Category Archives: Disputes

VAT evasion by non-EU online sellers

By   26 April 2017
0

Investigation by The National Audit Office (NAO) into overseas sellers failing to charge VAT on online sales.

The NAO have investigated concerns that online sellers outside the EU are avoiding charging VAT. Full report here

The NAO has published the findings from its investigation into the concern that online sellers based outside the EU are not charging VAT on goods located in the UK when sold to UK customers. Online sales accounted for 14.5% of all UK retail sales in 2016, just over half of these were non-store sales, mainly through online marketplaces.

VAT rules require that all traders based outside the EU selling goods online to customers in the UK should charge VAT if their goods are already in the UK at the point of sale. In these cases, sellers should pay import VAT and customs duties when the goods are imported into the UK and charge their customers VAT on the final selling price. The sellers should also be registered with HMRC and are required to submit regular VAT returns.

Some of the key findings of the investigation are as follows:

HMRC estimates that online VAT fraud and error cost between £1 billion and £1.5 billion in lost tax revenue in 2015-16 but this estimate is subject to a high level of uncertainty. This estimate represents between 8% and 12% of the total VAT gap (The VAT gap is the difference between the amount of VAT that should, in theory, be collected by HMRC, against what is actually collected) of £12.2 billion in 2015-16. UK trader groups believe the problem is widespread, and that some of the biggest online sellers of particular products are not charging VAT. These estimates exclude wider impacts of this problem such as the distortion of the competitive market landscape.

HMRC recognised online VAT fraud and error as a priority in 2014, although the potential risk from online trading generally was raised before this. In 2013 the NAO reported that HMRC had not yet produced a comprehensive plan to react to the emerging threat to the VAT system posed by online trading. The report found HMRC had developed tools to identify internet-based traders and launched campaigns to encourage compliance but had shown less urgency in developing its operational response. Trader groups claim that online VAT fraud has been a problem as early as 2009, which has got significantly worse in the past five years. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute shares this view. Based on the emergence of the fulfilment house (a warehouse where goods can be stored before delivery to the customer) model, HMRC recognised online VAT fraud and error as one of its key risks in 2014 and began to increase resources in this area in 2015.

HMRC’s assessment is that online VAT losses are due to a range of non-compliant behaviours, but has not yet been able to assess how much is due to lack of awareness, error or deliberate fraud. Amazon and eBay consider that lack of awareness of the VAT rules is a major element of the problem. Amazon and eBay have focused on educating overseas sellers and providing tools to assist with VAT reporting and compliance. HMRC’s strategic threat assessment, carried out in 2014, concluded it was highly likely that both organised criminal groups based in the UK and overseas sellers in China were using fulfilment houses to facilitate the transit of undervalued or misclassified goods, or both, from China to the UK for sale online.

HMRC introduced new legal powers to tackle online VAT fraud and error in September 2016. The new joint and several liability power gives HMRC a new way to tackle suspected non-compliance, and is the first time any country has introduced such a power for this purpose. The new powers include making online marketplaces potentially jointly and severally liable for non-payment of VAT when HMRC has informed them of an issue with a seller, and they do not subsequently take appropriate action.

Conclusion

Online VAT fraud and error causes substantial losses to the UK Exchequer and undermines the competitiveness of UK businesses. Compliance with the VAT rules is a legal requirement. Not knowing about the rules does not excuse non-compliance. The UK trader groups who raised the issue report having experienced the impact of this problem through progressively fewer sales. They consider HMRC has been slow in reacting to the emerging problem of online VAT fraud and error and that there do not seem to be penalties of sufficient severity to act as a substantial deterrent.

It is too soon to conclude on the effectiveness and impact of HMRC’s new powers and whether the resources devoted by HMRC to using them match the scale of the problem. We recognise that HMRC must consider effort and efficiency in collecting VAT but its enforcement approach to online trade appears likely to continue the existing unfair advantage as perceived by UK trader groups. This is contrary to HMRC’s policy of encouraging voluntary compliance and it does not take account of the powerful effect that HMRC’s enforcement approach has on the operation of the online market as a whole. We intend to return to this subject in the future.

Further to the above, this article suggests that HMRC should have acted even earlier.

VAT Update on Associated Newspapers case – treatment of vouchers

By   24 April 2017
0

Two months ago the Court of Appeal mainly ruled in favour of Associated Newspapers on the treatment of vouchers.  Commentary and links here

The decision consequently cast doubt on HMRC’s published guidance on the VAT treatment of vouchers.

HMRC have announced that they are seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.  Although this further delays definitive rules on vouchers, it is hoped that if it goes to the Supreme Court we will get some sort of closure on this matter.

VAT Latest from the courts – Employment businesses

By   21 March 2017
0

The Adecco case

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Adecco the judge considered the tripartite situation between certain self-employed workers, employment businesses (Adecco) and the actual clients. Specifically, whether Adecco provides self-employed temporary workers to clients for the total consideration paid by client or only introductory services for commission retained by the employment business.  Broadly, whether temporary workers supply their services to Adecco or to the clients.

Background

Based on the Reed Employment Ltd v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 200 (TC) “Reed” case.  Reed also concerned the VAT treatment of supplies by an employment bureau in relation to the services of non-employed temps. The FTT in Reed concluded that the employment bureau was making supplies of introductory services to clients in respect of the placement of non-employed temps. The value of the introductory services was the commission charged to clients for the introduction of the temps and the employment bureau was only required to charge and account for VAT on its commission and not on the non-employed temps’ remuneration. Following Reed, Adecco made claims for repayment of the VAT which it had charged and accounted for in respect of payments representing the non-employed temps’ remuneration. HMRC rejected the claims. One of the reasons given for the rejection was that Adecco did not merely supply a service of introducing the non-employed temps to the clients but also supplied the non-employed temps’ services.

Decision

The UT found in favour of HMRC. It found that output tax is due on the full amount paid by the clients rather than the commission retained.  The full amount included earnings paid to the temporary workers.  The decision was based on the contracts in place in this instant case and it is possible that a different outcome would have occurred if a wider view was taken and/or if the relationship between contracts and economic reality had been considered.

Consequences

It is unlikely that this will be the definitive word on the matter and it is expected that further challenges to HMRC’s stance will be made given the two different outcomes in Reed and Adecco.  As always in these types of cases, it demonstrates the importance of contracts and careful consideration of the relationships between the parties.

For more on agent/principal relationships please see my articles on latest relevant court cases here and here

Please contact us if this case impacts on your business or that of your clients.

VAT Latest from the courts – Allocation of payments

By   13 March 2017
0

VAT payment problems

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Swanfield Limited (Swanfield)

The matter was whether HMRC had the right to allocate payments made by the applicant to specific periods against the wishes of the taxpayer.

Background

Swanfield was late with returns/payments such that it was subject to the Default Surcharge (DS) mechanism.  Details of the DS regime here

HMRC issued DSs to Swanfield, many at the maximum rate 15%. The total involved was said to be over £290,000. However, if the payments made by Swanfield had been allocated in a certain way (broadly; to recent debts as desired by the taxpayer) it would have substantially reduced the amount payable. However, HMRC allocated the payments to previous, older periods which were not the subject of a DS.

The Issue

The issue was relatively straightforward; did HMRC have the authority to allocate payments as they deemed fit, or could the taxpayer make payments for specific periods as required?

The Decision

The UT found that Swanfield were entitled to allocate payments made to amounts which would become due on supplies made in the (then) current period, even though the due date had not yet arrived.  Additionally, HMRC did not have the authority to unilaterally allocate payments made by the taxpayer to historical liabilities as they saw fit, in cases where the taxpayer has explicitly made those payments in relation to current periods.  In cases where there is no specific instruction in respect of allocation of the payment, HMRC was entitled to allocate payment without any obligation to minimise DS. The UT remitted this case back to the First Tier Tribunal to decide, as a matter of fact, whether Swanfield had actually made the necessary allocation.

Commentary

This is a helpful case which sets out clearly the responsibilities of both parties.  It underlines the necessity of a taxpayer to focus on payments and how to manage a debt position to mitigate any penalties.  Staying silent on payments plays into the hands of HMRC. It is crucial to take a proper view of a business’ VAT payment position, especially if there is difficulties lodging returns of making payment. Planning often reduces the overall amount payable, or provides for additional time to pay (TTP).  A helpful overview of payment problems here

Things can be done if a business is getting into difficulties with VAT; whether they are; reporting, submitting returns, making payments, or if there are disputes with HMRC. There are also structures that may be put in place to assist with VAT cashflow.

We would always counsel a business not to bury its head in the sand if there are difficulties with HMRC.  Please make contact with us and, in almost all cases, we can improve the situation, along with providing some relief from worries. VAT may be payable, but there are ways of managing payments – as this case demonstrates.

Office of Tax Simplification reports on VAT

By   6 March 2017
0

The Office of Tax Simplification has recently published its interim report on VAT simplification.

Full details here

The main areas covered are:

  • The UK’s high VAT registration threshold
  • Incidental exempt supplies
  • Complexity of multiple rates
  • Option to Tax and Capital Goods Scheme
  • Treatment of VAT overpayments
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (details of ADR here)
  • Non-Statutory clearances by HMRC
  • Special schemes eg; Flat rate Scheme and TOMS
  • Penalties

Please contact us should you have any queries on any of the issues covered by the report.

VAT – Claiming input tax on fuel. A warning

By   27 February 2017
0

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Cohens Chemist the issue was whether VAT paid on employees’ mileage expenses was recoverable.

Background

The appellant offers a delivery service of prescription medicines.  This service was undertaken by the appellants’ employees, using their own vehicles. The employees buy the fuel which is to be used in their vehicles, with their own money, and later submit claims to the appellants for the payment of a mileage allowance related to the distance covered.  The allowance includes an element of reimbursement for the fuel used.  The appellant then claim credit for the input tax included in the cost of the fuel which they have reimbursed in this way. This is permissible via VAT (Input Tax) (Reimbursement by Employers of Employees’ Business Use of Road Fuel) Regulations 2005. HMRC sought to disallow these claims on the basis that there were no supporting invoices form the petrol stations and that the detailed records kept were not sufficient to support the recovery of VAT.

Decision

Unfortunately for the taxpayer,  it was decided that the failure by to retain fuel receipts in compliance with mandatory requirement of Regulations meant that the disallowance of the input tax claims was appropriate.  This was particularly costly for Cohens Chemist as the input tax at stake here was £67,000. Additionally, the Tribunal held that there was discretion to allow alternative evidence and that this discretion was reasonably exercised to reject the claim.

Commentary 

A very simple lesson to be learned from this case:

Always obtain and retain fuel receipts!  

Failure to do so can be very costly, and it does not matter how detailed and accurate your fuel records are.  You must check your system for the VAT treatment of fuel allowances.

VAT Latest from the courts – White Goods claims by housebuilders

By   27 February 2017
0

Recovery of input tax on goods included in the sale of a new house.

The recent Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Taylor Wimpey plc considered whether builders of new dwellings are able to recover input tax incurred on certain expenditure on goods supplied with the sale of a new house. We are aware that there are many cases stood behind this hearing and it is understood that the appellant’s claim amounts to circa £60 million alone. Unfortunately, the UT ruled against the appellant.

The rules

Before considering the impact of the case, I thought it worthwhile to look at the rules on this matter.

There is in place a Blocking Order (“Builders’ Block”) which prohibits recovery of input tax on goods which are not “building materials”. In most cases it is simple to determine what building materials are; bricks, mortar, timber etc, but the difficulty comes with items such as white goods (ovens, hobs, washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators etc) carpets, and similar.  So what are the rules?

These are set out in HMRC’s VAT Notice 708 para 13.2

There are five criteria:

  • The articles are incorporated into the buildings (or its site)
  • the articles are “ordinarily” incorporated by builders into that type of building
  • other than kitchen furniture, the articles are not finished or prefabricated furniture, or materials for the construction of fitted furniture
  • with certain exceptions, the articles are not gas or electrical appliances
  • the articles are not carpets or carpeting material

To qualify as building materials, goods have to meet all of these criteria

Examples of specific goods are given at VAT Notice 708 para 13.8 

The case

Generally, Taylor Wimpey’s argument was that under the VAT law in force at the time of the claim it was entitled to recover the VAT paid on these items and the Builders’ Block did not prevent it from recovering input tax on these goods. The VAT was properly recoverable as it was attributable to the zero rated sale of the house when complete. Taylor Wimpey further contended that if the Builder’s Block did apply, it was unlawful under EU law and should therefore be disapplied.  Additionally, there was a challenge on the meaning of “incorporates … in any part of the building or its site” and the meaning of “ordinarily installed by builders as fixtures”.

The Builders’ Block which prevents housebuilders from reclaiming VAT on such goods was challenged on the basis that the UK was not allowed to extend input tax blocks, as it had done in 1984 (white goods) and 1987 (carpets).

The decision

The UT ruled that the block could be extended in relation to supplies which were zero-rated and that the block properly applied to most of appellants’ claim.  The UT held that only goods “ordinarily installed” in a house were excepted from the block, but that exception does not cover white goods and fitted carpets supplied since the appropriate rule changes.

Commentary

This ruling was not really a surprise and, unless Taylor Wimpey pursues this further it provides clarity.  It demonstrates that technology and the requirements of a modern house purchaser have moved on significantly since the 1970s and 1980s.  I doubt many houses built in the 1970s had dishwashers or extractor hoods.  The ruling does bear reading from a technical viewpoint as my summary does not go into the full reasons for the decision.  If you, or your client have a claim stood behind this case it is obviously not good news as claims for white goods are extremely limited.  If you have mistakenly claimed for white or similar goods, it would be prudent to review the position in light of this case.  The decision also affects claims via the DIY Housebuilder’s Scheme.  Details of this scheme here

The penalty regime…the dark side of VAT

By   20 February 2017
0
VAT Penalties

I have made a lot of references to penalties in other articles over the years. So I thought it would be a good idea to have a closer look; what are they, when are they levied, rights of appeal, and importantly how much could they cost if a business gets it wrong?

Overview

Making mistakes…

Broadly, a penalty is levied if the incorrect amount of VAT is declared, either by understating output tax due, overclaiming input tax, or accepting an assessment which is known to be too low.

Amount of penalty

HMRC detail three categories of inaccuracy. These are significant, as each has its own range of penalty percentages. If an error is found to fall within a lower band, then a lower penalty rate will apply. Where the taxpayer has taken ‘reasonable care,’ even though an error has been made, then no penalty will apply.

  • An error, when reasonable care not taken: 30%;
  • An error which is deliberate, but not concealed: 70%;
  • An error, which is deliberate and concealed: 100%.

Reasonable care

There is no definition of ‘reasonable care’. However, HMRC have said that they would not expect the same level of knowledge or expertise from a self-employed person, as from a large multi-national.

HMRC expect that, where an issue is unclear, advice is sought, and a record maintained of that advice. They also expect that, where an error is made, it is adjusted, and HMRC notified promptly. They have specifically stated that merely to adjust a return will not constitute a full disclosure of an error. Therefore a penalty may still be applicable. We advise that, even if an error is not required to be reported independently on a form VAT652 (usually if < £10,000 of VAT) a letter is sent to HMRC disclosing that the error has been adjusted on the return. We have a standard template available for this process.

What the penalty is based on

The amount of the penalty is calculated by applying the appropriate penalty rate (above) to the ‘Potential Lost Revenue’ or PLR. This is essentially the additional amount of VAT due or payable, as a result of the inaccuracy, or the failure to notify an under-assessment. Special rules apply where there are a number of errors, and they fall into different penalty bands.

Defending a penalty 

The percentage penalty may be reduced by a range of ‘defences”.  These are:

– Telling; this includes admitting the document was inaccurate, or that there was an under-assessment, disclosing the inaccuracy in full, and explaining how and why the inaccuracies arose;

– Helping; this includes giving reasonable help in quantifying the inaccuracy, giving positive assistance rather than passive acceptance, actively engaging in work required to quantify the inaccuracy, and volunteering any relevant information;

– Giving Access; this includes providing documents, granting requests for information, allowing access to records and other documents.

Further, where there is an ‘unprompted disclosure’ of the error, HMRC have power to reduce the penalty further. This measure is designed to encourage businesses to review their own VAT returns.

A disclosure is unprompted if it is made at a time when a person had no reason to believe that HMRC have discovered or are about to discover the inaccuracy. The disclosure will be treated as unprompted even if at the time it is made, the full extent of the error is not known, as long as fuller details are provided within a reasonable time.

HMRC have included a provision whereby a penalty can be suspended for up to two years. This will occur for a careless inaccuracy, not a deliberate inaccuracy. HMRC will consider suspension of a penalty where, given the imposition of certain conditions, the business will improve its accuracy. The aim is to improve future compliance, and encourage businesses which genuinely seek to fulfil their obligations. We have noticed that HMRC is increasingly using the penalty suspension mechanism.

Appealing a penalty 

HMRC have an internal reconsideration procedure, where a business should apply to in the first instance. If the outcome is not satisfactory, the business can pursue an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. A business can appeal on the grounds of; whether a penalty is applicable, the amount of the penalty, a decision not to suspend a penalty, and the conditions for suspension.

The normal time limit for penalties to four years. Additionally, where there is deliberate action to evade VAT, a 20 year limit applies. In particular, this applies to a loss of VAT which arises as a result of a deliberate inaccuracy in a document submitted by that person.

These are just the penalties for making “errors” on VAT returns. HMRC have plenty more for anything from late registration to issuing the wrong paperwork.

Assistance

Our advice is always to check on all aspects of a penalty and seek assistance for grounds to challenge a decision to levy a penalty. We have a very high success rate in defending businesses against inappropriate penalties.  It is always worth running a penalty past us.

VAT Latest from the courts; vouchers (again)

By   13 February 2017
0

The Court of Appeal (CA) case: Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) considered the VAT treatment of free vouchers.

Business promotions are an area of VAT which continues to prove complex.  This is further exacerbated by changes to the legislation at EC and domestic level and ongoing case law.   A background to the issue of vouchers here 

And a background to the hearing of this particular case at the Upper Tribunal here

Background

The appeal concerned the VAT consequences (in respect of both input and output tax) of promotional schemes carried out by ANL in order to boost the circulation of the newspapers: Daily Mail and the Mail On Sunday.  ANL gave away Marks & Spencer vouchers to people who bought these newspapers for a minimum of three months. The questions where whether attributable (to the provision of the vouchers) input tax was recoverable, and, was there a deemed supply such that output tax was due on the vouchers.  One scheme was managed for ANL by The Hut.com Limited. The Hut received a fee for its services which was subject to VAT and which ANL sought to deduct as input tax. The Hut also purchased the retailer vouchers in batches (usually at a discount) and invoiced them to ANL at cost and also subject to VAT.  In another scheme, ANL purchased vouchers directly from Marks & Spencer.

Decision

HMRC sought to rely on  paragraph 14 of VAT Information Sheet 12/2003, viz: “Where face value vouchers are purchased by businesses for the purpose of giving them away for no consideration (e.g. to employees as ‘perks’ or under a promotion scheme) the VAT incurred is claimable as input tax subject to the normal rules. Output tax is due under the Value Added Tax (Supply of Services) Order 1993. Therefore all vouchers given away for no consideration will be liable to output tax to the extent of the input tax claimed”.

However, the CA agreed with the decisions made at the Upper Tribunal.  Although the vouchers were given away (no consideration) input tax was recoverable because there was an overarching business purpose for the expenditure (increasing sales).  Additionally, it was decided that the provision of the vouchers was not caught by the deemed supply rules so there was no output tax due when the vouchers were given away to readers. ANL also sought to reclaim input tax on vouchers purchased directly from Marks & Spencer – usually at a discount from their face value, but at a price which purported to include VAT. The CA also agreed with the UT on this point; that no VAT was charged on these retailer vouchers, and consequently, there was no input tax to recover.

Commentary

An interesting case, and one that will reward with a reading in full.  It does seem that HMRC’s views on vouchers need revising in light of this decision.  As always, if your business, or your clients’ businesses, are involved with vouchers in any way it is important to ensure that the VAT treatment is correct.  This is especially relevant in light of; previous case law, recent changes to the rules applicable to the treatment of vouchers (as set out in the link above) as well as this specific case.

Please contact us should you wish to discuss this matter.

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.