Category Archives: Latest from the Courts

VAT: Are poppadoms crisps? The Walkers Snack Foods case

By   4 June 2025
0

Latest from the courts  

In the Walkers Snack Foods Ltd Upper Tribunal (UT) case the issue was whether Sensations Poppadoms are similar to potato crisps and consequently excluded from the zero rating for food.

The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that the product was similar to crisps and that it was to be treated as being excepted items from zero-rating and was therefore standard rated.

Background

The salient matter was whether the poppadoms were “made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch” and were “similar” to potato crisps via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, item 1, excepted item 5.

Value Added Tax – excepted item 5 to item 1, Group 1, Part II, Schedule 8 Value Added Tax Act 1994 – whether First-tier Tribunal erred in law in finding Sensations Poppadoms were “made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch” and were “similar” to potato crisps

This sets out that the following is excepted from the zero rate for “Food of a kind used for human consumption”.

“5. Any of the following when packaged for human consumption without further preparation, namely, potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs, and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch, and savoury food products obtained by the swelling of cereals or cereal products; and salted or roasted nuts other than nuts in shell.”

Contentions

The appellant argued that the poppadoms should be zero-rated for VAT purposes because they fall within Item 1 of Group 1 as they are food, and that they are not included in the list of exceptions.

 HMRC contended that that the product fell within excepted item 5 of Group 1, because they are products similar to potato crisps…

Decision 

  • The UT agreed with the FTT that the words “made from the potato” can extend to products made from potato granules and was neither untenable nor a plain misapplication of the law to the facts. 
  • The UT recalled that the FTT had concluded that Sensations Poppadoms contained “more than enough potato content” for it to be reasonable to conclude that they were “made from the potato… or from potato starch”. Sensations Poppadoms have a combined potato content (potato granules and potato starch) of 39%-40%, so the potato content is significant. The question for the UT was whether the FTT reached a conclusion which no reasonable tribunal properly construing the statute could have reached. The UT answered “no”.
  • The UT noted that the FTT determined that Sensations Poppadoms were similar to potato crisps based on a multifactorial assessment of various factors, including; packaging, appearance, texture and taste. The FTT noted that while the manufacturing processes differ, the statute allows for similarity among products made from potato starch and flour. The FTT found that the potato content in Sensations Poppadoms contributed to a neutral flavour, which did not significantly distinguish them from potato crisps. Broadly, the UT agreed with this determination.

Consequently, for the above reasons the UT dismissed the appeal and the product is subject to the standard rate.

Commentary

Yet another case on the liability of ‘snack foods’. So now we know that: Doritos, Monster Munch, Wotsits and Poppadums are standard rated, however Pringles, Skips and Twiglets are VAT free. This demonstrates the complexity of classifying food and these decisions throw up more complications for producers as this market develops quickly as the public’s taste moves on.

VAT: Whether an online tool an ‘examination service’? The Generic Maths case.

By   12 May 2025
0

Latest from the courts.

In the Generic Maths Limited First Tier Tribunal case the issue was whether the appellant’s product; ‘ConquerMaths’ amounted to examination services so to be exempt via The VATA 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, Item 3.

Background

Generic Maths provided an online tool which was intended to be of benefit to students or their parents/teachers. The following facts concerning ConquerMaths were found:

  • it does not lead to any qualifications
  • users can drop in and out of the offering (unlike the way they might have to proceed if following a course leading to a qualification)
  • it includes many hundreds of available diagnostic tests that test students’ knowledge of the principles that will be taught on the various subjects
  • several short tutoring videos are included, although the number of videos is small in comparison to the number of diagnostic tests
  • the average user spends 75 minutes on diagnostic tests compared to five minutes on videos
  • the appellant’s witnesses described the product as diagnostic assessments, formative assessments, and summative assessments
  • in addition to the diagnostic tests, the product includes worksheets in an exam format. Pupils are encouraged to complete these offline and then feed the results into the system

The issue

Simply put; was the product predominantly a tool that provides assessments enabling those using the product to determine what level of maths ability the student has reached and identify any gaps in knowledge and therefore an exempt supply since it falls into the category “examination services”? Or, as HMRC contended, was it an online mathematical tutorial tool which was standard rated as it was a composite supply the predominant element of which was education and that the supply was not one of examination services? (There was no argument that these were exempt educational services).

The tests

The FTT considered that the correct test for determining the nature of the appellant’s supplies was an objective test, based on how they would be characterised by the typical consumer. On that basis, ConquerMaths was a teaching product designed to improve maths understanding, not an examination service.

Additionally, if the correct test was rather a functional test, the result would be the similar.

Decision

The Tribunal did not consider that the product was a supply of examination services within Item 3. It found that the assessment had been made using best judgment by HMRC and accordingly that the appeal should be dismissed.

Commentary

This is probably the correct decision, although the examination and education exemptions are open to interpretation. Care should be taken by taxpayers that the exemption is correctly applied. Although the definition of examination services is wider than formal public examinations, it was not wide enough to encompass ConquerMaths.

VAT: HMRC updates tax avoidance schemes guidance – Stop Notices

By   8 May 2025
0

HMRC has updated its guidance on promoters of tax avoidance schemes (guidance on Part 5 and Schedules 34 to 36 of the Finance Act 2014).

The guidance explains the rules that apply to promoters of tax avoidance schemes. These rules aim to deter the development and use of avoidance schemes by influencing the behaviour of promoters, their intermediaries, and clients.

Stop Notices

These Notices are covered by The Finance Act 2021, Schedule 30, part 1, section 236A

  1. An authorised officer may give a person a Notice (a “Stop Notice”) if the authorised officer suspects that the recipient promotes, or has promoted, arrangements of a description specified in the notice or proposals for such arrangements.

 HMRC issues Stop Notices to promotors of tax avoidance schemes, requiring them to stop selling or promoting the scheme.

The main aim of issuing these Notices is to reduce the number of tax avoidance schemes that are being marketed. This makes it more difficult for taxpayers to get involved in them.

When HMRC issues a stop notice to a promoter, it means:

  • the promoter who receives the notice must stop selling the specified scheme
  • the promoter who receives the notice must also pass a copy of it to certain associated persons, who are also subject to the stop notice and must also stop selling the specified scheme
  • all those persons subject to the notice must inform HMRC of all the people they have promoted the scheme to and any they continue to promote it to
  • the persons subject to the stop notice must inform all clients and intermediaries that they are subject to a stop notice, what this means, and provide them with a copy of the stop notice

If a promoter fails to comply with a stop notice they can face penalties of up to £100,000 which can increase to £1million.

Our approach to planning and HMRC

Marcus Ward Consultancy Ltd does not market, advise on, or advocate aggressive schemes. The company provides bespoke solutions to an individual business and does not believe in “one size fits all” mass-marketed schemes.  We will always work within the law and the spirit of the law.  We operate a full disclosure policy and may refuse to work with you if you do not subscribe to this attitude.  We will, on occasion, cross swords with HMRC if we believe we are correct and that HMRC is being unreasonable and we will fight to uphold our clients’ rights against any unfair accusations.

VAT: Tribunal costs

By   23 April 2025
0

    Latest from the courts

    In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Eurolaser IT Ltd regarding Kittel and Mecsek assessments and penalties:

    • whether an agent knew or should have known of fraud in supply chain – yes
    • whether such knowledge/means of knowledge to be attributed to Appellant – yes
    • whether Mecsek requires HMRC to show reasonable steps not taken by Appellant – yes
    • whether reasonable steps taken – no
    • unsurprisingly, the appeal was refused

    one interesting aspect was the award of costs.

    Generally, in FTT cases the rule is that each party will usually bear its own costs.

    However, it is worth recapping how the award of costs works via The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. In this instant case, the Appellant had not ‘opted out’ of the costs protection regime set out in rule 10(c)(ii) of the Rules. Consequently, the FTT ordered that Eurolaser must pay HMRC’s costs – a sting in the tail. So, what are the rules? (Where relevant here)

    Orders for costs

    “10.—(1) The Tribunal may only make an order in respect of costs (or, in Scotland, expenses)—

    (a) under section 29(4) of the 2007 Act (wasted costs) [and costs incurred in applying for such costs];

    (b) if the Tribunal considers that a party or their representative has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings; 

    (c) if—

    (i) the proceedings have been allocated as a Complex case under rule 23 (allocation of cases to categories); and

    (ii) the taxpayer (or, where more than one party is a taxpayer, one of them) has not sent or delivered a written request to the Tribunal, within 28 days of receiving notice that the case had been allocated as a Complex case, that the proceedings be excluded from potential liability for costs or expenses under this sub-paragraph”

    So, in “Complex” cases, an Appellant must submit a request that the case is excluded from the potential liability of costs being awarded, and HMRC must request repayment of its costs incurred in defending the case.

    What are Complex cases?

    These are complicated cases which:

    • require lengthy or complex evidence
    • require a lengthy hearing
    • involve complex or important principles or issues
    • involve large amounts or tax or penalties

    such cases are allocated to a ‘track’ within the FTT system.

    Other cost awards

    It is also worth remembering that costs can be awarded if the appeal is brought unreasonably. This usually means that it is vexatious or frivolous, so proper advice should be sought when considering an appeal.

    A VAT Did you know?

    By   26 March 2025
    0

    Oils and fats used for animal food is zero-rated, unless it is waste oil from a fish and chip shop – which is standard rated… even if it is used to feed animals.

    VAT: Are hair transplants ‘medical care’? – The Advanced Hair Technology Ltd case

    By   12 March 2025
    0

    Latest from the courts

    In the Advanced Hair Technology Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether hair transplants are exempt supplies of medical care, or were they for ‘cosmetic’ purposes and consequently standard rated?

    Background

    Advanced Hair Technology Ltd (AHT) was a  medical practice trading as The Farjo Hair Institute which specialised in hair restoration surgery. It treated conditions related to hair loss, in particular androgenetic alopecia (AGA). Dr Farjo who carried out the work is qualified is a medical practitioner with the Royal College of Surgeons. The output tax which HMRC deemed due was circa £2,500,000.

    The sole issue was what AHT provided covered by the definition ‘medical care’?

    Legislation

    The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 1 covers services which are for the primary purpose of protecting, restoring, or maintaining health: “medical care”.                                                                 

    Contentions

    AHT argued that it was treating patients for medical conditions, as opposed to providing aesthetic surgery and consequently, its supplies were exempt. The appellant explained that several patients believed that hair loss had affected their self-confidence and so the surgery improved their overall health (which includes a mental health element). Furthermore, the surgery helps to protect the skin from future photodamage, minor trauma and thermal insult.

    HMRC contended that none of the patients had any recorded prior psychiatric conditions, eg; depression or anxiety, nor had any stated that they were looking to benefit from the surgery beyond it improving their appearance and confidence. Additionally,  no recipients of the treatment said that they were seeking any of the above physical protections.

    Therefore, the treatment was a standard rated cosmetic procedure.

    Decision

    The meaning of ‘medical care’ was considered by the Court of Appeal in its decision in Mercy Global [2023] EWCA Civ 1073.

    The court agreed with HMRC that a “principal purpose” test must be applied in all cases.

    The evidence before the FTT was that by the age of 70 at least 80% of caucasian men suffer from hair loss as a result of AGA, and this is part of the normal process of aging. AGA is not considered a medical condition but rather a symptom.

    AHT’s contention that the procedures serve a therapeutic purpose related to psychological issues was dismissed due to a lack of evidence from qualified practitioners. This reinforced the FTT’s view that the treatments were primarily cosmetic, rather than for medical reasons because altering one’s physical appearance was for aesthetic purposes.

    The relevant supplies were therefore outside the exemption.

    The appeal was dismissed.

    Commentary

    The judgment provides some guidance on the interpretation of the definition of medical care for the purposes of the exemption and follows similar recent cases which we covered here:

    Skin Science

    Skin Rich

    X

    The concept of the “provision of medical care” does not include medical interventions carried out for a purpose other than that of diagnosing, treating and in so far as possible, curing diseases or health disorders and it is the purpose of the medical intervention rather than merely the qualifications of the person providing it that is key in determining the VAT liability.

    There has been an ongoing debate as to what constitutes medical care. Over 20 years ago I was advising a large London clinic on this very point and much turned on whether patients’ mental health was improved by undergoing what many would regard as cosmetic procedures. We were somewhat handicapped in our arguments by the fact that many of the patients were lap dancers undergoing breast augmentation on the direction of the owner of a certain club…

    It is worth remembering that not all services provided by a medically registered practitioner are exempt. The question of whether the medical care exemption is engaged in any given case will turn on the particular facts .

    Interestingly, the judge here stated that the medical exemption may apply to some patients whose hair loss was a result of trauma caused by cancer treatment.

    VAT: When is a bar a bar? – The Anglia Ruskin Students’ Union case

    By   17 February 2025
    0

    Latest from the courts

    A student union tried to argue that a bar is not a bar. It did not go well.

    In the case of The Anglia Ruskin Students’ Union the High Court considered the appellant’s application for judicial review of HMRC’s decision that “92” which was operated on the university’s campus was a bar.

    The importance of this description of the venue was that if it was indeed a bar, the supplies from it would be standard rated. This is because the supplies of catering to students by eligible bodies, including universities”, are exempt from VAT, on the basis that the supplies are closely related to exempt supplies of education, however, the exemption does not cover food and drink sold in bars.

    The union contended that ‘bar’ means a place that does not supply catering, or, alternatively, predominantly or mainly serves alcohol.

    HMRC, predictably argued that a bar is “somewhere where one can buy and drink alcoholic and other drinks, as well as food”, and that 92 met that definition.

    The court agreed with HMRC that the bar was indeed a bar and did not grant permission to appeal.

    So, now we know, a bar is a bar, not a café… or anything else really.

    Technical

    * Student unions often provide catering alongside universities. Since March 2002, HMRC has operated a published concession extending the exemption granted to supplies of catering made by universities to student unions.

    VAT penalties and surcharges – time limits for appeals. The Excel case

    By   10 February 2025
    0

    Latest from the courts

    The recent Xcel Consult Limited First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case serves as a reminder on the tight time limits for appealing against VAT penalties and surcharges.

    The VAT Act 1994 Section 83G sets out a statutory time limit for bringing appeals in respect of VAT penalties and surcharges of the kind in question in this case. An appeal is to be made to the tribunal before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date of the document notifying the decision to which the appeal relates.

    Section 83G(6) provides that an appeal may be made after the expiry of the statutory period if the Tribunal gives permission. In deciding whether to give permission to allow the late appeal, the three-stage test set out in Maitland is applied. These tests are:

    (1) establish the length of the delay and whether it is serious and/or significant

    (2) establish the reason or reasons why the delay occurred

    (3) evaluate all the circumstances of the case, using a balancing exercise to assess the merits of the reason(s) given for the delay and the prejudice which would be caused to both parties by granting or refusing permission, and in doing so take into account “the particular importance of the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and for statutory time limits to be respected”.

    Commentary

    Our advice is to always respond within the 30 day limit, as relying on an out of time appeal can be risky. If that is not possible, an appeal should be submitted asap to ensure that test 1) above is not a reason to reject a submission.

    VAT: Supply of self-contained apartments covered by TOMS? The Sonder UT case

    By   21 January 2025
    0

    Latest from the courts

    In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Sonder Europe Limited (Sonder) the issue was whether apartments leased to Sonder and used to provide short-term accommodation to corporate and leisure travellers were supplies of a designated travel service via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) and whether the bought-in supply was used for the direct benefit of travellers (as required by TOMS).

    Background

    Sonder leased apartments from landlords on a medium to long-term basis and used them to provide accommodation to travellers on a short-term basis (one night to a month; the average stay being five nights). Sonder furnished some apartments as well as undertaking occasional decorating and maintenance.

    The sole issue was whether these supplies are covered by TOMS. TOMS is not optional.

    Initially in the FTT it was decided that output tax was due via TOMS. This was an appeal by HMRC against that First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision.

    The issue

    Whether VAT was accountable using TOMS – on the margin, or on the full amount received from travellers by Sonder.

    Legislation

    TOMS is authorised by the VAT Act 1994, section 53 and via SI 1987/1806.

    Arguments

    Sonder contended that the supply was “for the direct benefit of the traveller” as required by the VAT (Tour Operators) Order 1987 and that the accommodation was provided “…without material alteration or further processing”. Consequently, TOMS applied. The FTT decided that Sonder did not materially alter or process the apartments.

    HMRC maintained that the FTT decision was based on the physical alternations made rather than the actual characteristics of the supplies. Consequently, these were not supplies covered by the 1987 Order and output tax was due on the total income received for these services.

     Decision

    The UT upheld HMRC’s appeal and decided that TOMS did not apply n these circumstances The UT found that the FTT’s decision was in error in that it did not have regard to whether the services bought in were supplied to it for the direct benefit of travellers. Furthermore, the short-term leases to occupy property as holiday accommodation were materially altered from interests in land for a period of years supplied by the landlords.

    The services received by Sonder from the landlords were not for the direct benefit of the travellers and Sonder’s supplies were not for the benefit of the users without material alteration and further processing. Consequently, there was not a supply of bought-in services, but rather an ‘in-house’ supply which was not covered by TOMS.

    To the UT, the position was even clearer in relation to unfurnished apartments. Sonder acquired an interest in land for a term of years in an unfurnished apartment. It furnished the apartment and then supplied a short-term licence to a traveller to occupy as holiday accommodation. What was supplied to the traveller was materially different to what was supplied to Sonder.

    Commentary

     Another illustration of the complexities of TOMS and the significant impact on a business of getting the rules wrong. The fact that the UT remade the decision demonstrates that different interpretations are possible on similar facts. Moreover, even slight differences in business models can result in different VAT outcomes.

    VAT: DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – The Brian Lawton case

    By   25 November 2024
    0

    Latest from the courts

    In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Brian Lawton the issue was whether a second claim under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme was valid.

    Background

    Mr Lawton appealed against the refusal of HMRC to pay a claim submitted in respect of the conversion of a barn into a dwelling and subsequent extensions. Unfortunately, the project faced delays and increased costs due to the Covid-19 pandemic. He claimed a refund of VAT in June 2021, which HMRC repaid. The appellant submitted a second planning application for an extension, which was approved, and the work was completed in October 2022. He then made a second VAT claim October 2022 which HMRC refused.

    The issue

    Whether it was possible to make more than one single VAT refund claim via the scheme when the project was split into two specific phases. Planning permission was granted for two developments, the:

    • first permission was for the conversion of a barn to a dwelling
    • second permission was for an extension to existing barn conversion for two bedrooms

    – whether the second claim was ineligible for a refund as an extension to an existing dwelling and whether decision to disallow claim for a VAT refund was correct.

    Arguments

    Lawton contended that it was possible to make two separate claims due to the distinct nature of the projects, and that his first claim had been erroneous since the barn conversion was uninhabitable.

    HMRC’s view was that the second claim related to an extension to a dwelling and not the actual conversion and was consequently ineligible.

    Decision 

    Despite the FTT being sympathetic to BL’s predicament in progressing the first application development at the time of the Covid pandemic and the lockdown with the financial and economic challenges these brought about, the appeal was dismissed.

    The Tribunal considered that HMRC were entitled to insist that only one claim was made under the scheme in circumstances where there has been no repayment in error or invoices and works carried out before the claim was submitted and left out of account in error or invoices issued late by a contractor.

    It considered that the first claim was the only one which could be made and was restricted to the stage of development that Lawton had submitted and was covered by the completion certificate of March 2021, being “the conversion of a barn to a dwelling”.

    The court emphasised that completion for VAT purposes must align with original planning permissions and agreed with HMRC’s position that extensions to existing dwellings do not qualify for refunds under the scheme.

    Legislation

    The VAT Act 1994, Section 35.

    Commentary

    This case highlights how important both timing and adhering precisely to the rules of the scheme are. The cost of a self-build can be significant and recovering any VAT incurred is important to ensure budgets are met as far as possible.

    Further reading

    Background to the scheme here, ten top tips here  and further information and other cases on the scheme: