The sales of counterfeit (illegal) goods are subject to 20% VAT, but the sale of counterfeit banknotes is not.
Category Archives: Planning
VAT: Farm in business? The Babylon case
Latest from the courts
In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Babylon Farm Ltd (the farm) the issue was whether the appellant was in business and consequently was able to recover certain input tax.
Background
Yet another case on whether there was any business activity in a company. Please see here, here, here and here for previous cases on this issue. The farm sold hay which it cut from another person’s fields to a connected party. The value of the one-off annual sale was £440 pa. The appellant also contended that it was also undertaking preparatory acts for the new business activities and that it would be able to levy management charges. Another new business activity was the creation of an investment and insurance product.
The farm built a new barn on which it claimed input tax of £19,760.
HMRC considered that no business was being carried on and decided to deregister the farm thus refusing to pay the input tax claim. The farm challenged this decision and contended that taxable supplies were being made, and there was also an intention to make taxable supplies in the future.
Legislation
Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 of the VAT Act 1994 requires HMRC to be satisfied that a person is either making taxable supplies or is carrying on a business and intends to make such supplies in the course or furtherance of a business in order to be registered for VAT. There are a number of tests set out in case law (mainly The Lord Fisher case) to establish whether a person is in business:
- Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
- Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
- Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
- Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
- Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
- Are the taxable supplies that are being made of a kind which, subject to differences of detail, are commonly made by those who seek to profit from them?
Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The farm was not in business and could not recover input tax on the costs of the new barn.
The judge stated that he could see no legal basis for the farm to be in business. The hay that the farm sold was taken from the customer’s own land and therefore belonged to him already. It was also noted that no invoices were raised, no payment for the hay had been made for a number of years and the single customer was a director of Babylon Farm Limited so the farm was not operating in an open market. The sale of hay had not been conducted on a basis that followed sound and recognised business principles or on a basis that was predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for consideration. As a consequence, the farm was not operating as a business during the relevant period.
On the intention point; neither of the intended activities had yet resulted in any chargeable services being provided and both were to be carried on through companies that had been formed for these purposes (not the farm). Both businesses remained at a formative stage and neither company has generated any revenue. This was insufficient to retain the VAT registration.
Commentary
The decision was hardly a surprise and one wonders how it reached the UT. HMRC were always going to challenge an input tax claim of that quantum with no output tax (and such a low value of sales which may not have been made in any event).
VAT: The tax gap was £35bn in 2019/20
HMRC has published details of the tax gap for 2019/20. This is the gap between the expected tax that should be paid to HMRC and what is actually paid. The headline was that the tax gap was 5.3%. which represents an estimated £35 billion.
Total tax liabilities for the year were £674 billion.
What is the tax gap?
The tax gap is the difference between the amount of tax that should, in theory, be paid to HMRC, and what is actually paid.
Why is it measured?
The tax gap provides tool for understanding the relative size and nature of non-compliance. This understanding can be applied in many different ways:
- it provides a foundation for HMRC’s strategy – considering the tax gap helps the government to understand how non-compliance occurs and how it can be addressed
- the analysis provides insight into which strategies are most effective at reducing the tax gap
- it provides important information which helps HMRC understand its long-term performance
- provides information to the public on tax compliance, creating greater transparency in the tax system.
Why is there a tax gap?
The tax gap arises for a number of reasons. Some taxpayers make simple errors in calculating the tax that they owe, despite their best efforts, while others don’t take enough care when they submit their returns. Legal interpretation, evasion, avoidance and criminal attacks on the tax system also result in a tax gap.
Analysis
Around £3.7 billion of the gap is estimated to be due to error and £3 billion due to the hidden economy.
The tax gap for wealthy individuals fell from £1.6 billion in 2018/19 to £1.5 billion in 2019/20
£15.1 billion of the gap is attributed to small businesses and £6.1 billion is attributed to large businesses, with £5 billion attributed to medium-sized firms.
Taxpayers paid more than £633.4 billion in tax during 2019/20, an increase of more than £100 billion since 2015/16, when the total revenue paid was £532.5 billion.
The tax gap for Income Tax, National Insurance contributions and Capital Gains Tax is 3.5% in 2019 to 2020 at £12.6 billion which represents the largest share of the total tax gap by type of tax.
VAT
The VAT gap was estimated to be £12.3 billion in tax year 2019 to 2020. This equates to 8.4% of net VAT total theoretical liability.
The VAT gap has increased from 7.0% in tax year 2018 to 2019 to 8.4% in 2019 to 2020. Growth in VAT receipts (1.8%) was slower than the growth in the net VAT total theoretical liability (3.3%).
Behaviour
HMRC estimate that the causes of the tax gap are:
- Failure to take reasonable care £6.7bn 19%
- Legal interpretation £5.8bn 16%
- Evasion £5.5bn 15%
- Criminal attacks £5.2bn 15%
- Non-payment £4bn 11%
- Error £3.7bn 10%
- Hidden economy £3bn 8%
- Avoidance £1.5bn 4%
Taxpayers
Tax gap by taxpayer groups:
- Small businesses £15.1bn 43%
- Large businesses £6.1bn 17%
- Criminals £5.2bn 15%
- Mid-sized businesses £5.0bn 14%
- Individuals £2.6bn 7%
- Wealthy £1.5bn 4%
The impact on the tax gap from the coronavirus lockdowns and economic downturn is likely to be first seen in the 2020/21 figures, which will be released next year. It will also be interesting to see how the fallout from Brexit is covered (if at all).
Refunds of UK VAT for non-UK businesses and EU VAT for UK businesses
HMRC has published updated guidance VAT Notice 723A which sets out how a business established outside the UK can claim a refund of VAT incurred here, and how to reclaim VAT incurred in the EU VAT if a business is established in the UK.
More details of how to make post-Brexit VAT claims here.
VAT: New rules for Uncertain Tax Treatments
The government have released draft legislation and guidance in respect of Uncertain Tax Treatments (UTT). In addition to VAT, this legislation also covers; corporation tax, income tax and PAYE.
Who is affected?
Large businesses with a:
- turnover of more than £200 million per annum
- balance sheet total over £2 billion
Threshold
A business must notify HMRC in cases of UTT where the tax advantage of the treatment is £5 million or more in a twelve-month period.
Start date
The new rules will be introduced from 1 April 2022.
Notification
There are three triggers for notification:
- Provision made in the accounts
The amount relates to a transaction which a provision has been made in the accounts, in accordance with GAAP, to reflect the probability that a different tax treatment will be applied to the transaction
2. HMRC’s known interpretation of the law
Reliance was placed on an interpretation or application of the law that is different to HMRC’s known interpretation or application.
3. Substantial possibility amount would be found to be incorrect
It is reasonable to anticipate that, if a court were to consider the way in which the amount was arrived at, there is a substantial possibility that the treatment would be found to be incorrect.
Tax advantage
The definition of tax advantage for VAT is:
- Less output tax is accounted for or is accounted for later, than would otherwise be the case
- If there is an input tax claim which would otherwise not be obtained; a larger claim, or a claim earlier than would otherwise be the case
- If input tax is recovered as a recipient of a supply before the supplier accounts for the output tax; the period between the time when the input tax is recovered or the time when the output tax is accounted for is greater than would otherwise be the case
- The amount of non-deductible tax is less than it otherwise would be
- An obligation to account for VAT is avoided
Exemptions
There are exemptions from notification. For VAT, exemption will apply where it is reasonable to conclude that HMRC is already aware of the information which would otherwise be required to be notified or in circumstances where a business has previously requested clearance and where HMRC agrees with the proposed treatment.
Penalties
The penalty for failure to make a notification will be £5k initially, £25k for
a second failure and £50k for a third failure within a three-year period. There
will be an opportunity to advance a reasonable excuse argument to avoid a
penalty.
A VAT Did you know?
Crisps: VAT is due on potato snacks, but maize and corn-based snacks are VAT free. (But Pringles are standard rated even though they contain corn, wheat and non-potato flours and the potato content is less than 50%).
VAT: Construction of a dwelling – zero-rated? The CMJ (Aberdeen) case
Latest from the courts
The First-Tier tribunal (FTT) considered the case of CMJ (Aberdeen) Limited (CMJ) and whether the supply of building services in respect of the construction of a dwelling were correctly zero rated by the appellant. HMRC deemed that the construction services were standard rated on the basis that the works were not carried out in accordance with the terms of the relevant statutory planning consent.
Background
HMRC’s view was that, although planning consent was in place at the time the construction services were supplied by the appellant, that planning consent permitted only the alteration or enlargement of a dwelling and did not allow for the construction of a dwelling. HMRC accept that the property was constructed as a new building, but that this was not permitted by the planning consent and so the construction was not carried out in accordance with it.
CMJ contended that statutory planning consent had been obtained for the construction via a combination of the planning consent and a construction building warrant which it had obtained from the relevant authority, and which allowed for the construction of a new building.
Legislation
The zero rating for the construction of new dwellings is contained in The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5, item 2
“The supply in the course of the construction of
(a) a building designed as a dwelling…”
Note 2 to Group 5 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act include the following:
“(2) A building is designed as a dwelling or a number of dwellings where in relation to each dwelling the following conditions are satisfied…
…(d) statutory planning consent has been granted in respect of that dwelling and its construction or conversion has been carried out in accordance with that consent.
Decision
The appeal was dismissed. It was judged that the building warrant did not comprise statutory planning consent for the purposes of note 2 (d) because:
- Planning consent and building warrants operate under different statutory regimes.
- Breach of planning consent is dealt with separately from a breach of the building warrant legislation, and each is dealt with by the specific statutory regime . If there is a breach of planning consent, it would not affect the validity of the building warrant, and vice versa.
- The Building Standards Handbook states that the purpose of the building standards system is setting out the standards to be met when building work takes place. This is different from planning consent which is consent to allow the authority to permit development on a piece of land. They are distinct and separate regimes aimed at distinct and separate issues. While planning permission is about how the house will look, a building warrant is about whether it meets building standards.
- Both planning permission and a building warrant is required. One is no substitute for the other.
- It is possible to obtain retrospective planning consent, the judge did not believe it is possible to get a retrospective building warrant.
It was not possible to carry out works of construction in accordance with a valid statutory consent, since no such consent had been given for construction at the time that the building works were carried out.
Commentary
The legislation covering building work is complex and there are many traps for the unwary. Even the seemingly straightforward matter of whether a new dwelling is constructed can produce difficulties, as in this case. We always counsel that proper VAT advice is sought in such circumstances.
Check if an HMRC email is genuine
On 30 July 2021 HMRC published a list of emails which has sent taxpayers. Additionally, there is a check for genuine HMRC contact that uses more than one communication method.
It is clear that scammers are using the cover of tax authorities to obtain money by deception. I suspect that many of us have experienced this, to various of sophistication.
Consequently, HMRC have published this document which can be checked before any action is taken in respect of a purported communication from HMRC. If the email topic is not listed, caution should be exercised. The majority of the email subjects listed are VAT based.
VAT Investigations
Even in these days of increased contactless payments it may be interesting to look at HMRC’s methods of establishing underdeclarations.
HMRC have always taken an interest in cash businesses as they see them as a revenue risk. Such businesses are usually retail and commonly restaurants and take-aways (which I shall use as an example in this article). A retail business is obliged to keep certain records. For sales, this is a record of daily gross takings (DGT) and this is the area I will focus on as it is where “suppression” of income generally occurs. In a very crude example, the owner, or a member of staff does not ring up a sale and the payment is pocketed. There are more sophisticated ways in which suppression occurs, but this is the most common.
Even in this day and age where most payments are made by credit or debit cards, there is still significant scope for declarations to be inaccurate.
The methods
There are a number of ways in which HMRC can determine the accuracy of VAT declarations. These may be from the usual bank and accounts reconciliations, mark up exercises, to, say, counting take-away containers to build up a picture of the turnover. The following are also ways in which HMRC test the credibility of declarations:
- Compliance checks
These usually take place in the evenings when a restaurant is open for business (or soon after it closes). Officers gain entrance, question staff, examine records for that and previous days, and remove certain records. From this information they can build up a picture of trading. These visits are usually unannounced.
- Invigilation exercise
HMRC observe how the business operates and check that all sales of food and drinks are rung into the till. This is usually with the agreement of the business.
- Test meals
HMRC staff will purchase a test meal and at a later time check to see if it has been recorded correctly. It may be that this method will be repeated at a suspect restaurant by different HMRC staff, perhaps in the same evening. If any of the sales are not recorded correctly, it may be insufficient in itself to create an assessment, but it will confirm suspicions of suppression and lead to further action.
- Observation
While posing as customers, HMRC will also count the number of covers, the amount of take aways, the number of staff, how orders are taken and paid for, and how payments are made.
- Surveillance
Members of HMRC staff park outside a restaurant (usually in an unmarked van) and watch the activities of the restaurant. They count the number of people dining and the numbers of people exiting with take aways. This observation may also record the number of deliveries and other relevant information that they are able to obtain from what they can see. This exercise may be carried out over a number of days/nights or even weeks.
- Purchases
In more complex suppression, the value of purchases may also be suppressed in order to present a more credible picture to an inspector. This may be more common if the purchases are zero rated food (on which the business would not claim input tax). HMRC may attempt to build up a picture of sales by the volume of actual purchases made. They often check the restaurant’s suppliers’ records to get a full picture of trade.
Information obtained by one of the above methods may, on its own, be insufficient to raise an assessment, but combined with information obtained in different ways will more often than not result in one (should the exercises demonstrate an under-declaration of course).
Taxpayer’s rights
Attendance
HMRC do not have the right to attend a taxpayer’s premises at any time. The law says that inspections may be carried out “at any reasonable time”. This means that that if a business owner is busy, or the time is outside normal office hours, or there is not access to all of the relevant information, or the request is unreasonable for any other reason, the business owner (or his adviser) may request that an inspector leaves and makes an appointment at a future reasonable time. This is sometimes easier to do in theory than in practice, but a taxpayer’s rights are set out in The Finance Act 2009, Schedule 36, part II.
A business has no right to refuse a “regular” inspection but these are arranged for an agreed time in any case.
Records
The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 11 states that the requirement to produce records is limited to being provided at such time as HMRC “may reasonably require”. So, again, if HMRC are making demands that a business feels are unreasonable, it is within its rights to refuse to allow access and to make a mutually agreed and acceptable appointment to allow access to premises and records. This may lead to a discussion, but HMRC do not have unfettered rights to access premises or records.
Best judgement
Regardless of how HMRC have gathered information, any assessment must be made to the best of their judgement and must be “an honest and genuine attempt to make a reasoned assessment of the VAT payable”. If the business is able to demonstrate that this was not the case, the assessment must be removed. Broadly, this will entail demonstrating that things that ought to have been considered were ignored, or that things that have been included should not have been. Generally, the most common ways to challenge an assessment based on the above exercises are; that the period considered was not representative, or not long enough to be representative, or that the tests carried out were insufficient to demonstrate a consistent pattern of trading. There are usually specific facts in each case that may be used to challenge the validity and quantum of an assessment.
Action
Of course, it is hoped that no business which makes accurate declarations is troubled by such investigations. However, if a business feels that HMRC is being unreasonable with its demands it should seek professional advice before agreeing to permit HMRC access.
Matters change however, if HMRC have a Search Warrant or a Writ of Assistance in which case HMRC are able to compel a business to allow entry or inspection.
As always, we advise that any assessment is, at the very least, reviewed by a business’ adviser.
A VAT Did you know?
Gingerbread men: No tax is due if the figure has two chocolate spots for its eyes, but any chocolate-based additions, such as buttons or a belt, mean VAT is payable.