Monthly Archives: January 2026

A VAT did you know?

By   27 January 2026

Crisps – spot the difference: Doritos, Monster Munch, Wotsits and poppadums are standard rated, however Pringles, Skips and Twiglets, are VAT free.

HMRC to end postal letters

By   21 January 2026

No more snail mail.

HMRC has announced that it will end most postal letters from Spring 2026.

It will begin phasing out hard copy letters in favour of a ‘digital by default’ communication model. This shift is designed to modernise the tax system, improve communication speed, and save approximately £50 million annually in printing and postage costs by the 2028/29 tax year. 

Taxpayers who use the HMRC app will stop receiving paper letters automatically and will receive an email notification of when correspondence is available to view online.

The transition will start in spring 2026 and expand gradually as systems are updated. Paper letters will not disappear entirely. They will continue to be sent to those who are digitally excluded, such as the elderly or disabled, as well as those who actively opt out. 

VAT – Care with input tax claims

By   20 January 2026
Claim checklist

You have a purchase invoice showing VAT.  You are VAT registered, and you will use the goods or services purchased for your business… can you claim it?

Assuming a business is not partly exempt or not subject to a restriction of recovery of input tax due to non-business activities (and the claim is not for a motor car or business entertainment) the answer is usually yes.

However, HMRC is now, more than ever before, concerned with irregular, dishonest and inaccurate claims.  It is an unfortunate fact that some people see making fraudulent claims as an “easy” way to illegally obtain money and, as is often the case, honest taxpayers are affected as a result of the (understandable) concerns of the authorities.  Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) or “carousel” fraud has received a lot of publicity over recent years with an estimate of £Billions of Treasury money being obtained by fraudsters.  While this has been generally addressed, HMRC consider that there is still significant leakage of VAT as a consequence of dishonest claims. HMRC’s interest also extends to “innocent errors” which result in input tax being overclaimed.

In order to avoid unwanted attention from HMRC, what should a business be watching for when claiming credit for input tax?  Broadly, I would counsel making “reasonable enquiries”.  This means making basic checks in order to demonstrate to HMRC that a business has taken care to ensure that a claim is appropriate.  This is more important in some transactions than others and most regular and straightforward transactions will not be in issue.  Here are some pointers that I feel are important to a business:

Was there a supply?

This seems an obvious question, but even if a business holds apparently authentic documentation; if no supply was made, no claim is possible.  Perhaps different parts of a business deal with checking the receipt of goods or services and processing documents.  Perhaps a business has been the subject of fraud by a supplier.  Perhaps the supply was to an individual rather than to the business.  Perhaps a transaction was aborted after the documentation was issued.  There may be many reasons for a supply not being made, especially when a third party is involved.  For example, Co A contracts with Co B to supply goods directly to Co C. Invoices are issued by Co B to Co A and by Co A to Co C.  It may not be clear to Co A whether the goods have been delivered, or it may be difficult to check.  A lot of fraud depends on “correct” paperwork existing without any goods or services changing hands.

Is the documentation correct?

The VAT regulations set out a long list of details that a VAT invoice must show.  Full details on invoicing here  If any one of these required items is missing HMRC will disallow a claim.  Beware of “suspicious” looking documents including manually amended invoices, unconvincing quality, unexpected names or addresses of a supplier, lack of narrative, “copied” logos or “clip-art” additions etc.  One of the details required is obviously the VAT number of the supplier.  VAT numbers can be checked for validity here

Additionally, imports of goods require different documentation to support a claim and this is a more complex procedure (which extends to checking whether supplies of goods have been made and physical access to them).  A lot of fraud includes a cross border element so extra care should be taken in checking the validity of both the import and the documentation.

Ultimately, it is easy to create a convincing invoice and HMRC is aware of this.

Timing

It is important to claim input tax in the correct period.  Even if a claim is a day out it may be disallowed and penalties levied. details of time of supply here

Is there VAT on a supply?

If a supplier charges VAT when they shouldn’t, eg; if a supply is zero rated or exempt or subject to the Transfer of A Going Concern rules (TOGC), it is not possible to reclaim this VAT even if the recipient holds an apparently “valid” invoice.  HMRC will disallow such a claim and will look to levy penalties and interest.  When in doubt; challenge the supplier’s treatment.

Place of supply

Only UK VAT may be claimed on a UK return, so it is important to check whether UK VAT is actually applicable to a supply.  The place of supply (POS) rules are notoriously complex, especially for services, if UK VAT is shown on an invoice incorrectly, and is claimed by the recipient, HMRC will disallow the claim and look to levy a penalty, so enquiries should be made if there is any uncertainty.  VAT incurred overseas can, in most cases be recovered, but this is via a different mechanism to a UK VAT return. Details on claiming VAT in other EC Member States here. (As with many things, this may change after Brexit).

One-off, unusual or new transactions

This is the time when most care should be taken, especially if the transaction is of high value.  Perhaps it is a new supplier, or perhaps it is a property transaction – if a purchase is out of the ordinary for a business it creates additional exposure to mis-claiming VAT.

To whom is the supply made?

It is only the recipient of goods or services who may make a claim; regardless of; who pays or who invoices are issued to.  Care is required with groups of companies and multiple VAT registrations eg; an individual may be registered as a sole proprietor as well as a part of a partnership or director of a limited company, As an illustration, a common error is in a situation where a report is provided to a bank (for example for financing requirements) and the business pays the reporting third party.  Although it may be argued that the business pays for the report, and obtains a business benefit from it, the supply is to the bank in contractual terms and the business cannot recover the VAT on the services, in fact, in these circumstances, nobody is able to recover the VAT. Other areas of uncertainty are; restructuring, refinancing or acquisitions, especially where significant professional costs are involved.

e-invoicing

There are additional rules for electronically issued invoices. Details here

A business may issue invoices electronically where the authenticity of the origin, integrity of invoice data, and legibility of invoice content can all be ensured, and the customer agrees to receive invoices electronically.

  • ‘Authenticity of the origin’ means the assurance of the identity of the supplier or issuer of the invoice
  • ‘Integrity of content’ means that the invoice content has not been altered
  • ‘Legibility’ of an invoice means that the invoice can be easily read.

A business is free to choose a method of ensuring authenticity, integrity, and legibility which suits its method of operation. e-invoicing provides additional opportunities for fraudsters, so a business needs to ensure that its processes are bulletproof.

HMRC’s approach 

If a claim is significant, or unusual for the business’ trading pattern, it is likely that HMRC will carry out a “pre-credibility” inspection where they check to see if the claim is valid before they release the money.  Another regular check is for HMRC to establish whether the supplier has declared the relevant output tax on the other side of the transaction (a so-called “reference”). Not unsurprisingly, they are not keen on making a repayment if, for whatever reason, the supplier has not paid over the output tax.

What should a business do?

In summary, it is prudent for a business to “protect itself” and raise queries if there is any doubt at all over making a claim. It also needs a robust procedure for processing invoices.  If enquiries have been made, ensure that these are properly documented for inspection by HMRC as this is evidence which may be used to mitigate any potential penalties, even if a claim is an honest mistake. A review of procedures often flushes out errors and can lead to increased claims being made.

As always, we are happy to assist.

VAT: Removal of linked goods concession

By   20 January 2026

HMRC has published Revenue and Customs Brief 1 (2026): Removal of the linked goods concession

This brief confirms that the Extra Statutory Concession (ESC) described in paragraph 3.7 of Notice 48 is no longer required. HMRC considers that the supplies previously eligible to be treated as single supplies under the concession should be treated as single supplies under the legislation, as confirmed by existing case law.

Examples of such cases: herehere here here and here

Businesses should now refer to HMRC’s policy as described in VATSC11113 – Supply: Single and multiple supplies: HMRC’s approach: The general approach.

Note

A VAT ESC is a formal relaxation by HMRC permitting a tax treatment not strictly permitted by law, to resolve minor anomalies, prevent hardship, or simplify administration. These provide businesses relief they would not otherwise get, but it has no legal force and isn’t for tax avoidance.

VAT: Partial exemption – HMRC guidance updated

By   13 January 2026

HMRC Publications

HMRC has updated its Notice 706 on partial exemption. This guidance explains partial exemption and the methods and calculations a business may use to calculate the amount of input tax it can recover. 

More detailed guidance has been added to Paragraph 10.2 on a company’s sale of existing shares.

VAT: Partial exemption input tax attribution. The Littlewoods case

By   13 January 2026
Latest from the courts
 
In the Littlewoods Limited First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was the ability to recover input tax incurred on photography costs.
Background
Littlewoods used photographers for the creation of product specific photographs for use in catalogues and in connection with its online retail store. It made claims to recover this input tax, but HMRC refused a full refund. This appeal was against that decision.
The appellant is partly exempt. It makes taxable sales of goods and also makes exempt supplies of finance and insurance. This means that it is unable to recover all input tax it incurs.
Contentions
 
The appellant argued that the photography costs were directly attributable to the sale of the products photographed and was consequently fully recoverable.
HMRC contended that not all of the VAT was claimable because an element was referable to the exempt supplies (ie: the input tax was incurred to support both the online taxable sale of goods and of exempt finance). Therefore, an apportionment was required.
Decision
 
The appeal was allowed.
 
The Tribunal considered that each use made of the photographs to be exclusively in the making of taxable supplies of retail goods. Any link to credit or insurance was, in its view, at the most, indirect but, given the nature of the costs, probably non-existent. Consequently, the photography did not promote any finance or insurance products so that no restriction of the input tax claims was required.
Commentary
Yet another case on input tax attribution. As someone once said; partial exemption is more of an art than a science…
The judge distinguished this appeal from the N Brown case as the circumstances were different and that the court applied the wrong legal test in terms of the micro/macro level of business per the Royal Opera House case.