Category Archives: Latest VAT news

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 Worldwide update – Gulf Cooperation Council Countries

By   7 April 2016
0

VAT introduction in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.

The following countries have indicated that they intend to introduce a VAT system for the first time from 1 January 2018:

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

This is a likely result of costly military campaigns and a drop in global oil prices. Although it has been agreed that, to limit smuggling and competitiveness, the countries aim to introduce the tax at the same time it is likely that some countries may defer implementation to a later date.  It is thought that healthcare, education, social services and a limited list of food items will be excluded and that introductory rate will be 5%.

Tip: Businesses trading with customers and clients in these countries may need to review their tax obligations, budgets, contracts and other arrangements before the introduction of VAT.

The VAT gap for 2014-15

By   6 April 2016
0

What is the VAT 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).

In other words, VTTL – VAT receipts = VAT gap.

This is HMRC’s second estimate of the VAT gap for 2014-15 (£ billion) and may be summarised as:

Net VTTL £124.9

Net VAT receipts £111.4

VAT gap £13.5

VAT gap 10.8%

The previous year’s figures (2013-2014) estimated the VAT gap at £13.1 billion (11.1% of the VTTL).

The consumer expenditure data accounts for around two thirds of the VTTL. The remaining one third of the VTTL is comprised of government and housing expenditure data, and businesses making exempt supplies.

For those of a statistical nature, the methodology behind the figures is here

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 – New road fuel scale charges from 1 May 2016

By   22 March 2016
0

If a VAT registered business purchases fuel for business use of its vehicles, but there is also private use of cars and other vehicles, an adjustment is required to ensure no VAT is claimed on the private consumption of fuel. This is called the VAT fuel scale charge

To make accounting for VAT on private use of fuel by car drivers a business may apply a VAT fuel scale charge, this adds back a fixed sum, per VAT period, to account of private consumption of fuel.

The scale charge is calculated according to a car’s CO2 emissions and the charge is added to Output VAT it reflects a charge for the private use of the fuel.  The road fuel scale charges are amended at each Budget.  The new rates come into effect from 1 May 2016 and may be found here

Businesses must use the new scale charges from the start of the next prescribed accounting period beginning on or after 1 May 2016.

Other Budget changes

Apart from the VAT registration limit being raised by £1,000 to £83,000 and the deregistration limit has been increased to £81,000 both with effect 1 April 2016, there were few VAT changes in the budget.

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 – Overseas Holiday Lets; a warning

By   8 February 2016
0

It is important to understand the VAT consequences of owning property overseas. It may not be commonly known that the UK has the highest VAT threshold in the EC. This means that for many ‘sideline’ businesses such as; the rental of second or holiday properties in the UK, the owners, whether they are; individuals, businesses, or pension schemes, only have to consider VAT if income in relation to the property exceeds £82,000 pa. and this is only likely if a number of properties are owned.

However, other EC Member States have nil thresholds for foreign entrepreneurs meaning that if any rental income is received, VAT registration may be compulsory. Consequently, a property owner that rents out a property abroad will probably have a liability to register for VAT there. Failure to comply with the domestic legislation of the relevant Member State means; payment of back VAT and interest and fines being levied. It is also not a good idea to provoke the interest of overseas tax authorities. VAT registration however, does mean that a property owner can recover input tax on expenditure in connection with the property, eg; agent’s fees, repair and maintenance and other professional costs.  Such claims may be restricted if the home is used for own use.

It should be noted that, unlike other types of rental of homes, holiday lettings are always standard-rated. Also, the letting of holiday homes is always treated as a business activity unless lettings are very infrequent.  If lettings are a one-off or rare, evidence should be retained to evidence this fact.  There is no set number of times a property can be let before it is treated as a business, and the interpretation may differ between different Member States.  Details of taxable supplies and being in business here

Given that every EC Member State has differing rules to the UK, it is crucial to check all the consequences of letting property overseas.

A final word of warning; I quite often hear the comment “I’m not going to bother – how will they ever find out?”

If an overseas property owner based in the UK is in competition with local letting businesses, those businesses generally do not have any compulsion in notifying the authorities. In addition, I have heard of authorities carrying out very simple initiatives to see if owners are VAT registered. In many resorts, income from tourism is vital and this is a very important revenue stream for them so it is well policed.

Please contact us for further details. We have experience in dealing with overseas VAT matters on our clients’ behalf.