Category Archives: Disputes

VAT: Tribunal costs

By Marcus Ward 23 April 2025

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Eurolaser IT Ltd regarding Kittel and Mecsek assessments and penalties:

whether an agent knew or should have known of fraud in supply chain – yes
whether such knowledge/means of knowledge to be attributed to Appellant – yes
whether Mecsek requires HMRC to show reasonable steps not taken by Appellant – yes
whether reasonable steps taken – no
unsurprisingly, the appeal was refused

one interesting aspect was the award of costs.

Generally, in FTT cases the rule is that each party will usually bear its own costs.

However, it is worth recapping how the award of costs works via The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. In this instant case, the Appellant had not ‘opted out’ of the costs protection regime set out in rule 10(c)(ii) of the Rules. Consequently, the FTT ordered that Eurolaser must pay HMRC’s costs – a sting in the tail. So, what are the rules? (Where relevant here)

Orders for costs

“10.—(1) The Tribunal may only make an order in respect of costs (or, in Scotland, expenses)—

(a) under section 29(4) of the 2007 Act (wasted costs) [and costs incurred in applying for such costs];

(b) if the Tribunal considers that a party or their representative has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings;

(c) if—

(i) the proceedings have been allocated as a Complex case under rule 23 (allocation of cases to categories); and

(ii) the taxpayer (or, where more than one party is a taxpayer, one of them) has not sent or delivered a written request to the Tribunal, within 28 days of receiving notice that the case had been allocated as a Complex case, that the proceedings be excluded from potential liability for costs or expenses under this sub-paragraph”

So, in “Complex” cases, an Appellant must submit a request that the case is excluded from the potential liability of costs being awarded, and HMRC must request repayment of its costs incurred in defending the case.

What are Complex cases?

These are complicated cases which:

require lengthy or complex evidence
require a lengthy hearing
involve complex or important principles or issues
involve large amounts or tax or penalties

such cases are allocated to a ‘track’ within the FTT system.

Other cost awards

It is also worth remembering that costs can be awarded if the appeal is brought unreasonably. This usually means that it is vexatious or frivolous, so proper advice should be sought when considering an appeal.

VAT Success Stories

By Marcus Ward 22 April 2025

I often write about how it is important to seek VAT advice at the right time, see triggerpoints. So, I thought that I’d give some practical examples on where we have saved our clients money, time and aggravation.

Investment company

HMRC denied claims for input tax incurred on costs relating to the potential acquisition of an overseas business and threatened to deregister the plc as it was not, currently, making taxable supplies. Additionally, HMRC contended that even if VAT registration was appropriate, the input tax incurred did not relate to taxable supplies and was therefore blocked.

We were able to persuade HMRC that our client had a right to be VAT registered because it intended to make taxable supplies (supplies with a place of supply outside the UK which would have been taxable if made in the UK) and that the input tax was recoverable as it related to these intended taxable supplies (management charges to the acquired business). This is a hot topic at the moment, but we were able to eventually demonstrate, with considerable and detailed evidence that there was a true intention.

This meant that UK VAT registration was correct and input tax running into hundreds of thousands of pounds incurred in the UK was repaid to our client.

Restaurant

We identified and submitted a claim for a West End restaurant for nearly £300,000 overpaid output tax. We finally agreed the repayment with HMRC after dealing with issues such as the quantum of the claim and unjust enrichment.

Developer

Our property developing client specialises in very high-end residential projects in exclusive parts of London. They built a dwelling using an existing façade and part of a side elevation. We contended that it was a new build (zero rated sale and no VAT on construction costs and full input tax recovery on other costs). HMRC took the view that it was work on an existing dwelling so that 5% applied and input tax was not recoverable. After site visits, detailed plans, current and historical photograph evidence HMRC accepted the holy grail of new build. The overall cost of the project was tens of millions.

Charity

A charity client was supplying services to the NHS. The issue was whether they were standard rated supplies of staff or exempt medical services. We argued successfully that, despite previous rulings, the supplies were exempt, which benefited all parties. Our client was able to deregister from VAT, but not only that, we persuaded HMRC that input tax previously claimed could be kept. This was a rather pleasant surprise outcome. We also avoided any penalties and interest so that VAT did not represent a cost to the charity in any way. If the VAT was required to be repaid to HMRC it is likely that the charity would have been wound up.

Shoot

A group of friends met to shoot game as a hobby. They made financial contributions to the syndicate in order to take part. HMRC considered that this was a business activity and threatened to go back over 40 years and assess for output tax on the syndicate’s takings which amounted to many hundreds of thousands of pounds and would have meant the shoot could not continue. We appealed the decision to retrospectively register the syndicate.

After a four-year battle HMRC settled on the steps of the Tribunal. We were able to demonstrate that the syndicate was run on a cost sharing basis and is not “an activity likely to be carried out by a private undertaking on a market, organised within a professional framework and generally performed in the interest of generating a profit.” – A happy client.

Chemist

We assisted a chemist client who, for unfortunate reasons, had not been able to submit proper VAT returns for a number of years. We were able to reconstruct the VAT records which showed a repayment of circa £500,000 of VAT was due. We successfully negotiated with HMRC and assisted with the inspection which was generated by the claim.

The message? Never accept a HMRC decision, and seek good advice!

HMRC actions to counter tax avoidance

By Marcus Ward 1 April 2025

In the Spring Statement 2025 HMG announced a package of measures that will affect VAT and other taxes. The aim is to close the tax gap and raise over £1 billion in additional gross tax revenue per year by 2029‑30.

Anti-fraud

HMRC is expanding its counter-fraud capability to increase the number of annual charging decisions for the most harmful fraud by 20%. Additional criminal investigations is intended to deliver a strong deterrent. This will include tackling those who undermine legitimate trade and small business, fraud committed by the wealthy, fraud facilitated by those in large corporations, and by individuals and companies who make it possible for others to hide money offshore.

Snitching

There will be a new HMRC reward scheme for informants will be launched later this year. This will target serious non-compliance in large corporates, wealthy individuals, offshore and avoidance schemes. The new scheme will reward informants with compensation linked to a percentage of any tax taken as a result of their actions.

“Phoenixism”

HMRC, Companies House, and the Insolvency Service will deliver a joint plan to tackle those who use contrived insolvencies to evade tax and write off debts owed to others. This will include increasing the use of upfront payment demands, making more directors personally liable for company taxes, and increasing the number of enforcement sanctions.

Compliance

HMG will invest £87 million over the next five years in HMRC’s existing partnerships with private sector debt collection agencies to collect more unpaid tax debts. It will also invest £114 million over the next five years to recruit an additional 600 HMRC debt management staff. In addition, the Government will invest £100 million over the next five years to recruit an additional 500 HMRC compliance staff.

The government also published four consultations on:

How HMRC can make better use of third‑party data to increase automation and close the tax gap.
Proposals to strengthen HMRC’s ability to take action against those tax advisers who facilitate non‑compliance from their clients.
A comprehensive package of measures to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance, whose contrived schemes leave their clients with unexpected tax bills.
Options to simplify and strengthen HMRC’s inaccuracy and failure to notify penalties.

VAT treatment of lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed goods

By Marcus Ward 24 March 2025

Is output tax due on goods that, for various reasons, cannot be sold, or are sold at a discount?

HMRC says that the VAT treatment depends on whether or not there was actually a supply of goods, what happened to them, who was responsible for them at the time and whether a VAT invoice was issued. The value of any supply will also need to recognise any credit given to the customer.

So, as often is the case with the tax, the answer is: “It depends”. So, let’s look at the categories to find out:

Lost goods

This depends on who lost the goods.

Sometimes a business will sell goods to a customer, but they did not receive them because they went astray. This could happen, for example, if goods are lost in the post.

customer is responsible for loss

If the customer is responsible for any losses before the goods are delivered, then VAT is due on the full amount of the sale.

supplier responsible for loss

If the supplier is responsible for any losses before the goods are delivered, then the way VAT is dealt with will depend on whether an invoice has been issued.

If an invoice has been issued, output tax is due on the amount invoiced, less the value of any credit given to the customer. So, if credit has been given a full refund, no VAT will be due.

If no invoice has been issued, there is no VAT due. This is because nothing has been supplied. It is prudent to make a note in the business records that the goods were lost an no invoice was raised.

Stolen goods

If goods are stolen from a business’ premises no VAT is due – as long as any customer has not been invoiced. HMRC are very likely to examine such circumstances as it is sometimes used as an ‘excuse’ for underdeclarations. Consequently, we always advise businesses to hold as much evidence as possible to support a claim that theft has taken place.

Goods stolen from a supplier’s premises after they have been sold to a customer- If the contract with the customer means that they are responsible for the goods while they are on the supplier’s premises – there has been a supply and output tax is due.

If the customer is not responsible for the goods when they are stolen, then if:

a VAT invoice issued – VAT is due on the amount invoiced (but subject to subsequent amendment to the quantum)
no invoice has been issued – there is no VAT due because there is no supply

NB: If cash is stolen from a business, this does not reduce the value of output tax on any supply.

Fraud

If goods are lost due to fraud it can be difficult to demonstrate or evidence. To avoid paying output tax on goods lost to a fraud a business is required to:

report the incident to the police
contact HMRC and give them the case details – this will entail providing a crime or case reference number given by the police. HMRC will consider each case and advise appropriately

Damaged goods

Damaged goods may be sold on at a discounted price, or they might have some scrap value. Output tax is due on whatever income is received for the goods sold. If an insurer makes a payment in respect of the damage, no VAT is due on this income.

Destroyed goods

If goods are destroyed such that they cannot be sold, and these are handed over (or what is left of them) to the insurer, no VAT is due on the disposal. Furthermore, there is no output tax due on any money received from the insurer. HMRC will need to see evidence of the insurance claim, and details of any insurance payment, on their next inspection of the business.

Records

Maintaining meticulous records is crucial for VAT compliance and it is very likely that such issues will be examined closely on HMRC inspections. This is because unexpected reductions in output tax will usually trigger enquiries. Input tax claims for the original purchase of the goods will be unaffected, so any mark-up type exercise will flag up the discrepancy.

VAT: Are hair transplants ‘medical care’? – The Advanced Hair Technology Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 12 March 2025

Latest from the courts

In the Advanced Hair Technology Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether hair transplants are exempt supplies of medical care, or were they for ‘cosmetic’ purposes and consequently standard rated?

Background

Advanced Hair Technology Ltd (AHT) was a medical practice trading as The Farjo Hair Institute which specialised in hair restoration surgery. It treated conditions related to hair loss, in particular androgenetic alopecia (AGA). Dr Farjo who carried out the work is qualified is a medical practitioner with the Royal College of Surgeons. The output tax which HMRC deemed due was circa £2,500,000.

The sole issue was what AHT provided covered by the definition ‘medical care’?

Legislation

The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 1 covers services which are for the primary purpose of protecting, restoring, or maintaining health: “medical care”.

Contentions

AHT argued that it was treating patients for medical conditions, as opposed to providing aesthetic surgery and consequently, its supplies were exempt. The appellant explained that several patients believed that hair loss had affected their self-confidence and so the surgery improved their overall health (which includes a mental health element). Furthermore, the surgery helps to protect the skin from future photodamage, minor trauma and thermal insult.

HMRC contended that none of the patients had any recorded prior psychiatric conditions, eg; depression or anxiety, nor had any stated that they were looking to benefit from the surgery beyond it improving their appearance and confidence. Additionally, no recipients of the treatment said that they were seeking any of the above physical protections.

Therefore, the treatment was a standard rated cosmetic procedure.

Decision

The meaning of ‘medical care’ was considered by the Court of Appeal in its decision in Mercy Global [2023] EWCA Civ 1073.

The court agreed with HMRC that a “principal purpose” test must be applied in all cases.

The evidence before the FTT was that by the age of 70 at least 80% of caucasian men suffer from hair loss as a result of AGA, and this is part of the normal process of aging. AGA is not considered a medical condition but rather a symptom.

AHT’s contention that the procedures serve a therapeutic purpose related to psychological issues was dismissed due to a lack of evidence from qualified practitioners. This reinforced the FTT’s view that the treatments were primarily cosmetic, rather than for medical reasons because altering one’s physical appearance was for aesthetic purposes.

The relevant supplies were therefore outside the exemption.

The appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

The judgment provides some guidance on the interpretation of the definition of medical care for the purposes of the exemption and follows similar recent cases which we covered here:

Skin Science

Skin Rich

The concept of the “provision of medical care” does not include medical interventions carried out for a purpose other than that of diagnosing, treating and in so far as possible, curing diseases or health disorders and it is the purpose of the medical intervention rather than merely the qualifications of the person providing it that is key in determining the VAT liability.

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 a certain 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 .

Interestingly, the judge here stated that the medical exemption may apply to some patients whose hair loss was a result of trauma caused by cancer treatment.

VAT: When is a bar a bar? – The Anglia Ruskin Students’ Union case

By Marcus Ward 17 February 2025

Latest from the courts

A student union tried to argue that a bar is not a bar. It did not go well.

In the case of The Anglia Ruskin Students’ Union the High Court considered the appellant’s application for judicial review of HMRC’s decision that “92” which was operated on the university’s campus was a bar.

The importance of this description of the venue was that if it was indeed a bar, the supplies from it would be standard rated. This is because the supplies of catering to students by eligible bodies, including universities”, are exempt from VAT, on the basis that the supplies are closely related to exempt supplies of education, however, the exemption does not cover food and drink sold in bars.

The union contended that ‘bar’ means a place that does not supply catering, or, alternatively, predominantly or mainly serves alcohol.

HMRC, predictably argued that a bar is “somewhere where one can buy and drink alcoholic and other drinks, as well as food”, and that 92 met that definition.

The court agreed with HMRC that the bar was indeed a bar and did not grant permission to appeal.

So, now we know, a bar is a bar, not a café… or anything else really.

Technical

* Student unions often provide catering alongside universities. Since March 2002, HMRC has operated a published concession extending the exemption granted to supplies of catering made by universities to student unions.

VAT: Input tax claims – alternative evidence

By Marcus Ward 12 February 2025

What can be used to make a claim?

It is well known that in order to claim input tax on expenditure a business is required to have a valid tax invoice to support it. But what if there is no VAT invoice? Can HMRC accept any other evidence to support a claim? Well, the answer is yes… sometimes.

HMRC has discretion provided by legislation: VAT Regulations 1995/2518 Reg 29(2). Specifically, the wording most relevant here is “…such other documentary evidence of the charge to VAT as the Commissioners may direct.” Broadly, a business must hold the correct evidence before being able to exercise the right to deduct.

Where claims to deduct VAT are not supported by a valid VAT invoice HMRC staff are required to consider whether there is satisfactory alternative evidence of the taxable supply available to support deduction. HMRC staff should not simply refuse a claim without giving reasonable consideration to such evidence. HMRC has a duty to ensure that taxpayers pay no more tax than is properly due. However, this obligation is balanced against a duty to protect the public revenue.

Full details of tax invoices here.

What HMRC consider

HMRC staff are required to work through the following checklist:

Does the business have alternative documentary evidence other than an invoice (for example a supplier statement)?
Does the business have evidence of receipt of a taxable supply on which VAT has been charged?
Does the business have evidence of payment?
Does the business have evidence of how the goods/services have been consumed or evidence regarding their onward supply?
How did the business know the supplier existed?
How was the business relationship with the supplier established? For example: How was contact made?
Does the business know where the supplier operates from (have staff visited?)
How did the business contact them?
How does the business know the supplier can supply the goods or services?
If goods, how does the business know they are not stolen?
How does the business return faulty supplies?

Outcome

If the responses to the above tests are credible, HMRC staff should exercise their discretion to allow the taxpayer to deduct the input tax. Overall, HMRC is required to be satisfied that sufficient evidence is held by the business which demonstrates that VAT has been paid on a taxable supply of goods or services received by that business and which were used by that business for its taxable activities

Challenge HMRC’s decision

A business may only challenge HMRC’s decision not to allow a claim (did not exercise its discretion) if it acted in an unfair or unreasonable way. In these cases, the onus is on the taxpayer to demonstrate that HMRC have been unreasonable in not using the available discretion. This is quite often a difficult thing to do.

Case law

Not surprisingly, there is significant case law on this subject. The most relevant and recent being the Upper Tribunal (UT) cases of James Boyce Scandico Ltdv and Wasteaway Shropshire Limited.

Tips

If possible, always obtain a proper tax invoice from a supplier, and don’t lose it! The level of evidence required when no invoice is held usually depends on the value of the claim. There would be a difference between persuading an inspector that £20 input tax on stationery is recoverable and the claiming of £200,000 VAT on a property purchase is permissible. As always in VAT, if you get it wrong and claim VAT without the appropriate evidence there is likely to be a penalty to pay.

If you, or your clients are in dispute with HMRC on input tax claims, please contact us.

VAT penalties and surcharges – time limits for appeals. The Excel case

By Marcus Ward 10 February 2025

Latest from the courts

The recent Xcel Consult Limited First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case serves as a reminder on the tight time limits for appealing against VAT penalties and surcharges.

The VAT Act 1994 Section 83G sets out a statutory time limit for bringing appeals in respect of VAT penalties and surcharges of the kind in question in this case. An appeal is to be made to the tribunal before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date of the document notifying the decision to which the appeal relates.

Section 83G(6) provides that an appeal may be made after the expiry of the statutory period if the Tribunal gives permission. In deciding whether to give permission to allow the late appeal, the three-stage test set out in Maitland is applied. These tests are:

(1) establish the length of the delay and whether it is serious and/or significant

(2) establish the reason or reasons why the delay occurred

(3) evaluate all the circumstances of the case, using a balancing exercise to assess the merits of the reason(s) given for the delay and the prejudice which would be caused to both parties by granting or refusing permission, and in doing so take into account “the particular importance of the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and for statutory time limits to be respected”.

Commentary

Our advice is to always respond within the 30 day limit, as relying on an out of time appeal can be risky. If that is not possible, an appeal should be submitted asap to ensure that test 1) above is not a reason to reject a submission.

VAT: Supply of self-contained apartments covered by TOMS? The Sonder UT case

By Marcus Ward 21 January 2025

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Sonder Europe Limited (Sonder) the issue was whether apartments leased to Sonder and used to provide short-term accommodation to corporate and leisure travellers were supplies of a designated travel service via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) and whether the bought-in supply was used for the direct benefit of travellers (as required by TOMS).

Background

Sonder leased apartments from landlords on a medium to long-term basis and used them to provide accommodation to travellers on a short-term basis (one night to a month; the average stay being five nights). Sonder furnished some apartments as well as undertaking occasional decorating and maintenance.

The sole issue was whether these supplies are covered by TOMS. TOMS is not optional.

Initially in the FTT it was decided that output tax was due via TOMS. This was an appeal by HMRC against that First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision.

The issue

Whether VAT was accountable using TOMS – on the margin, or on the full amount received from travellers by Sonder.

Legislation

TOMS is authorised by the VAT Act 1994, section 53 and via SI 1987/1806.

Arguments

Sonder contended that the supply was “for the direct benefit of the traveller” as required by the VAT (Tour Operators) Order 1987 and that the accommodation was provided “…without material alteration or further processing”. Consequently, TOMS applied. The FTT decided that Sonder did not materially alter or process the apartments.

HMRC maintained that the FTT decision was based on the physical alternations made rather than the actual characteristics of the supplies. Consequently, these were not supplies covered by the 1987 Order and output tax was due on the total income received for these services.

Decision

The UT upheld HMRC’s appeal and decided that TOMS did not apply n these circumstances The UT found that the FTT’s decision was in error in that it did not have regard to whether the services bought in were supplied to it for the direct benefit of travellers. Furthermore, the short-term leases to occupy property as holiday accommodation were materially altered from interests in land for a period of years supplied by the landlords.

The services received by Sonder from the landlords were not for the direct benefit of the travellers and Sonder’s supplies were not for the benefit of the users without material alteration and further processing. Consequently, there was not a supply of bought-in services, but rather an ‘in-house’ supply which was not covered by TOMS.

To the UT, the position was even clearer in relation to unfurnished apartments. Sonder acquired an interest in land for a term of years in an unfurnished apartment. It furnished the apartment and then supplied a short-term licence to a traveller to occupy as holiday accommodation. What was supplied to the traveller was materially different to what was supplied to Sonder.

Commentary

Another illustration of the complexities of TOMS and the significant impact on a business of getting the rules wrong. The fact that the UT remade the decision demonstrates that different interpretations are possible on similar facts. Moreover, even slight differences in business models can result in different VAT outcomes.

VAT: Personal Liability Notices

By Marcus Ward 16 December 2024

A Personal Liability Notice (PLN) can be issued by HMRC to a company’s director(s) to transfer the liability to pay VAT or a VAT penalty from the company to an individual. A PLN can also be issued to a member of an LLP.

When a PLN is issued

An officer or officers of a company may be personally liable to pay all or part of the company penalty where:

a company is liable to a penalty for a deliberate wrongdoing and
the wrongdoing is attributable to the deliberate action of an officer or officers of the company

Additionally, one of the two circumstances below must also apply

the officer gained or attempted to gain personally from the wrongdoing, or
the company is insolvent or likely to become insolvent

Any grounds for suspicion that the company may become insolvent should to be supported by evidence, for example, where there are cash flow problems, insufficient assets to cover liabilities, or evidence of phoenixism.

An officer’s liability to pay a penalty also applies to inaccuracy penalties.

Liable persons

The company officers are known in HMRC guidance as “liable officers”. These include:

elected officers
managers
directors
company secretary
any other person managing or purporting to manage any of the company’s affairs.

LLP officers are members.

A PLN’s power gives HMRC the right to recover all or part of the penalty from the liable officer rather than the company/LLP itself.

Where there is more than one deliberate wrongdoing, each deliberate wrongdoing must be considered separately for the purpose of establishing whether it should be attributed to an officer or officers.

Wrongdoings

There are four types of wrongdoings:

the issue of an invoice showing VAT by an unauthorised person
misuse of a product so that it attracts a higher rate of excise duty
the handling of goods on which payment of excise duty is outstanding
knowingly disposing of, or causing or permitting the disposal of, material at an unauthorised waste site

The wrongdoing must arise from the deliberate action of an officer of the company.

Personal gain

Once HMRC has attributed the deliberate wrongdoing to one or more company officers it must consider whether any of the officers, by fact or implication, have gained or attempted to gain personally from the wrongdoing. It is sufficient to show that each officer has gained or attempted to gain. It will not however always be possible to establish the full extent to which each officer has gained or attempted to gain, in which case HMRC would issue the PLN based on best judgment of the amount they attempted to gain personally, eg:

the officer may accept that there was an actual or attempted personal gain from a deliberate wrongdoing that can be attributed to them, or
it may be clear from business records or the officer’s lifestyle that they gained or attempted to gain personally from the results of the deliberate wrongdoing

Appeals

A liable officer can appeal against

a decision to pursue them for all or part of the penalty assessed on the company, as set out in the PLN, including whether the penalty is attributable to them, and
the amount of the penalty HMRC has allocated to them
They cannot however appeal against a decision that they have gained or attempted to gain personally from the deliberate wrongdoing, or that the company is likely to go into liquidation

PLNs are subject to the same procedures as company penalties.

Legislation

Finance Act 2008, Schedule 41: Penalties: failure to notify and certain VAT and Excise wrongdoing.