Category Archives: Law

VAT: What is a TOGC? Why is it important?

By Marcus Ward 19 August 2025

What is a Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC)?

Normally the sale of the assets of a VAT registered business will be subject to VAT at the appropriate rate. A TOGC, however is the sale of a business including assets which must be treated as a matter of law, as “neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services” by virtue of meeting certain conditions. It is always the seller who is responsible for applying the correct VAT treatment and will be required to support their decision.

Where the sale meets the conditions, the supply is outside the scope of VAT and therefore VAT is not chargeable.

The word ‘business’ has the meaning set out in The VAT Act 1994, section 94 and ‘going concern’ has the meaning that at the point in time to which the description applies, the business is live or operating and has all parts and features necessary to keep it in operation, as distinct from its being only an inert aggregation of assets.

TOGC Conditions

The conditions for VAT free treatment of a TOGC:

The assets must be sold as a business, or part of a business, as a going concern
The assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part (HMRC guidance uses the words “intend to use…” which, in some cases may provide additional comfort)
There must be no break in trading
Where the seller is a taxable person (VAT registered) the purchaser must be a taxable person already or immediately become, as a result of the transfer, a taxable person
Where only part of a business is sold it must be capable of separate operation
There must not be a series of immediately consecutive transfers
Where the transfer includes property which is standard-rated, either because the seller has opted to tax it or because it is a ‘new’ or uncompleted commercial building the purchaser must opt to tax the property and notify this to HMRC no later than the date of the supply. This may be the date of completion or, if earlier, the date of receipt of payment or part payment (eg; a deposit). There are additional anti-avoidance requirements regarding the buyer’s option to tax

Please note that the above list has been compiled for this article from; the legislation, HMRC guidance and case law. Specific advice must be sought.

Property transfer

The sale of a property may qualify for TOGC if the above tests are met. Usually, but not exclusively, a TOGC sale is the sale of a tenanted building when the sale is with the benefit of the existing lease(s) – (the sale of a property rental business rather than of the property itself). Another example of a property TOGC is where a property under construction is sold (a development business). As may be seen, timing with a property TOGC is of utmost importance. For example, an option to tax one day late will invalidate TOGC treatment. A guide to land and property.

What purpose do the TOGC rules serve?

The TOGC provisions are intended to simplify accounting for VAT when a business changes hands. The main purposes are to:

relieve the buyer from the burden of funding VAT on the purchase, helping businesses by improving their cash flow and avoiding the need to separately value assets which may be liable at different rates or are exempt and which have been sold as a whole
protect government revenue by removing a charge to tax and entitlement to input tax where the output tax may not be paid to HMRC, for example, where a business charges tax, which is claimed by the new business but not paid by the selling business

What if it goes wrong?

TOGC treatment is not optional. A sale is either a TOGC or it isn’t. It is a rare situation in that the VAT treatment depends on; what the purchaser’s intentions are, what the seller is told, and what the purchaser actually does. All this being outside the seller’s control.

Add VAT when TOGC treatment applies:

Often, the TOGC point can be missed, especially in complex property transactions.

The addition of VAT is sometimes considered a “safe” VAT position. However, output tax will have been charged incorrectly, which means that when the buyer claims VAT shown on the relevant invoice, this will be disallowed. This can lead to;

potential penalties and interest from HMRC
the buyer having to recover the VAT payment (often the seller, having sold a business can be difficult to track down and then obtain payment from)
significant cash flow issues (HMRC will need to be repaid the input tax claim immediately)
if a property sale, SDLT is likely to be overpaid

Sale treated as a TOGC when it is a taxable supply:

When VAT free TOGC treatment is applied to a taxable supply (possibly as one, or more of the TOGC conditions are not met) then there is a tax underdeclaration. The seller will be assessed by HMRC and penalties and interest are likely to be levied. There is then the seller’s requirement to attempt to obtain the VAT payment from the buyer. Similarly to above, this is not always straightforward or possible and it may be that the contract prohibits additional payment. There is likely to be unexpected funding issues for the buyer if (s)he does decide to make the payment.

Considering the usually high value of sales of businesses, the VAT cost of getting it wrong can be significant.

Summary

This is a complex area of the tax and an easy issue to miss when there are a considerable number of other factors to consider when a business is sold. Extensive case law (example here and changes to HMRC policy here) insists that there is often a dichotomy between a commercial interpretation of a going concern and HMRC’s view. I sometimes find that the buyer’s intentions change such that the TOGC initially applied becomes invalid when the change in the use of assets (from what was notified to the seller) actually takes place. HMRC is not always sympathetic in these situations. One of the questions I am often asked is: “How long does the buyer have to operate the business after purchase so that TOGC treatment applies?” Unsurprisingly, there is no set answer to this and HMRC do not set a specific period. My view, and it is just my view, is that an absolute minimum time is one VAT quarter.

Contracts are important in most TOGC cases, so it really pays to review them from a VAT perspective.

I very strongly advise that specialist advice is obtained in cases where a business, or property is sold. And yes, I know I would say that!

VAT: The United Carpets case – single of multiple supplies?

By Marcus Ward 5 August 2025

Latest from the courts

Yet more on composite or separate supplies. As a background to the issue please see previous relevant cases here here here and here. This is the latest the seemingly endless and conflicting series of cases on whether certain supplies are multiple or single.

In the First-Tier Tribunal case (FTT) of United Carpets (Franchisor) Limited (UC) the issue was whether the appellant made a single supply of flooring and fitting or whether there were two separate supplies

Background

UC is a retailer of flooring (including carpets, underlay, vinyl and wood flooring), as well as beds. A customer who purchased flooring from the appellant was given the option to have an independent, self-employed, fitter to carry out the fitting of the purchased flooring. Each store has a pool of fitters who take on fitting work referred to them by the appellant. If the customer chooses, the fitter will attend the customer’s home to fit the flooring, as directed by the customer. The fitter is then paid by the customer for that work, with the money being received and retained, in full, by the fitter.

The fitters are self-employed and they use their own tools, and drive their own vehicles. They also have their own public liability insurance and are not covered by any of the appellant’s insurance policies. They are not paid by the UC and are not on the UC’s payroll. Since they are self-employed, the fitters have no ongoing obligations to the appellant (or vice versa) and can take on referrals as they please. The appellant does not hold any formal records for the fitters and is not aware of how much the fitters earn by way of the referrals. The rates charged by the fitters are determined by the fitters themselves.

The appellant’s Terms and Conditions of Sale included the following statements:

“The carpet fitting and delivery services provided by the Installer are supplied under a separate contract from the supply of goods to the Customer by the Company (UC). The Company is not responsible for the delivery or fitting of the Goods to the Customer.

“Full payment for the fitting services is due upon fitting payable by cash or cheque directly to the Installer. As detailed on the invoice, payment for the carpet fitting is made directly to the Installer under a separate contractual agreement between the Customer and the Installer…”

The issue

Whether the supplies of fitting services made to customers following the referral to the fitter by UC were supplies made by the self-employed carpet fitters who performed the services, or by UC as a single supply of flooring and fitting such that output tax was due from UC on both the retail sales and the fitting fees.

Contentions

HMRC determined that the appellant had incorrectly treated the supply of carpet fitting and contended that it supplied fitting services via sub-contractors and assessed the appellant for output tax on the fitting fees. HMRC further contend that the appellant made those supplies as part of a single supply, comprising both the flooring and the fitting services. Assessments were raised to recover the deemed underdeclared output tax.

UC’s position is that the self-employed fitters were completely independent, and that the fitting services do not form a single supply. Consequently, VAT was only due on the retail sales and not the fitting income.

Decision

The FTT concluded that there were two separate supplies:

the supply of goods by UC to the customer, and
the supply of services by the fitter to the customer.

After a review of the contractual documentation and the economic and commercial reality, the court was satisfied that there were three agreements:

between UC and the customer
between UC and the fitter
between the fitter and the customer

The fitter provided services to the end consumer who was liable to pay the fitter.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the assessments were set aside.

A significant amount of case law was cited (a list too long to reproduce here) but included were the cases of: Secret Hotels 2 Limited v HMRC; All Answers Ltd v HMRC and Tolsma v Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting Leeuwarden which were considered and applied.

Commentary

Yet another case on the perennial composite/single supply issue. This case was more straightforward than many on this subject and the outcome was no surprise. It is essential that businesses that potentially deal with agent/principal matters or make supplies at different VAT rates consider their position. Both contracts, other documentation and the commercial reality need to be considered. We recommend that in such circumstances a review is carried out specifically to establish the proper VAT position .

A VAT Did you know?

By Marcus Ward 22 July 2025

Sweetened rice cakes are zero-rated, but savoury flavoured ones are VATable.

BUT… The problem area is salted rice cakes. Lightly salted cakes are considered to require further preparation before consumption (and are therefore zero-rated) whereas more heavily salted rice cakes do not and are standard rated. However, there is no guideline as to where this borderline falls .

VAT: Input tax incurred on the management of pension funds

By Marcus Ward 1 July 2025

HMRC has published Revenue and Customs Brief 4 (2025), which provides information about changes to VAT deduction on costs incurred in respect of the management of pension funds.

The Brief explains a further policy change to VAT deduction on the management of pension funds – Employers can now claim all the VAT on investment costs linked to pension funds. HMRC will no longer view investment costs as being subject to dual-use. Instead, all the associated input tax incurred will be seen as the employer’s and deductible by the employer, subject to normal deduction rule

They no longer need to split the costs with pension trustees. This was (prior to the introduction of the changes on 18 June 2025) a dual-use apportionment.

This Brief is relevant to:

businesses and other taxable entities that provide pension funds for their employees
pension administration and asset management service providers
pension fund trustees and pension providers
tax advisers

Impact on partial exemption methods

Businesses may need to propose new partial exemption special method (PESM) to align their VAT recovery with the new policy.

Background

HMRC’s historic policy was that employers could recover input tax they incurred on costs relating to the administration of their occupational pension funds, but not those in relation to the asset management of investments made by the fund.

Subsequently, HMRC changed its policy to allow employers recovery of input tax incurred on investment costs, provided that the employer could show evidence that they contracted and paid for the investment services.

HMRC has said that it will publish additional guidance on the new policy by Autumn 2025.

Commentary

This is very welcome news for managers of pension funds. It provides clarity and simplification in accounting, plus, more significantly; a much-improved VAT position whereby irrecoverable input tax can be avoided.

The HMRC climbdown is originally a result of the Fiscale Eenheid PPG Holdings BV cs te Hoogezand (C-26/12) CJEU case which considered an employer’s entitlement to deduct VAT paid on services relating to the administration of defined benefit pension funds and the management of the assets of the fund..

VAT: New guidance – Online Marketplace supplies

By Marcus Ward 24 June 2025

HMRC issued new guidance for businesses which sell goods using an online marketplace on 20 June 2025. It enables online marketplace (an e-commerce site that connects sellers with buyers where transactions are managed by the website owner) operators to check if a seller is established outside the UK, so that it can establish which party is liable for VAT on sales.

Background

An online marketplace operator is liable for VAT on goods of any value that are both:

located in the UK at the point of sale
sold by an overseas business through the operator’s online marketplace

The operator needs to establish who is liable for VAT on sales of goods which are facilitated. To confirm this, the operator needs to take all reasonable steps to check whether a seller is established outside the UK. A business is required to keep evidence to show that it has taken all reasonable steps.

This new guidance includes details about how to check where an online marketplace seller is established and provides information about checks and process businesses can put in place. HMRC will review this evidence and will consider all evidence which has been used to establish where the seller is established. In each case, it will consider:

what steps were performed, including any that are designed to address the risks of a particular case
to what extent steps were appropriate, adequate and timely in relation to addressing the risks identified
what the results of the checks indicate
whether a business took appropriate action in response to the results

Examples of checks

HMRC give the following examples of types of checks which might be undertaken to determine if an online seller is UK-established:

check for a UK principal place of business
check that the VAT registration available for the seller matches their legal name and details on HMRC’s Check a UK VAT number tool
check that the seller is registered at Companies House with a UK address
establish whether directors reside in the UK, eg; as shown on the Companies House register
check that payment or financial information shows a UK presence. This can include:
- UK bank or credit card details
- UK merchant address attached to the seller bank account
- other financial data provided by independent payment service providers
check other commercially relevant information such as credit checks and other background checks from third party sources
check that the device used by the seller has a UK IP address, or check another method of geolocation
establish whether the seller uses a phone number with a UK country code

Overview of online sellers

More general guidance from HMRC on online sellers:

The rules aim to avoid VAT evasion by non-UK online sellers.

VAT: Treatment of vouchers, gifts and discounts – How business promotions work

By Marcus Ward 18 June 2025

Business promotions are an area of VAT which continues to prove complex. This is further exacerbated by changes to the legislation at EU and domestic level and ongoing case law. The main points are; whether there is a supply, and, if so, what is the value of that supply?

I hope that the VAT position is helpfully summarised here. I thought it may be useful if the VAT treatment of various business promotion schemes is set out in one place.

I recall a statement from an old mentor of mine; “if you have a marketing department you have a VAT issue!”

Summary

Offer	How to charge VAT
Discounts	Charged on the discounted price (not the full price)
Gifts	Charged on the gift’s full value – there are some exceptions listed below
Multi-buys	Charged on the combined price if all the items have the same VAT rate. If not, VAT is ‘apportioned’ as mixed-rate goods
Money-off coupons, vouchers etc	No VAT due if given away free at time of a purchase. If not, VAT due on the price charged
Face value vouchers that can be used for more than one type of good or service (multi-purpose)	No VAT due, if sold at or below their monetary value
Face value vouchers that can only be used for one type of good or service (single-purpose)	VAT due on the value of the voucher when issued
Redeemed face value vouchers	Charged on the full value of the transaction at the appropriate rate of the goods provided in return for the voucher

Exceptions for gifts

There’s no VAT due on gifts given to the same person if their total value in a 12 month period is less than £50.

Free goods and services

A business is not required to account for VAT on things like free samples if they meet certain conditions.

Supplies	Condition to meet so no VAT due
Free samples	Used for marketing purposes and provided in a quantity that lets potential customers test the product
Free loans of business assets	The cost of hiring the asset is included in something else you sell to the customer
Free gifts	The total cost of all gifts to the same person is less than £50 in a 12 month period
Free services	You don’t get any payment or goods or services in return

Background

Face value vouchers

Quite recent changes, radically alter the UK rules for face value vouchers (FVV). FVVs are; vouchers, tokens, stamps (physical or electronic) which entitle the holder to certain goods or services up to the value on the face of the vouchers from the supplier of those goods or services.

Examples of FVVs would include vouchers sold by popular group discount websites, vouchers sold by high street retailers, book tokens, stamps and various high street vouchers.

Single or multi-purpose

The most important distinction for FFVs is whether a voucher is a single purpose voucher or multi-purpose voucher. If it is a multi-purpose voucher then little has changed. If it is a single purpose voucher, however, HMRC will now required output tax to be accounted for at the date it is issued.

Single purpose vouchers are vouchers which carry the right to receive only one type of goods or services which are all subject to a single rate of VAT. Multi-purpose vouchers are anything else. The differences can be quite subtle.

For example:

a voucher which entitles you to download an e-book from one seller will be a single purpose voucher. A voucher which entitles you to either books (zero rated) or an e-book download (standard rated) from the same seller will be multi-purpose
a voucher which entitles you to £10 of food at a restaurant which does not sell takeaways is probably single purpose, whereas if the restaurant has a cold salad bar and you can buy a take away with the voucher (or hot food) then it would be multi-purpose.

The above means that for single purpose vouchers VAT is due whether the voucher is actually redeemed or not; which seems an unfair result. There is no way to reduce output tax previously accounted for if the voucher is not used.

Please contact us if you, or your clients use this type of business promotion. of course, get it wrong, and there is likely to be a financial penalty…

VAT: Updated Notice – Local authorities and similar bodies

By Marcus Ward 10 June 2025

Notice 749 has been updated. This is guidance for Local authorities, government departments, non-departmental public bodies, NHS bodies, local government bodies, the police and the fire and rescue services.

It sets out:

which activities of local authorities and similar bodies are business or non-business for VAT purposes
the VAT registration requirements for local authorities
when local authorities and certain similar bodies can reclaim VAT incurred on costs that relate to their non-business activities

The changes amend:

Section ‘7.2 Insignificant proportion’ has been updated to remove a reference to VAT attributed and apportioned to exempt supplies.
Section ‘7.5 What to do if you want to opt for a special section 33 VAT recovery method to recover the VAT incurred’ the deadline for using a special section 33 recovery method has been changed from 31 October to 30 September following the end of the financial year.

Section 33 bodies

“Section 33 bodies” per The VAT Act 1994, section 33)

These entities have special VAT treatment which is effectively the opposite of normal VAT rules. To avoid a cost to the taxpayer, these entities are permitted to specifically recover input tax that relates to non-business activities. Nobody said that VAT was straightforward and in these cases, the VAT rules are inverted!

We act for many Local Authorities and Academies. Please contact us should you, or your clients, have any queries on this matter.

VAT: Are poppadoms crisps? The Walkers Snack Foods case

By Marcus Ward 4 June 2025

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 Marcus Ward 2 June 2025

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 Marcus Ward 12 May 2025

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.