Category Archives: Latest VAT news

VAT – Catering at a university campus; exempt?

By Marcus Ward 3 September 2018

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Olive Garden Catering Company Ltd (OGC) the mian issue was whether catering which was provided to the University of Aberdeen (UOA) students was an exempt supply. The specific issue was whether the catering was a supply “closely connected to education” which in turn depended on which entity was actually making the supply to students. For exemption to apply, OGC would need to be a principal in purchasing the food and other goods and an agent of UOA (pictured above) in delivering the catering (the exemption could not apply to a supply by OGC to the students).

Background

The central issue was whether the supply of food and staff by the appellant to UOA was a single supply of catering services at the standard-rate for VAT purposes (HMRC’s case) or that the main supply was for food at the zero-rate, with the supply of staff being a separate supply and eligible for staff wages concession which was the appellant’s stance. I comment that the procurement as principal and the delivery of catering as agent is common practice in the education sector and this case focussed on whether the relevant documentation actually reflected the economic reality.

Decision

The HMRC internal VAT manual VTAXPER64300 sets out the general principles for determining the VAT treatment of supplies made under a catering contract, which in turn depend in some situations on the capacity in which the caterer supplies its service, whether as principal or agent in the agreement. Of relevance in this case were the following statements:

(1) In general, it has been established practice that agency contracts are most often used in the education sector.

(2) Under agency contracts for the provision of catering it is accepted that:

The client makes a taxable supply of catering to the consumer, or the catering is subsumed within an overall exempt supply, eg; of education
VAT is not charged to the client on wages of the catering staff employed at the unit
VAT is charged on any management fee plus taxable stock and other services
Schools may only exempt supplies which are closely related to the overall provision of education

(3) This contributes to fair competition with in-house providers, and the contract catering industry acknowledges the value of that.

In respect of the contract for the supply of catering services, UOA was the principal and OGC was the agent by reference to the control exercised over; menu specifications, pricing, and the premises in which catering was carried out. The relevant contracts set out that the terms were set by UOA and were indicative of its status as the principal in the catering contract. The judge stated that the catering contracts between UOA and OGC appeared to be an agency contract with OGC acting as the agent. Consequently, the food produced OGC and served by its staff at UOA’s halls of residence was potentially a supply of food in the course of catering that can be subsumed within the overall exempt supply of education by UOA.

Commentary

A win for the appellant, but only after comprehensive consideration of all points and the substantial detailed documentation by the judge. There has been a run of Tribunal cases on the agent/principal point (not just in education and which I have covered in previous articles) and this case serves to demonstrate that each case will be determined on its merits. There can be no blanket VAT treatment and certain factors will point one way and others to a different VAT treatment. In my experience, HMRC are always eager to challenge agent/principal treatment and it is an area which has an enormous tax impact on a business. I always recommend that any contracts/documentation which cover potential agent/principal issues are reviewed to avoid unwanted attention from HMRC. Slight adjustments to agreements often assist in reaching the desired tax treatment. Don’t leave it to chance!

VAT – deadline for EU refunds

By Marcus Ward 31 August 2018

A reminder

The refund scheme

If a UK VAT registered business incurs VAT in other EU Member States it is not possible to recover this on a usual UK VAT return. However, it is possible to make such a claim via a specific mechanism. This scheme is outlined in detail here and what may be claimed is considered in detail here

Any applicant must not be registered or registrable in the Member State from which they are claiming a refund, nor must they have a permanent business establishment in that EU country. There are a number of other rules to be considered as well, so it pays to ensure that the claim is valid before time and effort is expended in compiling a claim.

Deadline

For VAT incurred overseas in the 2017 calendar year must be claimed by 30 September 2018

This is less than a month away and UK business must allow time to register for the refund portal as an activation code is sent via hard copy in the post. That’s HMRC moving with the time folks. No sending by text or anything similarly helpful. There is no leeway to extend this deadline.

Please contact us if you have any queries or would like assistance on making a claim.

Is tax boring?…On reflection

By Marcus Ward 23 August 2018

I am often asked as a VAT person whether I find tax boring. I do often find it frustrating, some of the mechanics arcane and dealing with HMRC something of a challenge (putting it politely). However, I have been advising on the tax for getting on for 30 years, so it must have its attractions…

I think the best way to put it is by quoting K Maurer:

Tax is not boring. Tax is politics. Tax is geography. Tax is social issues. Tax is financial literacy. Tax is financial empowerment. Tax is problem solving. Tax is helping others create a stronger sense of independence. Tax is anything but boring!

I would also add that tax is challenging as a practitioner, it is also; evaluating information, arriving at creative solutions, hand-holding, standing up for rights, explaining, challenging views and assumptions and…keeping on top of a rapidly changing legislative/legislation and commercial landscapes.

It can also be very silly.

VAT: Adecco Court of Appeal case. Agent or principal?

By Marcus Ward 6 August 2018

Latest from the courts

In the recent Court of Appeal (CA) case of Adecco here the issue was whether the services provided by Adecco – an employment bureau which supplied its clients with temporary staff (temps) were by way of it acting as principal or agent.

Background

Details of the issues as considered in the FTT and UT were covered here

Overview

As is often the case in these types of arrangements, there are some matters that point towards the appellant acting as agent, and others indicating that the proper VAT treatment is that of principal. The important difference, of course, being whether output tax is due on the “commission” received by Adecco or on the full payment made to it (which includes the salaries of the relevant workers).

Decision

The CA decided that the supply of temporary staff by Adecco was as principal and consequently, VAT was due on the full amount received, not just the commission retained.

Reasoning

The CA focussed on the contractual position. Among the reasons provided for this decision were as follows (I have somewhat summarised). I think it worthwhile looking in some detail at these:

There was no question of the temps having provided their services under contracts with the clients: no such contracts existed. The contractual position must be that the temps’ services were provided to clients in pursuance of the contracts between Adecco and its clients and Adecco and the temps.
Although the contract between Adecco and a temp referred to the temp undertaking an assignment “for a client” and providing services “to the client”, it also spoke of the client requiring the temp’s services “through Adecco” and of the temp being supplied “through Adecco”.
While temps were to be subject to the control of clients, that was something that the temps agreed with Adecco, not the clients. The fact that the contract between Adecco and a temp barred any third party from having rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 confirms that the relevant provisions were to be enforceable only by Adecco, which, on the strength of them, was able to agree with its clients that the temps should be under their control. Adecco can fairly be described as conferring such control on its clients. (Broadly; the employment regulations required Adecco to treat itself as a principal with the result that that it could not therefore treat itself as an agent).
Adecco paid temps on its own behalf, not as agent for the clients.
Adecco by did not drop out of the picture once it had introduced a temp to a client. It was responsible for paying the temp (and for handling national insurance contributions and the like) and had to do so regardless of whether it received payment from the client Adecco also enjoyed rights of termination and suspension. It is noteworthy (as the UT said) that the contract between Adecco and a temp proceeded on the basis that a temp’s unauthorised absence could “result in a breach of obligations which we owe to the client”.
Adecco did not perform just administrative functions in relation to the temps. The temps, after all, were entitled to be paid by Adecco, not the clients.
Adecco charged a client a single sum for each hour a temp worked. It did not split its fees into remuneration for the temp and commission for itself.
The fact that Adecco had no control over a temp in advance of his taking up his assignment with the client did not matter.
Adecco undoubtedly supplied the services of employed temps to its clients.
In all the circumstances, both contractually and as a matter of economic and commercial reality, the temps’ services were supplied to clients via Adecco. In other words, Adecco did not merely supply its clients with introductory and ancillary services, and VAT was payable on the totality of what it was paid by clients.

Action

Clearly this was not the outcome the appellant desired, and it may impact similar arrangements in place for other businesses. Although found on the precise nature of the relevant contracts, the outcome of this case is not limited to employment bureaux and similar but must be considered in most cases where commission is received by an “agent”. These may include, inter alia; taxi services, driving schools, transport, travel agents, training/education, online services, repairs, warrantee work and many other types of business. It is crucial that contracts are regularly reviewed the ensure that the appropriate VAT treatment is applied and that they are clear on the agent/principal relationship. If there is any doubt, please contact us as it is often one of the most ambiguous areas of VAT.

VAT – Making Tax Digital (MTD) Update

By Marcus Ward 17 July 2018

Time moves on and HMRC has published further information on MTD. I outlined the basics of MTD here

The recent publication lists software suppliers which HMRC say have both:

tested their products in HMRC’s test environment
already demonstrated a prototype of their software to HMRC

HMRC will update this list as testing progresses. We advise to check with your existing software supplier to see if they will be supplying suitable software for the pilot, or contact one listed below in the HMRC publication:

Background

HMRC state that more than 130 software suppliers have told them that they are interested in providing software for MTD for VAT. Over 35 of these have said they will have software ready during the first phase of the pilot in which HMRC is testing the service with small numbers of invited businesses and agents. The pilot will be opened up to allow more businesses and agents to join later this year.

Good luck everyone!

Small businesses/start ups: Should I register for VAT voluntarily?

By Marcus Ward 6 July 2018

Why?

OK, so why would a business choose to VAT register when it need not? Let’s say its turnover is under the VAT registration limit of £85,000, isn’t it just best to avoid the VATman if at all possible?

Planning

This is not an article which considers whether a business MUST register, but rather it looks at whether it is a good idea to register on a voluntary basis if it is not compulsory. The first time a business would probably consider VAT planning.

Decision

As a general rule of thumb; if you sell to the public (B2C) then probably not. If you sell to other VAT registered businesses (B2B) then it is more likely to be beneficial.

If you sell B2B to customers overseas it is almost certain that VAT registration would be a good thing, as it would if you supply zero rated goods or services in the UK. This is because there is no output tax on sales, but full input tax recovery on costs; VAT nirvana! A distinction must be made between zero rated supplies and exempt supplies. If only exempt supplies are made, a business cannot register for VAT regardless of level of income.

Compliance

Apart from the economic considerations, we have found that small businesses are sometimes put off VAT registration by the added compliance costs and the potential penalties being in the VAT club can bring. Weighed against this, there is a certain kudos or prestige for a business and it does convey a degree of seriousness of a business undertaking. It may also make life simpler (and reduce costs) if a business buys goods or services from other EC Member States. We also come across situations where a customer will only deal with suppliers who are VAT registered.

The main issue

The key to registration is that, once registered, a business may recover the VAT it incurs on its expenditure (called input tax). So let us look at some simple examples of existing businesses for comparison:

Examples

Example 1

A business sells office furniture to other VAT registered business (B2B).

It buys stock for 10,000 plus VAT of 2,000

It incurs VAT on overheads (rent, IT, telephones, light and heat etc) of 2,000 plus 400 VAT

It makes sales of 20,000.

If not registered, its profit is 20,000 less 12,000 less 2400 = 5600

If VAT registered, the customer can recover any VAT charged, so VAT is not a disincentive to him.

Sales 20,000 plus 4000 VAT (paid to HMRC)

Input tax claimed = 2400 (offset against payment to HMRC)

Result: the VAT is neutral and not a cost, so profit is 20,000 less 12,000 = 8000, a saving of 2400 as compared to the business not being registered. The 2400 clearly equals the input tax recovered on expenditure.

Example 2

A “one-man band consultant” provides advice B2B and uses his home as his office. All of his clients are able to recover any VAT charged.

He has very little overheads that bear VAT as most of his expenditure is VAT free (staff, train fares, use of home) so his input tax amounts to 100.

He must weigh up the cost (time/admin etc) of VAT registration against reclaiming the 100 of input tax. In this case it would probably not be worthwhile VAT registering – although the Flat Rate Scheme may be attractive, please see article here

Example 3

A retailer sells adult clothes to the public from a shop. She pays VAT on the rent and on the purchase of stock as well as the usual overheads. The total amount she pays is 20,000 with VAT of 4000.

Her sales total 50,000.

If not VAT registered her profit is 50,000 less 24,000 = 26,000

If VAT registered she will treat the value of sales as VAT inclusive, so of the 50,000 income 8333 represents VAT she must pay to HMRC. She is able to offset her input tax of 4000.

This means that her profit if VAT registered is 50,000 less the VAT of 8333 = 41,667 less the net costs of 20,000 = 21,667.

Result: a loss of 4333 in profit.

As may be seen, if a business sells to the public it is nearly always disadvantageous to be voluntarily VAT registered. It may be possible to increase her prices by circa 20%, but for a lot of retailers, this is unrealistic.

Intending traders

If a business has not started trading, but is incurring input tax on costs, it is possible to VAT register even though it has not made any taxable supplies. This is known by HMRC as an intending trader registration. A business will need to provide evidence of the intention to trade and this is sometimes a stumbling block, especially in the area of land and property. Choosing to register before trading may avoid losing input tax due to the time limits (very generally a business can go back six months for services and four years for goods on hand to recover the VAT). Also cashflow will be improved if input tax is recovered as soon as possible.

Action

Careful consideration should be given to the VAT status of a small or start-up business. This may be particularly relevant to start-ups as they typically incur more costs as the business begins and the recovery of the VAT on these costs may be important. In most cases it is also possible to recover VAT incurred before the date of VAT registration.

This is a basic guide and there are many various situations that require further consideration of the benefits of voluntary VAT registration. We would, of course, be pleased to help.

VAT – Top 10 Tips for small businesses and start ups

By Marcus Ward 5 July 2018

VAT Basics

Small business and start ups have a lot of things to think about – VAT being just one. However, failure to consider VAT can lead to difficulties and penalties. So here are some pointers for new and/or growing bushiness:

Plan ahead and know when to register for VAT
Make contact with your advisers
Monitor your turnover so that you know when you are approaching the VAT registration threshold
Keep your records up-to-date and check accounting documents
Speak to us if things go wrong or there’s something you don’t understand
Deal with VAT enquiries or HMRC’s requests for information promptly
Manage the VAT within your business cashflow
Don’t worry if Customs make contact with you
Right tax – right time
If you are not happy with Customs’ behaviour or have received an unhelpful or incorrect ruling; challenge it.

The overall message is; talk to a professional at an early stage. Timing is very important for VAT and you usually only have one chance to get it right.

Finally, regarding the first point – it may benefit a business to VAT register before it is required to (a so-called voluntary registration). I shall look at that in more depth in my next article.

New RCB 5 – VAT treatment of goods supplied on approval

By Marcus Ward 25 June 2018

Goods supplied on approval

Meaning

Goods supplied on approval is an arrangement under which items of durable nature are provided to a prospective customer for a pre-purchase trial. These items are returnable after a specified period in re-saleable condition if not accepted for purchase.

New publication

HMRC has announced via Revenue and Customs Brief 5 (2018) “RCB 5” changes to the way goods supplied on approval are treated for VAT purposes.

The broad thrust of RCB 5 is that, in HMRC’s opinion, taxpayers are using the rules for goods supplied on approval when this treatment is inappropriate.

The goods supplied on approval rules

Output tax is due at the end of the approval period. That is, tax is deferred until a time the goods are adopted (if they are). These rules are distinct from a supply of goods with a subsequent right to return them. In these cases the tax point is when title passes.

Sale on approval was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Littlewoods Organisation plc (VTD 14977). The Tribunal held that goods were supplied on approval where there is no contract of sale unless, and until, the recipient concerned adopted or was deemed to have adopted the goods. The judge in that case decided that Littlewoods did not supply goods on approval. This case appears to have triggered an HMRC initiative to look at the number of businesses which may be incorrectly deferring output tax by using these rules. It concluded that a lot fewer taxpayers were actually providing goods on approval than previously thought.

Technical

The basic tax point for a supply of goods in these situations is determined by the VAT Act 1994 section 6(2) (c) which applies in the case of goods on approval. It delays the basic tax point until the time when the goods are adopted by the customer or twelve months from the date they were originally despatched, whichever is the earlier

Section 6(2)

(2) … a supply of goods shall be treated as taking place –

(a) if the goods are to be removed, at the time of the removal;

(b) … ;

(c) if the goods (being sent or taken on approval or sale or return or similar terms) are removed before it is known whether a supply will take place, at the time it becomes certain that the supply has taken place or, if sooner, 12 months after the removal.

The guidance

HMRC has published the RCB to provide guidance on how businesses should review their transactions in order to establish whether they are using sale on approval treatment correctly.

Indicators of goods supplied on approval

Whether or not goods are supplied on approval will depend on the facts in each case and will require consideration of a number of indicators which will have to be carefully weighed against each other. Relevant indicators include the following factors but they are not exhaustive.

The terms and conditions of trading, and all contractual terms applying.
The time when title in the goods passes to the buyer.
The time at which the buyer has the right to dispose of the goods as owner.
The view presented to the customer in marketing literature, order forms, delivery notes, statements etc.
The rights of the customer to return unwanted goods.
The terms of any supply of credit finance provided with the goods.
The time when payment for the goods is demanded.
The time when payment for the goods is received.
The time when the buyer assumes responsibility for the upkeep and insurance of the goods.
Anything the buyer does to signify his adoption of the goods.
The calculation of the minimum payment due for goods delivered.
The time when a sale is recognised in the financial accounts of the business.

(these indicators are not featured in RCB 5).

Deadline

HMRC state that from 18 September 2018 all business must change their accounting systems and accurately apply the appropriate VAT treatment. However, no action will be taken for past inaccuracies and taxpayers will not be required to make any changes to records or declarations.

Delivery charges

In normal circumstances, the fee charged for delivery follows the VAT liability of the goods being supplied (it is a single supply of delivered goods). However, the RCB somewhat controversially, states that when goods are supplied on approval the delivery charge is not ancillary. HMRC conclude that as delivery occurs before the customer or the supplier know whether there will be a supply of goods, delivery is an aim in itself, represents a separate, independent supply and is not dependent upon the supply of goods. The purpose of the delivery service is to facilitate the customer inspecting the goods to decide whether or not they wish to purchase them. This is always a standard rated supply and consequently, output tax is due on this fee, whether or not the goods are adopted (and with a tax point prior to adoption or return). I expect that this analysis will be challenged at some point as it does not, in my mind, sit comfortably with previously decided case law.

Action

Businesses which consider themselves to be supplying goods on approval (usually mail order businesses) need to review their terms and manner of trading to identify whether that is indeed the case. Consideration must be given to the above indicators, the ruling in the Littlewoods case and the information in RCB 5. If what is being provided falls outside the definition of a supply on approval, the necessary changes are required in order to recognise a sale at an earlier time. Even if goods are supplied on approval, the VAT treatment of delivery charges need to be reconsidered and adjusted if need be. We can assist if required.

The VAT gap rises

By Marcus Ward 20 June 2018

In the latest figures released by HMRC the amount of unpaid tax has increased by circa £1 billion.

What is the tax gap?

The VAT gap is the difference between the amount of VAT that should, in theory, be collected by HMRC, against what is actually collected. The ‘VAT total theoretical liability’ (VTTL) represents the VAT that should be paid if all businesses complied with both the letter of the law and HMRC’s interpretation of the intention of Parliament in setting law, referred to as the spirit of the law below.

Summary

Here is an overview of the figures which are for the year 2016-17:

The VAT gap is estimated to be £11.7 billion in which equates to 8.9% of net VAT total theoretical liability. HMRC report that there has been a long-term reduction between 2005-06 and 2016-17 for the VAT gap (12.5% to 8.9%). The information is provided by The Office for National Statistics, National Accounts Blue Book 2017 and Consumer Trend.

MTIC

The Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) fraud estimate reduced to less than £0.5 billion in 2016-17, from between £0.5 billion and £1 billion in 2015-16.. VAT debt has been fairly stable since 2011-12. It is estimated at £1.5 billion in 2016-17. Around 70% of the VAT total theoretical liability in 2016-17 was from household consumption. The remaining gap was from consumption by businesses making exempt supplies and from the government and housing sectors. Around half of household VAT-able expenditure was from restaurants and hotels, transport and recreation and culture.

VAT debt

The contribution of debt to the VAT gap is defined as the amount of VAT declared by businesses but not paid to HMRC. The VAT gap showed a peak at 12.6% in 2008-09, which was partly because the recession caused an increase in VAT debt from £0.9 billion in 2007-08 to £2.4 billion in 2008-09. VAT debt has been fairly stable since 2011-12. It is estimated at £1.5 billion in 2016-17.

Avoidance

VAT avoidance is another component of the VAT gap. HMRC say that avoidance is artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce a tax advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. VAT avoidance is estimated at £0.1 billion in 2016-17.

Other indirect taxes

The overall excise tax gap is estimated to be £4.1 billion (£3.1 billion in excise duty and £1 billion in VAT). This is analysed as:

£2.5 billion tobacco tax gap, with associated losses in tobacco duty (£1.9 billion) and VAT (£0.5 billion )
£1.3 billion alcohol tax gap, with associated losses in alcohol duty (£0.9 billion) and VAT (£0.4 billion)
£150 in GB diesel duty and associated VAT
£40 in Northern Ireland (NI) diesel duty and associated VAT
£170 in other excise duties

Overall tax gap

The report indicates that small businesses were most likely to be underpaying tax generally. They accounted for £13.7 billion of last the overall tax gap. Large businesses had underpaid £7 billion and medium-sized businesses £3.9 billion.

The tax gap for Income Tax, National Insurance and Capital Gains Tax was 4.2%. Along with VAT there has been a long-term downward trend in the Corporation Tax gap. This has reduced from 12.4% in 2005/06 to 7.4% last year.

It appears that the days of large tax avoidance schemes have passed and HMRC is now concentrating on compliance mistakes and routine errors. HMRC is also increasingly challenging legal interpretations of tax law in order to recover more tax. Please see here for further details on HMRC’s approach.

What causes the tax gap?

The behaviour giving rise to the gap are as follows:

£5.9 billion – failure to take reasonable care
£5.4 billion – criminal attacks
£5.3 billion – legal interpretation
£5.3 billion – evasion
£3.4 billion – non-payment
£3.2 billion – error
£3.2 billion – hidden economy
£1.7 billion – avoidance

VAT: Construction industry – the new Reverse Charge

By Marcus Ward 11 June 2018

Builders will soon be required to charge themselves VAT.

HMRC has published an important new draft Statutory Instrument (SI) for technical consultation with a draft explanatory memorandum and draft tax information and impact note. The new rules are likely to be introduced in the autumn.

This sets out more details of the intended Reverse Charge (RC) for construction services. The draft legislation will make supplies of standard or reduced rated construction services between construction or businesses subject to the domestic RC, which means that the recipient of the supply will be liable to account for VAT due, instead of the supplier.

What supplies does the intended legislation cover?

The RC will apply to, inter alia:

construction, alteration, repair, extension, demolition or dismantling of buildings or structures
work on; walls, roadworks, electronic communications apparatus, docks and harbours, railways, pipe-lines, reservoirs, water-mains, wells, sewers, or industrial plant
installation in any building or structure of systems of heating, lighting, air-conditioning, ventilation, power supply, drainage, sanitation, water supply or fire protection
internal cleaning of buildings and structures, so far as carried out in the course of their construction, alteration, repair, extension or restoration
painting or decorating the internal or external surfaces of any building or structure
services which form an integral part of the services described above, including site clearance, earthmoving, excavation, tunnelling and boring, laying of foundations, erection of scaffolding, site restoration, landscaping and the provision of roadways and other access works.

What is not covered?

These are some supplies which are not covered by the draft SI

drilling for, or extraction of, oil or natural gas
extraction of minerals and tunnelling or boring, or construction of underground works, for this purpose
manufacture of building or engineering components or equipment, materials, plant or machinery, or delivery of any of these things to site
manufacture of components for systems of heating, lighting, air-conditioning, ventilation, power supply, drainage, sanitation, water supply or fire protection, or delivery of any of these things to site
the professional work of architects or surveyors, or of consultants in building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration or in the laying-out of landscape
signwriting and erecting, installing and repairing signboards and advertisements
the installation of seating, blinds and shutters or the installation of security.

Please note that neither of the lists above are exhaustive.

Further details

The rules do not apply to supplies to the end user (consumer) eg; retailers and landlords, but rather to other construction businesses which then use them to make a further supply. There are no de minimis limits, but the RC will not apply to associated businesses.

Deadline

Before these new rues come into effect, HMRC have asked for comments before 20 July 2018.

Why the new rules?

Briefly, the SI is intended to avoid Missing Trader Fraud (MTF). The rules avoids suppliers charging and being paid VAT, but failing to declare or pay this over to the government. HMRC has identified the building trade as an area where there has been considerable tax leakage in the past.

Technical

As a general rule, it is the supplier of goods or services who is required to account for VAT on those supplies. However, the VAT Act 1994, section 55A requires the recipient, not the supplier, to account for and pay tax on the supply of any goods and services which are of a description specified in an order made by the Treasury for that purpose.

Action

It is prudent to check whether you, or your clients’ businesses will be affected by the intended SI. If so, plans need to be put in place; whether as a supplier or recipient, to ensure that VAT is not charged incorrectly (supplier) and the RC is applied correctly (recipient). It is likely that output tax incorrectly shown on an invoice will be due to HMRC, but will not be recoverable by the recipient and the omission of levying the RC will lead to penalties.

Please contact us if you have any queries or require further information.