Category Archives: Disputes

Excise Duty: Your Christmas drink of choice, or perhaps not

By   9 December 2025
0
Christmas cheer
Advocate General (AG) Manuel Sanchez-Bordona has released his opinion in the Bene Factum case (The link is to Lithuanian, so you ‘may” need to translate…).

A curious matter and one which brings into focus the drinking habits of people across the EU. Now, as those who know me will be aware, I am not adverse to a good single malt, nor a decent claret, but I do wonder sometimes where people draw the line.

Background

It transpires that in Lithuania people who choose not to drink, or cannot afford, even the cheapest alcoholic items have turned to drinking perfume and mouthwash which contain isopropyl alcohol. This has a similar effect on the human body to what most people would regard as being from more usual beer, wine or spirits etc. Sounds delicious eh?

Issue

The issue was whether these products where subject to Excise Duty, or, as the appellant contended, they were duty free as cosmetic products.

Decision

The AG found that isopropyl alcohol is almost unpalatable to most people. The fact that Bene Factum held out, advertised and marketed to people to drink the products did not affect the fact that the main purpose of the goods was for their use as cosmetics and mouthwash. What must be considered is Excise Duty depends on an objective classification to determine whether it is intended for human consumption. This classification is not affected by the fact that Bene Factum actively encouraged people to drink these products rather than use them for cosmetic purposes.

Consequently, the goods where not subject to Excise Duty. Good news for Lithuanian alcohol connoisseurs! It remains to see if the court follows this opinion, in most cases they do, but one never knows.

Commentary 

If there is anybody out there who is getting ready for their Christmas party, looks at some cosmetic products and considers taking a swig, I make the following comments:

  • Probably best to stick supermarket own brand booze if money is an issue
  • I expect that these things taste absolutely terrible (although I have not sampled them)
  • I tend to stick to things that are to be applied externally doing just that with them without ingestion
  • If you can’t decide whether to gargle with something or drink it, I counsel spitting it out
  • If these goods come to the UK, at least they will be even cheaper being duty free. I am not sure that is a good thing.

VAT Payment Problems – Q & As

By   12 November 2025
0
If you can’t pay your VAT bill, please do not put your head in the sand, the problem will not go away.  Here are some answers to the most commonly asked VAT payment problems.

Q: I have received a demand notice for payment of VAT. Why?

A: HMRC have not received payment of the VAT liability that is described in the demand notice. You should therefore pay the outstanding debt without delay so as to avoid further recovery action. HMRC take prompt action to recover debts.

Q: I am not able to pay the debt immediately because of a temporary cash-flow problem. What should I do?

A: You should make urgent contact with your bank or your financial adviser to explore means of overcoming these temporary financial difficulties.

Q: I have consulted the bank/financial adviser, but they are unable to help. What else can I do?

A: Without further delay contact the Regional Debt Management Unit whose address appears on the demand notice. They may be able to help you by agreeing a brief period in which to pay the debt. They are usually helpful and will consider carefully all practical options for settlement. However, if these do not produce a solution or they do not receive a response to their request for payment, they may, like other creditors, take action to recover the money they are owed.

Q: What is a Late Payment Penalty?

A: These are a civil penalty to encourage businesses to submit their VAT returns and pay the tax due on time.

Q: When will a penalty be issued?

A: A business is in default if it sends in its VAT return and or the VAT due late – full details here. 

Q: How much is it?

A: First Penalty

A business will not incur a penalty if the outstanding tax is paid within the first 15 days after the due date. If VAT remains unpaid after Day 15, the business incurs the first penalty. This penalty is set at 2% of the tax outstanding after Day 15. If any of this tax is still unpaid after Day 30, the penalty increases to 4% of the tax outstanding after Day 30.

Second Penalty

If tax remains unpaid on Day 31, a business will begin to incur an additional penalty on the VAT that remains outstanding. It accrues on a daily basis, at a rate of 4% per annum on the outstanding amount. This additional penalty will stop accruing when the taxpayer pays the tax that is due.

Q: What sort of assessments are sent out?

A: An assessment may be issued if a VAT return is not submitted by the due date. The amount may be based on previous returns. If a business does not submit its returns time after time, the assessment value will increase. An officer may also issue an assessment after a visit, if they have found errors in the amount of tax declared on previous returns. Both types are included in the taxpayers’ debt and are collected in the normal way if they are not paid promptly.

Help 

There are a number of schemes available which may help cashflow or possibly reduce the amount of VAT you pay.

Cash Accounting – where you only pay VAT to HMRC when you have received payment from your customer.

Annual Accounting – where you make set monthly payments and make one return a year with an adjusting payment.

Flat Rate Scheme – where you pay a set percentage of your turnover rather than calculating output tax less input tax.

Bad Debt Relief – where you are able to reclaim VAT relief on your bad debts.

 

Further information

Further information on how to deal with a VAT debt here. 

Please contact us if VAT payments are proving a problem for your business.  Negotiation with HMRC is possible.

Who can claim import VAT? The TSI Instruments case

By   5 November 2025
0

Latest from the courts

In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case of TSI Instruments Limited the issue was whether the appellant could claim import VAT when it was not the owner of the imported goods. The amount of VAT at stake was circa £8.5 million.

Background

TSI Instruments (TSI) imported scientific equipment owned by its customers for repair. The main activity of TSI in the UK is the service, repair and calibration of TSI Group goods which had previously been sold to customers around the world.

TSI is named as the importer and paid the charges made by the shipping company for dealing with the declaration and customs clearance formalities on behalf of TSI as well as paying the import VAT which it claimed.

Contentions

HMRC refused to repay the claims on the basis that only the entity with title to the goods is able to deduct the import VAT.

The appellant argued there is no requirement in the legislation that the importer should be the owner of the goods in order for import VAT to be credited. TSI asserted that, as long as the goods are imported for the purposes of its taxable business and it bears the costs of the import, the import VAT can be credited as input tax.

Decision

The FTT ruled that TSI was not entitled to claim input VAT credit for import VAT paid on goods it did not own, and the appeal was dismissed. Via both EU and UK VAT law, the right to deduct import VAT is restricted to the actual owner of the goods or the entity which has the right to dispose of the goods as their owner (or where the cost or value of the goods is reflected in the price of specific output transactions or in the price of goods and services supplied in the course of their economic activities). Since TSI did not own the goods, and their value was not included in the repair service price, the FTT ruled against TSI.

Commentary

This position could have been avoided by planning being put in place. TSI could have used Inward Processing Relief or the owner of the goods could have been the importer.

Legislation/HMRC guidance

VIT13300 – Import VAT may only be claimed by the owner of the goods who would be entitled to reclaim the import VAT either in accordance with s24 VATA 1994 (if registered for VAT in the UK) or under part XXI of the VAT Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/2518) if they are not registered for VAT in the UK, provided they satisfy the legislative conditions. For further information see Notice 723A.

HMRC published Revenue and Customs Briefs 2 (2019) and Brief 15 (2020) which restated HMRC’s long-standing policy that it is the owner of the imported goods who is entitled to recover the import VAT under current UK legislation. These Briefs clarify, but do not change, HMRC’s policy.

VAT: Can Nitrous Oxide be zero-rated food? The Telamara case – no laughing matter

By   1 October 2025
0

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Telamara Limited the issue was whether Nitrous Oxide (N₂O) used exclusively for culinary use can be zero-rated.

Background

The appellant supplied N₂O canisters which were used as cream chargers. These were used for whipping cream and creating foams and mousses, and to infuse liquids. The relevant invoices described the product as; “Dairy products misc. Cream/beverage infusers 600 x 8g cylinder”. The chargers were not for medical use. The chargers were certified as Halal products.

Telamara’s customers were wholesalers and the units in which the chargers were sold were in boxes of 600. The packaging states that the contents of the chargers should not be inhaled. If consumed on its own N₂O is tasteless and all but imperceptible and its only effect is on the consistency of the whipped food.

The contentions

Telamara considered that the sale of the canisters should be zero-rated because they were for culinary use as food of a kind for human consumption via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8 VAT Act 1994, Group 1, Item 1. It was accepted that the N₂O would not be “eaten on its own” but it nevertheless was said to form an ingredient of all of the food substances into which it was incorporated by infusion or by use of the cream whipper, changing the state and nature of those foods. Furthermore, the appellant claimed unfairness because HMRC had been unable to provide clear guidance on the correct VAT treatment when the business started but HMRC subsequently became certain the supplies were standard rated.

Unsurprisingly, HMRC disagreed, formed a view that the supplies were not of food, and raised an assessment for the output tax it deemed to be due on the standard rated supplies.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. It was found that the chargers were not food because N₂O:

  • had no nutritional value
  • is a food additive, not food
  • does not add to the calories of food
  • is odourless, colourless, and tasteless
  • is a gas and therefore incapable of being either eaten or drunk

The Tribunal concluded that the gases were standard rated as they were not food of a kind used for human consumption. It concluded that no informed and broad-minded person considering whether the gases were food would conclude that they were.

Commentary

Yet another “Is it food?” case adding to a long list. The Tribunal helpfully set out (drawing from an extensive and thorough review of the very many cases which have considered the scope of zero-rating of food) the required exercise considering and weighing up the following factors to answer the question of whether something is food:

(1) Nutritional value

(2) Palatability

(3) Form of the product

(4) Manner of/directions for consumption

(5) Frequency of consumption

(6) Marketing

(7) Purpose of the product

(8) Range of uses

(9) Constituent ingredients

(10) Dictionary definition of food

Summary

Is it food? is not as a straightforward question as it may seem!

We recommend that any business which is involved in ‘food” or “food-like” products should undertake a review in light of this case. We can, of course, help with this .

VAT Bad Debt Relief Noticed updated

By   1 October 2025
0

HMRC has updated VAT Notice 700/18 – Bad Debt Relief (BDR). The update covers how and when a claim may be made.

The Notice explains when a business is entitled to BDR and how to claim it.

If a business makes supplies of goods or services to a customer but it is not paid it may be able to claim relief from VAT on bad debts that it has incurred.

The conditions for claiming BDR are:

  • a business must have accounted for the VAT on the supplies and paid it to HMRC
  • a business must have written off the debt in its day-to-day VAT accounts and transferred it to a separate bad debt account
  • the value of the supply must not be more than the customary selling price
  • the debt must not have been paid, sold, or factored
  • the debt must have remained unpaid for a period of six months after the later of the time payment was due and payable and the date of the supply
  • the deadline is within four years and six months of the later of the date payment was due and payable or the date of supply

These rules have varied over the years, so it is worth checking on supplies made before 1 April 1989.

To claim BDR a business includes the amount of the VAT being claimed in box 4 of its VAT return which covers the date when the conditions to make a claim are fulfilled.

If BDR has been claimed and subsequently a payment is received for the supply, a business must repay HMRC the VAT element included in the payment.

VAT: What is a TOGC? Why is it important?

By   19 August 2025
0
What is a Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC)?

Normally the sale of the assets of a VAT registered business will be subject to VAT at the appropriate rate. A TOGC, however is the sale of a business including assets which must be treated as a matter of law, as “neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services” by virtue of meeting certain conditions. It is always the seller who is responsible for applying the correct VAT treatment and will be required to support their decision.

Where the sale meets the conditions, the supply is outside the scope of VAT and therefore VAT is not chargeable.

The word ‘business’ has the meaning set out in The VAT Act 1994, section 94 and ‘going concern’ has the meaning that at the point in time to which the description applies, the business is live or operating and has all parts and features necessary to keep it in operation, as distinct from its being only an inert aggregation of assets.

TOGC Conditions

The conditions for VAT free treatment of a TOGC:

  • The assets must be sold as a business, or part of a business, as a going concern
  • The assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part (HMRC guidance uses the words “intend to use…” which, in some cases may provide additional comfort)
  • There must be no break in trading
  • Where the seller is a taxable person (VAT registered) the purchaser must be a taxable person already or immediately become, as a result of the transfer, a taxable person
  • Where only part of a business is sold it must be capable of separate operation
  • There must not be a series of immediately consecutive transfers
  • Where the transfer includes property which is standard-rated, either because the seller has opted to tax it or because it is a ‘new’ or uncompleted commercial building the purchaser must opt to tax the property and notify this to HMRC no later than the date of the supply. This may be the date of completion or, if earlier, the date of receipt of payment or part payment (eg; a deposit). There are additional anti-avoidance requirements regarding the buyer’s option to tax

Please note that the above list has been compiled for this article from; the legislation, HMRC guidance and case law. Specific advice must be sought.

Property transfer

The sale of a property may qualify for TOGC if the above tests are met. Usually, but not exclusively, a TOGC sale is the sale of a tenanted building when the sale is with the benefit of the existing lease(s) – (the sale of a property rental business rather than of the property itself). Another example of a property TOGC is where a property under construction is sold (a development business). As may be seen, timing with a property TOGC is of utmost importance. For example, an option to tax one day late will invalidate TOGC treatment. A guide to land and property.

What purpose do the TOGC rules serve?

The TOGC provisions are intended to simplify accounting for VAT when a business changes hands. The main purposes are to:

  • relieve the buyer from the burden of funding VAT on the purchase, helping businesses by improving their cash flow and avoiding the need to separately value assets which may be liable at different rates or are exempt and which have been sold as a whole
  • protect government revenue by removing a charge to tax and entitlement to input tax where the output tax may not be paid to HMRC, for example, where a business charges tax, which is claimed by the new business but not paid by the selling business

What if it goes wrong?

TOGC treatment is not optional. A sale is either a TOGC or it isn’t. It is a rare situation in that the VAT treatment depends on; what the purchaser’s intentions are, what the seller is told, and what the purchaser actually does. All this being outside the seller’s control.

Add VAT when TOGC treatment applies:

Often, the TOGC point can be missed, especially in complex property transactions.

The addition of VAT is sometimes considered a “safe” VAT position. However, output tax will have been charged incorrectly, which means that when the buyer claims VAT shown on the relevant invoice, this will be disallowed. This can lead to;

  • potential penalties and interest from HMRC
  • the buyer having to recover the VAT payment (often the seller, having sold a business can be difficult to track down and then obtain payment from)
  • significant cash flow issues (HMRC will need to be repaid the input tax claim immediately)
  • if a property sale, SDLT is likely to be overpaid

Sale treated as a TOGC when it is a taxable supply:

When VAT free TOGC treatment is applied to a taxable supply (possibly as one, or more of the TOGC conditions are not met) then there is a tax underdeclaration. The seller will be assessed by HMRC and penalties and interest are likely to be levied. There is then the seller’s requirement to attempt to obtain the VAT payment from the buyer. Similarly to above, this is not always straightforward or possible and it may be that the contract prohibits additional payment. There is likely to be unexpected funding issues for the buyer if (s)he does decide to make the payment.

Considering the usually high value of sales of businesses, the VAT cost of getting it wrong can be significant.

Summary

This is a complex area of the tax and an easy issue to miss when there are a considerable number of other factors to consider when a business is sold. Extensive case law (example here and changes to HMRC policy here) insists that there is often a dichotomy between a commercial interpretation of a going concern and HMRC’s view. I sometimes find that the buyer’s intentions change such that the TOGC initially applied becomes invalid when the change in the use of assets (from what was notified to the seller) actually takes place.  HMRC is not always sympathetic in these situations. One of the questions I am often asked is: “How long does the buyer have to operate the business after purchase so that TOGC treatment applies?” Unsurprisingly, there is no set answer to this and HMRC do not set a specific period. My view, and it is just my view, is that an absolute minimum time is one VAT quarter.

Contracts are important in most TOGC cases, so it really pays to review them from a VAT perspective.

I very strongly advise that specialist advice is obtained in cases where a business, or property is sold. And yes, I know I would say that!

VAT: Taxpayers’ trust in HMRC is falling

By   6 August 2025
0

Recently published HM Treasury Minutes show that taxpayers’ trust in HMRC is falling. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) recommended that HMRC should work with taxpayers and their representatives to understand why trust in HMRC is falling and what it can do to quickly address the decline. Furthermore, the PAC recommended that HMRC should publish the concerns it has heard and the actions it is taking to address these, as a first step to improving trust.

HMRC agreed and the recommendation has been implemented. So, what is the plan?

The Plan

HMRC says it recognises five drivers of customer trust, being perceptions of:

  • fairness
  • competence
  • transparency
  • reciprocity
  • prevalent social norms

HMRC uses its annual customer surveys (most recently 2024), complaints data, and focus groups to understand these perceptions in driving changes in the headline measures for different customer groups. HMRC say it places ‘great value’ on customer feedback.

Alongside good customer service, trust depends on ensuring a fair tax ecosystem by holding to account those that do not pay the correct amount of tax, in addition to other factors such as prevailing trust in government.

The aim is to continue improving levels of trust by being more supportive, creating a level playing field, and ensuring its services and processes are quicker, easier and help more customers to get their taxes right first time.

For example:

  • delivering sustained improvements in HMRC’s helpline services
  • improving digital services
  • updating guidance regarding tax avoidance schemes
  • consulting on ways to improve intermediary standards and the benefits good advisers bring to the tax system, counter those that promote avoidance
  • reforming the tax administration framework
  • making improvements to services for tax advisers, such as improving the Agents Dedicated Line and Services Account, building digital transactional services and web-chat for tax advisers, and introducing a pre-complaint resolution service

HMRC publishes the results of its annual surveys as well as a range of other customer feedback eg; via exercises like public consultation. The Exchequer Secretary has confirmed that HMRC will publish a Transformation Roadmap this summer, including the details of digital services that will mean a better experience for taxpayers.

We await signs that HMRC’s services are improving and whether that lost trust can be returned. We have significant doubts, but remain open minded. 

VAT: The United Carpets case – single of multiple supplies?

By   5 August 2025
0

Latest from the courts

Yet more on composite or separate supplies. As a background to the issue please see previous relevant cases here here here and here. This is the latest the seemingly endless and conflicting series of cases on whether certain supplies are multiple or single. 

In the First-Tier Tribunal case (FTT) of United Carpets (Franchisor) Limited (UC) the issue was whether the appellant made a single supply of flooring and fitting or whether there were two separate supplies

Background

UC is a retailer of flooring (including carpets, underlay, vinyl and wood flooring), as well as beds. A customer who purchased flooring from the appellant was given the option to have an independent, self-employed, fitter to carry out the fitting of the purchased flooring. Each store has a pool of fitters who take on fitting work referred to them by the appellant. If the customer chooses, the fitter will attend the customer’s home to fit the flooring, as directed by the customer. The fitter is then paid by the customer for that work, with the money being received and retained, in full, by the fitter.

The fitters are self-employed and they use their own tools, and drive their own vehicles. They also have their own public liability insurance and are not covered by any of the appellant’s insurance policies. They are not paid by the UC and are not on the UC’s payroll. Since they are self-employed, the fitters have no ongoing obligations to the appellant (or vice versa) and can take on referrals as they please. The appellant does not hold any formal records for the fitters and is not aware of how much the fitters earn by way of the referrals. The rates charged by the fitters are determined by the fitters themselves.

The appellant’s Terms and Conditions of Sale included the following statements:

“The carpet fitting and delivery services provided by the Installer are supplied under a separate contract from the supply of goods to the Customer by the Company (UC). The Company is not responsible for the delivery or fitting of the Goods to the Customer.

“Full payment for the fitting services is due upon fitting payable by cash or cheque directly to the Installer. As detailed on the invoice, payment for the carpet fitting is made directly to the Installer under a separate contractual agreement between the Customer and the Installer…”

The issue

Whether the supplies of fitting services made to customers following the referral to the fitter by UC were supplies made by the self-employed carpet fitters who performed the services, or by UC as a single supply of flooring and fitting such that output tax was due from UC on both the retail sales and the fitting fees.

Contentions

HMRC determined that the appellant had incorrectly treated the supply of carpet fitting and contended that it supplied fitting services via sub-contractors and assessed the appellant for output tax on the fitting fees. HMRC further contend that the appellant made those supplies as part of a single supply, comprising both the flooring and the fitting services. Assessments were raised to recover the deemed underdeclared output tax.

UC’s position is that the self-employed fitters were completely independent, and that the fitting services do not form a single supply. Consequently, VAT was only due on the retail sales and not the fitting income.

Decision

The FTT concluded that there were two separate supplies:

  • the supply of goods by UC to the customer, and
  • the supply of services by the fitter to the customer.

After a review of the contractual documentation and the economic and commercial reality, the court was satisfied that there were three agreements:

  • between UC and the customer
  • between UC and the fitter
  • between the fitter and the customer

The fitter provided services to the end consumer who was liable to pay the fitter.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the assessments were set aside.

A significant amount of case law was cited (a list too long to reproduce here) but included were the cases of: Secret Hotels 2 Limited v HMRC; All Answers Ltd v HMRC and Tolsma v Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting Leeuwarden which were considered and applied.

Commentary

Yet another case on the perennial composite/single supply issue. This case was more straightforward than many on this subject and the outcome was no surprise. It is essential that businesses that potentially deal with agent/principal matters or make supplies at different VAT rates consider their position. Both contracts, other documentation and the commercial reality need to be considered. We recommend that in such circumstances a review is carried out specifically to establish the proper VAT position .

VAT: Input tax incurred on the management of pension funds

By   1 July 2025
0

HMRC has published Revenue and Customs Brief 4 (2025), which provides information about changes to VAT deduction on costs incurred in respect of the management of pension funds.

The Brief explains a further policy change to VAT deduction on the management of pension funds – Employers can now claim all the VAT on investment costs linked to pension funds. HMRC will no longer view investment costs as being subject to dual-use. Instead, all the associated input tax incurred will be seen as the employer’s and deductible by the employer, subject to normal deduction rule

They no longer need to split the costs with pension trustees. This was (prior to the introduction of the changes on 18 June 2025) a dual-use apportionment.

This Brief is relevant to:

  • businesses and other taxable entities that provide pension funds for their employees
  • pension administration and asset management service providers
  • pension fund trustees and pension providers
  • tax advisers

Impact on partial exemption methods

Businesses may need to propose new partial exemption special method (PESM) to align their VAT recovery with the new policy.

Background

HMRC’s historic policy was that employers could recover input tax they incurred on costs relating to the administration of their occupational pension funds, but not those in relation to the asset management of investments made by the fund.

Subsequently, HMRC changed its policy to allow employers recovery of input tax incurred on investment costs, provided that the employer could show evidence that they contracted and paid for the investment services.

HMRC has said that it will publish additional guidance on the new policy by Autumn 2025.

Commentary

This is very welcome news for managers of pension funds. It provides clarity and simplification in accounting, plus, more significantly; a much-improved VAT position whereby irrecoverable input tax can be avoided.

The HMRC climbdown is originally a result of the Fiscale Eenheid PPG Holdings BV cs te Hoogezand (C-26/12) CJEU case which considered an employer’s entitlement to deduct VAT paid on services relating to the administration of defined benefit pension funds and the management of the assets of the fund..

VAT: New guidance – Online Marketplace supplies

By   24 June 2025
0

HMRC issued new guidance for businesses which sell goods using an online marketplace on 20 June 2025. It enables online marketplace (an e-commerce site that connects sellers with buyers where transactions are managed by the website owner) operators to check if a seller is established outside the UK, so that it can establish which party is liable for VAT on sales.

Background

An online marketplace operator is liable for VAT on goods of any value that are both:

  • located in the UK at the point of sale
  • sold by an overseas business through the operator’s online marketplace

The operator needs to establish who is liable for VAT on sales of goods which are facilitated. To confirm this, the operator needs to take all reasonable steps to check whether a seller is established outside the UK. A business is required to keep evidence to show that it has taken all reasonable steps.

This new guidance includes details about how to check where an online marketplace seller is established and provides information about checks and process businesses can put in place. HMRC will review this evidence and will consider all evidence which has been used to establish where the seller is established. In each case, it will consider:

  • what steps were performed, including any that are designed to address the risks of a particular case
  • to what extent steps were appropriate, adequate and timely in relation to addressing the risks identified
  • what the results of the checks indicate
  • whether a business took appropriate action in response to the results

Examples of checks

HMRC give the following examples of types of checks which might be undertaken to determine if an online seller is UK-established:

  • check for a UK principal place of business
  • check that the VAT registration available for the seller matches their legal name and details on HMRC’s Check a UK VAT number tool
  • check that the seller is registered at Companies House with a UK address
  • establish whether directors reside in the UK, eg; as shown on the Companies House register
  • check that payment or financial information shows a UK presence. This can include:
    • UK bank or credit card details
    • UK merchant address attached to the seller bank account
    • other financial data provided by independent payment service providers
  • check other commercially relevant information such as credit checks and other background checks from third party sources
  • check that the device used by the seller has a UK IP address, or check another method of geolocation
  • establish whether the seller uses a phone number with a UK country code

Overview of online sellers

More general guidance from HMRC on online sellers:

The rules aim to avoid VAT evasion by non-UK online sellers.