Latest from the courts.
Partial exemption has always been, and probably always will be, the most complex and oft debated area of the tax.
Attribution
In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of N Brown Group plc the issue was how to attribute input tax incurred on marketing. This included:
- online
- catalogues and leaflets
- parcel packs
- inserts in magazines and newspapers
- direct mailings
- advertisements in publications
- TV advertisements
- telemarketing
- brand development
- PR
- celebrity endorsements
- market research
- photo shoots
Background
N Brown, as you may know, sells clothing and household goods online to the public. It has only a few retail stores so does not have the facility that a “bricks and mortar” retailer would have of displaying goods in its stores. It therefore has to incur significant marketing costs to bring its products to the attention of its customers and present them in an attractive way that encourages sales. The activities of the appellant include the sale of these goods, which is standard-rated for VAT purposes, and the provision of finance, which is exempt for VAT purposes. The finance element is the provision of credit which produces significant income from the interest on monthly balances which consumers do not pay off.
Issue
The issue was whether the input tax incurred on the marketing was attributable to the sale of goods which were advertised or, as HMRC contended; to both its taxable and exempt income (so that it was residual). If HMRC were correct an element of the input tax would fall to be irrecoverable via the appellants’ partial exemption calculation. HMRC’s position was that the input tax which N Brown incurred in respect of the marketing is residual because, although they did not seek to deny the existence of a “direct and immediate link” between the relevant goods and services and taxable supplies that the appellant made, they consider that there is also a direct and immediate link to the exempt credit provided.
Unsurprisingly, N Brown’s position was that the vast majority of goods and services received in connection with the marketing had a “direct and immediate link” only with taxable supplies that it made and so the relevant input tax was not residual and is therefore recoverable in full.
A subtle distinction, however, as £42 million of VAT was at stake, quite a vital one!
Technical
A general guide to partial exemption is available here
Broadly, a partially exempt business is required to attribute input tax incurred to three categories:
- Taxable activities (here, the sale of goods) fully recoverable
- Exempt activities (here the provision of credit) not recoverable
- Non-attributable (residual) – input tax attributable to both taxable and exempt activities, or neither. This input tax must be apportioned either by the “standard method” or special method agreed with HMRC.
Decision
The judge found that there was a two-way relationship between the sale of the goods and the provision of credit terms. As a consequence, the input tax fell into the category of non-attributable (residual) even if the relevant advertisements made no mention of credit at all. It was also found that the standard method (used by HMRC) did not produce a reasonable outcome so the assessment issued by HMRC would need adjustment in the taxpayer’s favour. This required a different method to be devised and that certain elements of exempt income could be ignored in the calculation. I suspect that negotiations on an agreeable method might take some time…
Commentary
This case demonstrates that care is always required when costs are attributed to a business’ activities. This is especially important when the costs are significant. There tends to be a lot of “debate” with HMRC on such matters and slight nuances can affect attribution and thus the outcome of the calculation. It is an area which always requires specialised advice.