Category Archives: Disputes

VAT Postal claims: Zipvit update

By   6 February 2017
0

A full background of this case may be found here

In summary: It was previously decided that certain supplies made by Royal Mail (RM) to its customers were taxable. This was on the basis of the TNT CJEU case. RM had treated them as exempt. HMRC was out of time to collect output tax, but claims made by recipients of RM’s services made retrospective claims. These claims were predicated on the basis that the amount paid to RM included VAT at the appropriate rate (it was embedded in the charge) and that UK VAT legislation stipulates that the “taxable amount” for any supply, is the amount paid by the customer including any VAT included in the price.

Update

We understand that Zipvit’s appeal against the decision by the Upper Tribunal that the relevant input tax was not recoverable has been listed on the Court Of Appeal’s register and is due to be heard in January 2018.

There are a lot of cases stood behind Zipvit and the amount of VAT involved is significant.  If you have an appeal stood behind this case, or act on behalf of a business which has, we recommend that a review of the position is carried out in light of the latest developments. We can assist which such a review if required.

VAT – What is a caravan? Latest from the courts

By   27 January 2017
0

Motorhomes versus caravans…

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Oak Tree Motorhomes Limited the simple issue was whether motorhomes may be considered to fall within the definition of a “caravan” and thus benefit from certain zero rating provisions.  Oak Tree sold certain vehicles commonly called ‘motor homes’, ‘motor caravans’ and ‘campervans’

The VAT Act 1994, Section 30(2) provides that supplies of goods of a description specified in Schedule 8 are zero-rated. At the relevant time this was VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 9, item 1 which described the following goods: “Caravans exceeding the limits of size for the time being permitted for the use on roads of a trailer drawn by a motor vehicle having an unladen weight of less than 2,030 kilogrammes.” Oak Tree contended that the sales of their vehicles were covered by this item and thus should have been zero rated rather than standard rated.

So what is a caravan?

The term is not defined in the VAT legislation, but HMRC base its interpretation on the definitions in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravans Sites Act 1968 as set out in Public Notice 701/20 para 2.1.  In that Notice HMRC state that:

“A caravan is a structure that:

  • is designed or adapted for human habitation
  • when assembled, is physically capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed or by being transported on a motor vehicle so designed or adapted), and
  • is no more than:
  • 20 metres long (exclusive of any drawbar)
  • 8 metres wide, or
  • 05 metres high (measured internally from the floor at the lowest level to the ceiling at the highest level)”

(Note: No reference is made to engine here).

The Decision

It was accepted by HMRC that the vehicles were large enough to qualify as caravans, so the matter turned on the interpretation of a “caravan” and whether the fact that the relevant vehicles incorporated an engine disbarred them. The UT did not appear to waste much time in agreeing with the First Tier Tribunal that a motorhome was not a caravan.  This was so even though accommodation in a motorhome and a qualifying caravan might be almost identical. The UT considered that the First Tier Tribunal’s interpretation of “caravan” by reference to the Oxford English Dictionary was appropriate. An important definition being one which refers to a caravan as generally “…able to be towed”. It was also decided that an engine represented “…an obvious and significant distinction” between a caravan and a motorhome.  It is also interesting that despite HMRC’s Notice referring to the Caravan Act 1960, the UT considered that this should not be used in determining whether a vehicle should be regarded as a caravan

Commentary

This was almost a foregone conclusion, but the appellant obviously thought it was worth another bite at the cherry as the claim was worth over £1.1 million (and an ongoing saving). There are lots of areas involving caravans that throw up VAT oddities, including, but not limited to; pitches, skirts, contents, holiday homes and compound/multiple supplies here 

It may also mean that HMRC will have to consider redrafting Notice 701/20

If a business is involved in any transactions involving caravans it would be prudent to consider whether all of the available reliefs are being taken advantage of, and whether VATable supplies have been correctly identified.

VAT – Overseas Holiday Lets: A Warning

By   16 January 2017
0
Do you, or your clients, own property overseas which you let to third parties when you are not using it yourself?

It is important to understand the VAT consequences of owning property overseas.

The position of UK Holiday Lets

It may not be commonly known that the UK has the highest VAT threshold in the EC. This means that for many ‘sideline’ businesses such as; the rental of second or holiday properties in the UK, the owners, whether they are; individuals, businesses, or pension schemes, only have to consider VAT if income in relation to the property exceeds £83,000 pa. and this is only likely if a number of properties are owned.

It should be noted that, unlike other types of rental of homes, holiday lettings are always taxable for VAT purposes.

Overseas Holiday Lets

Other EC Member States have nil thresholds for foreign entrepreneurs.  This means that if any rental income is received, VAT registration is likely to be compulsory. Consequently, a property owner that rents out a property abroad will probably have a liability to register for VAT in the country that the property is located.  Failure to comply with the domestic legislation of the relevant Member State may mean; payment of back VAT and interest and fines being levied. VAT registration however, does mean that a property owner can recover input tax on expenditure in connection with the property, eg; agent’s fees, repair and maintenance and other professional costs.  This may be restricted if the home is used for periodical own use.

Given that every EC Member State has differing rules and/or procedures to the UK, it is crucial to check all the consequences of letting property overseas. Additionally, if any other services are supplied, eg; transport, this gives rise to a whole new (and significantly more complex) set of VAT rules.

A final word of warning; I quite often hear the comment “I’m not going to bother – how will they ever find out?”

If an overseas property owner based in the UK is in competition with local letting businesses, those businesses generally do not have any compulsion in notifying the local authorities. In addition, I have heard of authorities carrying out very simple initiatives to see if owners are VAT registered. In many resorts, income from tourism is vital and this is a very important revenue stream for them so it is well policed.

Please contact us if you are affected by this matter; we have the resources to advise and act on a worldwide basis.

www.marcusward.co

VAT Self-billing and latest from the courts

By   6 January 2017
0

Self-billing: where the customer issues the invoice (and how this can go wrong).

A recent case Court of Appeal case: GB Housley here has highlighted the inherent dangers of using the self-billing system.  Self-billing is a very useful mechanism for a lot of businesses, especially in respect of activities like royalties and scrap purchases where the supplier may not know (or know immediately) the value of the supply.  Before we look at the case, it may be useful to recap the rules for self-billing.

Self-billing is an arrangement between a supplier and a customer. Both customer and supplier must be VAT registered. The customer prepares the supplier’s invoice and forwards a copy to the supplier with the payment.  There is no requirement to notify HMRC or get approval for using the arrangement.

If you are the customer

You issue the documentation and you are able to reclaim as input tax the VAT shown on the self-billing invoice.

In order to set up self-billing arrangements with your supplier you are required to:

  • enter into an agreement with each supplier
  • review agreements with suppliers at regular intervals
  • keep records of each of the suppliers who let you self-bill them
  • make sure invoices contain the required information and are correctly issued

If a supplier stops being registered for VAT then you can continue to self-bill them, but you can’t issue them with VAT invoices. Your self-billing arrangement with that supplier is no longer covered by the VAT regulations.

Self-billing agreements

You can only operate a self-billing arrangement if your supplier agrees to put one in place. If you don’t have an agreement with your supplier your self-billed invoices won’t be valid, and you won’t be able to reclaim the input tax shown on them.

Both parties need to sign a formal self-billing agreement. This is a legally binding document. The agreement must contain:

  • your supplier’s agreement that you, as the self-biller, can issue invoices on your supplier’s behalf
  • your supplier’s confirmation that they won’t issue VAT invoices for goods or services covered by the agreement
  • an expiry date – usually for 12 months’ time but it could be the date that any business contract you have with your supplier ends
  • your supplier’s agreement that they’ll let you know if they stop being registered for VAT
  • details of any third party you intend to outsource the self-billing process to

Reviewing self-billing agreements

Self-billing agreements usually last for 12 months. At the end of this you will need to review the agreement to make sure you can prove to HMRC that your supplier agrees to accept the self-billing invoices you issue on their behalf. It’s very important that you don’t self-bill a supplier when you don’t have their written agreement to do so.

Record keeping

If you are a self-biller you’ll need to keep certain records. These are:

  • copies of the agreements you make with your suppliers
  • the names, addresses and VAT registration numbers of the suppliers who have agreed that you can self-bill them

If you don’t keep the required records, then the self-billed invoices you issue won’t be proper VAT invoices.

All self-billed invoices must include the statement “The VAT shown is your output tax due to HMRC”.

It is important that a business does not add VAT to self-billed invoices that it issues to suppliers who are not VAT-registered.

A business will only be able to reclaim  input tax shown on self-billed invoices if it meets all the record keeping requirements.

If you are a VAT registered supplier

If one of your customers wants to set up a self-billing arrangement with you, they’ll ask you to agree to this in writing. If you agree, they will give you a self-billing agreement to sign.

For VAT purposes you will be required to do all of the following:

  • sign and keep a copy of the self-billing agreement
  • agree not to issue any sales invoices to your customer for any transaction during the period of the agreement
  • agree to accept the self-billing invoices that your customer issues
  • tell your customer at once if you change your VAT registration number, deregister from VAT, or transfer your business as a going concern

The VAT figure on the self-billed invoice your customer sends you is your output tax.   You are accountable to HMRC for output tax on the supplies you make to your customer, so you should check that your customer is applying the correct rate of VAT on the invoices they send you. If there has been a VAT rate change, you will need to check that the correct rate has been used.

The Case

The issues were whether the lack of formalised self-billing agreements disqualified the use of self-billing, and if that was the case, whether alternative evidence should have been accepted to support a claim for input tax. The CoA discharged HMRC’s assessment which was issued to GB Housley – a scrap metal merchant.

The assessment was based on input tax claims made on the basis of the self-billed documents.  It was ruled that although the self-billing was used in error, HMRC should have considered alternative evidence and used its discretion on whether to allow the claims on transactions which took place. For this reason, as it is unclear whether HMRC would have assessed if they had considered other information, the assessment should be removed.

A timely warning to ensure that all of the conditions of self-billing arrangements are met, and that this is clearly demonstrable.  Ongoing monitoring is crucial for businesses operating self-billing as an overlooked change can affect the VAT treatment.

In this case, it looks like the applicant was rather fortunate, but this outcome cannot be relied on if self-billing is applied incorrectly.

We are able to advise on such agreements, arrangements and accounting.

Crime doesn’t pay……..VAT. Is there tax on illegal activities?

By   4 January 2017
0
A gentle introduction to VAT for the new year.  A number of people have been surprised to find that crime does pay tax, thank you very much. It seems bad enough that the police should chase and catch you, put you in the dock and send you to prison, without finding that your first visitor is HMRC….

Dodgy perfume?

Goodwin & Unstead were in business selling counterfeit perfume. They were also up-front about what they were doing. Unstead claimed that “Everything I can carry in my vehicle, everything I trade in and sell, is a complete copy of the real thing. I do not sell goods as the real thing. In fact I sell my goods for a quarter of the original price. I am not out to defraud or con the public. I only appeal to the poseurs in life.”

The real manufacturers might have sued these men for passing off the product of their chemistry experiments in trademarked bottles, but it was HMRC who sent them to jail – for failing to register and pay VAT on their sales. The amount they should have collected was estimated at £750,000, which shows that they must have appealed to a great many poseurs.
.
If they had paid the VAT, Customs would have had no problem with them. Their customers must have been reasonably satisfied – if your counterfeit perfume smells something like the real thing, why worry?
They tried to get out of jail with an ingenious argument – if the sale of the perfume was illegal, surely there shouldn’t be VAT on it. It wasn’t legitimate business activity, so it wasn’t something that ought to be taxable. The European Court had no time for this. They pointed out that it would give lawbreakers an advantage over lawful businesses; they wouldn’t have to charge VAT. The judges suggested that maybe people would even deliberately break the law so they could get out of tax; in this case, the only thing that made the trade illegal was treading on someone’s trademark rights, and that was something that might happen at any time in legitimate businesses. The judges said that VAT would apply to any trade which competed in a legal marketplace, even if the particular sales broke the law for some reason. Counterfeit perfume is VATable because real perfume is too. Of course, Customs have traditionally had two main roles – looking for drug smugglers, and dealing with VAT-registered traders. They have generally treated both with much the same suspicion, but the ECJ made it clear in this case that the two sets of customers are completely separate.

“Personal” services?

Customers paid the escort £130, of which £30 was paid to the agency. VAT on £130 or VAT on £30?

The first hearing before the Tribunal went something like this (this may be using artistic licence, but the published summary implies it was so):

HMRC: “We think the VAT should be on £130 because the escorts are acting as agents of the escort business.”
Trader: “No, it’s just £30, the £100 belongs to the escort and is nothing to do with me.”
Tribunal chairman: “All right, tell me a bit about how the business operates.”
Customs: “No.”
Tribunal chairman: “What?”
Customs: “You don’t want to know.”
Tribunal chairman: “How can I decide whether the escorts are acting as agent or principals without knowing how the business operates?”
Customs: “Don’t go there, just give us a decision.”
Tribunal chairman: “Trader, you tell me how the business operates.”
Trader: “I agree with him, you don’t want to know.”
The Tribunal seems to have been a bit baffled by this. They were aware that Customs had a great deal more evidence which had been collected during the course of a thorough investigation, and they asked the parties to go away and decide whether they might let the Tribunal see a bit more of it so they could make a judgement rather than a guess.

What about drugs then?

It’s well-known that you are allowed to smoke dope in some establishments in Amsterdam, although the Dutch authorities are thinking about restricting this to Netherlands’ residents. They may find that such a rule contravenes the European Law on freedom of movement – under the EU treaty, you can’t be meaner to foreigners than you are to your own people just because they are foreign. That’s a nice idea, but individuals and governments keep trying it on. Anyway, the Coffeeshop Siberie rented space to drug dealers who would sell cannabis at tables for people to take advantage of the relaxed atmosphere. Presumably they are preparing to examine passports or local utility bills before making the sale, if only the Dutch are to be allowed to get stoned. Anyway, the Dutch authorities asked the coffee shop’s owners for VAT on the rent paid by the dealers, and the owners appealed to the ECJ. This time, surely, it was sufficiently illegal. Although the consumption of drugs was tolerated, it was still against the law, and it must therefore be not VATable.
The judges pointed out that the coffee shop was not actually selling drugs. They were just providing the space for other people to sell drugs. Although selling drugs was completely illegal, and there was no legitimate market in cannabis, renting space was a normal business activity. Renting space to someone who did something illegal with it was in the same category as the dodgy perfume sales in Goodwin & Unstead: it was a bit illegal, but not illegal enough. The VAT was still due.

Counterfeiting?

In a German case, the ECJ ruled that the importation of counterfeit money was outside the scope of VAT. The Advocate-General observed that a line must be drawn between, on the one hand, transactions that lie so clearly outside the sphere of legitimate economic activity that, instead of being taxed, they can only be the subject of criminal prosecution, and, on the other hand, transactions which though unlawful must nonetheless be taxed, if only for ensuring in the name of fiscal neutrality, that the criminal is not treated more favourably than the legitimate trader’.

So, there you have it, if you are of a criminal disposition, and you want to avoid VAT, funny money is the way to go.  Please note, this does not constitute advice…..!

VAT: Latest from the courts – Pole Tax?

By   20 December 2016
0

(Pardon the dreadful pun).

The Court of Appeal case of Wilton Park Ltd and Secrets Ltd

Background

The appellant operated an “exotic dancing” club which featured table and lap dancing.  It received commission from self-employed dancers which was treated as exempt from VAT.  This was on the basis that the commissions were charged on redemption of vouchers (known as Secrets Money) such that it represented the services of dealing with security for money.  Customers were able to purchase Secrets Money with the addition of a 20% commission. The vouchers were used to pay individual dancers who subsequently needed to exchange the vouchers for cash.  The taxpayer charged a 20% fee for such a conversion.

The issue

The issue was whether face-value vouchers issued by appellant companies constituted “…any security for money” within the VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, item 1.   HMRC argued that the redemption of the vouchers was part of a taxable supply of performance facilitation services by the taxpayer and thus standard rated.

Decision

Not surprisingly, the CoA dismissed the appeal, agreeing with both the FTT and UT in holding that the provision of the club’s facilities formed part of the consideration for the commission an consequently was not an exempt supply.

Commentary

This appears a rather desperate appeal, and there still remains the possibility that the taxpayer could take the matter to the Supreme Court.  It illustrates that simply putting in a mechanism which adds a degree of complexity does not affect the overriding VAT analysis.  What was provided and what was paid for here seems reasonably apparent and it is quite a leap to consider the structure was simply exchanging vouchers for cash.  It also occurs that this would be a very straightforward way for other businesses to avoid paying VAT if the appellant had been successful.

For more on this subject (should that be your thing…….) a read of the Spearmint Rhino case not only explores the structure/relationship between dancers and club owners but is also rather good entertainment and provides an amusing yet illustrative overview of the agent/principal issue (and is not salacious in the least…..).

Oops! – Top Ten VAT howlers

By   16 December 2016
0
I am often asked what the most frequent VAT errors made by a business are. I usually reply along the lines of “a general poor understanding of VAT, considering the tax too late or just plain missing a VAT issue”.  While this is unquestionably true, a little further thought results in this top ten list of VAT horrors:
  1. Not considering that HMRC may be wrong. There is a general assumption that HMRC know what they are doing. While this is true in most cases, the complexity and fast moving nature of the tax can often catch an inspector out. Added to this is the fact that in most cases inspectors refer to HMRC guidance (which is HMRC’s interpretation of the law) rather to the legislation itself. Reference to the legislation isn’t always straightforward either, as often EC rather than UK domestic legislation is cited to support an analysis. The moral to the story is that tax is complicated for the regulator as well, and no business should feel fearful or reticent about challenging a HMRC decision.
  2. Missing a VAT issue altogether. A lot of errors are as a result of VAT not being considered at all. This is usually in relation to unusual or one-off transactions (particularly land and property or sales of businesses). Not recognising a VAT “triggerpoint” can result in an unexpected VAT bill, penalties and interest, plus a possible reduction of income of 20% or an added 20% in costs. Of course, one of the basic howlers is not registering at the correct time. Beware the late registration penalty, plus even more stringent penalties if HMRC consider that not registering has been done deliberately.
  3.  Not considering alternative structures. If VAT is looked at early enough, there is very often ways to avoid VAT representing a cost. Even if this is not possible, there may be ways of mitigating a VAT hit.
  4.  Assuming that all transactions with overseas customers are VAT free. There is no “one size fits all” treatment for cross border transactions. There are different rules for goods and services and a vast array of different rules for different services. The increase in trading via the internet has only added to the complexity in this area, and with new technology only likely to increase the rate of new types of supply it is crucial to consider the implications of tax; in the UK and elsewhere.
  5.  Leaving VAT planning to the last minute. VAT is time sensitive and it is not usually possible to plan retrospectively. Once an event has occurred it is normally too late to amend any transactions or structures. VAT shouldn’t wag the commercial dog, but failure to deal with it at the right time may be either a deal-breaker or a costly mistake.
  6.  Getting the option to tax wrong. Opting to tax is one area of VAT where a taxpayer has a choice. This affords the possibility of making the wrong choice, for whatever reasons. Not opting to tax when beneficial, or opting when it is detrimental can hugely impact on the profitability of a project. Not many businesses can carry the cost of, say, not being able to recover VAT on the purchase of a property, or not being able to recover input tax on a big refurbishment. Additionally, seeing expected income being reduced by 20% will usually wipe out any profit in a transaction.
  7.  Not realising a business is partly exempt. For a business, exemption is a VAT cost, not a relief. Apart from the complexity of partial exemption, a partly exempt business will not be permitted to reclaim all of the input tax it incurs and this represents an actual cost. In fact, a business which only makes exempt supplies will not be able to VAT register, so all input tax will be lost. There is a lot of planning that may be employed for partly exempt businesses and not taking advantage of this often creates additional VAT costs.
  8.  Relying on the partial exemption standard method to the business’ disadvantage. A partly exempt business has the opportunity to consider many methods to calculate irrecoverable input tax. The default method, the “standard method” often provides an unfair and costly result. I recommend that any partly exempt business obtains a review of its activities from a specialist. I have been able to save significant amounts for clients simply by agreeing an alternative partial exemption method with HMRC.
  9.  Not taking advantage of the available reliefs. There are a range of reliefs available, if one knows where to look. From Bad Debt Relief, Zero Rating (VAT nirvana!) and certain de minimis limits to charity reliefs and the Flat Rate Scheme, there are a number of easements and simplifications which could save a business money and reduce administrative and time costs.
  10.  Forgetting the impact of the Capital Goods Scheme. The range of costs covered by this scheme has been expanded recently. Broadly, VAT incurred on certain expenditure is required to be adjusted over a five or ten year period. Failure to recognise this could either result in assessments and penalties, or a position whereby input tax has been under-claimed. The CGS also “passes on” when a TOGC occurs, so extra caution is necessary in these cases.

So, you may ask: “How do I make sure that I avoid these VAT pitfalls?” – And you would be right to ask.

Of course, I would recommend that you engage a VAT specialist to help reduce the exposure to VAT costs!

VAT Splitting a business to avoid registration: Disaggregation

By   8 December 2016
0
I have a cunning plan to avoid registering for VAT…….

….I’ll simply split my business into separate parts which are all under the VAT registration turnover limit – ha!

I’ve heard this said many a time in “bloke in the pub” situations. But is it possible?

You will not be surprised to learn that HMRC don’t like such schemes and there is legislation and case law for them to use to attack such planning known as “disaggregation”. This simply means artificially splitting a business.

What HMRC will consider to be artificial separation:

HMRC will be concerned with separations which are a contrived device set up to circumvent the normal VAT registration rules. Whether any particular separation will be considered artificial will, in most cases, depend upon the specific circumstances. Accordingly it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of all the types of separations that HMRC will view as artificial. However, the following are examples of when HMRC would at least make further enquiries:

Separate entities supply registered and unregistered customers

In this type of separation, the registered entity supplies any registered customers and the unregistered part supplies unregistered customers.

Same equipment/premises used by different entities on a regular basis

In this type of situation, a series of entities operates the same equipment and/or premises for a set period in any one-week or month. Generally the premises and/or equipment is owned by one of the parties who charges rent to the others. This situation may occur in launderettes and take-aways such as fish and chip shops or mobile catering equipment.

Splitting up of what is usually a single supply

This type of separation is common in the bed and breakfast trade where one entity supplies the bed and another the breakfast. Another is in the livery trade where one entity supplies the stabling and another, the hay to feed the animals. There are more complex examples, but the similar tests are applied to them too.

Artificially separated businesses which maintain the appearance of a single business

A simple example of this type of separation includes; pubs in which the bar and catering may be artificially separated. In most cases the customer will consider the food and the drinks as bought from the pub and not from two independent businesses. The relationship between the parties in such circumstances will be important here as truly franchised “shop within a shop” arrangements will not normally be considered artificial.

One person has a controlling influence in a number of entities which all make the same type of supply in diverse locations

In this type of separation a number of outlets which make the same type of supplies are run by separate companies which are under the control of the same person. Although this is not as frequently encountered as some of the other situations, the resulting tax loss may be significant.

The meaning of financial, economic and organisational links

Again each case will depend on its specific circumstances. The following examples illustrate the types of factors indicative of the necessary links, although there will be many others:

Financial links

  • financial support given by one part to another part
  • one part would not be financially viable without support from another part
  • common financial interest in the proceeds of the business

Economic links

  • seeking to realise the same economic objective
  • the activities of one part benefit the other part
  • supplying the same circle of customers

Organisational links

  •  common management
  • common employees
  • common premises
  • common equipment

HMRC often attack structures which were not designed simply to avoid VAT registration, so care should be taken when any entity VAT registers, or a conscious decision is made not to VAT register. Registration is a good time to have a business’ activities and structure reviewed by an adviser.

As with most aspects of VAT, there are significant and draconian penalties for getting registration wrong, especially if HMRC consider that it has been done deliberately to avoid paying VAT.

VAT – Input tax on buy out costs and VAT grouping

By   23 November 2016
0

Latest from the courts

May input tax incurred by a VAT group be attributed to the activities of a single member of that group?

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Heating and Plumbing Supplies Ltd, the issue was whether input tax incurred on professional costs of a management buyout were recoverable.

Background

A company was formed with the intention of buying the shares of a trading company.  The purchasing company and the trading company were then VAT grouped and the professional costs were invoiced to, and paid for, by the VAT group (the tax point being created after the date that the VAT group was formed).  HMRC disallowed the claim for the relevant input tax on the grounds that the purchasing company itself did not make any taxable supplies (it did not engage in an economic activity).  While this may have been correct, the appellant contended that in these circumstances, the VAT group must be considered as a single taxable person and that the activities of the group as a whole that should be considered. The input tax was an overhead of the group, and because the group itself only made taxable supplies (via the representative member) the input tax was recoverable in full by the representative member

Decision

Following recent case law in Skandia America at the Court of Justice, the judge here decided in favour of the appellant. It was ruled that HMRC may not look at the purchasing company in isolation but rather, the group must be considered as a whole.  The FTT stated that “when a VAT group is formed the identities of the individual members of the group disappear…” meaning that a VAT group is a single taxable entity, the VAT status of the individual members being irrelevant in this situation. This confirms our long held view on the status of VAT groups and provides welcome clarification on the matter.

Relevance

This case highlights that HMRC’s policy of looking at the activities of a group member individually is inappropriate.  This is so even if the grouping structure provides input tax recovery which would not have been available had the companies been VAT registered independently.

Typically in these circumstances, HMRC will either challenge the decision, or amend its guidance to reflect this ruling.  We await news on how HMRC will react.

Action

If a business has either been denied input tax on buy out or similar acquisition costs, or made a decision not to recover this VAT, it would be prudent to lodge a claim with HMRC (plus interest).

We are able to assist with such a claim.

www.marcusward.co

VAT Latest from the courts – Application of Capital Goods Scheme

By   10 November 2016
0

Should the costs of a phased development be aggregated, and if so, do the anti-avoidance provisions apply?

In the case of Water Property Limited (WPL) the First Tier Tribunal was asked to consider the application of; the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) and the anti-avoidance provisions set out in the VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10, para 12.

A helpful guide to the CGS is here

Background

WPL purchased land and buildings formerly used as a public house, subject to planning permission to convert the ground floor into a children’s day care nursery and the upper floor into residential flats. The planning permission was subsequently granted. WPL paid £210,000 plus £37,500 VAT on the acquisition of the ex-pub in March 2013. The children’s nursery business was kept separate from the property development business to enable the children’s nursery business to be sold at a date in the future and for the leasehold reversion to be retained as an investment by WPL.  The value of the building contract for the nursery was £209,812.34 including VAT. The value of the contract for the residential flats was £161,546.42 including VAT. The consideration for the acquisition and each phase of development was below £250,000 (the threshold at which land and buildings become CGS items) but combined, they exceeded the £250,000 limit. WPL exercised an option to tax on the property and entered into a lease with Smile Childcare Limited (SCL).  SCL was established to carry on a business of the provision of nursery care for infant children. It was jointly owned by Mr and Mrs Waters. Mrs Waters as the operator of the children’s nursery.

WPL recovered input tax on costs incurred in respect of the nursery, but not the flats. It was accepted by the appellant that SCL and WPL were “connected” within the meaning of VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10, para 13 and that the activity of carrying on the business of a nursery was an exempt activity.

Issue

HMRC formed the view that the option to tax should be disapplied by virtue of the anti-avoidance legislation meaning that no input tax was recoverable. This is because the property was, or was intended to become, a CGS item and the ‘exempt land test’ is met. This test is met if, at the time the grant is made, the grantor, or a person connected with the grantor expects the land to be used for an exempt purpose.

So the issue was whether the land constituted a CGS item.  That is, whether the value of the two elements forming the phased development should be aggregated.

Decision

The FTT allowed the taxpayer’s appeal against HMRC’s decision. It was decided that the acquisition and development costs were financed through different means; there were separate contracts for each phase; there was no overlap in the works* and HMRC had not identified any evasion, avoidance or abuse and considered that the costs did not need to be aggregated.  In addition, it was concluded that WPL had relied on HMRC guidance in determining that there was no requirement to aggregate the cost of the phased development provided that there was no overlap in time.

As a consequence, as each part of the development fell below the £250,000 limit, there were no CGS items.  Therefore the fact that the parties were connected was irrelevant and the anti-avoidance provisions did not apply such that the option to tax could not be disapplied meaning that the recovery of the input tax was appropriate. The Chairman also commented that the appellant had a legitimate expectation to rely on the guidance provided by HMRC (in this case the provision of a copy of Public Notice 706/2).

Commentary

There is often uncertainty on the VAT position of land and property developments of this kind, and the interaction with the CGS is rarely straightforward.  This is not helped by HMRC’s interpretation of the rules.

Action

If any business or advisers with clients which have been;

  •  forced to use the CGS as a result of aggregation
  • subject to the application of the anti-avoidance provisions
  • assessed despite relying on HMRC’s published guidance

they should seek advice and review their position. We can advise in such circumstances.

 * As per PN 706/2 Para 4.12 as follows
 “What if the refurbishment is in phases?
If you do this you will need to decide whether the work should be treated as a whole for CGS [capital goods scheme] purposes or whether there is more than one refurbishment. If you think that each phase is really a separate refurbishment then they should be treated separately for CGS purposes. Normally there is more than one refurbishment when:
· There are separate contracts for each phase of work, or;
· A contract where each phase is a separate option which can be selected, and;
· Each phase of work is completed before work on the next phase starts…”