Category Archives: Latest from the Courts

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

By Marcus Ward 14 February 2022

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:

advertising
on site café
toilets
parking
capital improvements to the site to make it more attractive to buyers
provision of some pitches under cover
cleaning the site after the events
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.

VAT: Bad Debt Relief. The Regency Factors case

By Marcus Ward 7 February 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Regency Factors plc Court Of Appeal (CoA) case the issue was the validity of the appellant’s claim for Bad Debt Relief (BDR) on amounts it had not received after the issue of an invoice.

Technical

BDR is a mechanism which goes some way to protect a business from payment defaulters. Under the normal rules of VAT, a supplier is required to account for output tax, even if the supply has not been paid for (however, the use of cash accounting or certain retail schemes removes the problem of VAT on bad debts from the supplier). The specific relief for unpaid VAT is via the BDR scheme.

A guide to BDR here.

Commentary on the Upper Tribunal (UT) hearing in this case here.

Background

In the CoA case the issue was whether the appellant met the conditions in The VAT General Regulations 1995, Reg 168 for claiming BDR via The VAT Act 1994, section 36.

Regency provided a factoring service to its clients for which it is paid a fee. VAT invoices for those fees were issued to clients when the invoices which are being factored are assigned to Regency for collection.

Regency appealed against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) which dismissed Regency’s appeal against VAT assessments made by HMRC to withdraw BDR which Regency had claimed in its VAT returns.

The UT held that the BDR claim was not valid because

there was no bad debt; and
Regency had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the making of a claim.

Regency appealed against the decision of the UT on the second point.

Decision

The CoA decided that as Regency’s record keeping was insufficient to support a BDR claim. Specifically, although it did keep the records required by Regulation 168 (2), it did not keep a single VAT BDR account which is required by Regulation 168 (3). The ruling commented that this requirement was a legitimate feature of the scheme as it enables an inspector to check the claim easily. It is not acceptable for a claimant to simply have a pile of unsorted documents which may, or may not, evidence a valid claim.

The court also said that it was possible for HMRC to allow a discretionary claim (clearly, they did not use that discretion in this case) and that the legal requirement was not a barrier to Regency making a proper BDR claim. The appeal was dismissed.

“In short, Regency had the opportunity to prove its claim for bad debt relief in the FTT… but it failed to do so. It is not entitled to a second opportunity”.

Commentary

As always with VAT, accurate record-keeping is essential. As the tax is transaction based, it is vital to keep comprehensive evidence of those transactions and associated payments. Failure to do so may result in:

assessments and penalties
give HMRC the opportunity to refuse otherwise legitimate input tax recovery
refuse other VAT claims (in this case BDR).
confusion and uncertainty which often creates costs in time and other resources, and extended relations with HMRC, which is in no business’ interest.

If Regency had taken “one step further” with its record keeping, BDR would have been paid by HMRC.

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

By Marcus Ward 24 January 2022

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.

Uber to charge VAT

By Marcus Ward 7 December 2021

Latest from the courts

Further to my article on the Supreme Court case, Uber went to the High Court seeking to challenge this decision, but the High Court has now upheld it.

This means it is very likely that Uber will be required to charge VAT on its supplies as the court found that taxi firms make contracts directly with their customers because Uber drivers should be treated as workers not contractors. This means that Uber make to supply of taxi services to the fare and not the individual drivers.

The High Court agreed with the Supreme Court and stated that: “… in order to operate lawfully under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 a licensed operator who accepts a booking from a passenger is required to enter as principal into a contractual obligation with the passenger to provide the journey which is the subject of the booking.”

A spokesperson for Uber said: “Every private hire operator in London will be impacted by this decision, and should comply with the verdict in full.”

Although not a VAT case itself, this decision is the latest in a long list of VAT agent/principal cases, the most important being:

Secret Hotels 2 Ltd

Hotels4U.com Ltd

Low Cost Holidays Ltd

Adecco

All Answers Limited

It is crucial that businesses review their position if there is any doubt at all whether agent status applies to their business model.

VAT: Roof panels are not insulation. The Greenspace case

By Marcus Ward 2 December 2021

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Greenspace Limited the issue was whether insulated roof panels were “energy-saving materials” per VAT Act 1994, sect 29A, Schedule 7A, group 2, items 1 and 2 and thus liable at the reduced rate of 5%. Or rather at the standard rate of 20% on the basis that they were a supply of a roof itself.

Background

The appellant supplied and installed roof panels for conservatories which comprised a layer of close-cell extruded polystyrene foam (Styrofoam) around 71mm thick. The Styrofoam was covered with a thin aluminium layer and a protective powder coating which are together around 2mm thick. The supplies were made to residential customers and the panels were fitted onto their pre-existing conservatory roofs. The Panels were slotted into place on the existing roof structure and Greenspace did not replace its customers’ existing roof framework when doing this; the struts and glazing bars that supported the previous glass or polycarbonate panels were left in place. Consequently, the Panels were not self-supporting and could only be used if the customer already had an existing conservatory roof structure.

The decision

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided in 2020 that the panels were not “insulation for a roof” but were a new roof in their own right, and that the appellant’s supplies did not therefore qualify for the reduced rate of VAT (unlike insulation that could be separately attached to a roof, the panels actually formed the roof).

The UT dismissed the new appeal and found that the FTT had not been obliged to compare the roof after Greenspace had installed its panels to the original roof. The frame that was retained could not itself be described as a roof, and the provision of the Thermotec panels which made the conservatory weatherproof as well as insulating it could properly be categorised as the provision of a new roof.

One of Greenspace’s grounds of appeal was that the FTT decision was vitiated by the assumption that because the panels took the form of roof coverings, they were necessarily incapable of constituting “insulation for … roofs”. The appellant argued that as this was a flawed assumption (that Greenspace’s supplies “must” be treated as something more than insulation) the decision should be set aside. This contention was rejected by the UT judge.

Commentary

A fine distinction is often required to be made to establish the correct VAT treatment of a supply. In this case a degree of semantics was required to determine whether the panels were energy-saving materials (even when they certainly saved energy). On such small things turned the assessment of £2.6 million here. It always pays to double check VAT treatments rather than making assumptions.

VAT: The importance of “belonging”. The Mandarin Consulting case

By Marcus Ward 1 December 2021

Latest from the courts

Technical: I have considered the importance of the Place of Belonging (POB) here.

The issue

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Mandarin Consulting Ltd the issue was the POB of the appellant’s clients, and the evidence to support that POB.

Background

Mandarin supplied career coaching and support services to students of Chinese origin. Those services would be outside the scope of VAT if supplied to persons whose usual residence was outside the EU. So, in order to treat its supplies as UK VAT free the appellant need to demonstrate where the recipients of its services lived.

First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision

The FTT decided that the services were outside the scope of VAT if the recipient had a permanent address, or usually resided, at that time, outside the EU. It was agreed that from July 2016 the supplies were made to the students’ parents who almost exclusively lived in China. The dispute was with pre-2016 services which were deemed to be made to the students. HMRC argued that, as the students lived in the UK for the duration of the courses, their “usual residence” was the UK, so VAT applied. Although the FTT dismissed this argument, the appeal failed because the proffered evidence did not establish that the usual place of residence of the students as required by Council Implementing Regulation 282/2011/82, Article 23 (reproduced below).

The UT decision

The UT considered the following issues:

Issue 1 – In deciding whether the requirements of Article 23 had been satisfied should the FTT have had regard to “informal evidence” as well as the documentary evidence provided? What evidence could the appellant rely upon to establish that students had a “permanent address” or “usual residence” outside the Community? Is Mandarin limited to such documentary evidence as it had in its possession prior to the time of supply, or can Mandarin in principle rely on all evidence available to it, whether obtained before or after the time of supply, including witness evidence given in connection with the FTT proceedings?

Issue 2 – Taking into account the answers to the above, had the evidence that Mandarin put forward established a prima facie case that its supplies were to persons with a “permanent address” or “usual residence” outside the Community? If so, was there an evidential burden on HMRC to rebut that prima facie case which HMRC had failed to discharge?

Issue 3 – To the extent that Mandarin had failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 23 of the Implementing Regulation, was that fatal to its claim to treat supplies made to students prior to July 2016 as outside the scope of VAT?

Unfortunately, the appellant obtained “relatively patchy” information in respect of the usual residence of individual students.

The UT found that a business retained the right to argue the place of supply (POS) was outside the EU even if the requirements of Article 23 were not met. Also, that while the POS had to be determined by the relevant circumstances existing at the time of supply, Mandarin was not precluded from relying on information discovered later. Finally, it was decided that Article 23 was not the only means available to demonstrate the appellant’s clients had a usual residence outside the EU.

However, the FTT had failed to consider the informal evidence provided concerning the business and customer base. The UT did consider this but still found that the evidence still did not succeed in demonstrating the POB of clients sufficiently. Consequently, the UT was not satisfied that the POB of the students was outside the EU so the supplies were subject to UK VAT and the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Another case demonstrating the importance of obtaining and retaining information on the location of customers. Superficially, it appears that the appellant’s supplies may have been UK VAT free, but a failure to evidence this was its downfall. It would not have taken very much to be covered by Article 23, but…

Legislation

Article 23

“… 23. Where, in accordance with Articles 58 and 59 of the PVD, a supply of services is taxable at the place where the customer is established, or, in the absence of an establishment, where he has his permanent address or usually resides, the supplier shall establish that place based on factual information provided by the customer, and verify that information by normal commercial security measures such as those relating to identity or payment checks.”

VAT: Input tax recovery. The Mpala Mufwankolo case

By Marcus Ward 15 November 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Mr Mufwankolo the dispute was whether the appellant was able to recover VAT charged by the landlord of the property from which he ran his business – a licenced retail outlet on Tottenham High Road.

Background

The landlord had opted to tax the commercial property and charged VAT on the rent. The appellant was a sole proprietor; however, the lease was in the name of Mr Mufwankolo’s wife, and the rent demands showed her name and not that of the sole proprietor. It was contended by the appellant, but not evidenced, that the lease had originally been in both his and his wife’s names, despite his wife being the sole signatory.

The issues

Could the appellant recover input tax?

Did the business receive the supply?
Was there appropriate evidence?

It was clear that the business operated from the relevant property and consequently, in normal circumstances, the rent would be a genuine cost component of the business.

The Decision

The FTT found that there was no entitlement to an input tax claim and the appeal was dismissed. The lease was solely in the wife’s name and the business was the applicant as a sole proprietor. (There was an obvious potential for a partnership and an argument that a partnership was originally intended was advanced. The status of registration was challenged in 2003, but, crucially, not pursued).

It was possible for the property to be sub-let by the wife to the husband, however, this did not affect the VAT treatment as matters stood. Additionally, there was no evidence that the appellant actually paid any of the rent, as this was done by the tenant. There were no VAT invoices addressed to the sole proprietor.

Given the facts, there was no supply to the appellant, so there was no input tax to claim, and the issue of acceptable evidence fell away.

It was a certainty that the appeal could not succeed.

Commentary

There were a number of ways that this VAT cost could have easily been avoided had a little thought been given to the VAT arrangements. An oversight that created an avoidable tax hit.

A helpful guide to input tax considerations here: Care with input tax claims.

Legislation

The VAT Act 1994 Section 3 – Taxable person

The VAT Act 1994 Section 4 – Taxable supply

The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (1) – Input tax

The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (6) – Input tax claim evidence

VAT: DIY housebuilders can make more than one claim – The Ellis case

By Marcus Ward 18 October 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Andrew Ellis and Jane Bromley [2021] TC08277, the issue was whether a person constructing their own house can make more than one claim for VAT incurred.

Background

The DIY Housebuilder’s Scheme enables a DIY housebuilder to recover VAT incurred on the construction of a house in which the constructor will live. Details here.

In this case, the specific issue was whether, despite the HMRC guidance notes on the scheme claim form explicitly stating that only one claim can be made, whether two claims may be submitted and paid by the respondent.

The appellant constructed a house over a period of five years (he was a jobbing builder and the work was generally only undertaken at weekends and holidays). To aid cash flow, an initial claim was made, followed by a second two years later.

The relevant legislation is The VAT Act 1994 section 35.

Decision

The appeal was allowed. The FTT found that HMRC’s rule that only one claim could be made under the DIY housebuilder’s scheme was ultra vires and that multiple claims should be permitted.

The judge stated that “…there is no express indication that only one claim may be made. Like many provisions, section 35 VATA is drafted in the singular. Drafting in the singular is an established technique to assist in clarity and to enable the proposal to be dealt with succinctly. As there is no express indication to the contrary in section 35 VATA, section 6 Interpretation Act 1978 applies to confirm that the reference to “a claim” in section 35 VATA must be read as including “claims”.

Commentary

This is good news for claimants who often must wait a number of years for a house to be built and therefore carry the VAT cost until the end of the project.

This case presumably means that it is possible to make claims as the project progresses and there is no need to wait until completion.

We await comment on this case from HMRC, but it is hoped that clarification will be forthcoming on whether the result of this case will be accepted.

VAT: Are freemasons’ aims philosophical, philanthropic, or civic? The United Grand Lodge case

By Marcus Ward 4 October 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) the issue was whether subscriptions paid by members of the freemasons are exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 9, section 31, item 1(e) “Subscriptions to trade unions, professional and other public interest bodies” which exempts membership subscriptions paid to a non-profit making organisation which has objects which are of a political, religious, patriotic, philosophical, philanthropic or civic nature.

Background

So, in this case, for the subscriptions to be exempt, freemasonry’s aims must be philosophical, philanthropic, or civic. UGLE submitted input tax claims on the basis that its subscription income was exempt and HMRC declined to make the repayments.

An organisation which has more than one main aim can still come within the exemption if those aims are all listed and described in the legislation. The fact that the organisation has other aims which are not set out in law does not mean that its services to members are not exempt provided that those other aims are not main aims. If, however, the organisation has a number of aims, all equally important, some of which are covered by the exemption, and some of which are not, then the services supplied by the organisation to its members are wholly outside the exemption.

The contentions

The respondents stated that the aims were not UGLE’s sole main aim or aims, and, even if they were, the aims were not in the public domain.

UGLE claimed that its sole main aim was philosophical in nature; or, in the alternative, the main aims, taken together, were of a philosophical, philanthropic, or civic nature and it did not have any other main aims.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The judge decided that the supplies made by UGLE in return for subscription payments were properly standard rated.

It was common ground that the motives of the members in joining the organisation are irrelevant.

It was accepted that since 2000 freemasonry has become more outward looking and since then has become more involved in charitable work among those, and for the benefit of those, who are not freemasons or their dependants. That said, the judge was not satisfied that the charitable works of individual freemasons, such as volunteering to give time to a local charity, were undertaken by them as freemasons rather than simply as public-spirited members of the community.

It was found that UGLE did have aims of a philosophical, philanthropic and civic nature (the promotion of all aspects of the practice of freemasonry and charity was central to UGLE’s activities). However, it was not accepted that these were UGLE’s main or primary aims. At least 48% of payments made by UGLE were to freemasons and their dependants and in the FTT’s judgment such support remained one of the main aims of freemasonry and thus of UGLE. The importance of providing support for freemasons and their dependants who are in need is a central tenet of freemasonry – The duty to help other freemasons is clearly set out in the objects of the four central masonic charities. The evidence showed that the provision of relief to freemasons and their dependants was the more important than donations to good causes unconnected with freemasonry.

Civic aims

There was nothing in the evidence which indicates any civic aim. UGLE cannot be said to be an organisation that has aims pertaining to the citizen and the state. Indeed, freemasons are prohibited from discussing matters of religion and politics in lodges.

Consequently, as one of UGLE’s main aims could not be described as philosophical, philanthropic, or civic, its membership subscriptions were standard rated. Making payments to freemasons was more akin to self-insurance, rather than philanthropic in nature.

VAT: Farm in business? The Babylon case

By Marcus Ward 21 September 2021

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Babylon Farm Ltd (the farm) the issue was whether the appellant was in business and consequently was able to recover certain input tax.

Background

Yet another case on whether there was any business activity in a company. Please see here, here, here and here for previous cases on this issue. The farm sold hay which it cut from another person’s fields to a connected party. The value of the one-off annual sale was £440 pa. The appellant also contended that it was also undertaking preparatory acts for the new business activities and that it would be able to levy management charges. Another new business activity was the creation of an investment and insurance product.

The farm built a new barn on which it claimed input tax of £19,760.

HMRC considered that no business was being carried on and decided to deregister the farm thus refusing to pay the input tax claim. The farm challenged this decision and contended that taxable supplies were being made, and there was also an intention to make taxable supplies in the future.

Legislation

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 of the VAT Act 1994 requires HMRC to be satisfied that a person is either making taxable supplies or is carrying on a business and intends to make such supplies in the course or furtherance of a business in order to be registered for VAT. There are a number of tests set out in case law (mainly The Lord Fisher case) to establish whether a person is in business:

Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
Are the taxable supplies that are being made of a kind which, subject to differences of detail, are commonly made by those who seek to profit from them?

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The farm was not in business and could not recover input tax on the costs of the new barn.

The judge stated that he could see no legal basis for the farm to be in business. The hay that the farm sold was taken from the customer’s own land and therefore belonged to him already. It was also noted that no invoices were raised, no payment for the hay had been made for a number of years and the single customer was a director of Babylon Farm Limited so the farm was not operating in an open market. The sale of hay had not been conducted on a basis that followed sound and recognised business principles or on a basis that was predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for consideration. As a consequence, the farm was not operating as a business during the relevant period.

On the intention point; neither of the intended activities had yet resulted in any chargeable services being provided and both were to be carried on through companies that had been formed for these purposes (not the farm). Both businesses remained at a formative stage and neither company has generated any revenue. This was insufficient to retain the VAT registration.

Commentary

The decision was hardly a surprise and one wonders how it reached the UT. HMRC were always going to challenge an input tax claim of that quantum with no output tax (and such a low value of sales which may not have been made in any event).