Rovers. The Three Shires Trailers case
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.