Category Archives: Contract

Tax points and VAT groups – The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd CoA case

By Marcus Ward 11 April 2024

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.

VAT: Buildings and construction update

By Marcus Ward 1 February 2024

HMRC has amended Notice 708 which covers:

when building work can be zero-rated or reduced-rated at 5%
when building materials can be zero-rated or reduced-rated at 5%
when the sale, or long lease in a building is zero-rated
where you can find out more about the VAT domestic reverse charge for building and construction services
when developers are blocked from deducting input tax on goods that are not building materials
when a builder or developer needs to have a certificate from their customer, confirming that the building concerned is intended to be used for a purpose that attracts the zero or reduced rate
when a customer can issue that certificate to a builder or developer
what happens when a certificated building is no longer used for the purpose that attracted the zero rate, the use for that purpose decreases or the building is disposed of
the special time of supply rules for builders
when a business, on using its own labour to carry out building work on a building or civil engineering structure that it occupies or uses, must account for a self-supply charge

Sections 18.1 and 18.2 of the Notice and the certificates in those sections have been updated to show they have force of law under The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5, Note 12.

VAT: What is a proforma invoice and how can it be used?

By Marcus Ward 11 December 2023

VAT basics

Proforma invoices (proformas) are preliminary documents usually sent to buyers in advance of a delivery of goods/provision of services. Proformas will typically describe details of the purchase of goods/services and other important information, such as the terms of the transaction. Proformas are not “official” documents and represent an informal agreement. Usually, requesting a proforma represents a more serious interest on the part of a buyer than a quote – a buyer is generally committed to making a purchase but want to understand the details before proceeding with the approval process and making a binding agreement with the seller. They are therefore a useful business tool and use of them may result in a beneficial cashflow position for VAT (please see below).

Proforma translates from Latin as “for the sake of form”, and this provides an indication that the document is provisional or a step in a process.

It is also worth noting that the use of proformas is not mandatory.

The difference between an invoice and a proforma

Invoices (also called commercial invoices, VAT invoices or tax invoices) are distinct from proformas. They may contain similar information but serve different purposes. It is important to avoid confusing the two, since only invoices are legal documents; that is, they evidence a transaction and is the document on which VAT may be claimed. An invoice must contain certain information and there are specific legal obligations for providing them.

It is a matter of law whether an invoice is valid and when they must be issued. A proforma is not required to follow any set form, apart from the facts that they must not have an invoice number and must state that it is a proforma invoice. We also recommend that a proforma does not show the supplier’s VAT number for the avoidance of doubt.

Contents of a proforma

Proformas can be considered as “dummy invoices” and they are prepared by the seller usually to provide details of:

the issuing business’s name, address, and contact details
customer’s name and address
date of issue
length of time the pricing is valid
the goods/services requested, including quantities, type, and physical specifications
pricing, including individual costs as well as the total amount to be charged
terms of sale, including eg; shipping and delivery dates
payment terms
whether VAT is applicable

However, there are no set formats for proformas.

Use for buyer

The purpose of a proforma is to provide the buyer with an accurate and complete good faith estimate they can use to decide whether or not to go ahead with a transaction. It also avoids surprises when the actual tax invoice is issued.

VAT implications

The main distinctions are that, compared to a tax invoice, a proforma:

does not create a tax point
the recipient is unable to recover input tax on a proforma

Very broadly, the tax point (time of supply) this is the earliest of; invoice date, receipt of payment, goods transferred or services completed. The tax point fact is helpful in tax planning for suppliers. Broadly, using proformas, requests for payment, or similar documents rather than issuing an invoice, defers a tax point and consequently when VAT is payable to HMRC. This is especially relevant to businesses which provide ongoing services (known as continuous supplies of services).

Please contact us if you require more information on the commercial use of proformas.

VAT: Contact lens services – taxable or exempt? The Vision Direct case

By Marcus Ward 8 December 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Vision Dispensing Limited the issue was whether services linked to the online sale of prescription contact lenses were covered by the exemption at The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, group 7, item 1 (b) – the provision of medical care.

Generally speaking, opticians provide two types of supply

exempt medical care; sight tests, measuring and fitting
the standard rated supply of goods; spectacles, contact lenses, accessories etc

Almost always a customer pays a single amount which covers the services as well as the goods, so an apportionment is required. HMRC updated guidance on apportionment here.

Background

The Appellant “VDL” supplies services in connection with the online sale of contact lenses and this appeal was concerned with the question whether those supplies are subject to VAT at the standard rate.

The legislation provides for exemption for medical care by a person registered or enrolled in either of the registers of Ophthalmic Opticians or the register of Dispensing Opticians kept under the Opticians Act 1989. The exemption is also extended to persons who are not registered/enrolled under the Act but are directly supervised by a person who is so registered or enrolled.

VDL is a UK incorporated company and a member of the Vision Direct corporate group. VDL has a sister group company called Vision Direct BV (“VDBV”) which is based in The Netherlands. VDL operates a warehouse facility in the UK. Goods (contact lenses and other optical products) belonging to VDBV were stored in the warehouse and dispatched to purchasers by VDL, using its own workforce. VDL also employed customer assistants, who deal with a range of enquiries from customers. VDBV operates the website visiondirect.co.uk through which prescription contact lenses and other optical goods are supplied to UK customers. Customers purchasing prescription contact lenses or other optical products online enter two contracts; one with VDBV for the supply of contact lenses and one with VDL for the supply of dispensing services. There is also a contract between VDL and VDBV. VDL is not paid a fee by VDBV, its income comprises by the fee paid by customers.

The arguments

HMRC contended that there is little evidence to support that there was advice being provided to customs by VDL and consequently, there were serious questions about whether healthcare services are being supplied. The supplies fall short of a number of regulatory requirements and that the supplies described as dispensing services cannot properly be described as professional clinical advice or therapeutic care. HMRC stated that VDL has never seen a single customer. Clinical advice cannot be delivered in an impersonal or generic way.

HMRC pointed out that:

the website makes it clear that VDL does not provide advice on which customers can depend. Consequently, it cannot rely on the website as evidence of medical care
there is no direct link between the use of the website and payments to VDL. For there to be a supply, there must be a direct link between the supplier and the recipient

VDL contended that its dispensing services are superior to those available on the High Street. Contrary to HMRC’s case, it is able to identify multiple examples of clinical advice and the purpose of its supplies is to assist in the treatment of defective eyesight. All services are directly supervised by those with the appropriate qualifications.

Deliberation

The FTT was required to determine whether VDL’s services constituted medical care and were those services wholly performed or directly supervised by appropriate persons?

It was agreed that the advice does not need to be complex or personalised to be covered by the exemption as long as it contributes to the efficacy of the overall therapeutic process. The material provided on the website was comprehensive and covered the entire process from an eye test, the diagnosis of an eye defect, and then the selection, measuring and fitting of spectacles or lenses to the supply of those spectacles or lenses.

It was concluded by the FTT that the provision of the website was by VDBV as in the T&Cs VDBV operates it and owns the intellectual property rights to its content. Consequently, the provision of the website could not be part of the supply by VDL. VDL supplied the material or reviewed its content for VDBV pursuant to a contract between the two companies.

Decision

The FTT concluded that:

the quality, quantity, and nature of the optical information on the website was such that its provision could amount to medical care, but;
the information on the website is not provided by VDL (but by VDBV)
even if it were provided by VDL, the terms on which it is made available mean that it is not part of any supply made by VDL to customers and must be left out of account when it comes to characterising the supplies VDL does make
what VDL does do is choose the correct lenses and dispatch them. There is no element of medical care in VDL’s supply
there was little evidence as to how the opticians monitored the performance of the staff so that they could satisfy themselves that their performance was of a suitable standard, so it could not be said that there was direct supervision.

As a result, VDL did not provide medical care and in any case, the services were not wholly performed or directly supervised by appropriately qualified individuals so exemption could not apply

The appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Opticians have long produced VAT challenges since the cases of Leightons and Eye-Tech in the 1990s. Any businesses using a similar business model are advised to review the treatment of their supplies in light of this case.

VAT: Definition of insurance

By Marcus Ward 5 September 2023

Further to my article on insurance and partial exemption, HMRC has published a new definition of what insurance means for VAT as a consequence of the CJEU United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Ltd and another v HMRC [2020] STC 2169 case.

It is set out in para 2.2 of Public Notice 701/36

What insurance is

There is no statutory definition of insurance, although guidance can be gained from previous legal decisions in which the essential nature of insurance has been considered.

The Court of Justice of the European Union , in the case of United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Ltd & Anor v R & C Commrs (Case C235-19) [2020], upheld the definition given in the case of Card Protection Plan Ltd v C & E Commrs (Case C-349/96) [1999] which concluded that:

“…the essentials of an insurance transaction are… that the insurer undertakes, in return for prior payment of a premium, to provide the insured, in the event of materialisation of the risk covered, with the service agreed when the contract was concluded”.

HMRC also accept that certain funeral plan contracts are insurance (and therefore exempt from VAT), even though they are not regulated as such under the FSMA insurance regulatory provisions.

Vehicle breakdown insurance is also seen as insurance even though providers are given a specific exclusion under the FSMA from the requirement to be authorised.

Overages – what are they and what is the VAT treatment?

By Marcus Ward 4 August 2023

Land and property transactions are often complex and high value for VAT purposes. One area which we have been increasingly involved with is overages.

What is an overage?

An overage is an agreement whereby a purchaser of land agrees to pay the vendor an additional sum of money, in addition to the purchase price, following the occurrence of a future specified event that enhances the value of the land. This entitles the seller to a proportion of the enhanced value following the initial sale. Overages may also be called clawbacks, or uplifts.

Overages are popular with landowners who sell with the benefit of development potential and with buyers who may be able to purchase land at an initial low price with a condition that further payment will be made contingent on land increasing in value in the future – this may be as a result, of, say, obtaining Planning Permission.

VAT Treatment

This is not free from doubt. HMRC’s current view is that the VAT treatment of the overage follows the VAT treatment of the initial supply. This means that it is deemed to be additional consideration for the original supply, so if the land was subject to an Option To Tax (OTT) when originally disposed of the overage payment would be subject to VAT at 20%. Conversely, if the land was sold on an exempt basis, the overage is similarly VAT free and it is important to recognise this and not to charge VAT unnecessarily which would create difficulties for the buyer (because it would not be a VAT-able supply, HMRC would disallow a claim for input tax).

It is crucial to identify this VAT outcome, especially as there could be a long period between the original sale and the overage and there may be a succession of overage payments. Comprehensive records should be made and retained on the VAT status of land sold.

Uncertainty

Uncertainty arises because HMRC have changed its view on overages. The original interpretation was that there were two separate supplies, each with distinct VAT treatments. As there was no link to the original supply, the overage was mandatorily standard rated, even if the initial supply was exempt.

Additionally, take the position where the original sale was standard rated due to an OTT on the land, and the buyer subsequently built and sold new dwellings (which effectively disapplies the OTT via para 3, Notice 742A) it could be argued that the overage should be exempt as it is linked to the sale of the new houses.

We understand that HMRC’s analysis is that VAT treatment of overages is determined at the time of the original supply such that it cannot be affected by subsequent events.

In our view, the “new” HMRC view may be open to challenge – We await updated published guidance on this.

VAT agents and advisers – Updated HMRC standards

By Marcus Ward 16 May 2023

HMRC has published updated standards for agents and advisers. It sets out HMRC’s expectations of tax agents. Tax agents are agents and advisers, who are acting professionally in relation to the tax affairs of others. This includes third party agents and advisers, whether acting in respect of UK or offshore tax affairs, and to all dealings they have with HMRC. Most agents are members of professional regulatory bodies that publish and endorse standards for behaviour. All the directors and staff of Marcus Ward Consultancy who provide professional advice are members of CIOT and/or ATT and are covered by their principles and ethics. Our approach to tax planning is set out here and is summarised below.

Summary

HMRC’s standard for dealing with agents: HMRC states that it wants to provide agents with a service that is fair, accurate and based on mutual trust and respect.

What HMRC expects from agents

Integrity
Professional competence and due care
Professional behaviour
Standards for tax planning – tax planning must
- be lawful
- be disclosed and transparent
- agents must not create, encourage or promote tax planning arrangements or structures that:
  - set out to achieve results that are contrary to the clear intention of Parliament in enacting relevant legislation
  - are highly artificial or highly contrived and seek to exploit shortcomings in the relevant legislation
HMRC will monitor agent standards

Agents who do not follow the standard are considered to be in breach of it. HMRC has a range of different approaches, policies and powers to deal with breaches of the standard. For more information, HMRC has published a review of its powers to uphold its standard for agents.

Our approach to planning and HMRC

Marcus Ward Consultancy Ltd does not market, advise on, or advocate aggressive schemes. The company provides bespoke solutions to an individual business and does not believe in “one size fits all” mass-marketed schemes. We will always work within the law and the spirit of the law. We operate a full disclosure policy and may refuse to work with you if you do not subscribe to this attitude. We will, on occasion, cross swords with HMRC if we believe we are correct and that HMRC is being unreasonable and we will fight to uphold our clients’ rights against any unfair accusations.

VAT: Place of supply – The Sports Invest case

By Marcus Ward 5 May 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal case of Sports Invest UK Ltd the issue was the place of supply (POS) of a football agent’s services (commission received for a player’s transfer).

The POS is often complex from a VAT perspective and depends on the place of belonging (POB) of the supplier and the recipient of the supply. These rules determine if VAT is charged, where VAT is charged and the rate of VAT applicable, additionally, they may impose requirements to register for VAT in different jurisdictions.

Background

Sports Invest was a football agent based in the UK. It received fees in respect of negotiating the transfer of a player: João Mário from a Portuguese club: Sporting Lisbon to an Italian club: Internazionale (Inter Milan). The appellant signed a representation contract with the player which entitled it to commission, and a separate agreement with Inter Milan entitling it to a fee because the player was permanently transferred.

The Issues

To whom did Sports Invest make a supply – club or player? What was the supply? Was there one or two separate supplies? What was the POS?

As appears normal for transactions in the world of football the contractual arrangements were complex, but, in essence as a matter of commercial and economic reality, Sports Invest had agreed the commission with the player in case it was excluded from the deal. However, this did not occur, and the deal was concluded as anticipated. Inter Milan paid The Appellant’s fee in full, but did this affect the agreement between Sports Invest and the player? That is, as HMRC contended, did Inter Milan pay Sports Invest on the player’s behalf (third party consideration) such that there were two supplies; one to the player and one to the cub?

The FTT stated that there was no suggestion that the contracts were “sham documents”.

VAT Liability

The arrangements mattered, as pre-Brexit, a supply of services by a business with a POB in the UK to an individual (B2C) in another EU Member State would have been subject to UK VAT; the POS being where the supplier belonged. HMRC assessed for an element of the fee that it saw related to the supply to the player. The remainder of the fee paid by the club was accepted to be consideration for a UK VAT free supply by the agent to the club (B2B).

Decision

The court found that there was one single supply by The Appellant to Inter Milan. This being the case, the supply was B2B and the POS was where the recipient belonged and so that the entire supply was UK VAT free. There was no (UK) supply to the individual player as that agreement was superseded by the contractual arrangements which were actually put in place and the player owed the agent nothing as the potential payment under that contract was waived.

The appeal against the assessment was upheld.

Commentary

The court’s decision appears to be logical as the supply was to the club who were receiving “something” (the employment contract with the player) and paying for it. The other “safeguarding” agreement appeared to be simple good commercial practice and was ultimately “not required”. This case highlights the often complex issues of; establishing the nature of transactions, the identity of the recipient(s), agency arrangements, the POS and the legal, commercial and economic reality of contracts.

VAT: DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – deadline for claims extended

By Marcus Ward 20 March 2023

The DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme is a tax refund mechanism for people who build, or arrange to have built, a house they intend to live in. It also applies to converting commercial property into a house(s). This puts a person who constructs their own home on equal footing with commercial housebuilders. There is no need to be VAT registered in order to make the claim.

One of the main problems was the very strict (and rigorously enforced) deadline of three months for the submission of the claim form. This is from completion of the build (usually this is when the certificate of practical completion is issued) or the building is inhabited, although it can be earlier if the certificate is delayed.

A case on when a house is considered to be complete here.

However, HMRC has announced that this deadline will be extended to six months from a date yet to be announced. This extension is welcome as it is often difficult to collect all the required information and documentation. In addition, the whole process will be digitised some time in the future which will also simplify the process.

The Scheme can be complex, but here is our Top Ten Tips for claimants.

VAT: TOMS – negative margin permitted? The Square case

By Marcus Ward 31 January 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of The Squa.re Limited (TSL) the issue was whether unsold inventory or inventory sold at a loss could affect the calculation of the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS).

Background

TSL provided serviced apartments to travellers. The company leased accommodation from the owners of the properties who were frequently, if not exclusively, private individuals who were not registered for VAT.

These leases were often for an extended period, eg; annual leases, such that the appellant is committed under the terms of the lease even where the accommodation cannot then be on supplied or not supplied for a profit.

The Issue

The issue was whether TOMS operated in such a way as to permit a negative calculation resulting in repayment to the appellant. HMRC issued an assessment because, while they accepted that there may be a zero margin on a TOMS supply, they considered that a negative margin was not permitted by the scheme. TSL maintained that a repayment of overdeclared output tax was appropriate if a loss was made (an “overall negative margin”) as TOMS does not exclude the possibility of a negative margin.

The dispute between the parties was a technical one only and concerned the interpretation of the statutory provisions implementing TOMS into UK law.

Legal

The domestic implementation of the TOMS is authorised by The Value Added Tax Act 1994, Section 53 and found in Value Added Tax (Tour Operators’) Order 1987 (SI1987/1806). Guidance is provided via Notice 709/5 and Sections 8 to 13 have the force of law.

Decision

The Tribunal determined that it was clear from the legislation that the taxable amount is concerned with the supply made, and not the VAT incurred on the various cost components. Under normal VAT accounting the output tax charged on supplies is calculated by reference to the consideration received by the supplier from the customer. There can realistically be no concept of negative consideration.

The FTT considered that there is no basis inherent within TOMS which would permit a calculation of a negative sum. There had been a supply (of a designated travel service) for a consideration, and it is the taxable amount of that supply which was to be determined. A negative taxable amount is a “conceptual impossibility”. A negative margin arises as a consequence of a lack of profitability, but VAT is a transaction tax and not a tax on profit.

When sold at a loss where the total calculation resulted in a negative margin the annual sum due by way of output tax would be nil (not a repayment).

Where the accommodation is not sold at all, the FTT noted that this cost represented a cost of doing business but, on the basis that there has been no onward supply, there is no supply which meets the definition of a designated travel service. The relevant accommodation is not for the direct benefit of any traveller so there is no supply and TOMS is irrelevant.

Whilst the FTT considered that were it the case that identified costs incurred in buying in goods and services which are not then the subject of an onward supply should be excluded from TOMS calculations, costs associated with the block booking of accommodation of the type incurred by TSL were to be included. Where such costs exceed the value obtained by onward supply, the negative margin forms part of the annual calculation. However, where the global calculation results in a negative margin the tax due for the year under TOMS is nil and there was no basis for a repayment to TSL.

There was no basis on which to permit an overall TOMS negative margin and the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Another demonstration of the complexities of TOMS and the potential pitfalls.

It may be useful to note that input tax claims are not permitted in TOMS calculations, however, any VAT incurred on any bought in, but unsold, services would not be excluded from recovery as there is no TOMS supply. The input tax on unsold inventory was a general cost of doing business and, as such, recoverable in the normal way. Consequently, there may be circumstances for businesses using TOMS where input tax incurred on unsold elements may be claimed outside of TOMS