Author Archives: Marcus Ward

VAT – EC Commission drops plans for standard return

By Marcus Ward 4 November 2015

The European Commission (EC) has, this week, announced that it is to drop plans to introduce a standard VAT return across all 28 Member States.

The original idea was to assist businesses which are required to submit returns in different jurisdictions in different languages by harmonising the information required and standardising the methodologies across Member States.

Although the intention is/was laudable, it would have likely increased complexity for the UK VAT return which is one of the most straightforward.

The changes to VAT reporting was due to be introduced in 2017.

The original plan has met with little support and the Commission has decided to focus on other harmonisation measures.

VAT – Care with input tax claims

By Marcus Ward 2 November 2015

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.

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, 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

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 thestomer 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.

VAT – An important ECJ case which will affect charities – Sveda

By Marcus Ward 28 October 2015

A benefit to charities?

In the case of Sveda (C-126/14) which was recently heard by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) the issue was whether input tax was recoverable on the construction of a recreational woodland path which ended at a shop that Sveda owned and made taxable supplies from. Full case here

90% of the construction costs were met by Grant received from the Lithuanian Ministry of Agriculture on the condition that the path was made available free of charge to the public for a period of five years. There was no dispute that the grant was outside the scope income for Sveda.

The authorities disallowed the VAT claimed on 100% of the costs on the grounds there was no link to taxable supplies since free access is a non-economic activity because there was no consideration paid to use the path. Alternatively, there was a contention that only 10% of the VAT should be reclaimed, since the company only met 10% of the cost.

Sveda argued that, although the path could be used free of charge, the purpose was increase taxable sales from its shop (food, drink and souvenirs). This meant there was a link between the VAT incurred and its economic activity as a whole.

The ECJ rejected the view that the input tax should be blocked in its entirety or in part. Its view was that the expenditure was incurred with the intention of carrying out an economic taxable activity, even if there was no direct link to any one specific supply and use of the path was free. The VAT was overhead VAT. No exempt supplies (that would break the chain of deduction) took place.

So, although the path was used for a non-business activity (free access) the ECJ deemed that the input tax incurred on the costs of building the path was deductible. As there was a link to economic activities the VAT is treated as overhead and, in this case, fully recoverable.

Although Sveda is a commercial company and the decision will no doubt be of assistance to commercial entities, there may be a significant impact on charities and NFP organisations. This judgment highlights the basic right to deduct VAT where a link to taxable supplies made by a taxable person can be demonstrated. It does not matter whether the link is to one taxable supply or to all the taxable economic activities. The non-business use of the asset did not prevent recovery. The outcome would no doubt have been different if Sveda was only involved in building the path and just providing free access to it without also selling items form the shop.

On a personal note, this case has echoes of one I took to Tribunal for The Imperial War Museum – with a similar successful outcome. HMRC views here

Let’s hope it will be just as useful for the taxpayer as the landmark IWM decision.

If you think you, or a charity you are aware of, or a client of yours may be affected by this decision, please contact me. This may be the case if the charity undertakes both business and non-activities. I would always counsel that a charity should have its activities reviewed from a VAT perspective. There are usually savings that could be made.

VAT Distance Selling – avoidance structure now deemed ineffective

By Marcus Ward 26 October 2015

The EC Commission’s VAT Committee has recently issued new guidelines to counter perceived avoidance of registering for Distance Selling by businesses.

In cases where the supplier is responsible for the delivery of goods B2C; typically mail-order and increasingly goods purchased online (so called “delivered goods”) the supplier is required to VAT register in the EC Member State of its customer(s) once a certain threshold is met. For full details of Distance Selling see here.

In order to avoid having to register, some business have sought to avoid their supply falling within the definition of delivered goods by splitting the sale of goods and the delivery.

The UK raised concerns about the planning and structures put in place to obviate the need to register in other EC Member States. The VAT Committee has recognised these concerns and has today issued new guidelines on Distance Sales

In addition to the current rules (set out in Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Principal VAT Directive) a Distance Sale will have occurred when goods have been “dispatched or transported by or on behalf of the supplier” in any cases where the supplier “intervenes directly or indirectly in the transport or dispatch of the goods.” The Committee has stated that it considers that the supplier shall be regarded as having intervened indirectly in the transport or dispatch of the goods if any of the following conditions apply:

(i) The transport or dispatch of the goods is sub-contracted by the supplier to a third party who delivers the goods to the customer.

(ii) The dispatch or transport of the goods is provided by a third party but the supplier bears totally or partially the responsibility for the delivery of the goods to the customer.

(iii) The supplier invoices and collects the transport fees from the customer and further remits them to a third party that arranges the dispatch or transport of the goods.

The Committee further clarified that, in other cases of “intervention,” in particular where the supplier actively promotes the delivery services of a third party to the customer, puts the customer and the third party in contact and provides to the third party the information needed for the delivery of the goods, the seller should likewise be regarded as having “intervened indirectly” in the transport or dispatch of the goods.

Note: These guidelines issued by the VAT Committee are merely views of an advisory committee, they do not constitute an official interpretation of EC law and therefore do not bind the Commission or the Member States. However, the Committee’s views are highly influential and it is likely that Member States will review their procedures and implement these guidelines.

Distance Selling VAT registration can apply retrospectively and assessments and penalties for late registration and underdeclaration of VAT are likely. Also, with different VAT rates applicable in different Member States even if VAT has (incorrectly) been charged at the rate applicable in the Member State where the supplier belongs (rather than the customer) this will likely be at the incorrect rate and recovery of this incorrectly paid VAT will also create issues.

Please contact us if the above changes will affect your business as action must be taken immediately.

VAT – Do as HMRC say…. and if you do… they may still penalise you!

By Marcus Ward 23 October 2015

Can you rely on a VAT ruling received from HMRC when they have been provided with full information in writing? You would like to think so wouldn’t you? And in the past, you have been able to.

However, the long standing protection from assessments for deemed underdeclared VAT as a result of incorrect advice or actions by HMRC has been withdrawn. This was commonly known as “Sheldon Statement” protection.

HMRC now state that there are some circumstances in which their primary duty is to collect tax according to the statute and it may mean that they can no longer be bound by advice they have given.

Despite all their publicity of their National Help Line and Advice Centre, plus the clearance procedures introduced to assist taxpayers with their obligations, HMRC can still renege on their advice!

Even if you are fortunate enough to actually get a decision from HMRC (which is increasingly difficult and frustrating) you can’t rely on it.

This makes it even more important to avoid errors and the increased risk of VAT penalties and interest.

This leaves the question as to whom businesses can rely on for accurate, cost effective VAT saving advice and guidance on getting VAT right? The answer, clearly, is to contact their friendly local VAT consultant…

VAT – Trading in Bitcoin ruled exempt by ECJ

By Marcus Ward 22 October 2015

VAT – Trading in Bitcoin ruled exempt by ECJ

Further to my article of 13 March 2014 here

The European Court of Justice (ECJ), the highest court of appeal for EC matters, has ruled that trading in digital, such as bitcoin, is exempt. this is on the basis that they are a method of payment with no intrinsic value, like goods or commodities. They are therefore covered by the exemption relating to “currency, bank notes and coins used as legal tender” – (Article 135 (1) of the VAT directive).

This confirms that the UK authority’s approach is correct and that the VAT treatment applied in Germany, Poland and Sweden where those authorities treated the relevant transactions as subject to VAT, is erroneous.

This is good news for the UK as it is a big (if not the biggest) player in the bitcoin sector.

VAT e-audits: A warning

By Marcus Ward 15 October 2015

The increase in the sophistication and use of data analysis software has enabled HMRC and tax authorities worldwide to increase the number of indirect tax VAT e-audits.

This has led to an increase in, and higher quantum of; assessments, penalties and interest. The use of more automated resources means that HMRC is capable of auditing a greater amount of information from a greater number of businesses.

Even greater care must be taken now with recording and reporting transactions and the application of calculations such as partial exemption. The need for accurate and timely records has never been more important. It’s crucial that the basics of compliance are taken care of, as well as seeking advice and reviews on specific issues.

These issues are summarised here

Please contact us if you feel that your VAT systems need to be checked, or if you have any doubts about the accuracy of your business’ indirect tax reporting.

We offer a full range of reviews, from a straightforward healthcheck to a full report on a business.

As the severe motto has it: Comply or die!

VAT – Latest from the courts on multiple or composite supplies

By Marcus Ward 14 October 2015

In the seemingly endless and conflicting series of cases on whether certain supplies are multiple (at different VAT rates) or single, the latest decision from the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) this week doesn’t really clarify matters.

In Metropolitan International Schools

The Appellant provided distance learning courses. The courses in question included various trade courses, such as electrical and plumbing courses. One single price was charged for the courses. Customers were provided with manuals that described the particular subject matter on a step-by-step basis. The Appellant’s aim was that the manuals should be entirely comprehensive, and that the information contained in them would be all that was required to enable customers to master the particular subjects. There was no additional provision of classroom tuition. Tutor support was provided via phone calls or emails. No examinations were provided, nor any degrees, qualifications or diplomas. The courses were generally designed to prepare customers to take third party examinations.

Both the appellant and HMRC contended that the supply of distance learning courses was a single supply. Unsurprisingly, the appellant thought that the supply was of zero rated printed matter, and HMRC contended that it was a single supply of (non-exempt) education so all of the supply was standard rated.

Among others, the main point was whether the Appellant’s supplies of distance learning courses were single or multiple supplies and, assuming that the provision was of one single composite supply, whether that supply was a supply of zero-rated books coupled with ancillary services or standard-rated education (with the books being ancillary).

This meant that, if a single supply, it was necessary to consider which element was predominant.

The FTT held that the end result sought by customers from the supply made by the Appellant was to learn, and to accomplish that aim essentially by reading the vast amount of printed material. The Appellant’s essential supply was the sale of manuals and all of the other features of the supply were appropriately regarded as add-on ancillary functions. The Tribunal therefore held that there was only one single supply in the present case and that it took its nature from that of the principal supply, namely the zero-rated provision of books. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that there was one single supply of zero-rated books.

It should be noted that The Tribunal found it difficult to rationalise all of the relevant case law authorities and to arrive, with confidence, at the correct tests to apply in identifying the nature of the single supply. Indeed, the Tribunal observed that this decision may well lead to appeals to a higher court, and quite possibly a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union for guidance.

So… are we any further on with this matter? Not really.

VAT and Insurance – The Riskstop case

By Marcus Ward 12 October 2015

Latest from the courts

Generally, supplies of insurance and insurance broking are exempt from VAT. However, it is important to look at exactly what is being provided as there is no “blanket” exemption.

The latest First Tier Tribunal case of Riskstop Consulting Limited illustrates the precise tests that must be applied and met in order for exemption to apply.

Changes to the treatment of cross-border movement of goods from 1 May 2016

By Marcus Ward 8 October 2015

How will goods cross EC borders post UCC?

HMRC has updated its guidance notes on the Union Customs Code (UCC) which is being introduced across the EC on 1 May 2016.

Details here

Main points

The UCC is a revision of the Modernised Customs Code (MCC) and there will be a number of changes to how goods cross EU borders.
Some transitional arrangements will operate until 2020.
Mandatory guarantees for most special procedures and temporary storage (TS) – this only applies to new authorisations.
The ability to make some movements under TS rather than national transit or Electronic Transit System (ETS) – formerly New Computerised Transit System (NCTS).
The removal of the earlier sales provisions relating to valuation – but there are some transitional arrangements.
All communications between customs authorities and economic operators must be electronic.
Valuation: The earlier sale facility will be withdrawn and replaced by a last sale only rule.
Under the UCC there will be some circumstances where the provision of a guarantee is mandatory.
Royalties and licence fees – Currently, for a royalty fee to be liable to duty it must: relate to the imported goods, and be paid as a condition of sale of those imported goods. Under the UCC, royalties and licence fees will generally be paid as a condition of the sale of the goods and should be included in the customs value.

Some procedures and reliefs will cease or change on 30 April 2016, these are:

The €10 waiver of customs duty for free circulation customs declarations – where customs duty is payable no de-minimis exemption will apply – this doesn’t affect any Community System of Duty Reliefs (CSDR) duty reliefs.
Goods being declared to Onward Supply Relief (OSR) can only be entered using a full customs declaration or the Simplified Declaration Procedure (SDP).
The use of Information Sheets for Special Procedures (INF) documents with an Entry in Declarant’s Records (EIDR).
Inward Processing Drawback (IP (D)) and Low Value Bulking Imports (LVBI) authorisations will no longer be valid and these authorisations can’t be used to import goods regardless of any expiry dates shown on your authorisations.
Processing under Customs Control (PCC) authorisation holders will be given an Inward Processing (IP) authorisation number which must be used for new importations after 30 April 2016.
Type D customs warehousing authorisation holders will be given a new authorisation number with a prefix of C (for type D authorisation), or E (for a type E warehouse with type D rules of assessment) – these must be used for entries to customs warehouses after 1 May 2016, the normal debt rules of assessment will apply.
Goods being declared to LVBI will only be entered using an SDP authorisation.

System changes

HMRC expects that some changes to economic operators’ systems will be needed. However this will depend on which authorisations are held and what procedures or processes individual businesses use. A plan for the major IT changes is already in place.

Economic Operator Registration and Identification (EORI)

There are no changes to the EORI process. It is a requirement for all economic operators (such as businesses) involved in international trade to be registered and to have an EORI number. You’ll need to have an EORI number to be able to apply for any customs authorisations, approvals or decisions. For details on EORI see here