Category Archives: Disputes

VAT: Extent of welfare exemption – The Lilias Graham Trust case

By Marcus Ward 3 October 2019

Latest from the courts

Certain welfare services are exempt from VAT via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, Item 9 – services which are directly connected with the care or protection of children. In the The Lilias Graham Trust (LGT) First Tier Tribunal case, the scope of the exemption was considered.

Background

LGT, which has charitable status, operated residential assessment centres, which supported parents (many of whom had mental health issues) in learning how to care for their children.

It was common ground that LGT’s services were as summarised in a letter from Glasgow City Council (where relevant):

LGT is an assessment centre providing assessment services on the parenting capacity of those referred to the service
The assessment services cover families where there is an uncertainty about whether the parent(s) can safely look after their children
LGT is simply acting as an observer watching the parent’s care for their own children and providing information in the form of advice
LGT is not providing any treatment in the form of medical care for any illness or injury
LGT’s recommendation following the assessment provides a recommendation to social workers around whether the parent(s) has sufficient capacity to keep their child safe and healthy
GCC viewed the residential accommodation as a fundamental part of the provision of the assessment services on the parenting capacity of those families which were referred to LGT.

Although the major part of LGT’s income came from the Local Authority fees, it is also subsidised to a degree by grants and donations.

Technical

In this case the odd position was that HMRC was arguing for exemption because, in learning how to care for their children, the services were “closely linked” to welfare services or “directly connected” to them as provided for by the Principal VAT Directive and the VAT Act in turn.

LGT contended that their supplies to a Local Authority (which could recover any VAT charged) were taxable as they did not fall within the welfare definition. LGT admitted that there was a causal relationship between the services provided and the care and protection of children, but the connection was too remote to be deemed to be a direct connection – There were several intervening factors and intermediaries between the service provided and the care and protection of children.

At issue was net input tax of circa £400,000 which would be recoverable by LGT if its supplies were taxable, but not if they were exempt. Guide to partial exemption here.

Decision

The court found that the essential purpose of the supplies made by LGT was to ensure that the child was better cared for and had optimal protection. That is precisely why the Local Authority employed LGT. Its supplies are both closely linked and directly connected with the protection of children as also to their care. Accordingly, the appellant made supplies of welfare services which are exempt from VAT. The fact that LGT provided its services to the Local Authority rather than the parents did not mean that its services should be taxable. Therefore, there was no output tax chargeable to the Local Authority and no input tax recovery by LGT on expenditure attributable to those exempt supplies.

Commentary

In this case, HMRC originally ruled that the services were taxable and LGT were required to VAT register, it even issued a late registration penalty. HMRC clearly subsequently changed its view which put input tax which LGT had recovered at risk. There are often disputes on the extent of the exemption, and sometimes debates on whether a service is supplied, or simply staff providing their services. It is important to understand these sometimes subtle differences as getting it wrong can be costly, as LGT found out.

Tax – Why do people pay it?

By Marcus Ward 16 September 2019

This seems a rather pointless question to ask, and I suspect many people will reply “because we have to”. But is it as simple as that?

An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report this month looks at the willingness of individuals and businesses to voluntarily pay tax and how it can be improved through better understanding of the complex interlinkages between enforcement, trust in government and the ease of compliance.

The report called ‘Tax Morale: What Drives People and Businesses to Pay Tax?‘ is interesting to read for tax advisers and taxpayers alike. It considers the drivers behind compliance with tax obligations and focuses on developing countries where compliance rates are low.

Many developing countries face a range of challenges in increasing revenue domestically. These challenges include:

a small tax base
a large informal sector
weak governance and administrative capacity
low per capita income
low levels of domestic savings and investment
tax avoidance and evasion by firms and elites.

As a result, two-thirds of least developed countries still struggle to raise taxes equivalent to more than 15% of GDP, the widely accepted minimum to enable an effective state. In comparison, OECD member countries raise taxes, on average, close to 35% of GDP.

Apparently, compliance is not determined solely by tax rates or the threat of penalties, but rather by a wide range of socio-economic and institutional factors that vary across regions and populations.

Improving tax morale can contribute to efforts to overhaul the international tax rules and improve compliance by multinational enterprises and it may also improve the efforts to counter banking secrecy and tax evasion.

Tax morale is composed of several, interlinked, elements. A theory set out in the report posits that trust is driven by the degree to which the tax system, including the approach to facilitation and enforcement, is characterised as:

fair
equitable
reciprocal
accountable

As such, strengthening tax compliance is not only about improving tax enforcement and enforced compliance, but also about pursuing “quasi-voluntary compliance” through building trust and facilitating payments.

Why is this important?

The report states that a better understanding of what motivates taxpayers to participate in, and comply with, a tax system is valuable for all countries and stakeholders. Tax administrations can benefit from increased compliance and higher revenues, taxpayers (both businesses and individuals) are better served by tax systems that understand and are responsive to their needs, while increased data and discussion can help researchers deepen their understanding.

So…

In terms of VAT, what are our experiences of HMRC? Is it fair, equitable, reciprocal and accountable? Having discussed this at most client meetings where businesses have been challenged, and my experience in the department and advising businesses is: It used to be a lot better, there was a feeling that they were “trying to get things right”, however, this sense has been declining and trust is increasingly and rapidly being lost. Is this nostalgia, or does HMRC increasingly rely on bullying, ignoring contentions, misunderstanding or misapplying legislation or not being concerned with taxpayers?

All I would say here is that the fact that HMRC can issue a written ruling, but then go back on it if it suits them, is hardly fair or equitable. See here – no more “Sheldon Statement” protection for taxpayers.

VAT: Disaggregation – The Caton case

By Marcus Ward 12 September 2019

Latest from the courts.

In the Charles John Caton First Tier tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether HMRC were correct in deciding that a business was artificially split to avoid VAT registration (so called disaggregation, details here).

Background

The appellant ran a café known as The Commonwealth for a number of years. Subsequently, his wife opened a restaurant in adjoining premises. HMRC decided that this was a single business and required a backdated VAT registration. This resulted in a retrospective VAT return and associated penalties for late registration.

HMRC pointed to the leases, the liability insurance and the alcohol licence, which are all in Mr Caton’s name, together with the fact he signed a questionnaire stating that he was sole proprietor of the restaurant, and the fact that the washing up area is shared, and say that these show that there was only one business. They also said that the fact that Mrs Caton did not have a bank account and therefore card takings from the restaurant went into Mr Caton’s bank account further bolsters their case.

The appellant proffered the following facts to support the contention that there were two separate businesses: There were separate staff in the restaurant and the café. Those for the cafe were hired by Mr Caton, and are his responsibility, and those for the restaurant were hired by Mrs Caton and are her responsibility. The cooking is done completely separately, by different people using different cooking areas. The menus are completely different, and when the café sells the restaurant ‘specials’ they are rung up on the till with a marker that shows they are restaurant sales. Although the majority of the food is ordered from the same place, there are separate orders (even though these orders are placed at the same time and paid for using Mr Caton’s bank account). Mrs Caton decides on the menu for the restaurant and the prices. She keeps the cash generated from the sales in the cafe, and this is not banked in Mr Caton’s account. Depending on the ratio of cash sales to card sales in any given month, she may need to pay some of it to Mr Caton for the rent, rates etc, but any surplus she keeps.There were two tills, one for the restaurant and one for the cafe.

The Law

The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 1A provides that:

(1) Paragraph 2 below is for the purpose of preventing the maintenance or creation of any artificial separation of business activities carried on by two or more persons from resulting in an avoidance of VAT.

(2) In determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above whether any separation of business activities is artificial, regard shall be had to the extent to which the different persons carrying on those activities are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links.

VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 2 provides that:

(1)… if the Commissioners make a direction under this paragraph, the persons named in the direction shall be treated as a single taxable person carrying on the activities of a business described in the direction…

Decision

The judge decided that she considered the facts that point to the businesses being run and owned as two separate operations were significantly stronger that facts that point to a joint ownership. And the appeal was allowed.

Commentary

These types of cases are decided on the precise facts. I think that this one must have been a close call. It appears the fact that may have swung it was that the judge commented “We find it extremely surprising, in this case, that HMRC have never met with Mrs Caton or, in correspondence, asked her for any details. Mr Caton and HMRC have both told us that he has consistently maintained from the first meeting the fact that Mrs Caton runs the restaurant. We find it impossible that HMRC could be in possession of facts sufficient to make a reasonable decision on this case without hearing from Mrs Caton.” That approach by HMRC is never going to play well in court. It strikes me that this type of approach is increasing in the department. Whether this is down to lack of training, resources or simple corner cutting to save time I cannot say.

If HMRC issue a direction under VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 2 that two or more businesses should be treated as one, it is always worth having that decision reviewed. This is especially relevant in cases such as this where customers are the final consumers making the VAT sticking tax.

VAT: Exempt medical treatment – The Skin Rich case

By Marcus Ward 9 September 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Skin Rich Ltd [2019] TC 07310 First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether Botox and nail treatments could be exempt as health and welfare services: “The supply of services consisting in the provision of medical care” by a “registered person” (principally, doctors, opticians, osteopaths, chiropractors and nurses).

Background

Skin Rich Ltd operated a skin culture and aesthetics clinic offering a range of specialist skin treatments including, but not limited to, Botox and dermal filler treatments or ‘Injectables’ and fungal nail treatments it contended were exempt from VAT.

The appellant employed several medical professionals to administer the injectables arguing it was a medical procedure and exempt under VATA 1994, Sch. 9, Grp. 7, items 1 and 2. It was not enough, however, that the services were provided by persons registered as appropriate, they had to be providing “medical care” in order to meet the terms of the exemption. Their principal purpose had to be the protection, including the maintenance or restoration of health. Whilst it was conceded a cosmetic benefit would not preclude a treatment having a primary purpose to protect, restore or maintain the health of an individual.

Decision

The FTT dismissed the appeal that Botox services and fungal nail treatment supplied by them were exempt under VATA 1994, Sch. 9, Grp. 7, items 1 and 2, or alternatively item 4. Consequently, output tax was due on the full value of these supplies. The FTT was not persuaded the services were principally to protect, restore or maintain the health of an individual. They did not, therefore, meet the definition of medical care established by the relevant case law. Furthermore, they did not consider the taxpayer to be “state regulated” as required by item 4.

Commentary

This can be a difficult area of the tax. I have dealt with a number of cases where apparent cosmetic surgery (breast augmentation and liposuction etc) were argued to have beneficial mental health outcomes. Case law on this matter is sometimes conflicting. Care should be taken when determining the VAT liability of certain procedures. The tests are more than something being “sort of medical”.

This was not an unexpected outcome, but presumably the appellant thought that, for the tax involved, it was worth going to court.

VAT: What is an economic activity? The Pertemps’ case

By Marcus Ward 12 August 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Pertemps Limited the issue was whether the operation of the respondent’s salary sacrifice scheme to provide travel and subsistence payments to employees was a supply for VAT purposes and, indeed, whether it was an economic activity at all.

I have considered what is an economic activity (business) many times, examples here, here, here and here. It is a perennial VAT issue and goes to the very heart of the tax. EU legislation talks of economic activity, which is taken to be “business activity” in the UK. There is no legal definition of either economic or business activity so case law on this point is very important.

Background

Employees of the respondent were offered the option of;

being paid a salary, from which they would have to meet any travel and subsistence expenses, or
participating in Pertemps’ scheme where they would be paid their travel and subsistence expenses but receive a reduced salary.

The amount of the reduction was equal to the amount of the expense payment plus a fixed amount to defray the costs of running the scheme. The issue was whether the charge for using the scheme was taxable.

HMRC’s appeal against the FTT decision [2018] UKFTT 369 (TC) was based on the view that the scheme involved a taxable supply of services by Pertemps to its participating employees such that output tax was due of the fixed payments. The FTT concluded that Pertemps did supply services to the employees. but the supply was not within the scope of VAT because the operation of the scheme was not an economic activity. It allowed Pertemps’ appeal. The FTT also held that, if there had been a supply, it would have been exempt.

Decision

The UT decided that, although the FTT erred in law when it concluded that Pertemps made a supply of services to the employees who participated in the scheme, it was correct when it concluded that Pertemps was not carrying on any economic activity when it provided the scheme for employees. The charge only arose in the context of the employment relationship, and it could not be compared to an open market supply of accountancy services.

Therefore, HMRC’s appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Care should always be taken with salary sacrifice schemes. Some, but not all, sacrifices are subject to output tax. HMRC internal guidance on the subject here. This case is a helpful clarification on the matter of certain charges to staff. It also adds another layer to the age-old issue of what constitutes a business activity. VAT is only due on business supplies, and it is crucial to appreciate what is, and isn’t an economic activity. This is especially important in respect of charities and NFP bodies.

VAT: What are zero rated animal foodstuffs?

By Marcus Ward 12 August 2019

Modelled by Lola. (R) Collar: models’ own

Latest from the courts

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Westland Horticulture Limited highlights the complexities of; the VAT treatment of food, animal foodstuffs, seeds, crops and how these are all held out for sale. One only has to consider the myriad VAT liabilities of seemingly similar products sold at, say, a garden centre, to realise that this is can be a VAT minefield.

Examples

Food for a budgerigar is standard rated, but pigeon grit is zero rated.
Peanuts and sunflower seeds are zero rated, unless advertised as wild bird food when they are standard rated
Food for a Labrador is standard rated, unless the dog is used as a gun dog when it is zero rated
Lavender seeds are zero rated. Daffodil bulbs are standard rated.

This is a very small list of examples where the VAT treatment of precisely the same product may change depending on use, and/or where a slight difference of the type of goods can have a surprising tax outcome.

A full guide to garden centre liabilities here

The case

HMRC state in Public Notice 701/38 para 5.3

“Most grass seed is zero-rated because of the extensive use of grass as animal feed. This includes supplies to and by garden centres, local authorities and grass seed to be grown on set aside land.

But pre-germinated grass seed and turf are not used for the propagation of animal feed and are therefore standard-rated.”

Zero rating is available per VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, item 3: “…seeds or other means of propagation of plants comprised in animal feeding stuffs”

In Westland’s case, it sold a product called Aftercut Patch Fix, which, although was 90% grass seed, also contained sowing granules and an ingredient called Clinoptilolite which, apparently, neutralises the effects of excess salts and ammonia found in pet urine. The grass seed was of various varieties and is not in itself any different to “ordinary” grass seed sold without any additives.

Having a new puppy, I can verify the damage one small hound can do to lawns and this is a product I may will need to invest in. The product was held out (see below) to help fix damage to grass that, in my case, a small Lola (and larger Libby) can do.

Decision

Unsurprisingly, the judge ruled that the product was standard rated on the grounds (no pun intended) that it was clearly intended to be used on people’s gardens rather than to be planted to grow animal food. Therefore, the zero rating provided via PN 701/38 does not apply.

The Product was physically different to generic grass seed as it contained more than just seed. The product (as distinct from the seed within the product) is therefore not a similar product to generic grass seed for the purposes of fiscal neutrality.

Commentary

A discrete issue you may think. However, the tax in this single case amounted to over half a million pounds. It illustrates how much care must be taken in establishing the correct liability of; food, animal foodstuff, pet food and ornamental versus edible plants, seeds, bulbs, shrubs and trees.

One of the salient tests is how the goods are “held out for sale” (held out)

Held out means the:

way a product is labelled, packaged, displayed, invoiced, advertised or promoted
heading under which the product is listed in a catalogue, web page or price list

In this case, the packaging and description on the appellant’s website was a major factor in the decision.

Manufacturers and retailers may need to review how their products are described, what the contents are and how they are displayed in-store. Even the location of the goods, how they are displayed, and the signage used may affect the VAT treatment (it doesn’t matter if I buy zero rated working dog food and feed it to my two who are never going to do a day’s work in their life….).

VAT: Brexit – Retail Export Scheme benefits

By Marcus Ward 2 August 2019

VAT free shopping for all! Save 20% on anything you buy!

This seems very unlikely I hear you mutter, but, but…..

If you live in the UK after a No Deal Brexit, there is a simple way of never paying VAT on any retail purchases for your own use. From a piano to a gymnasium, from a teapot to a lawnmower – all may be purchased completely VAT free and legally. It does not appear that the Government has considered this, it certainly does not feature in the recent report on the “Alternative Arrangements”. This is especially relevant to the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland land border. It may be that if we believe hard enough in Brexit we can avoid UK residents not paying UK VAT…

So how will this fabulous shopping opportunity come into being?

There is an EU-wide system (set out at Article 131 of The Principle VAT Directive) which provides for the recovery of VAT incurred by individuals from outside the EU. Clearly, after a No-Deal Brexit, that will be anyone in the UK. This is called the Retail Export Scheme (RES). After a hard Brexit, any goods moving from an EU Member State into the UK will now be classed as exports (pre-Brexit there is free movement of goods within the EU, so there would be no exports when goods move cross-border within the EU).

How does RES work?

When an individual buys goods in an EU Member State and exports them for his/her personal use, the retailer will charge VAT at the rate applicable in that country. The shop will also issue a certain document. This document is stamped when the goods are physically exported buy the buyer and the customer returns the form to the retailer. It is a quite painless procedure. When this evidence that the goods have been exported is received by the retailer, it will refund the VAT paid – The result = VAT free shopping. Also, the scheme has no minimum sales value.

And after Brexit?

The UK has said its 2017 Customs Bill that VAT will not be charged on personal imports. This is effectively inviting tax free cross-border shopping and consequently, logically, reducing retails sales in the UK. I am sure that that is not what the Government had in mind. It is likely that there could be wide scale use of RES. After all, what is a bit of paperwork and a short drive to save 20%?! This is even before one considers the abuse of the arrangements, which, with the obvious financial benefits, could be significant. A day trip to mainland Europe will be very inviting, and then, there is our land border…

Some politics…

The Irish border

Clearly, the most relevant issue is the Irish border. Regardless of the political noises, there will be a “difference” between EU and “third country” (which the UK will be after a No Deal Brexit) rules between the two countries. These differences facilitate the use of the RES. There is nothing in any proposals which will prevent cross-border shopping on the island of Ireland. I can imagine retailers in Dublin rubbing their hands together while those in Belfast gloomily survey empty shops. Perhaps new retailers will pop up on the Irish side of the EU/UK divide to make matters even more helpful for bargain hunting shoppers from the UK. Another issue which I doubt the UK has considered is that if there is no border (which we are told by the Government will happen even though a No-Deal Brexit will definitively and specifically not permit this) there will be nobody to stamp the forms. I won’t get into the politics of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) and a No Deal Brexit, but it seems almost certain that there will have to be a deal with the EU to ensure there is no border, OR the UK must renege on the GFA which could bring terrifying consequences to peace in the area, amongst a lot of other issues. What a mess.

Importance of a border with the EU

No two countries outside of the EU have ever removed border checks between themselves. They try to streamline checks where possible, as everybody wants smooth trade, but always retain border checks. Why? Simply, for goods trade, a border post is the only place where you can guarantee to have the vehicle, the items definitely being transported, and all relevant paperwork in one place. You can and do make other checks, but the border is at the core. One of the reasons for the EU legal and regulatory framework is to be able to trust that goods trade between members can take place without border checks. This means common tariffs, common rules, and legal redress. Without being a part of the regulations, there can be no such trust and a hard border is necessary.

Unsurprisingly, there have been no studies on the cost to UK retailers, and apparently, no recognition whatsoever, that this could be a serious issue. Given the political issues with the Irish border, and the serious consequences of going against the GFA, this is another issue which has been either; overlooked, dismissed, politically ignored, or relegated to the bottom of a list of so many issues caused by an ill-considered No Deal Brexit.

What the government has continually, apparently deliberately, failed to recognise is that there is no fudge that provides both freedom from EU rules and frictionless trade with a No Deal Brexit. There is no current way to reconcile Northern Ireland remaining aligned with the UK, Ireland staying fully in the EU, pure Brexit, and no border checks. Tax is simply one area in the commercial world which has been ignored, for political reasons. VAT is just one area of tax, and the RES is just one area of VAT.

VAT: Land and property – A “fun” quiz

By Marcus Ward 26 July 2019

VAT: Land and property

I am quite often asked the seemingly straightforward question: Can I recover VAT on this land purchase? So, by way of a little quiz, I look at why this can be a loaded question.

Background

A person purchases bare land in the UK for £450,000 which is subjected to the option to tax. So, VAT of £90,000 is incurred. Your task, should you wish to accept it, is to say yes, no, or maybe to input tax recovery in the following situations (assume the purchaser is VAT registered).

Questions

On the purchased land the person constructs:

a dwelling and supplies the house on a 25-year lease
an office and uses it for his own business supplying FS to a client in China
a storage facility and a fully taxable company leases it to another company in the same partly exempt VAT group after opting to tax
a block of ten flats with a gym and swimming pool which tenants are entitled to use. Grants 99 years leases on all flats
a dwelling but uses it for short term holiday lets of no more than a fortnight.
a warehouse which is sold on completion but without an option to tax being made before the sale
the land is held with the intention of constructing dwellings at some time in the future, which could be over six years
a factory which is not subjected to an option to tax but is leased to an US company
a block of three flats which are rented for six months before freehold sale
a sport hall by a school Academy which is leased to sporting charities and also used for its own educational purposes. No option to tax
a manufacturing plant which a company rents to a connected (non-VAT grouped) party which makes and sells toys. The option is taken
a car showroom and offices which a company uses for its own business of selling cars, providing finance and brokering insurance
a care home for the elderly which a company uses for that purpose
a small cabin office and the remaining land is used for a forestry business which will have no sales for ten years (when the trees are grown)
a residential block which is immediately transferred to an associated company (an arm’s length transaction) on completion. No tenants are in situ.

We are looking at recovery of input tax on the land purchase here, ignoring other (say; construction and professional) costs. That is another article in itself.

The questions have been simplified, usually, they tend to be rather more “involved”.

Answers

…soon!

VAT Glossary – Partial Exemption

By Marcus Ward 9 July 2019

The VAT world of partial exemption can be complex with some arcane language used in guidance. Here is your “cut out and keep” guide:

A general guide to partial exemption here.

VAT Glossary Partial Exemption
Term	Explanation
Allocation	Some special methods have different sectors where the recoverable element of residual input tax is different. Allocation is the means by which residual input tax is distributed to specific sectors within a method.
Annual adjustment	At the end of the tax year the partial exemption calculation is recalculated using annual figures.
Apportionment	Residual input tax must be apportioned to reflect the extent to which the purchases on which it is incurred are used in making onward taxable supplies. The partial exemption method carries out this function.
De minimis tests	Tests designed to allow recovery of minimal amounts of exempt input tax.
Direct attribution	The identification of input tax on supplies that are wholly used, or to be wholly used in making taxable supplies or are wholly used or to be wholly used in making exempt supplies.
Exempt input tax	Input tax incurred on purchases which are used or to be used in making exempt supplies. It comprises input tax directly attributable to exempt supplies and, after the partial exemption method has been applied, the exempt element of residual input tax identified by the partial exemption method.
Exempt supplies	Supplies made by a business, which are listed in Schedule 9 of the VAT Act 1994. VAT incurred in making exempt supplies is non-recoverable, unless they are ‘specified’ supplies, subject to the de minimis test.
Input tax	VAT incurred by a VAT registered person on goods and services purchased for the purposes of a business.
Longer period	This is usually the tax year for annual adjustment purposes but may in certain circumstances be shorter than a tax year. It may also be longer in the case of a mid-year stagger change.
Foreign supplies	Supplies made by a business which are made outside the UK but which would be taxable if they were made in the UK.
Residual input tax	Input tax which is used, or to be used, to make both taxable and exempt supplies. It is apportioned between taxable and exempt supplies by the partial exemption method. Residual input tax is commonly referred to as ‘non-attributable input tax’ or ‘the pot’.
Special method	Any partial exemption method, other than the standard method, used to identify the taxable element of input tax incurred. Special methods require prior approval from HMRC.
Specified supplies	Supplies specified by Treasury Order which are not taxable supplies, but which carry the right to recover input tax incurred in making them.
Standard method	This is the default partial exemption method. It is specified in law and is suitable for most smaller businesses.
Taxable input tax	Input tax incurred on purchases of goods and services which are used or to be used in making taxable supplies and other supplies which carry the ‘right to deduct’.
Taxable supplies	Supplies made by a business, which are either standard, reduced or zero-rated. Input tax incurred in making taxable supplies is deductible.
Tax year	Every VAT registered business has a tax year. This usually ends at the end of March, April or May each year, depending on the business’s VAT return periods.
VAT Groups	Two or more corporate bodies accounting for VAT under a single VAT registration number. One acts as representative member and any supplies between the members of the group are disregarded for VAT purposes.

Any business which receives income from the following sources may be affected by partial exemption:

Property letting and sales – potentially all types of supply of land
Financial services
Insurance
Betting, gaming and lotteries
Education
Health and welfare
Sport, sports competitions and physical education
Cultural services

This list is not exhaustive.

If your, or your client’s business is partially exempt I always recommend a review.

VAT: Evidence to claim input tax

By Marcus Ward 9 July 2019

Latest from the courts

Hot on the heels of my recent article here, a First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case has considered what evidence may be accepted for a claim for input tax.

The Wasteaway case contemplated whether HMRC’s disallowance of the appellant’s claim, (via The VAT Act 1994, section 73) for input tax was correct, or whether they should have allowed the claim based on alternative evidence of receiving the relevant supplies in lieu of missing tax invoices.

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, or should HMRC accept any other evidence to support a claim?

Background

It was stated that the invoices were lost during a time when the business was evicted from its premises. The judge formed the view that the appellant’s approach to record keeping was “slapdash”. Which isn’t a good starting point. HMRC issued an assessment because it was decided that the appellant had “not provided satisfactory evidence of the taxable supply to the business and its direct link to your onward taxable supply for discretion to be considered under Article 182 of the Principal VAT Directive. If no invoice, a pro forma invoice or a document stating ‘this is not a VAT invoice’ has been provided…” along with an offer to provide alternative evidence.

It was also discovered, during the inspection, that not only had output tax been underdeclared, but the appellant had a history of poor record keeping.

Decision

Despite the business providing; records of payments, in some cases weighbridge tickets, detailed bank statements, spreadsheets and Sage accounts information – which it was contended amounted to alternative documentary evidence, it was ruled that this was insufficient, so the assessment stood.

The lack of care in obtaining and retaining documents, poor accounting procedures such that output tax was understated and the past behaviour and history of the taxpayer meant that HMRC was not obliged to accept the proffered alternative evidence, The general unreliability of the records counted against the business and that HMRC acted in best judgement.

It was stated that HMRC were perfectly justified in requiring more detailed and convincing documentary evidence to replace the missing VAT invoices than the appellant provided. And the inspector could not be criticised for refusing to accept the extremely thin evidence supplied as an alternative to the missing VAT invoices.

Commentary

It is clear that every business must keep proper records and retain all documents, especially invoices. It was hardly surprising that failure to do that ensured that this appeal was dismissed. It also didn’t help that the appellant had a poor track record of accounting.

HMRC do have the discretion to accept alternative evidence, however, this is more likely if the relevant invoices have been genuinely misplaced, destroyed or not received. There is also the opportunity to go to the supplier and request a replacement invoice.

So, basically: Keep records properly or it will cost you!