Latest from the courts.
The rolls used in Subway’s hot sandwiches are not bread. According to a recent ruling by Ireland’s Supreme Court, because of the high level of sugar in the rolls, they cannot be taxed as bread, so the VAT zero rate cannot apply.
Latest from the courts
Can products designed to, errr… stimulate sexual desire be treated as foodstuffs? – Only in VAT do such questions ahem arise eh?
Background
X (the name of the business), sold items in its sex shop which included; capsules, drops, powders and sprays presented as aphrodisiacs that stimulate libido. Those products, which are composed essentially of elements of animal or vegetable origin, were intended for human consumption and were to be taken orally.
X applied the reduced rate to these products (the rate in The Netherlands, certain food in the UK is zero rated) treating the sexual stimulants as foodstuffs.
This was challenged by the tax authorities as it was not considered that they fell within the definitions of ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’. Assessments were issued for the difference between the reduced rate and the standard rate. The case was referred to the ECJ – C-331/19 Staatssecretaris van Financiën vs X
The Gerechtshof den Haag (Court of Appeal, The Hague, Netherlands) found in favour of X, ruling that the use of the products in question as aphrodisiacs did not preclude them from being taxed at the reduced rate applicable to foodstuffs. This was broadly on the basis that the products were intended to be consumed orally and were made from ingredients that may be found in foodstuffs.
The VAT Directive contains no definition of the concepts of ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ or ‘products normally used to supplement foodstuffs or as a substitute for foodstuffs, so that is, at the least, unhelpful, although it was emphasised that the words must be interpreted in accordance with the usual meaning of them in everyday language.
Decision
It was ruled that any product intended for human consumption which provides the human body with the nutrients necessary to keep the human body alive and enable it to function and develop comes within the scope of the category set out in point 1 of Annex III to the VAT Directive, even if the consumption of that product also aims to produce other effects.
Further; the nutritional role was a decisive factor for a product to be classed as a ‘foodstuff for human consumption’/ The question whether that product has health benefits, its ingestion entails a certain pleasure for the consumer, or its use is part of a certain social context, is irrelevant. Consequently, the fact that consumption of that product has positive effects on the libido of the person ingesting it is irrelevant.
So, aphrodisiacs can be food.
Action
If any business which sell such products which, incidentally, contain nutrients may have a VAT claim based on this case.
HMRC has announced changes to the treatment of “compensation” and similar payments in its Revenue and Customs Brief 12 (2020).
This is as a result of recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), specifically Meo (C-295/17) and Vodafone Portugal (C-43/19).
Background
Previous HMRC guidance stated that when customers are charged to withdraw from agreements to receive goods or services, these charges were not generally for a supply and were outside the scope of VAT; being compensatory in nature.
New treatment
Now, as a result of the CJEU cases, it is apparent that such charges are considered as being payment for the supply of goods or services for which the customer originally contracted. Consequently, most early termination and cancellation fees are standard rated. HMRC comment that this is the case even if they are described as compensation or damages (which, if an accurate description, remain VAT free). An example of this is given as; charges made when exiting one contract and entering into another to upgrade a mobile telephone package or handset.
Action
Any businesses which have not accounted for output tax on receipt of these payments are required to amend past declarations.
Commentary
The retrospective nature of this announcement seems unfair and is likely to cause administrative problems for a lot of businesses. The other issue is that HMRC have not said how far back such adjustments apply, is it: The usual four-year cap? The earlier of the two EJEU cases mentioned (2018)? The June 2020 Vodafone case? Some other date?
It does not appear that the relevant date will be the date of issue of the changes – 2 September 2020 as HMRC say that this date will only apply to certain businesses (those that have received a specific written ruling) so where does that leave the majority of other taxpayers? HMRC remain silent on this and it does not help those affected at all. It is possible that retrospection may be challengeable via judicial review.
While the application of the new rules seems logical and consistent with case law, the implementation and lack of detail is really, to be polite, unhelpful.
Latest from the courts
In the San Domenico Vetraria SpA CJEU case the issue was the treatment of the secondment of staff by an Italian parent company to its subsidiary and the reimbursement by the subsidiary company of the costs incurred. Was there a VAtable supply?
Background
The issue was whether the relevant payment represented a supply of services ‘for consideration’. The parent company seconded one of its directors to its subsidiary and a charge was made based solely on a reimbursement of actual costs. The Italian domestic court ruled that the transaction was outside the scope of VAT on the basis that there was no consideration paid or received and therefore no supply of services.
Decision
The court ruled that despite the fact that the value of the payment to the parent company was limited to the parent company’s costs this did not mean that consideration for the director’s secondment was absent. Therefore, as consideration flowed in both directions, a taxable supply took place such that VAT was due, the claim of input tax made by the subsidiary was correct and the Italian authorities were incorrect to deny credit for it.
The President of the Chamber stated in the ruling that “The amount of the consideration, in particular the fact that it is equal to, greater or less than, the costs which the taxable person incurred in providing his service, is irrelevant in that regard”. It was immaterial that no profit was made, and the absence of such profit did not affect the VAT treatment.
There was a legal relationship between the provider of the service and the recipient pursuant to which there is reciprocal performance, the remuneration received by the provider of the service constituting the value actually given in return for the service supplied to the recipient.
Commentary
This is a useful clarification/confirmation. The supply was not a disbursement (details here) so it was a supply by the parent company. More on inter-company charges here.
Planning
If the recipient company was partly exempt or unable to reclaim the input tax for any reason, the VAT would have represented a real cost. So, would there be a way to avoid this charge? The answer (in the UK at least) is yes. If the director had a joint contract of employment with both companies, there would be no supply. Also, if the two companies were part of the same VAT group, the “supply” would be disregarded, so there would be no VAT cost for the subsidiary.
Latest from the courts
In the Y4 Express Ltd (Y4) First Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether an individual was in business such that he was entitled to be VAT registered.
Background
Y4 imported goods from China on behalf of UK customers. This entailed collecting the goods from the airport, storing them and then arranging delivery of them to the final customers. Y4 had an arrangement with Royal Mail (RM) for a discounted delivery rate. RM subsequently withdrew this discount resulting in Y4 incurring increased delivery costs. In order to mitigate this, Y4 put a structure in place using an individual (Mr Man) to contract with RM for the discount and letting Y4 use the account to take advantage of the reduced rates: RM invoiced Mr Man and Y4 would arrange payment from its own funds via direct debit. Y4 dealt with Mr Man’s VAT compliance and raised self-billing documents to itself on which it recovered input tax. It was reported that Mr Man considered this as a favour to a friend rather than as a business venture with a view to making a profit, and indeed, the charges made by RM were not marked up. Mr Man was not involved with the arrangement of deliveries of Y4 carried out by RM.
HMRC disallowed the input tax claimed as it considered that the individual was not in business, so no VAT was due on the charge made to Y4. This was on the basis that the individual was not carrying on an ‘economic activity’.
Decision
The FTT agreed with the respondent and upheld the decision to disallow Y4’s claim for input tax. This was on the basis that Mr Man was not in business so could not make supplies to Y4, which in turn meant that there was no input tax for Y4 to claim.
Commentary
The issue of whether an entity is “in business” goes back to the earliest days of VAT. I have considered the issue and recent case law here here here here and here. HMRC relied heavily on the age-old (well, 1981) tests in the Lord Fisher case:
The judge found that the tests were not met by Mr Man and, even if they were, the evidence; the self-billing documents, were insufficient. It was also found that a penalty was due, although the quantum was reduced to reflect the cooperation of the taxpayer during the enquiries.
This appeal further demonstrates the ambiguity that often surrounds the definition of a business, and/or an economic activity (the EU legal definition). This is often an issue for charities and NFP bodies, but can extend to other areas such as in this case.
In the recent (16 July 2020) CJEU case of UR C‑424/19 a Romanian taxpayer argued that the provision of legal services by a lawyer was not a taxable supply. Unsurprisingly, the court did not agree. So it is official; lawyers do provide a service…
What is a taxable supply and who is a taxable person?
A VAT Back To Basics
Taxable supply
It is sometimes useful when considering a transaction to “go back to basics” for VAT purposes. There are certain tests to determine whether a supply is taxable, and these are set out below. Broadly, the tests establish whether UK VAT is payable on a sale and they determine whether an entity is “in business”, that is; carrying on an economic activity.
A transaction is within the scope of UK VAT if all four of the following conditions are satisfied:
There is a distinction between the two types of supply as different VAT treatments may apply. Generally, everything that is not tangible goods is services. However, if no goods or services are actually provided, there is no supply. Indeed, if there is no consideration for a supply, in most cases it is not a taxable supply.
There are quite complex tests to consider when analysing the “place of supply”, especially where services are concerned. If the place of supply is outside the UK then usually no UK VAT is due, however, the supply may be subject to VAT in another country.
A taxable person is any legal entity which is, or should be, registered for VAT in the UK.
Business
The term “business” is only used in UK legislation, The Principal VAT Directive refers to “economic activity” rather than “business” and since UK domestic legislation must conform to the Directive both terms must be seen as having the same meaning. Since the very first days of VAT there have been disagreements over what constitutes a “business”. I have only recently ended a dispute over this definition for a (as it turns out) very happy client. The tests were set out as long ago as 1981 and may be summarised as follows:
So, if these tests are passed a taxable supply exists. The next step is to establish which VAT rate applies. In an often quoted comment from the judge in the Morrison’s Academy Boarding Houses Association 1978 STC1 Court Of Session case “…In my opinion it will never be possible or desirable to define exhaustively ‘business’ ”. Which what it lacks in helpfulness, makes up for in candour.
There was something of a deviation from the Lord Fisher tests in the Longbridge Court of Appeal case, however, that appears to be a blip and HMRC seem to have reverted to Lord Fisher in subsequent hearings on the same topic. A bit of a: watch this space area of VAT.
Recent cases on business
Recent case law on this issue here and here and HMRC Internal guidance on the Lord Fisher tests here
Commentary
Tip: It is often easier to consider what isn’t a taxable supply to establish the correct VAT treatment. Specific examples of situations which are not taxable supplies are; donations, certain free supplies of services, certain grants or funding, some compensation and some transactions which are specifically excluded from the tax by legislation, eg; transfers of going concerns (TOGC).
I think that it is often the case that the basic building blocks of the tax are overlooked, especially in complex situations and I find it helps to “go back to the first page” sometimes.
Latest from the courts
In the recent First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Aitmatov Academy an otherwise unremarkable case illustrates the care required when making input tax claims.
The quantum of the claim was low and the technical issues not particularly complex, however, it underlined some basic rules for making a VAT claim.
Background
A doctor organised a cultural event at the House of Lords for which no charge was made to attendees. The event organiser as shown on the event form was the doctor. Aitmatov Academy was shown as an organisation associated with the event. It was agreed that the attendees were not potential customers of Aitmatov Academy and that the overall purpose of the event was cultural and not advertising.
Issues
HMRC disallowed the claim. The issues were:
Decision
The FTT found that the Academy incurred the cost and consequently must have concluded that the Academy was the recipient of the supply, not the doctor.
However, the judge decided that the awards ceremony was not directly or indirectly linked to taxable supplies made or intended to be made by the Academy, and therefore that the referable input tax should not be allowed. Consequently, the court did not need to consider whether the event qualified as business entertainment.
On a separate point, the appellant contended that, as a similar claim had been paid by HMRC previously, she could not see the difference that caused input VAT in this case to be disallowed. The Tribunal explained that its role is to apply the law in this specific instance and as such it cannot look at what happened in an early case which is not the subject of an appeal.
Commentary
A helpful reminder of some of the tests that need to be passed in order for an input tax claim to be valid. I have written about some common issues with claims and provided a checklist. Broadly, in addition to the tests in this case, a business needs to consider:
I have also looked at which input tax is specifically barred.
Finally, “entertainment” is a topic all of its own. I have considered what is claimable here in article which includes a useful flowchart.
As always, the message is; if a business is to avoid penalties and interest, if there is any doubt over the validity of a claim, seek advice!
We cannot control the future…
The Sonaecom case
In the opinion* of the CJEU AG (C-42/19) the importance of a taxpayer’s intention was of utmost importance, regardless of whether that intention was achieved.
Background
Sonaecom intended to acquire a telecoms provider company. As is usual in such cases, input tax was incurred on consultancy received, from, amongst others; accountants and legal service providers. The intention post acquisition was for Sonaecom to make certain charges to the acquired co. These would have been taxable supplies.
Unfortunately, the intended purchase was aborted.
The issue
The issue before the AG was; as no taxable supplies took place as the deal fell through – to what should the input tax incurred on advice be attributed?
Opinion
In the AG’s view the fact that the acquisition was aborted was no reason for the claim for input tax to denied. This was based on the fact that:
Commentary
There are often issues in relation to intentions of a taxpayer. It is clear, and was emphasised in this case, that intention is all important. Of course, intentions can change over a period of time and commercial and political events may thwart or cause intentions to be re-evaluated. There is often an issue about evidencing an intention. HMRC usually require comprehensive documentary evidence to demonstrate an objective. Such evidence is sometime not available for various reasons. Consequently, it is prudent for businesses to record (board meeting minutes etc at the very least) the commercial reasons for taking a certain course of action. This issue quite often arises in transactions in land and property – which can create additional technical issues.
There is legislation in place to cover situations when intentions, or actual events change and which affect the original input tax position: The Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Regs 108 and 109.
Other areas of VAT which often to raise issues are management charges and holding companies. HMRC apparently continue to be eager to attack taxpayers in these areas and I have looked at the role of holding companies and the VAT treatment here, here and here.
I think it is useful to bear in mind a question which, in itself does not evidence an intention, but provides commercial coherence – Why were the costs incurred if there was no intention to make the acquisition? This does leave aside the future management charges position but goes some way to provide business logic.
It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds, but I would find it very surprising if the court diverges from this AG opinion.
* AG’s Opinion
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) consists of one judge from each Member State, assisted by eleven Advocates General whose role is to consider the written and oral submissions to the court in every case that raises a new point of law, and deliver an impartial opinion to the court on the legal solution.
Latest from the courts
An interesting and helpful comment was made by the judge in the NHS Lothian Health Board Court of Session (the Scottish equivalent of the Court of Appeal) case.
Background
The case involved a claim for overpaid VAT going back to 1974. The primary issue was not the existence of the taxpayer’s claim to recover overpaid VAT, but the quantification of that claim, and in particular whether the claim can be quantified with sufficient accuracy to permit an order for repayment of tax to be made. In the previous case it was held that the onus of proving that an amount of tax had been paid and not recovered rested upon the taxpayer and that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities and Lord Drummond Young agreed with that proposition here.
Judgement
The specific comments which will be of assistance with businesses with similar clams were:
“The fundamental problem in such cases is that primary evidence does not exist owing to the lapse of time. The absence of such evidence, at least in cases such as the present, is not the fault of the taxpayer, and the lack of evidence should not be held against the taxpayer,”
Outcome
The court urged Tax Tribunals (First Tier Tribunal – FTT and Upper Tribunal – UT) to apply a flexible approach to the burden and standard of proof when making decisions in similar cases; of which there is a considerable number. This approach should apply to so called “Fleming” claims and others in respect of overpaid output tax. We understand that 700 such claims were made by NHS authorities in Great Britain alone, and circa 200 of these remain unresolved.
Commentary
In most cases, a taxpayer is only required to retain records for six years. So the comments made in this case should bolster the chances of success for claims made by other businesses, whether they be for overpaid output tax or underclaimed input tax. There are many and varied reasons why sufficiently detailed could be unavailable; we are looking at a potential 46-year time span. In 1974 record keeping was a different world and physical/manual records were usually the only option. It seems only reasonable that HMRC should make the allowances suggested in this case when it is agreed that a claim is valid in all other respects.
Action
If you, or your client, have had a claim rejected on the basis of insufficient supporting primary evidence, it may be worthwhile revisiting it on the basis of this decision. It sets out helpful and clear guidance and provides businesses with effective, appropriate tax relief where applicable.