Category Archives: Court

VAT: Powers of HMRC – The Impact Contracting Solutions Limited UT case

By   5 September 2023
0

Latest from the courts

In the Impact Contracting Solutions Limited (ICS) Upper Tribunal (UT) case the issue was whether HMRC had the power to cancel the VAT registration where that person has facilitated the VAT fraud of another ie; the scope of the “Ablessio” principle. It also illustrates the impact of EU cases on UK courts.

Background

ICS’s customers were temporary work agencies, and its suppliers were approximately 3,000 mini-umbrella companies (“MUCs”) which supplied labour. HMRC decided to cancel ICS’s VAT registration number with reliance on the principle in the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Valsts ienemumu dienests v Ablessio SIA (C-527/11) (“Ablessio”). HMRC considered that ICS was registered for VAT principally or solely to abuse the VAT system by facilitating VAT fraud, and that, in such circumstances, they were empowered by the principle in Ablessio to cancel the registration. In particular, HMRC considered that the arrangements between ICSL and the MUCs were contrived, with the effect that the MUCs failed properly to account for VAT on their supplies to ICS.

ICS appealed against HMRC’s decision to cancel its registration.

The Issues

Does the principle in Ablessio apply only to a party that has itself fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations, or does it similarly apply to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party?

If the Ablessio principle does apply to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party, is simple facilitation sufficient, or must it additionally be proved that:

(a) the facilitating party was itself dishonest, or

(b) the facilitating party knew that it was facilitating the fraud, and/or

(c) the facilitating party should have known that it was facilitating the fraud?

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decided that Ablessio applies both to a party that has fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations and to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party. Further that simple facilitation by a party of the VAT fraud of another is not sufficient to apply the Ablessio principle. However, it is not necessary to prove that the facilitating party was itself dishonest. It must, however, be proved that the facilitating party knew or should have known that it was facilitating the VAT fraud of another party.

Decision

The appeal was rejected an the FTT’s decision was upheld. HMRC powers are not contrary to UK VAT legislation.

The application by HMRC of Ablessio is not contra legem or otherwise prohibited by the VAT legislation where it is applied to deregister a taxpayer who has either fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations or facilitated the VAT fraud of another party and at the relevant time has also made taxable supplies unconnected with such fraud or facilitation of fraud and which would result in a liability to be registered.

Ablessio applies to the deregistration by HMRC of a person as well as to a refusal by HMRC to register a person. It also provides for the deregistration of a person who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another, where the person to be deregistered knew or should have known that it was facilitating the VAT fraud of another.

Commentary

This decision was released this month and illustrates the ongoing influence of EU legislation and cases, “despite” Brexit

EU legislation does not, by itself, fall within the scope of retained EU law (see below). However, domestic legislation implementing EU rules forms part of EU-derived domestic legislation and is preserved in domestic law.

The VAT Act 1994 is not affected by Brexit because it is an Act of Parliament and, therefore, remains effective unless it is changed by Parliament.

Overview of the impact of EU legislation

Post-Brexit, the UK could have decided that UK courts should not be bound by EU case law. However, this would have resulted in a situation where the UK courts effectively had to begin with a blank piece of paper in deciding how a piece of retained EU law should be interpreted or applied. This approach would have resulted in considerable uncertainty for business over how retained EU law would operate. In order avoid this, section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provides that:

  • CJEU judgments made on or before 31 December 2020 are binding on UK courts
  • CJEU judgments made after that date are not binding, but the UK courts are free to have regard to them, so far as they are relevant to the matter before the court.

Going forward

Helpful guidance is provided in the e-Accounting Solutions vs Global Infosys case (not a VAT case).

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 means that the principle of EU-law conforming construction is a corollary of the supremacy of EU law (which is abolished under Section 3 of the Act) and will therefore no longer apply from 2024.

The principles of statutory construction under English Law require a purposive interpretation of legislation, whether or not EU law principles are engaged. This involves considering the context in which the legislation was made. Depending on the legislation concerned, this process may be guided by “external aids”. External aids referred to in the judgment include Explanatory Notes and Government White Papers, and could also presumably include references to Hansard where seen as appropriate by the courts. To the extent that domestic enactments were made for the purpose of implementing EU law, the EU law position is such an “external aid” and the UK law should be construed accordingly.

Where Parliament used the same language as the Directive, one may assume that it intended to mean the same – accordingly, the CJEU interpretation of Directive-terms informs the interpretation of the UK statute.

However, the statutory language remains paramount – “external aids”, to which EU law instruments are effectively downgraded in UK law from 2024, cannot displace unambiguous statutory language in UK enactments that is inconsistent with EU law.

VAT – Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) A Brief Guide

By   24 August 2023
0
VAT and TOMS: Complex and costly

Introduction

The tour operators’ margin scheme (TOMS) is a special scheme for businesses that buy in and re-sell travel, accommodation and certain other services as principals or undisclosed agents (ie; that act in their own name). In many cases, it enables VAT to be accounted for on travel supplies without businesses having to register and account for VAT in every country in which the services and goods are enjoyed. It does, however, apply to travel/accommodation services enjoyed within the UK and wholly outside the UK.

Under the scheme:

  • VAT cannot be reclaimed on margin scheme supplies bought in for resale. VAT on overheads outside the TOMS can be reclaimed in the normal way.
  • A UK-based tour operator need only account for VAT on the margin, ie; the difference between the amount received from customers and the amount paid to suppliers.
  • There are special rules for determining the place, liability and time of margin scheme supplies.
  • VAT invoices cannot be issued for margin scheme supplies.
  • In-house supplies supplied on their own are not subject to the TOMS and are taxed under the normal VAT rules. But a mixture of in-house supplies and bought-in margin scheme supplies must all be accounted for within the TOMS.
  • No UK VAT is due via TOMS on travel/accommodation/tours enjoyed outside the UK.

Who must use the TOMS?

TOMS does not only apply to ‘traditional’ tour operators. It applies to any business which is making the type of supplies set out below even if this is not its main business activity. For example, it must be used by

  • Hoteliers who buy in coach passenger transport to collect their guests at the start and end of their stay
  • Coach operators who buy in hotel accommodation in order to put together a package
  • Companies that arrange conferences, including providing hotel accommodation for delegates
  • Schools arranging school trips
  • Clubs and associations
  • Charities.

The CJEC has confirmed that to make the application of the TOMS depend upon whether a trader was formally classified as a travel agent or tour operator would create distortion of competition. Ancillary travel services which constitute ‘a small proportion of the package price compared to accommodation’ would not lead to a hotelier falling within the provisions, but where, in return for a package price, a hotelier habitually offers his customers travel to the hotel from distant pick-up points in addition to accommodation, such services cannot be treated as purely ancillary.

Supplies covered by the TOMS

The TOMS must be used by a person acting as a principal or undisclosed agent for

  • ‘margin scheme supplies’; and
  • ‘margin scheme packages’ ie single transactions which include one or more margin scheme supplies possibly with other types of supplies (eg in-house supplies).

‘Margin scheme supplies’ are those supplies which are

  • bought in for the purpose of the business, and
  • supplied for the benefit of a ‘traveller’ without material alteration or further processing

by a tour operator in an EU country in which he has established his business or has a fixed establishment.

A ‘traveller’ is a person, including a business or local authority, who receives supplies of transport and/or accommodation, other than for the purpose of re-supply.

Examples

If meeting the above conditions, the following are always treated as margin scheme supplies.

  • Accommodation
  • Passenger transport
  • Hire of means of transport
  • Use of special lounges at airports
  • Trips or excursions
  • Services of tour guides

Other supplies meeting the above conditions may be treated as margin scheme supplies but only if provided as part of a package with one or more of the supplies listed above. These include

  • Catering
  • Theatre tickets
  • Sports facilities

This scheme is complex and specialist advice should always be sought before advising clients.

VAT: Is a cosmetic treatment exempt medical care? The Illuminate Skin Clinics Ltd case

By   12 July 2023
0

Latest from the courts

In the Illuminate Skin Clinics Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether cosmetic procedures qualified as exempt medical treatment.

Background

The Appellant runs a private, ie; non-NHS clinic offering a range of aesthetic, skincare and wellness treatments advertised as: fat freezing, thread lifts, chemical peels, fillers, facials, intravenous drips and boosters. The Appellant’s sole director and shareholder, Dr Shotter, complies with Item 1 (below) in terms of qualifications, ie; she is enrolled on the register of medical professionals.

The list of treatments included:

  • Botox
  • Dermal fillers
  • CoolSculpting
  • Microsclerotherapy
  • Prescription skincare
  • Chemical peels
  • Microdermabrasion
  • Thread lifting
  • Thermavein
  • Aqualyx
  • Platelet-rich plasma treatment.

HMRC contended that these supplies were standard rated because there is no medical purpose behind the treatments, and they are carried out for purely cosmetic purposes. An assessment was raised for output tax on this income.

The Appellant argued that what it provided was exempt medical care via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 1 – “The supply of services consisting in the provision of medical care by a person registered or enrolled in any of the following:

  • The register of medical practitioners…”

And its contention was that the primary purpose of the treatments was “the protection, maintenance or restoration of the health of the person concerned”

In the Mainpay case it was established that “medical” care means “diagnosing, treating and, in so far as possible, curing diseases or health disorders”

Decision

Although there may have been a beneficial psychological impact on undergoing such treatments and this may have been the reason for a patient to proceed (and they may be recommended by qualified medical professionals) this, in itself, was insufficient to persuade the judge that the services were exempt. Consequety, the appeal was rejected and the assessment was upheld.

The FTT found that there was very little evidence of diagnosis. This was important to the overall analysis because diagnosis is the starting point of medical care. Without diagnosis, “treatment”, in the sense of the exemption, is not something which is being done responsively to a disease or a health disorder.

The fact that people go to the clinic feeling unhappy with some aspect of their appearance, and (at least sometimes) are happier when something is done at the clinic about that aspect of their appearance, does not mean that the treatment is medical, or has a therapeutic aim.

It was telling that the differentiation, in Dr Shotter’s own words, between what the clinic does from what “a GP or other health professional” does is; diagnosis. It also highlighted the general trend or purpose of the clinic’s activity – helping people to feel better about their appearance, in contexts where their appearance is not itself a health condition, or threatening to their health in a way which mandates treatment of their appearance by a GP or another health professional.

Helping someone to achieve goals in relation to their appearance, which is what this clinic did, is not treating someone’s mental health status, but is going to their self-esteem and self-confidence. It is a misuse of language to say that this is healthcare in the sense that it would fall within Item 1 of Group 7.

Commentary

There has been an ongoing debate as to what constitutes medical care. Over 20 years ago I was advising a large London clinic on this very point and much turned on whether patients’ mental health was improved by undergoing what many would regard as cosmetic procedures. We were somewhat handicapped in our arguments by the fact that many of the patients were lap dancers undergoing breast augmentation on the direction of the owner of the club…

It is worth remembering that not all services provided by a medically registered practitioner are exempt. The question of whether the medical care exemption is engaged in any given case will turn on the particular facts.

Further recent cases on medical exemption here and here.

VAT: Business or non-business? The 3D Crowd CIC case

By   4 July 2023
0

Latest from the courts

Business or non-business?

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of 3D Crowd CIC (3D) the issue was whether a donation of goods, with a subsequent intention to sell similar goods constituted a business activity such that input tax incurred in relation to it was recoverable.

Background

3D was formed at the beginning of the Covid 19 pandemic to produce face protection via the process of 3D printing. Such protection was in high demand, but there was a shortage of suitable products for healthcare workers. The appellant produced 130,000 face shields in the first six weeks of production; which was an admirable feat. However, it was not possible to sell this equipment without the appropriate accreditation. Consequently, to alleviate demand, 3D donated the PPE to the NHS.

By the time accreditation was given the demand for PPE had reduced so it was not possible to sell the 3D printed face coverings as initially intended.

Technical

The issue of business versus non-business has been a contentious issue in the VAT world from day one. This classification is important for two reasons. If an activity is a business (an economic activity) it could be subject to VAT and, as in this case, if an activity is non-business there is usually a restriction of input tax.

Contentions

3D said that input tax could be recovered on costs which involved no direct onward supply of goods or services, but which laid the groundwork for them. That is, the input tax could be attributed to an intended taxable supply, even though that intention was not fulfilled by circumstances outside its control.

HMRC argued that per Longbridge the correct test for determining whether an activity is a business activity is whether there is a direct link between the services or goods supplied and a payment received by the supplier. In this case, there was not so no input tax was reclaimable. HMRC also referred to the decision in Wakefield College, supporting the proposition that an activity is only a business activity if it results in the supply of goods or services for a consideration.

Decision

The FTT found that the VAT incurred on supplies made to 3D, constituted elements:

  • in connection with 3D seeking CE certification
  • related to general overheads
  • related to VAT incurred on materials bought to produce the PPE

Input tax incurred on the costs of accreditation is recoverable because these were incurred in order to sell PPE in the future and for no other purpose. The fact that these costs are not linked to a particular supply (and is in the nature of preparing the ground for future supplies) was irrelevant per The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, para 10.

The VAT incurred on the general overhead costs and on the costs of producing the PPE was incurred in part for business purposes and party for non-business (donations) and should be apportioned using a method agreed between 3D and HMRC.

Commentary

Another case highlighting the difficulty in identifying the distinction between business and non-business and the complexity of input tax attribution. The altruistic efforts of the CIC is to be admired, but such charitable (in the broad sense) activities do not always get their just reward in VAT terms.

VAT: How to characterise a supply – The tests

By   27 June 2023
0

In the age-old matter of whether a supply is separate/composite/compound for VAT purposes which and what is the nature of that supply, the Court of Appeal case of Gray & Farrar International LLP has provided very helpful guidance. A background to facts of the initial hearing here (although this decision was overturned by both the UT and the CoA).

I have previously considered these types of supply here, here, here, here, and here. Although not specifically concerning composite/separate supplies, the case sets out a hierarchy of tests to be applied in characterising a single supply for VAT purposes which now sets the standard. These test are:

  1. The Mesto predominance test should be the primary test to be applied in characterising a supply for VAT purposes.
  2. The principal/ancillary test is an available, though not the primary, test. It is only capable of being applied in cases where it is possible to identify a principal element to which all the other elements are minor or ancillary. In cases where it can apply, it is likely to yield the same result as the predominance test.
  3. The “overarching” test is not clearly established in the ECJ jurisprudence, but as a consideration the point should at least be taken into account in deciding averments of predominance in relation to individual elements, and may well be a useful test in its own right.

Comments

The Mesto Test

CJEU Mesto Zamberk Financini (Case C-18/12)

The primary test to be applied when characterising a single supply for VAT purposes is to determine the predominant element from the point of view of the typical consumer with regard to the qualitative and not merely the quantitative importance of the constituent elements.

Principal/ancillary

If a distinct supply represents 50% or more of the overall cost, it can not be considered ancillary to the principal supply. In such cases an apportionment will usually be required.

Overarching

A generic description of the supply which is distinct from the individual elements. In many cases the tax treatment of that overarching single supply according to that description will be self-evident.

CPP

One must also have regard to the Card Protection Plan Ltd case. This has become a landmark case in determining the VAT treatment for single and multiple supplies. In this case the ECJ ruled that standard rated handling charges were not distinct from the supply of exempt insurance. It was noted that ‘a supply that comprises a single service from an economic point of view should not be artificially split’. Notably many subsequent court decisions have since followed this outcome thereby suggesting a general lean towards viewing cases as single supplies where there are reasonable grounds to do so.

VAT – What is reasonable care?

By   7 June 2023
0

What is reasonable care, and why is it important?

HMRC state that “Everyone has a responsibility to take reasonable care over their tax affairs. This means doing everything you can to make sure the tax returns and other documents you send to HMRC are accurate.”

If a taxpayer does not take reasonable care HMRC will charge penalties for inaccuracies.

Penalties for inaccuracies

HMRC will charge a penalty if a business submits a return or other document with an inaccuracy that was either as a result of not taking reasonable care, or deliberate, and it results in one of the following:

  • an understatement of a person’s liability to VAT
  • a false or inflated claim to repayment of VAT

The penalty amount will depend on the reasons for the inaccuracy and the amount of tax due (or repayable) as a result of correcting the inaccuracy.

How HMRC determine what reasonable care is

HMRC will take a taxpayer’s individual circumstances into account when considering whether they have taken reasonable care. Therefore, there is a difference between what is expected from a small sole trader and a multi-national company with an in-house tax team.

The law defines ‘careless’ as a failure to take reasonable care. The Courts are agreed that reasonable care can best be defined as the behaviour which is that of a prudent and reasonable person in the position of the person in question.

There is no issue of whether or not a business knew about the inaccuracy when the return was submitted. If it did, that would be deliberate and a different penalty regime would apply, see here  It is a question of HMRC examining what the business did, or failed to do, and asking whether a prudent and reasonable person would have done that or failed to do that in those circumstances.

Repeated inaccuracies

HMRC consider that repeated inaccuracies may form part of a pattern of behaviour which suggests a lack of care by a business in developing adequate systems for the recording of transactions or preparing VAT returns.

How to make sure you take reasonable care

HMRC expects a business to keep VAT records that allow you to submit accurate VAT returns and other documents to them. Details of record keeping here

They also expect a business to ask HMRC or a tax adviser if it isn’t sure about anything. If a business took reasonable care to get things right but its return was still inaccurate, HMRC should not charge you a penalty. However, If a business did take reasonable care, it will need to demonstrate to HMRC how it did this when they talk to you about penalties.

Reasonable care if you use tax avoidance arrangements*

If a business has used tax avoidance arrangements that HMRC later defeat, they will presume that the business has not taken reasonable care for any inaccuracy in its VAT return or other documents that relate to the use of those arrangements. If the business used a tax adviser with the appropriate expertise, HMRC would normally consider this as having taken reasonable care (unless it’s classed as disqualified advice)

Where a return is sent to HMRC containing an inaccuracy arising from the use of avoidance arrangements the behaviour will always be presumed to be careless unless:

  • The inaccuracy was deliberate on the person’s part, or
  • The person satisfies HMRC or a Tribunal that they took reasonable care to avoid the inaccuracy

* Meaning of avoidance arrangements

Arrangements include any agreement, understanding, scheme, transaction or series of transactions (whether or not legally enforceable). So, whilst an arrangement could contain any combination of these things, a single agreement could also amount to an arrangement.  Arrangements are `avoidance arrangements’ if, having regard to all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to conclude that the obtaining of a tax advantage was the main purpose, or one of the main purposes of the arrangements.

NB: We at Marcus Ward Consultancy do not promote or advise on tax avoidance arrangements and we will not work with any business which seeks such advice.

Using a tax adviser

If a business uses a tax adviser, it remains that business’ responsibility to make sure it gives the adviser accurate and complete information. If it does not, and it sends HMRC a return that is inaccurate, it could be charged penalties and interest.

Evidence

Before any question of reasonable excuse comes into play, it is important to remember that the initial burden lies on HMRC to establish that events have occurred as a result of which a penalty is, prima facie, due. A mere assertion of the occurrence of the relevant events in a statement of case is not sufficient. Evidence is required and unless sufficient evidence is provided to prove the relevant facts on a balance of probabilities, the penalty must be cancelled without any question of reasonable excuse becoming relevant.

None of us are perfect

Finally, it is worth repeating a comment found in HMRC’s internal guidance “People do make mistakes. We do not expect perfection. We are simply seeking to establish whether the person has taken the care and attention that could be expected from a reasonable person taking reasonable care in similar circumstances…” 

A VAT Did you know?

By   25 May 2023
0

The sale of ducks is zero rated, but racing pigeons are standard rated.

VAT: Charity exemption for show admittance – The Yorkshire Agricultural Society case

By   9 May 2023
0

Latest from the courts

In the Yorkshire Agricultural Society First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether payments for entry into the annual The Great Yorkshire Show qualified as exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 12, item 1 –

“The supply of goods and services by a charity in connection with an event—

      1. that is organised for charitable purposes by a charity or jointly by more than one charity,
      2. whose primary purpose is the raising of money, and
      3. that is promoted as being primarily for the raising of money.”

HMRC raised an assessment on the grounds that the supply of admittance fell outwith the exemption so it was standard rated. It appears that this view was formed solely on the basis that the events were not advertised as fundraisers.

The exemption covers events whose primary purpose is the raising of money and which are promoted primarily for that purpose. HMRC contended that the events were not advertised as fundraisers and therefore the exemption did not apply. Not surprisingly, the appellant contended that all of the tests at Group 12 were fully met.

The FTT found difficulty in understanding HMRC’s argument. It was apparent from the relevant: tickets, posters and souvenir programmes all featured the words “The Great Yorkshire Show raises funds for the Yorkshire Agricultural Society to help support farming and the countryside”.

Decision

The FTT spent little time finding for the taxpayer and allowing the appeal. The assessment was withdrawn. There was a separate issue of the assessment being out of time, which was academic given the initial decision. However, The Tribunal was critical of HMRC’s approach to the time limit test (details in the linked decision). HMRC’s argument was that apparently, the taxpayer had brought the assessment on itself by not providing the information which HMRC wanted. The Judge commented: “That is not the same as HMRC being in possession of information which justified it in issuing the Assessment. It is an inversion of the statutory test”.

HMRC’s performance (or lack of it)

Apart from the clear outcome of this case, it also demonstrated how HMRC can get it so wrong. The FTT stated that it was striking that there was very little by way of substantive challenge by HMRC to the appellant’s evidence, nor any detailed exploration of it in cross-examination. The FTT, which is a fact-finding jurisdiction, asked a series of its own questions to establish some facts about the Society’s activities and the Show in better detail. No-one from HMRC filed a witness statement or gave evidence, even though HMRC, in its application to amend its Statement of Case, had said that the decision-maker would be giving evidence. The decision-maker did not give evidence. HMRC were wrong on the assessment and the time limit statutory test and did not cover itself in glory at the hearing.

Commentary

More evidence that if any business receives an assessment, it is always a good idea to get it reviewed. Time and time again we see HMRC make basic errors and misunderstand the VAT position. We have an excellent record on challenging HMRC decisions. Charities have a hard time of it with VAT, and while it is accurate to say that some of the legislation and interpretation is often complex for NFPs, HMRC do not help by taking such ridiculous cases.

VAT: Place of supply – The Sports Invest case

By   5 May 2023
0

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: Are Turmeric shots zero rated food? The Innate-Essence Limited case

By   5 May 2023
0

Latest from the courts

In the Innate-Essence Limited (t/a The Turmeric Co) First Tier tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether turmeric shots were zero rated food via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, general item 1 or a standard rated beverage per item 4 of the Excepted items.

The Legislation

“General items Item No 1 Food of a kind used for human consumption. …

Excepted Items Item No … 4 Other beverages (including fruit juices and bottled waters) and syrups, concentrates, essences, powders, crystals or other products for the preparation of beverages.”

The Product

Turmeric roots are crushed and the pulp sieved to extract the liquid. No additional liquids such as apple juice, orange juice or water are added during the production process.

The Shots contain:

  • small quantities of crushed, whole fresh watermelon and lemons which act as a base and provides a natural preservative effect
  • fresh pineapple juice
  • flax oil and black pepper

All the ingredients are cold pressed to retain the maximum nutritional value of the raw ingredients. The Shots are not pasteurised as this would negatively affect the nutritional content of the Shots. No sugar or sweeteners are added to the Shots. The Shots are sold in small 60ml plastic bottles and it was stated that they  provided long term health benefits.

The court applied the many tests derived from case law on similar products, and as is usual in these types of cases, the essence of the decision was on whether the Exception for beverages applied to The Shots.

Whether a product is a beverage (standard rated) is typically based on tests established in the Bioconcepts case (via VFOOD7520) as there is no definition of “beverage” in the legislation. The tests:

  • it must be a drinkable liquid that is commonly consumed
  • it must be characteristically taken to increase bodily liquid levels, or
  • taken to slake the thirst, or
  • consumed to fortify, or
  • consumed to give pleasure

The principle of the tests is based on the idea that a drinkable liquid is not automatically a beverage, but could be a liquid food that is not a beverage.

The Tribunal found that the Shots were not beverages but zero rated food items. As The judge put it: “In our view, the marketing and customer reviews demonstrate clear consistency in the use to which the Shots are put. The Shots are consumed in one go on a regular, long-term basis for the sole purpose of the claimed health and wellbeing benefits. The purpose of the Shots is entirely functional: to maximise the consumers daily ingestion of curcumin which is achieved by cold pressing the raw ingredients into a liquid. We consider it highly unlikely that a consumer would attempt to ingest the same quantity of raw turmeric in solid form.

The Shots are marketed on the basis of the nutritional content of the high-quality ingredients (primarily raw turmeric) that are stated to support health and wellbeing. The Shots contain black pepper and flax oil, two ingredients that are not commonly found in beverages. The Shots are marketed as requiring regular daily consumption over a long period of time (at least three months) to provide the consumer with the claimed long-term health and wellbeing benefits. A one-off purchase of a Shot would not achieve the stated benefits of drinking a Shot”.

The Tribunal also went to consider the “lunch time pints in pubs” (The Kalron case) issue, but I would rather not comment on whether this is a usual substitute for a lunch…

The appeal was allowed.

Commentary

Yet another food/beverage case. Case law insists that each product must be considered in significant detail to correctly identify the VAT liability and even then, a dispute with HMRC may not be avoided. Very small differences in content, marketing, processes etc can affect the VAT treatment. As new products hit the shop shelves at an increasing rate I suspect that we will be treated to many more such cases in the future. If your business produces or sells similar products, it will be worth considering whether this case assists in any contention for zero rating.