Category Archives: Land & Property

VAT: Fuel and Power Notice updated

By   4 October 2022
0

HMRC Guidance: Fuel and power (VAT Notice 701/19)

This Notice has recently been updated. It now covers the VAT Reverse Charge measures for wholesale gas and electricity and construction services (Section 2) . There is more information about wholesale gas and electricity and using the VAT domestic Reverse Charge at section 3 of Notice 735: Domestic reverse charge procedure (VAT Notice 735).

Sections 4.1 and 4.3 now include more detail about hydrogen gas.

Brief overview

The reduced rate of VAT of 5% applies to supplies of fuel and power for qualifying use.

Qualifying use means:

  • fuel and power for domestic use
  • fuel and power for charity non-business use
  • fuel and power where the amount supplied does not exceed the small quantities, called the de minimis limits
  • fuel and power partly for qualifying use and partly for other purposes, where 60% or more of the supply is for qualifying use

Other supplies of fuel and power in the UK are standard rated.

VAT – Work on farm buildings

By   29 September 2022
0

I am quite often asked if there are any VAT reliefs for farming businesses carrying out work to farm buildings.

Indeed, there are some areas of the VAT rules which may be of assistance to owners of farms and farm buildings. Clearly, the best position is to avoid VAT being charged in the first place. If this is not possible, then we need to consider if the VAT may be recovered.

Repairs and Renovations of Farmhouses

The following guidelines apply to businesses VAT registered as sole proprietors or partnerships. Where the occupant of the farmhouse is a director of a limited company (or a person connected with the director of the company) it is unlikely that any VAT incurred on the farmhouse may be recovered. The following notes are provided by HMRC after consultations with the NFU:

  • Where VAT is incurred on repairs, maintenance and renovations, 70% of that VAT may be recovered as input tax provided the farm is a normal working farm and the VAT-registered person is actively engaged full-time in running it. Where farming is not a full-time business for the VAT-registered person, input tax claimable is likely to be between 10%–30% on the grounds that the dominant purpose is a personal one.
  • Where the building work is more associated with an alteration (eg; building an extension) the amount that may be recovered will depend on the purpose for the construction. If the dominant purpose is a business one then 70% may be claimed. If the dominant purpose is a personal one HMRC would expect the claim to be 40% or less, and in some cases, depending on the facts, none of the VAT incurred would be recoverable.

Other farm buildings

As a general rule, when VAT is incurred on non-residential buildings, then, as long as they are used for business purposes, it would be expected that 100% of the VAT is recoverable. Care should be taken if any buildings are let and it may be that planning is necessary in order to achieve full recovery.

It should be noted that if any work to a building which is not residential results in the building becoming residential, eg; a barn conversion, then the applicable VAT rate should be 5%. If the resulting dwelling is sold then generally the 5% VAT is recoverable. If the dwelling is to be lived in by the person converting it; the VAT incurred may be recovered, but the mechanism is outside the usual VAT return and a separate claim can be made. In these circumstances it is not necessary for the “converter” to be VAT registered.

As may be seen, in many cases it will be necessary to negotiate a percentage of recovery with HMRC.  We can assist with this, as well as advising on VAT structures and planning to ensure as much input tax as possible is either not chargeable to you, or is recoverable.

VAT: Which entity receives a supply? The Star Services case

By   8 September 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the Star Services Oxford Limited (Star) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was the identity of the entity receiving the supply, whether it held a valid tax invoice, and whether input tax could be claimed.

Background

The appellant claimed input tax incurred on rental payments to Oxford City Council. This was disallowed by HMRC on the grounds that the rental agreement was with Mr Latifi (a sole proprietor in a property rental business) and not the company which was VAT registered.

After the rental agreement was signed the business was incorporated and carried on a bed and breakfast activities from the premises, along with two separate sub-lets to third parties. One party paid rent to Star and one directly to Mr Latifi.

Contentions

HMRC argued that:

  • Mr Latifi and the Appellant are separate legal entities, both of whom are required to register for VAT separately if carrying on taxable business activities
  • the assessment was correct as the company was not entitled to an input tax credit as it was not the person who had incurred the liability
  • the Appellant did not hold a valid VAT invoice, which entitles it to deduct the input tax

Star contended:

  • there was a technical error in the lease agreement
  • the assessment was excessive
  • subsequent to the assessment, the lease was registered to the Appellant
  • the lease was acquired in Mr Latifi’s name because the Appellant did not exist at the time that the lease agreement was entered into. At the relevant time there was an innocent omission to transfer the lease from Mr Latifi’s name to the Appellant’s name, and the delay was caused by forgetfulness
  • a company may, under The VAT Act 1994 s. 24(6)(c) and if permitted by Regulations, claim input tax on the pre-incorporation supplies received for its business
  • the Appellant has accounted for the VAT (therefore there was no loss of tax)
  • the fact that Mr Latifi is beneficial owner of both “the company” (by virtue of controlling shares and directorship) and “the property” must have an impact on the decision to assess

Decision

The appeal was dismissed.

The Appellant was not entitled to claim input tax on the invoices and HMRC were correct to disallow input tax. It did not receive the supply and it did not hold a VAT invoice.

It was decided that the legal relationship was between Oxford City Council and Mr Latifi. This is because the lease agreement was between these parties and not the Appellant.

It was found that the rent from one sub-tenant was paid to Mr Latifi directly and is not accounted for by the Appellant and that the reassigned lease has no bearing on the property rental activities undertaken by Mr Latifi prior to the reassignment.

The rules on pre-incorporation supplies* do not apply in this case because Mr Latifi, as sole proprietor, and the Appellant, are separate legal entities, requiring separate VAT registration.

Interestingly, a recent case was relied on: In Tower Bridge GP Ltd the Court of Appeal ruled that absent a valid VAT invoice showing the supplier’s VAT number and the customer’s name, the right to deduct input tax on that invoice could not be exercised.

Summary

An unfortunate oversight was sufficient for HMRC to refuse the input tax claim. This case does have a whiff of unfairness about it, but by applying the letter of the law the outcome is unarguable. The contentions here are similar to those in the Aitmatov Academy case.

Another case of taking care with claims.

* A business may, generally, claim the VAT incurred on services it has purchased for its taxable business purposes during the six months prior to VAT registration .

The VAT Act 1994, s 24(6) (c) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Reg 111.

VAT: The importance of Transfer of a Going Concern rules. The Haymarket case

By   6 June 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Haymarket Media Group Limited (Haymarket) the issue was whether the sale of Teddington TV Studios qualified as a VAT free Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC).

Background

The site in question was subjected to an Option To Tax (OTT) by the supplier. The sale of the property was with the benefit of planning consent for the development of flats and houses on the site after demolition of the TV studios.

Subject of the appeal

The transferor/vendor had previously let a small building on the site to the purchaser’s advisers and, on this basis, the sale was structured to be a TOGC as a property rental business. HMRC raised an assessment as it considered that neither a property rental business, nor a property development business had been transferred.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The FTT found that, despite the short lived and minor letting, this did not constitute a business. Further, that even if this had been a business, the contract required vacant possession so a business could not have been continued.

The contention that a property development business was being carried on was also rejected. Despite significant costs being incurred by Haymarket in obtaining the planning permission, the intention* was always to sell the site to a developer, rather than the appellant carrying out the development itself (there was no meaningful work being carried out on the site). The fact that planning permission was obtained did not mean that there was an ongoing property development business which could be transferred.

* The importance of “intention” in VAT is considered here and here.

Technical

In order for a transaction to qualify for a VAT free TOGC, ALL of the following conditions must be met:

  • 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

In this case, the first, second and third tests was failed leaving the supply to be VAT-able as a result of the OTT.

More on the complex subject of TOGCs including case law here, here, here, and here.

Commentary

TOGCs are often a minefield for taxpayers and their advisers, especially if property is involved. Not only is land law and the relevant VAT legislation complex, but property transactions are usually high value, with a lot of VAT at stake (the VAT in this case was £17 million). Additionally, they are often “one-offs” and frequently outside the usual commercial expertise of people running the business. We strongly advise that comprehensive technical advice is always obtained when TOGC is mooted by one side or the other, particularly when the relevant asset is involved in property letting or development.

VAT: Are preparatory ground works for burial chambers exempt? The Hodge case

By   23 May 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Hodge and Deery Limited the issue was whether ground works preparatory to installing flexi vault burial chambers exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, group 8, item 2 – “The making of arrangements for or in connection with the disposal of the remains of the dead.”

Background

The vaulting system was installed in graveyards with unstable soil structures which can result in issues with toxins and in subsidence of an existing grave when another grave is dug in the adjacent plot. The burial plots are ready for use and the element above the plots is landscaped (which was undertaken by a third-party).

The appellant’s case

The appellant considered that the installation of the flexible burial vaults should be treated as the advance digging of multiple graves. It should not be regarded differently from the preparation of “normal” graves.  The sole purpose of the preparation of a grave is to dispose of the remains of the dead and it should not matter that the undertaker does not prepare the grave himself.

HMRC’s case

HMRC considered that the installation of flexible burial vaults do not fall within the exemption because:

  • item 2 must be construed to confine the exemption to those supplies directly involved with the disposal of the remains of a particular dead person
  • item 2 is confined to supplies directly made by the funeral director with care and custody of the deceased. It does not extend to sub-contractors of the funeral director
  • the appellant had no responsibility for the deceased
  • although the availability of zero rating in connection with the provision of new housing can be available to sub-contractors involved in the supply of new housing, this exemption cannot extend to sub-contractors in the same way, as the sub-contractors cannot be concerned with the body of the deceased

Decision

The judge considered that the services resulted in the provision of many graves for the disposal of the remains of the dead and that the result of the services satisfied the object of the exemption. The digging of graves is central to the disposal of the remains of the dead, the services are made in connection with the disposal of the remains of the dead and within Item 2.

Commentary

In this case, it did not matter that the services are provided in advance, and nor did it matter that the services are not provided in connection with a specific funeral. It also confirms that the funeral director or undertaker need not provide all the services themselves. It seems obvious that the digging of graves is pivotal to the disposal of the remains of the dead and once it was established that a third party could dig the grave, the appeal was bound to be successful.

VAT: Place of belonging. The Berlin Chemie A Menarini case

By   13 April 2022
2

Latest from the courts

The place of belonging of a business or other person is an important tenet of the tax. I have considered this issue at length here and recent case law here.

A recent CJEU case involved a situation where a business had a registered office in one country and, potentially (hence the appeal) a fixed establishment in another.

Background

“Berlin” used a “third party” to receive certain services. Does this entry represent a fixed establishment for Berlin if it has a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure in terms of technical and human resources? If yes, is it is necessary for those human and technical resources to belong to the company receiving the services or whether it is sufficient for that company to have immediate and permanent access to such resources through a related company, of which it is major shareholder?

Technical

The wording of Article 44 of the VAT Directive and Article 11(1) of Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 do not provide any details as to whether human and technical resources must belong to the company that receives the services.

Decision

The CEUJ ruled that, simple control or ownership, of another entity is insufficient to create a fixed establishment for VAT purposes. Consequently, a third party location does not inevitably represent a fixed establishment by dint of control/ownership.

Having made that comment, the court impressed that the decision should be made “in the context of the economic and commercial reality”.

The analysis of the place of belonging should recognise that it is not necessary for the fixed establishment to own the resources, but there should be control over these resources in the same way as an “owner”.  A fixed establishment is characterised by a suitable structure which enables a business to receive and use services supplied to them for their own needs and not by the decision power of a certain structure that businesses have put in place.

Commentary

Although an EU case, it could impact UK businesses who make supplies to EU recipients and particularly, if there is a “network” of offices or business locations in various EU Member States. Overseas suppliers to (potentially) UK business with various business premises and structures will need to recognise this ruling in order to establish the place of supply (and hence what country’s VAT and at what rate to apply).

This decision provides some helpful clarity, which may be summarised as: In principle, a subsidiary does not always create a fixed establishment.

VAT – Overseas holiday lets: A warning

By   8 April 2022
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 £85,000 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

EU 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 country 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.

VAT: Car boot sale pitches are exempt – The Rufforth Park case

By   14 February 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the Rufforth Park Limited (RPL) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether pitches for car boot and auto jumble sales were subject to VAT or were they a simple licence to occupy land and exempt?

Background

The appellant has been running car boot sales at Rufforth Park for the more than forty years. When RPL began the car boot sales, the VAT office was asked to confirm that it did not need to charge VAT on the fees for the pitches. It was told that it should charge VAT, and did so. After a number of years, RPL demonstrated to the VAT office that other businesses in a similar position were not charging VAT. HMRC then agreed and the VAT the company had paid was refunded with interest. The company has not charged VAT on the pitch fees since. After a routine inspection HMRC formed the view that there were a number of services that, together, formed a standard rated supply and assessed for VAT on that basis. RPL appealed against this decision.

Technical

HMRC concluded that the fees for the pitches should be standard rated because the supply of the pitches was provided with other goods and services which constituted a single overarching supply of a service, not merely the right to occupy land. The reasons were:

  • Forty years of running car boot sales had built up a reputation which is a tangible benefit to stallholders. The reputation of regular events is part of the supply the stall holder receives.
  • Advertising to bring buyers to the site for the benefit of stall holders is part of the supply.
  • The amenities on site enable buyers better to enjoy their time at the car boot sale and are part of the supply.
  • The sellers benefit from the amenities as well as the activities undertaken by RPL to attract buyers to the site to buy items from the sellers. Those activities include:
  1. advertising
  2. on site café
  3. toilets
  4. parking
  5. capital improvements to the site to make it more attractive to buyers
  6. provision of some pitches under cover
  7. cleaning the site after the events
  8. RPL had real and significant responsibilities to the sellers (although HMRC did not specify what they were)

This was said to show there was more to the supply than the exempt passive supply of land for a stall to sell items.

The appellant submitted that the supply in this case is a single supply of a pitch rental and one must look at all the circumstances in order to establish its nature. Regard must be had to the commercial and economic realities. The renting of a pitch in a car boot sale in the present case was a relatively passive activity linked to the passage of time and not generating any significant added value and so is VAT free.

Decision

The court found that that the nature of the supply provided in return for the pitch fees is a licence to occupy land within The VAT Act, Schedule 9, Group 1, Item 1 and accordingly the fees were exempt. The appeal was allowed.

Commentary

Yet another case demonstrating the uncertainty in this area. Superficially, there is little difference in the facts of this case to those in the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Zombory-Moldovan (trading as Craft Carnival) which found that supplies of pitches at craft fairs were standard rated. However, the court found that this case could be distinguished on its facts. Which may be summarised as:

  • there was no formal contract between RPL and its sellers
  • it was not possible to book in advance
  • there was no selection of sellers. Anyone who arrived and paid would get a space, allocated by RPL
  • the advertising on the company’s website, local TV, and Facebook provided only basic information to both buyers and sellers about times and prices
  • RPL had no obligation to put on the car boot sales or the auto jumbles. Sellers have no right to attend. If there was no sale, they would have no recompense.
  • no tables, chairs or electricity were provided, even for an extra fee
  • there was no provision of security
  • the toilet and refreshment facilities were basic
  • the Appellant had carried out such maintenance as is required but had not attempted to enhance the facilities
  • whilst the car boot sales and auto jumbles might be efficiently run, they are simple events involving only the Appellant’s land and its employees and not requiring any particular organisational or management skills. Well run is not the same thing as “expertly organised and expertly run”.

It is important when considering these two decisions to establish precisely what is being supplied, as small differences in facts can affect the VAT treatment. The more “basic” the supply, the more likely that exemption will apply, but it is a question of small degrees of difference.

Is room hire subject to VAT? – The Errol Willy Salons case

By   24 January 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Errol Willy Salons Ltd (2022) TC 08370 the issue was whether the rent of two rooms were an exempt right over land, or the standard rated supply of facilities.

Background

Room hire is usually exempt from VAT unless it is subject to an option to tax. However, it can be subsumed into a different rated another supply if something more than a “bare” room is provided. In such cases, it would follow the VAT treatment of the composite supply.

The Issue

In the Errol Willy Salons case, HMRC formed the view that what was being supplied was facilities (the room occupation being a minor part of the supply) and therefore subject to VAT. In its opinion the economic and social reality was that the beauticians were provided with a licence to trade from the premises. The appellant occupied the ground floor – operating a hairdressing business. The rooms over the saloon were rented to third party beauticians. The occupants furnished the rooms themselves, provided their own equipment, set their own pricing and opening hours. They did have use of certain services and facilities; a receptionist and toilets, but it was understood that the services were rarely used. Unsurprisingly, the appellant disagreed and contended that the other services were incidental or subsidiary to the exempt supply of the room rental.

The decision

The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the assessment. It found that “non-rent” services provided to the beauticians were limited in nature and not essential to the beauticians’ businesses Consequently, the arrangements amounted to a supply of property (a licence to occupy the rooms) rather than a supply of taxable facilities and was therefore exempt.

Commentary

This is the latest in a long line of issues on composite/separate supplies and room hire/facilities disputes, especially in relation to weddings. It is important to establish precisely what is being provided to establish the correct VAT treatment and advice should be ought if there is any doubt about the VAT liability.

The CIOT has long advocated that it is not the case that every package of supplies involving room hire and other things must be a composite supply of something other than an exempt letting of land.

NB: This case is different to hairdresser chair rentals which remain standard rated.