Category Archives: Latest from the Courts

VAT – Latest from the courts; use and enjoyment provisions

By   25 April 2016
0

Telefonica Europe Plc and Telefonica UK Limited 

The VAT Use and Enjoyment provisions set out an additional layer of rules which establish the place of supply of certain services. They apply to; telecommunications and broadcasting services; electronically supplied services (for business customers); hired goods; and hired means of transport. Broadly, effective use and enjoyment takes place where a recipient actually consumes the services, regardless of any contractual arrangements, payment, or beneficial interest. The intention of this provision is to correct instances of distortion which remain as a result of considering only where the provider and the customer belong. HMRC give the example of supplies such as telecommunications services which are actually consumed outside the EC, to be subject to UK VAT. Of course, the converse is that it would be distortive for there to be no EC VAT on such services where they are consumed in the UK.

In the Upper Tribunal case of Telefonica Europe Plc and Telefonica UK Limited the dispute involved the way in which the appellant calculated the value of its mobile telephone services which were used and enjoyed outside the EC (and thus UK VAT free). Over a number of years Telefonica had an agreement with HMRC whereby the amount of outside the EC supplies was calculated by reference to revenue, ie; comparing call, text and data income relating to non-EC supplies to total income.

HMRC subsequently formed the view that this method of calculation was distortive because higher charges were made to non-EC users than EC consumers.  HMRC proposed a “usage methodology” which used call times, texts sent and volume of data used. As may be expected, this resulted in a lower percentage of supplies that were outside the scope of UK VAT thus increasing HMRC’s VAT take.

The appellant contended that the usage methodology was contrary to EC and UK VAT legislation.  Not surprisingly, the UTT rejected this argument, deciding that Telefonica had not established that HMRC’s proposal was unlawful.

So then the outcome would be expected to be that the usage methodology should be used, but no.  It was decided that the most accurate method would be one based on the time a customer has access to the network outside the EC; which differs from both the usage and revenue methods. 

This type of dispute is quite common and also appears regularly in partial exemption situations. There are nearly always alternative ways to view apportionment calculations and it pays to obtain professional advice; not only to ensure that a fair result is achieved, but as assistance with negotiations (which may avoid having to go to Tribunal).  

VAT Latest from the courts: Stocks Fly Fishery – single or multiple supply?

By   19 April 2016
0

As many will know, there is a significant amount of case law concerning what may be treated as a composite supply at one VAT rate, and what are separate supplies at different VAT rates.  The latest in this series is the First Tier Tribunal case of Stocks Fly Fishery

The appellant is a trout fishery  in the Forest of Bowland. They argued that they supplied standard rated fishing and a distinct zero rated supply of fish for human consumption.

They provided two types of daily ticket which was required to fish the reservoir. The first was a sporting ticket, which entitled an angler to fish, but any fish caught must be returned to the water. The second was a take ticket which also enabled a person to fish but any fish caught (up to a certain number) may be taken away for food.  A take ticket was more expensive than a sporting ticket. The more fish that were taken away, the more expensive the take ticket was.  The taxpayer formed the opinion that it made two supplies; one of fishing which was agreed to be standard rated, and one of food for human consumption (the trout) which was zero rated. The value of the zero rated element was said to be the difference between the sporting ticket price and that of the take ticket.

The issue was whether the ability to take away the fish for food was a separate supply, or ancillary to the substantive supply of fishing.

The appellant cited  Hughes v Pendragon Sabre Ltd (t/a Porsche Centre Bolton) while HMRC relied on Chalk Springs Fisheries (1987) (LON/86/706) Roger Cambrai Haynes (1988) (LON/87/624) and Card Protection Plan Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

As an observation, the chairman in the Chalk Springs Fisheries case stated “…No trout is, in my view, supplied to him at all. Instead the fisherman must go out and catch them, if he can.”  This was obviously quite unhelpful to the appellant. Additionally, the chairman was obliged to follow the well-known Card Protection Plan case which sets out guidance on matters such as this.

Decision

The FTT decided that the essential feature of the transaction was fishing and the dominant motive of anglers going to the fishery was to fish, regardless of which type of ticket was purchased. Therefore, the right to fish had to be regarded as constituting the principal service and the right to kill and keep the trout fish, if caught, should be regarded as ancillary to that principal purpose. Therefore there was a single standard rated supply of fishing.

It is always worth reviewing whether supplies made by a business can, and ought, to be treated separately, or as a single bundle. The existence of such a massive amount of case law on this subject indicates that this issue will continue to run and run.

Please contact us should this matter raise any concerns or present a possible opportunity.

VAT – Latest from the courts: Frank A Smart & Son Limited

By   4 April 2016
0

Recovery of input tax incurred on the purchase of Single Farm Payment Entitlement (SFPE) units.

HMRC often reject claims for input tax as they consider that they relate to non-business activities, or more nebulously the costs are not reflected in the prices of supplies made by the claimant (the so called “cost component” approach).  This very helpful Upper Tribunal (UT) case provides insight into the logic applied by HMRC in reaching a decision to disallow a claim for VAT incurred.

This was a company which farmed land and also paid VAT on the purchase of SFPE units.  These units entitled the company to receive benefits via the EC Single Farm Payment Scheme.  HMRC contended that the receipt of the SFPE payments was non-business, or in the alternative, they were not a cost component of any taxable supply made by the farming company.

The UT refused HMRC’s appeal against the initial FT-T decision in favour of the appellant.  It found that there was sufficient evidence that the purchase of the SFPE units (and the income which resulted in the acquisition of them) was not a separate activity to the farming supplies so the non-business argument did not apply.  Further, the Chairman stated that “…it is unnecessary for the company to prove that the cost in question was actually built into the price charged for the supply”. Therefore the cost component contention put forward by HMRC also failed.

The Chairman’s comments appear to go against HMRC’s published guidance on “direct and immediate link with the taxable person’s business”, particularly in respect of holding companies.

If you are aware of any situation where HMRC have disallowed claims for input tax for either non-business or non-cost component reasons please contact us as this case may be of benefit.

Full decision here

VAT Latest from the courts – importance of invoicing requirements

By   16 March 2016
0

In the recent case of Gradon Construction Ltd the validity of invoices was considered and whether input tax could be recovered in respect of them.

HMRC disallowed a claim for input tax on the basis that the supplier had retrospectively deregistered on a date prior to the date shown on the invoices.  The Tribunal decided that this was not a reason to disallow the claim.  However, it decided that the claim should be disallowed on the grounds that the invoices did not contain a description sufficient to identify the goods or services supplied, nor did they provide the quantity of the goods or the extent of the services as required by legislation.  Consequently, the documents did not meet the requirements of a valid tax invoice with the result that the recipient could not recover the amount on the documents which purported to be VAT.  HMRC has the discretion to accept alternative evidence in lieu of an invoice, but in this case the Tribunal decided that HMRC acted reasonably in not accepting any other documentation, so the recipient of the supply could not recover the input tax.

This case again highlights the crucial importance of primary documentation when it comes to VAT.  A full guide to invoices here

Information on input tax that it is not possible to claim here https://www.marcusward.co/what-vat-cant-you-claim-2/

It is crucial that a business’ invoices meet all the requirements, and that a procedure is in place to check the validity of invoices received in order to determine whether the input tax is claimable, or whether the invoice issuer should be contacted so that a valid tax invoice may be obtained.

Latest from the courts – More on VAT on food and drink

By   14 March 2016
0

OK, so most people are aware of the Jaffa Cake case and the appeals relating to smoothies and the VAT oddities that are thrown up by chocolate foods and fruit drinks.  The latest in what many view to be a ridiculous situation is the Nestlé UK Limited case concerning Nesquik powder.

Nestlé appealed against HMRC’s decision not to repay over £4 million in VAT accounted for on the sale of strawberry and banana flavoured Nesquik powder.  Nestlé formed the view that the powder which is used to flavour milk, should be zero rated in the same way that the chocolate flavoured powder and ready to drink milk based drinks it produces are.

The First Tier Tribunal found in favour of HMRC and decided that the fruit flavoured powders were a “powder for the preparation of beverages” covered by the exception from zero-rating for such products and that they were not covered by the items overriding the exceptions to zero-rating, so they remained standard-rated; hence no retrospective claim for overdeclared output tax.

So, there is differing VAT treatment depending on what flavour the Nesquik powders are, and between ready to drink products and ones where the customer has to mix them his/herself.

Fortunately, VAT is completely logical and there are simply no traps for the unwary!  My own view is that the legislation regarding food and drink is so convoluted and complex that it needs a complete rewriting.  I appreciate that case law has caused the current situation, and this has not been helped by political tinkering (pasty tax anyone?) but clarity is long overdue.  I strongly suggest that this is not the last food based case, and of course we have had them going back to the inception of VAT.  Now, this chocolate hot cross bun……

VAT – Latest from the courts – Holding companies management charges. Norseman Gold plc

By   15 February 2016
0

The Norseman Gold plc case considered whether a holding company could recover input tax incurred on certain costs.  This is turn depended on whether the holding company was making taxable supplies. Specifically; management charges to non VAT-grouped subsidiary companies.

The Upper Tribunal has recently released its decision. It upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision which confirmed that, although the management services in this case could have been considered as economic activities for VAT purposes, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Norseman was making, or intended to make, taxable supplies when the input tax was reclaimed. The UT found that “…vague and general intention that payment would be made …” for management services was insufficient to show a connection between the VAT incurred and taxable supplies.  Consequently, HMRC’s assessments to recover the relevant input tax were upheld.

Importance

This case emphasises the importance of holding companies having appropriate processes and ensuring that proper documentation is in place to evidence, not only the intention to make taxable supplies of management charges, but that those charges were actually made to subsidiaries.  It is also important to ensure that actual management of the subsidiaries take place, and a record of this management is retained.  Simply making a charge to subsidiaries is insufficient if no services are actually supplied as this will not constitute an economic activity.

Often significant costs can be incurred by a holding company in cases such as acquisitions and restructuring.  It is important that these costs are incurred by, and invoiced to the appropriate entity in order for the VAT on them to be recovered.  Consideration must be given to how the input tax is recovered before it is incurred and the appropriate structure put in place.

Please contact me should you require further information on this point or would like to discuss the matter further.

VAT Latest from the courts; can HMRC impose a higher value on a supply?

By   9 February 2016
0

VAT Latest from the courts – Whether Open Market Value applies

HMRC has the power to direct that Open Market Value (OMV) is applied to the value of certain supplies between connected parties – VAT Act 1994 Schedule 6, paragraph 1. This power is used to avoid situations where one party is unable to recover all of the input tax incurred on purchases. Usually, the direction is used when one party purchase goods and services at OMV, recovers full input tax and then supplies these goods and services to a connected party at a lower price, thus reducing the amount of input tax lost by the recipient party.

HMRC deemed this to be the position in Temple Retail Limited and Temple Finance Limited (TC04840) where “TRL” purchased goods and services and resupplied them to “TFL”.  TFL was a company that was unable to recover all of its input tax as a result of partial exemption (it made supplies of exempt credit as it sold goods to consumers via HP agreements).  HMRC was concerned that TRL and TFL had an opportunity to improve their aggregate input tax recovery by charging fees for certain services below OMV and consequently issued an OMV direction.

HMRC later issued TRL with assessments for under-declared output tax for not complying with the direction and this, inter alia, was the subject of the appeal by the taxpayer.

The FT Tribunal was satisfied that the majority of TRL’s fees charged to TFL were charged at OMV. However, The Tribunal decided that advertising services were not calculated at OMV and held that these services should be recalculated by reference to a method which it specified.

The case is a useful reminder of HMRC’s powers to substitute a stated value of a supply with what it believes to be OMV between connected parties. Business which are connected and provide exempt services need to be aware of the position and ensure that relevant supplies do not fall foul of the OMV direction rules.  Care should be taken to document the values used and the reasons why they reflect the economic reality of the position in order to avoid a challenge from HMRC.  OMV is often an area that creates differences of opinion and therefore disputes.  Any structures which set out to deliberately reduce the value of supplies are likely to result in more serious actions from HMRC.

A definition of what constitutes connected parties is found here

If the case sets off any warning bells, please contact us as soon as possible.

VAT – Zero rating of charitable building; latest from the courts

By   25 January 2016
0

A recent case at the Upper Tribunal (UT): Wakefield College here considered whether certain use of the property disqualified it from zero rating.

Background

In order to qualify for zero rating a building it has to be used for “relevant charitable purpose”

This means that it is used otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a business. In broad terms, where a charity has a building constructed which it can show it will use for wholly non business purposes then the construction work will be zero rated by the contractor. This is the case even if there is a small amount of business activity in the building as long as these can be shown to be insignificant (which is taken to be less than 5% of the activities in the whole building) This so called de-minimis of 5% can be of use to a charity. In order for zero rating to apply the charity must issue a certificate to the builder stating the building will be used for non-business purposes.

Although the UT supported HMRC’s appeal against the F-tT decision there was an interesting comment made by the UT.  The fact that students paid towards the cost of their courses (albeit subsidised) meant that business supplies were made, and the quantum of these fees exceeded the 5% de minimis meant that the construction works were standard rated. This decision was hardly surprising, however, a comment made by the Tribunal chairman The Honourable Mr Justice Barling Judge Colin Bishopp may provide hope for charities in a similar position to the appellant: he stated that it believed that the relevant legislation should be reconsidered, suggesting that;

“… it cannot be impossible to relieve charities of an unintended tax burden while at the same time protecting commercial organisations from unfair competition and preventing abuse …”.

 In my view, it is worth considering the summing up in its entirety as it helpfully summarises the current position and provides some much sought after common sense in this matter:

 “We cannot leave this appeal without expressing some disquiet that it should have reached us at all. It is common ground that the College is a charity, and that the bulk of its income is derived from public funds. Because that public funding does not cover all of its costs it is compelled to seek income from other sources; but its doing so does not alter the fact that it remains a charity providing education for young people. If, by careful management or good fortune, it can earn its further income in one way rather than another, or can keep the extent of the income earned in particular ways below an arbitrary threshold, it can escape a tax burden on the construction of a building intended for its charitable purpose, but if it is unable to do so, even to a trivial extent, it is compelled to suffer not some but all of that tax burden. We think it unlikely that Parliament intended such a capricious system. We consider it unlikely, too, that Parliament would consider it a sensible use of public money for the parties to litigate this dispute twice before the FTT and now twice before this tribunal. We do not blame the parties; the College is obliged to maximise the resources available to it for the pursuit of its charitable activities, just as HMRC are obliged to collect tax which is due. Rather, we think the legislation should be reconsidered. It cannot be impossible to relieve 16 charities of an unintended tax burden while at the same time protecting commercial organisations from unfair competition and preventing abuse”.

 Action

If any charities, or charity clients have been denied zero rating on a building project, it will be worthwhile monitoring this development.  Please contact us if you require further information.

VAT Flat Rate Scheme (FRS)– New judgement on retrospective application

By   14 January 2016
0

Latest from the courts

In the recent case of KDT Management Ltd an appeal against a decision by HMRC not to allow the appellant to retrospectively apply the percentage of turnover it says was appropriate to its business under the FRS instead of the one it says it mistakenly chose was considered.

HMRC issued an assessment to recover VAT which was alleged to have been omitted from the appellant’s returns because it did not apply certain increases of rate to its turnover under the FRS of accounting for VAT.

It was also an appeal against a decision by HMRC not to allow the appellant to retrospectively apply the percentage of turnover it says was appropriate to its business under the FRS instead of the one it says it mistakenly chose.

The decision was that the appeal against the assessments to VAT and interest were upheld.  The appeal against the decision not to backdate was also upheld and the decision was cancelled.

Please contact us if you have been in dispute over the rate applicable on a FRS, or if you think you may be using an inappropriate percentage. This is likely to mainly affect small businesses.

Details of the FRS here

VAT Compound Interest – Latest

By   24 November 2015
0

Proposed introduction of a new tax.

The Littlewoods case is slowly making its way through the court system with the CJEU ruling that there is a right to the taxpayer of adequate indemnity in respect of tax incorrectly collected via a mistake of law.  There are myriad claims to which this will apply, especially “Fleming” claims where they covered a significant period of time a number of years ago.

HMRC has now applied to Supreme Court’s decision for permission to appeal the decision and we expect the Supreme Court’s verdict within the next month.

HMRC appear very concerned that it will ultimately be required to pay large amounts of interest to taxpayers who have suffered as a result of HMRC applying the relevant law incorrectly.  Consequently, it has announced that the Summer Finance Bill 2015 will impose a 45% corporation tax charge on compound interest.  There will be no right of set off or deduction for other losses. HMRC will withhold the corporation tax from any payment of interest made. This will take effect on 21 October 2015 (although the relevant legislation will not become law until 2016 indicating that HMRC is indeed running scared).

It is understood that there are a number of parties currently working on ways to challenge the legality of the proposed legislation.

Action

Claims already submitted

No immediate action is required, although it may be beneficial to review the basis of the claim, how it was made and what the status of it is currently.

New claims

For businesses which have received repayments due to HMRC error, it may be worthwhile reviewing the position to determine whether a claim for compound interest is appropriate and if so, to make a claim as soon as possible.  We would, of course, be happy to advise on this and assist where necessary.