Category Archives: Law

VAT: Are poppadoms crisps? The Walkers Snack Foods case

By   4 June 2025
0

Latest from the courts  

In the Walkers Snack Foods Ltd Upper Tribunal (UT) case the issue was whether Sensations Poppadoms are similar to potato crisps and consequently excluded from the zero rating for food.

The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that the product was similar to crisps and that it was to be treated as being excepted items from zero-rating and was therefore standard rated.

Background

The salient matter was whether the poppadoms were “made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch” and were “similar” to potato crisps via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, item 1, excepted item 5.

Value Added Tax – excepted item 5 to item 1, Group 1, Part II, Schedule 8 Value Added Tax Act 1994 – whether First-tier Tribunal erred in law in finding Sensations Poppadoms were “made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch” and were “similar” to potato crisps

This sets out that the following is excepted from the zero rate for “Food of a kind used for human consumption”.

“5. Any of the following when packaged for human consumption without further preparation, namely, potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs, and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch, and savoury food products obtained by the swelling of cereals or cereal products; and salted or roasted nuts other than nuts in shell.”

Contentions

The appellant argued that the poppadoms should be zero-rated for VAT purposes because they fall within Item 1 of Group 1 as they are food, and that they are not included in the list of exceptions.

 HMRC contended that that the product fell within excepted item 5 of Group 1, because they are products similar to potato crisps…

Decision 

  • The UT agreed with the FTT that the words “made from the potato” can extend to products made from potato granules and was neither untenable nor a plain misapplication of the law to the facts. 
  • The UT recalled that the FTT had concluded that Sensations Poppadoms contained “more than enough potato content” for it to be reasonable to conclude that they were “made from the potato… or from potato starch”. Sensations Poppadoms have a combined potato content (potato granules and potato starch) of 39%-40%, so the potato content is significant. The question for the UT was whether the FTT reached a conclusion which no reasonable tribunal properly construing the statute could have reached. The UT answered “no”.
  • The UT noted that the FTT determined that Sensations Poppadoms were similar to potato crisps based on a multifactorial assessment of various factors, including; packaging, appearance, texture and taste. The FTT noted that while the manufacturing processes differ, the statute allows for similarity among products made from potato starch and flour. The FTT found that the potato content in Sensations Poppadoms contributed to a neutral flavour, which did not significantly distinguish them from potato crisps. Broadly, the UT agreed with this determination.

Consequently, for the above reasons the UT dismissed the appeal and the product is subject to the standard rate.

Commentary

Yet another case on the liability of ‘snack foods’. So now we know that: Doritos, Monster Munch, Wotsits and Poppadums are standard rated, however Pringles, Skips and Twiglets are VAT free. This demonstrates the complexity of classifying food and these decisions throw up more complications for producers as this market develops quickly as the public’s taste moves on.

VAT: New guidance on exception from registration

By   2 June 2025
0

HMRC has published new guidance which sets out how to apply for VAT registration exception if a business has temporarily exceeded the VAT registration threshold of £90,000 in any 12-month period (a rolling calculation).

What is registration exception?

If a business has a one-off increase in income it can apply for a registration exception. If its taxable turnover goes over the threshold temporarily it can write to HMRC with evidence showing why the taxable turnover will not exceed the deregistration threshold (currently £88,000 in the next 12 months). HMRC will consider an exception and write confirming if a business will receive one. If not, HMRC will compulsorily register the business for VAT. A business will need to formally apply to HMRC to make this exception official.

The guidance explains:

  • when to apply
  • how to apply
  • what happens after the application

Forms

A business will need to complete forms VAT1 and VAT5EXC in order to apply for registration exception. HMRC will write to the applicant within 40 working days of receipt with a decision.

If HMRC approves the application for exception

HMRC will not register the business for VAT. However, this is a ‘one-off’ and does not mean that the business will never have to register.

The value of taxable supplies must be checked every month, to establish whether they have exceeded the registration threshold. If they have, the business must:

  • register for VAT
  • apply for exception again

If HMRC refuses the application for exception

The response letter will explain why, and the information provided on the form VAT 1 will be used to VAT register the business. The applicant will need to account for VAT from the date it was liable.

VAT: Whether an online tool an ‘examination service’? The Generic Maths case.

By   12 May 2025
0

Latest from the courts.

In the Generic Maths Limited First Tier Tribunal case the issue was whether the appellant’s product; ‘ConquerMaths’ amounted to examination services so to be exempt via The VATA 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, Item 3.

Background

Generic Maths provided an online tool which was intended to be of benefit to students or their parents/teachers. The following facts concerning ConquerMaths were found:

  • it does not lead to any qualifications
  • users can drop in and out of the offering (unlike the way they might have to proceed if following a course leading to a qualification)
  • it includes many hundreds of available diagnostic tests that test students’ knowledge of the principles that will be taught on the various subjects
  • several short tutoring videos are included, although the number of videos is small in comparison to the number of diagnostic tests
  • the average user spends 75 minutes on diagnostic tests compared to five minutes on videos
  • the appellant’s witnesses described the product as diagnostic assessments, formative assessments, and summative assessments
  • in addition to the diagnostic tests, the product includes worksheets in an exam format. Pupils are encouraged to complete these offline and then feed the results into the system

The issue

Simply put; was the product predominantly a tool that provides assessments enabling those using the product to determine what level of maths ability the student has reached and identify any gaps in knowledge and therefore an exempt supply since it falls into the category “examination services”? Or, as HMRC contended, was it an online mathematical tutorial tool which was standard rated as it was a composite supply the predominant element of which was education and that the supply was not one of examination services? (There was no argument that these were exempt educational services).

The tests

The FTT considered that the correct test for determining the nature of the appellant’s supplies was an objective test, based on how they would be characterised by the typical consumer. On that basis, ConquerMaths was a teaching product designed to improve maths understanding, not an examination service.

Additionally, if the correct test was rather a functional test, the result would be the similar.

Decision

The Tribunal did not consider that the product was a supply of examination services within Item 3. It found that the assessment had been made using best judgment by HMRC and accordingly that the appeal should be dismissed.

Commentary

This is probably the correct decision, although the examination and education exemptions are open to interpretation. Care should be taken by taxpayers that the exemption is correctly applied. Although the definition of examination services is wider than formal public examinations, it was not wide enough to encompass ConquerMaths.

VAT: HMRC updates tax avoidance schemes guidance – Stop Notices

By   8 May 2025
0

HMRC has updated its guidance on promoters of tax avoidance schemes (guidance on Part 5 and Schedules 34 to 36 of the Finance Act 2014).

The guidance explains the rules that apply to promoters of tax avoidance schemes. These rules aim to deter the development and use of avoidance schemes by influencing the behaviour of promoters, their intermediaries, and clients.

Stop Notices

These Notices are covered by The Finance Act 2021, Schedule 30, part 1, section 236A

  1. An authorised officer may give a person a Notice (a “Stop Notice”) if the authorised officer suspects that the recipient promotes, or has promoted, arrangements of a description specified in the notice or proposals for such arrangements.

 HMRC issues Stop Notices to promotors of tax avoidance schemes, requiring them to stop selling or promoting the scheme.

The main aim of issuing these Notices is to reduce the number of tax avoidance schemes that are being marketed. This makes it more difficult for taxpayers to get involved in them.

When HMRC issues a stop notice to a promoter, it means:

  • the promoter who receives the notice must stop selling the specified scheme
  • the promoter who receives the notice must also pass a copy of it to certain associated persons, who are also subject to the stop notice and must also stop selling the specified scheme
  • all those persons subject to the notice must inform HMRC of all the people they have promoted the scheme to and any they continue to promote it to
  • the persons subject to the stop notice must inform all clients and intermediaries that they are subject to a stop notice, what this means, and provide them with a copy of the stop notice

If a promoter fails to comply with a stop notice they can face penalties of up to £100,000 which can increase to £1million.

Our approach to planning and HMRC

Marcus Ward Consultancy Ltd does not market, advise on, or advocate aggressive schemes. The company provides bespoke solutions to an individual business and does not believe in “one size fits all” mass-marketed schemes.  We will always work within the law and the spirit of the law.  We operate a full disclosure policy and may refuse to work with you if you do not subscribe to this attitude.  We will, on occasion, cross swords with HMRC if we believe we are correct and that HMRC is being unreasonable and we will fight to uphold our clients’ rights against any unfair accusations.

A VAT Did you know?

By   28 April 2025
0

Grass seed is zero-rated, but turf is standard rated.

VAT: Tribunal costs

By   23 April 2025
0

    Latest from the courts

    In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Eurolaser IT Ltd regarding Kittel and Mecsek assessments and penalties:

    • whether an agent knew or should have known of fraud in supply chain – yes
    • whether such knowledge/means of knowledge to be attributed to Appellant – yes
    • whether Mecsek requires HMRC to show reasonable steps not taken by Appellant – yes
    • whether reasonable steps taken – no
    • unsurprisingly, the appeal was refused

    one interesting aspect was the award of costs.

    Generally, in FTT cases the rule is that each party will usually bear its own costs.

    However, it is worth recapping how the award of costs works via The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. In this instant case, the Appellant had not ‘opted out’ of the costs protection regime set out in rule 10(c)(ii) of the Rules. Consequently, the FTT ordered that Eurolaser must pay HMRC’s costs – a sting in the tail. So, what are the rules? (Where relevant here)

    Orders for costs

    “10.—(1) The Tribunal may only make an order in respect of costs (or, in Scotland, expenses)—

    (a) under section 29(4) of the 2007 Act (wasted costs) [and costs incurred in applying for such costs];

    (b) if the Tribunal considers that a party or their representative has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings; 

    (c) if—

    (i) the proceedings have been allocated as a Complex case under rule 23 (allocation of cases to categories); and

    (ii) the taxpayer (or, where more than one party is a taxpayer, one of them) has not sent or delivered a written request to the Tribunal, within 28 days of receiving notice that the case had been allocated as a Complex case, that the proceedings be excluded from potential liability for costs or expenses under this sub-paragraph”

    So, in “Complex” cases, an Appellant must submit a request that the case is excluded from the potential liability of costs being awarded, and HMRC must request repayment of its costs incurred in defending the case.

    What are Complex cases?

    These are complicated cases which:

    • require lengthy or complex evidence
    • require a lengthy hearing
    • involve complex or important principles or issues
    • involve large amounts or tax or penalties

    such cases are allocated to a ‘track’ within the FTT system.

    Other cost awards

    It is also worth remembering that costs can be awarded if the appeal is brought unreasonably. This usually means that it is vexatious or frivolous, so proper advice should be sought when considering an appeal.

    VAT: Types of legal entities

    By   10 April 2025
    0

    VAT Basics

    What types of entities can be a ‘taxable person’?

    The definition of a taxable person in the VAT Directive is any person or body “who, independently, carries out in any place any economic activity, whatever the purpose or results”. Economic activity in the UK broadly means any business activity. I consider this definition below. 

    So, what is a person or body?

     In practice, a taxable person or body is generally a business, sole trader or professional. Examples of types of legal entities are a:

    • Sole proprietor
    • Partnership
    • Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)
    • Limited company (limited by shares)
    • Private company (limited by guarantee)
    • Public Limited Company (PLC) – a company registered under the Companies Act (1980)
    • Community Interest Company (CIC)
    • Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO)
    • Private unlimited company
    • Club or Association
    • Unincorporated Association
    • Co-operative Society (Co-Op)
    • Community Benefit Society (BenCom)
    • Trust
    • Charity
    • Not For Profit (NPF) entity
    • Right To Manage company (RTM)
    • Financial Mutual
    • Societas Europaea (SE)
    • Co-operative or community benefit society
    • “Section 33” body, eg; Local Authorities, Fire and Rescue Authorities, Police, Lighthouses, the BBC etc – VAT Act 1995 s33. These bodies have different VAT rules, and they may not necessarily be a taxable person

    Each type of entity or structure is subject to separate rules; from; governance, direct tax, reporting, accounting, risks, costs, benefits, responsibilities to legal rights and obligations etc. However, from a VAT perspective, the VAT legislation applies equally to all taxable persons.

    Two or more corporate bodies may apply to register as a single taxable person (VAT group) if they can meet certain conditions.

    A corporate body can apply to register each division separately if it:

    • is organised in divisions
    • carries on its business in divisions
    • can meet certain conditions

    What are not taxable persons?

    Private individuals are not generally involved in business and will therefore not be classed as taxable persons.

    What is business?

    There is considerable case law on what constitutes ‘business’ for VAT purposes. I have written about this issue many times, as it is a fundamental issue in the tax.

    The following articles consider such case law:

    Wakefield College
    Longbridge
    Babylon Farm
    A Shoot
    Y4 Express
    Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. And Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft
    Healthwatch Hampshire CIC 
    Pertempts Limited
    Northumbria Healthcare

    Registration

    A guide to VAT registration here.

    Weird things that have been taxed…

    By   8 April 2025
    0

    Things that have been taxed in the past

    Revenue raising knows no bounds. Here are some things which have had their own specific tax. It is interesting to note that some taxation was intended to change behaviour, and some a result of stopping people’s indulgence. A brief view of what and where particular things were taxed:

    Beards – Russia

    Windows – UK

    Body piercings – Arkansas US

    Bricks UK

    Salt – France

    Champagne – Germany

    Hats – UK

    Candles – UK

    Cow flatulence – Denmark

    Playing Cards and dice – UK

    Bagels (but not bread) – New York US

    Fireplaces – UK

    Tattoos – Arkansas US

    Soap – UK

    Illegal Drugs – Tennessee US

    Google – France

    Wig powder – UK

    Unapproved baby names – Sweden

    Not smoking cigarettes – China

    Urine – Ancient Rome

    Tethered hot air balloons – Kansas US

    Cowardice – Knights could opt out fighting in wars by paying a tax called scutage – UK

    Car Accidents – Missouri US

    Political opponents’ land – Oliver Cromwell UK

    Patterned wallpaper (but not plain white) – UK

    Litigation – Tennessee US

    Slave freedom – Ancient Rome

    Modesty – women were not allowed to cover their breasts, and were taxed if they did – India

    Belt buckles – Texas US

    Robots – South Korea

    Men not being married – Missouri US

    Knowledge – UK

    Clocks – UK

    So now you know!

    VAT: Construction Services Reverse Charge – New HMRC Manual

    By   8 April 2025
    0

    The Construction Reverse Charge (RC) background details here.

    HMRC has recently published its VAT Reverse Charge for Building and Construction Services Manual.

    It includes:

    • how it works
    • which services are covered
    • the supplies of materials
    • the supplies of labour and/or staff
    • who needs to apply it
    • practical issues such as invoicing and adjustments to consideration
    • compliance issues

    The contents of the new manual are:

    VAT: Are hair transplants ‘medical care’? – The Advanced Hair Technology Ltd case

    By   12 March 2025
    0

    Latest from the courts

    In the Advanced Hair Technology Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether hair transplants are exempt supplies of medical care, or were they for ‘cosmetic’ purposes and consequently standard rated?

    Background

    Advanced Hair Technology Ltd (AHT) was a  medical practice trading as The Farjo Hair Institute which specialised in hair restoration surgery. It treated conditions related to hair loss, in particular androgenetic alopecia (AGA). Dr Farjo who carried out the work is qualified is a medical practitioner with the Royal College of Surgeons. The output tax which HMRC deemed due was circa £2,500,000.

    The sole issue was what AHT provided covered by the definition ‘medical care’?

    Legislation

    The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 1 covers services which are for the primary purpose of protecting, restoring, or maintaining health: “medical care”.                                                                 

    Contentions

    AHT argued that it was treating patients for medical conditions, as opposed to providing aesthetic surgery and consequently, its supplies were exempt. The appellant explained that several patients believed that hair loss had affected their self-confidence and so the surgery improved their overall health (which includes a mental health element). Furthermore, the surgery helps to protect the skin from future photodamage, minor trauma and thermal insult.

    HMRC contended that none of the patients had any recorded prior psychiatric conditions, eg; depression or anxiety, nor had any stated that they were looking to benefit from the surgery beyond it improving their appearance and confidence. Additionally,  no recipients of the treatment said that they were seeking any of the above physical protections.

    Therefore, the treatment was a standard rated cosmetic procedure.

    Decision

    The meaning of ‘medical care’ was considered by the Court of Appeal in its decision in Mercy Global [2023] EWCA Civ 1073.

    The court agreed with HMRC that a “principal purpose” test must be applied in all cases.

    The evidence before the FTT was that by the age of 70 at least 80% of caucasian men suffer from hair loss as a result of AGA, and this is part of the normal process of aging. AGA is not considered a medical condition but rather a symptom.

    AHT’s contention that the procedures serve a therapeutic purpose related to psychological issues was dismissed due to a lack of evidence from qualified practitioners. This reinforced the FTT’s view that the treatments were primarily cosmetic, rather than for medical reasons because altering one’s physical appearance was for aesthetic purposes.

    The relevant supplies were therefore outside the exemption.

    The appeal was dismissed.

    Commentary

    The judgment provides some guidance on the interpretation of the definition of medical care for the purposes of the exemption and follows similar recent cases which we covered here:

    Skin Science

    Skin Rich

    X

    The concept of the “provision of medical care” does not include medical interventions carried out for a purpose other than that of diagnosing, treating and in so far as possible, curing diseases or health disorders and it is the purpose of the medical intervention rather than merely the qualifications of the person providing it that is key in determining the VAT liability.

    There has been an ongoing debate as to what constitutes medical care. Over 20 years ago I was advising a large London clinic on this very point and much turned on whether patients’ mental health was improved by undergoing what many would regard as cosmetic procedures. We were somewhat handicapped in our arguments by the fact that many of the patients were lap dancers undergoing breast augmentation on the direction of the owner of a certain club…

    It is worth remembering that not all services provided by a medically registered practitioner are exempt. The question of whether the medical care exemption is engaged in any given case will turn on the particular facts .

    Interestingly, the judge here stated that the medical exemption may apply to some patients whose hair loss was a result of trauma caused by cancer treatment.