We produce a free monthly email update on all VAT things great and small. It covers events for the last month and flags up significant changes as a result of changes to legislation, HMRC announcements and case law. It also looks at specific VAT issues that may affect a business.
Please contact us you would like to subscribe.
marcus.ward@consultant.com
07748 117935
Twitter: @mw_vat
Linked In; Marcus Ward
Linked In Group – Marcus Ward Consultancy VAT
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.
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
Dear Marcus 
My business, if that is what it is, has become large enough for me to fear that HMRC might take an interest in my activities. May I explain what I do and then you can write to me with your advice? If you think a face to face meeting would be better I can be found in most decent sized department stores from mid September to 24 December.
First of all I am based in Greenland but I do bring a stock of goods, mainly toys, to the UK and I distribute them. Am I making supplies in the UK?
The toys are of course mainly for children and I wonder if zero rating might apply? I have heard that small T shirts are zero rated so what about a train set – it is small and intended for children. Does it matter if adults play with it?
My friend Rudolph has told me that there is a peculiar rule about gifts. He says that if I give them away regularly and they cost more than £150 I might have to account for VAT. Is that right?
My next question concerns barter transactions. Dads often leave me a food item such as a mince pie and a drink and there is an unwritten rule that I should then leave something in return. If I’m given Tesco’s own brand sherry I will leave polyester underpants but if I’m left a glass of Glenfiddich I will be more generous and leave best woollen socks. Have I made a supply and what is the value please? My feeling is that the food items are not solicited so VAT might not be due and, in any event; isn’t food zero-rated, or is it catering? Oh, and what if the food is hot?
Transport is a big worry for me. Lots of children ask me for a ride on my airborne transport. I suppose I could manage to fit 12 passengers in. Does that mean my services are zero-rated? If I do this free of charge will I need to charge air passenger duty? Does it matter if I stay within the UK? My transport is the equivalent of six horse power and if I refuel with fodder in the UK will I be liable for fuel scale charges? After dropping the passengers off I suppose I will be accused of using fuel for the private journey back home. Somebody has told me that if I buy hay labelled as animal food I can avoid VAT but if I buy the much cheaper bedding hay I will need to pay VAT. Please comment.
Can I also ask about VAT registration? I know the limit is £82,000 per annum but do blips count? If I do make supplies at all, I do nothing for 364 days and then, in one day (well night really) I blast through the limit and then drop back to nil turnover. May I be excused from registration? If I do need to register should I use AnNOEL Accounting? At least I can get only one penalty per annum if I get the sums wrong.
I would like to make a claim for input tax on clothing. I feel that my red clothing not only protects me from the extreme cold but it is akin to a uniform and should be allowable. These are not clothes that I would choose to wear except for my fairly unusual job. If lady barristers can claim for black skirts I think I should be able to claim for red dress. And what about my annual haircut? That costs a fortune. I only let my hair grow that long because it is expected of me.
Insurance worries me too. You know that I carry some very expensive goods on my transport. Play Stations, Mountain Bikes, i-pads and Accrington Stanley replica shirts for example. My parent company in Greenland takes out insurance there and they make a charge to me. If I am required to register for VAT in England will I need to apply the reverse charge? This seems to be a daft idea if I understand it correctly. Does it mean I have to charge myself VAT on something that is not VATable and then claim it back again?
Next you’ll be telling me that Father Christmas isn’t real……….
What is the Default Surcharge?
Default Surcharge is a civil penalty to encourage businesses to submit their VAT returns and pay the tax due on time.
When will a Default Surcharge be issued?
A business is in default if it sends in its VAT return and or the VAT due late. No surcharge is issued the first time a business is late but a warning (a Surcharge Liability Notice) is issued. Subsequent defaults within the following twelve months (the “surcharge period”) may result in a surcharge assessment. Each time that a default occurs the surcharge period will be extended. There is no liability to a surcharge if a nil or repayment return is submitted late, or the VAT due is paid on time but the return is submitted late (although a default is still recorded).
How much is the surcharge?
The surcharge is calculated as a percentage of the VAT that is unpaid at the due date. If no return is submitted the amount of VAT due will be assessed and the surcharge based on that amount. The rate is set at 2 per cent for the first default following the Surcharge Liability Notice, and rises to 5 per cent, 10 per cent and 15 per cent for subsequent defaults within the surcharge period. A surcharge assessment is not issued at the 2 per cent and 5 per cent rates if it is calculated at less than £200 but a default is still recorded and the surcharge period extended. At the 10 per cent and 15 per cent the surcharge will be the greater of the calculated amount or £30.
Specific issues
The default surcharge can be particularly swingeing for a fast growing company. Let’s say that a small company grows quickly. In the early days the administration was rather haphazard, as is often the case, and a number of returns and payments were submitted late. Fast forward and the turnover, and the VAT payable, has grown significantly. Being late at this time means that the amount of default surcharge is considerably higher than when the original default which created the surcharge took place. This leads us onto whether the surcharge is proportionate.
A business with cashflow difficulties may well ask whether it should be penalised by HMRC for having those difficulties; which of course will add to the problem.
Proportionality
The existing, long-standing default surcharge regime has always had issues with the principle of proportionality. The regime has regularly been challenged in the Courts.
Is it proportionate that a same penalty is applied for a payment which is one day late and one which is one year late? This is a matter which has concerned both HMRC and the Courts for a number of years.
In the Upper Tribunal case of Total Technology (Engineering) Ltd the Judge concluded that it was possible for an individual surcharge to be disproportionate, but that the system as a whole was not fundamentally flawed. It is also worth noting that in In Equoland judgment the judge stated that a penalty which is automatic and does not take into account the circumstances is at the least tending towards being disproportionate. The default surcharge is automatic and it is one of the few penalties that cannot be mitigated in any circumstances.
Defence against a surcharge
In order to have a surcharge withdrawn it is necessary to demonstrate that a business had a reasonable excuse for the default.
This is a subject of an article on its own. Certain factors, like relaying on a third party are not accepted as a reasonable excuse. HMRC state that a business will not be in default if they, or the independent tribunal, agree that there is a reasonable excuse for failing to submit a VAT Return and/or payment on time.
There is no legal definition of reasonable excuse but HMRC will look closely at the circumstances that led to the default.
If the circumstance that led to the default were unforeseen and inescapable and a business is able to show that its conduct was that of a conscientious person who accepted the need to comply with VAT requirements, then it may amount to a reasonable excuse.
What sort of circumstances might count as reasonable excuse?
HMRC provide guidelines on circumstances where there might be a reasonable excuse for failing to submit a VAT Return and/or payment on time. These include:
Latest
A recent discussion document sought views from businesses and individuals on potential improvements to how HMRC applies penalties (including the default surcharge) for failing to pay what is owed or to meet deadlines for returns or registration.
HMRC is considering whether and how it should differentiate between those who deliberately and persistently fail to meet administrative deadlines or to pay what they should on time, and those who make occasional and genuine errors for which other responses might be more appropriate.
In the document HMRC highlight two issues with the current VAT default surcharge regime. The first is the concern that while the absence of penalty for the initial offence in a 12 month period gives business the chance to get processes right, some customers simply ignore this warning.
The second concern is the issue of proportionality which fails to distinguish between payments that are one or two days late or many months late.
In my view, it is likely that in the near future we will hear proposals for the system being amended. I think we may anticipate the introduction of mitigation and suspension.
In today’s Autumn Statement, the Chancellor announced that Sixth Form Colleges will be able to convert to academies.
This means that colleges which do convert will need to review their VAT position. There are immediate decisions to make on how to structure and deal with VAT. This Statement is great news for colleges and there will be an immediate and ongoing VAT benefit if they become an academy. However, as with all things VAT, there are also pitfalls. As with schools converting to academy status, it is usual that the Trustees and relevant staff will need to consider VAT for the first time. We are able to guide academies through the VAT maze and help them maximise this new beneficial tax position. We have considerable experience in dealing with VAT and academies and advise over 50 across the country. Please contact us if these changes affect you, or you would like to discuss the implications. Please see our academy services here
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.
The European Commission (EC) has, this week, announced that it is to drop plans to introduce a standard VAT return across all 28 Member States.
The original idea was to assist businesses which are required to submit returns in different jurisdictions in different languages by harmonising the information required and standardising the methodologies across Member States.
Although the intention is/was laudable, it would have likely increased complexity for the UK VAT return which is one of the most straightforward.
The changes to VAT reporting was due to be introduced in 2017.
The original plan has met with little support and the Commission has decided to focus on other harmonisation measures.
A benefit to charities?
In the case of Sveda (C-126/14) which was recently heard by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) the issue was whether input tax was recoverable on the construction of a recreational woodland path which ended at a shop that Sveda owned and made taxable supplies from. Full case here
90% of the construction costs were met by Grant received from the Lithuanian Ministry of Agriculture on the condition that the path was made available free of charge to the public for a period of five years. There was no dispute that the grant was outside the scope income for Sveda.
The authorities disallowed the VAT claimed on 100% of the costs on the grounds there was no link to taxable supplies since free access is a non-economic activity because there was no consideration paid to use the path. Alternatively, there was a contention that only 10% of the VAT should be reclaimed, since the company only met 10% of the cost.
Sveda argued that, although the path could be used free of charge, the purpose was increase taxable sales from its shop (food, drink and souvenirs). This meant there was a link between the VAT incurred and its economic activity as a whole.
The ECJ rejected the view that the input tax should be blocked in its entirety or in part. Its view was that the expenditure was incurred with the intention of carrying out an economic taxable activity, even if there was no direct link to any one specific supply and use of the path was free. The VAT was overhead VAT. No exempt supplies (that would break the chain of deduction) took place.
So, although the path was used for a non-business activity (free access) the ECJ deemed that the input tax incurred on the costs of building the path was deductible. As there was a link to economic activities the VAT is treated as overhead and, in this case, fully recoverable.
Although Sveda is a commercial company and the decision will no doubt be of assistance to commercial entities, there may be a significant impact on charities and NFP organisations. This judgment highlights the basic right to deduct VAT where a link to taxable supplies made by a taxable person can be demonstrated. It does not matter whether the link is to one taxable supply or to all the taxable economic activities. The non-business use of the asset did not prevent recovery. The outcome would no doubt have been different if Sveda was only involved in building the path and just providing free access to it without also selling items form the shop.
On a personal note, this case has echoes of one I took to Tribunal for The Imperial War Museum – with a similar successful outcome. HMRC views here
Let’s hope it will be just as useful for the taxpayer as the landmark IWM decision.
If you think you, or a charity you are aware of, or a client of yours may be affected by this decision, please contact me. This may be the case if the charity undertakes both business and non-activities. I would always counsel that a charity should have its activities reviewed from a VAT perspective. There are usually savings that could be made.
More on our charity services here
The EC Commission’s VAT Committee has recently issued new guidelines to counter perceived avoidance of registering for Distance Selling by businesses.
In cases where the supplier is responsible for the delivery of goods B2C; typically mail-order and increasingly goods purchased online (so called “delivered goods”) the supplier is required to VAT register in the EC Member State of its customer(s) once a certain threshold is met. For full details of Distance Selling see here.
In order to avoid having to register, some business have sought to avoid their supply falling within the definition of delivered goods by splitting the sale of goods and the delivery.
The UK raised concerns about the planning and structures put in place to obviate the need to register in other EC Member States. The VAT Committee has recognised these concerns and has today issued new guidelines on Distance Sales
In addition to the current rules (set out in Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Principal VAT Directive) a Distance Sale will have occurred when goods have been “dispatched or transported by or on behalf of the supplier” in any cases where the supplier “intervenes directly or indirectly in the transport or dispatch of the goods.” The Committee has stated that it considers that the supplier shall be regarded as having intervened indirectly in the transport or dispatch of the goods if any of the following conditions apply:
(i) The transport or dispatch of the goods is sub-contracted by the supplier to a third party who delivers the goods to the customer.
(ii) The dispatch or transport of the goods is provided by a third party but the supplier bears totally or partially the responsibility for the delivery of the goods to the customer.
(iii) The supplier invoices and collects the transport fees from the customer and further remits them to a third party that arranges the dispatch or transport of the goods.
The Committee further clarified that, in other cases of “intervention,” in particular where the supplier actively promotes the delivery services of a third party to the customer, puts the customer and the third party in contact and provides to the third party the information needed for the delivery of the goods, the seller should likewise be regarded as having “intervened indirectly” in the transport or dispatch of the goods.
Note: These guidelines issued by the VAT Committee are merely views of an advisory committee, they do not constitute an official interpretation of EC law and therefore do not bind the Commission or the Member States. However, the Committee’s views are highly influential and it is likely that Member States will review their procedures and implement these guidelines.
Distance Selling VAT registration can apply retrospectively and assessments and penalties for late registration and underdeclaration of VAT are likely. Also, with different VAT rates applicable in different Member States even if VAT has (incorrectly) been charged at the rate applicable in the Member State where the supplier belongs (rather than the customer) this will likely be at the incorrect rate and recovery of this incorrectly paid VAT will also create issues.
Please contact us if the above changes will affect your business as action must be taken immediately.