Category Archives: Technical

VAT DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme Top 10 Tips

By Marcus Ward 14 September 2018

If you build your own home, there is a scheme available which permits you to recover certain VAT incurred on the construction. This puts a person who constructs their own home on equal footing with commercial housebuilders. There is no need to be VAT registered in order to make the claim. As always with VAT, there are traps and deadlines, so here I have set out the Top Ten Tips.

An in-depth article on the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme here

The following are bullet points to bear in mind if you are building your own house, or advising someone who is:

Understand HMRC definitions early in your planning

Budgeting plays an important part in any building project. Whether VAT you incur may be reclaimed is an important element. In order to establish this, it is essential that your plans meet the definitions for ‘new residential dwelling’ or ‘qualifying conversion’. This will help ensure that your planning application provides the best position for a successful claim. One point to bear in mind, and which I have found often produces difficulties, is the requirement for the development to be capable of separate (from an existing property) disposal.

Do I have to live in the property when complete?

You are permitted to build the property for another relative to live in. The key point is that it will become someone’s home and not sold or rented to a third party. Therefore, you can complete the build and obtain invoices in your name, even if the property is for your elderly mother to live in. However, it is not usually possible to claim on a granny annexe built in your garden (as above, they are usually not capable of being disposed of independently to the house).

Contractors

Despite the name of the scheme, you are able to use contractors to undertake the work for you. The only difference here will be the VAT rate on their services will vary depending on the nature of the works and materials provided.

What can you claim?

A valid claim can be made on any building materials you purchase and use on the build project. Also, services of conversion charged at the reduced rate can be recovered. However, input tax on professional services such as architect’s fees cannot be recovered.

Get the VAT rate right

It is crucial to receive goods and services at the correct rate of VAT. Services provided on a new construction of a new dwelling will qualify for the zero rate, whereas the reduced rate of 5% will apply for qualifying conversions. If your contractor has charged you 20% where the reduced rate should have been applied, HMRC refuse to refund the VAT and will advise you go back to your supplier to get the error corrected. This is sometimes a problem if your contractor has gone ‘bust’ in the meantime or becomes belligerent. Best to agree the correct VAT treatment up front.

Aid your cash flow

If you wish to purchase goods yourself, it will be beneficial to ask your contractor to buy the goods and combine the value of these with his services of construction. I this way, standard rated goods become zero rated in a new build. If you incur the VAT on goods, you will have to wait until the end of the project to claim it from HMRC.

Claim on time

The claim form must be submitted within three months of completion of the build, usually this is when the certificate of practical completion is issued, or the building is inhabited. although it can be earlier if the certificate is delayed.

Use the right form

HMRC publish the forms on their website

Using the correct forms will help avoid delays and errors.

Send everything Recorded Delivery

You are required to send original invoices with the claim. Therefore, take copies of all documents and send the claim by recorded delivery. Unfortunately, experience insists that documents are lost…

Seek Advice

If you are in any doubt, please contact me. Mistakes can be costly, and you only get one chance to make the claim. Oh, and don’t forget that this is VAT, so any errors in a claim may be liable to penalties.

VAT – No more compensation for delayed refunds?

By Marcus Ward 7 September 2018

HMRC has announced its intention to do away with the 5% repayment supplement payable when it repays VAT late; it is not good news and I am quite cross.

Background

What is the repayment supplement?

Repayment supplement is a form of compensation paid in certain circumstances when HMRC does not authorise payment of a legitimate VAT claim within 30 days of receipt of the VAT Return.

If a business submits a repayment return and HMRC does not make the repayment within 30 days, it is required to add interest at 5% to the amount of the claim. A repayment claim arises when input tax is greater than output tax for a period. This may be due to many factors, such as; sales being VAT free, a large VAT bearing purchase or an adjustment to previous declarations. The 30 day period is paused for “the raising and answering of any reasonable inquiry relating to the requisite return or claim” by HMRC.

Additionally, HMRC may make an extra ex-gratia payment to make good any serious disadvantage suffered if a repayment is delayed to an exceptional extent, and the repayment supplement is less than the interest which might otherwise have been earned.

The proposal

In a consultation on draft legislation for Finance Bill 2018-19 the government has announced that it intends to replace the 5% supplement with payment of simple interest. This currently stands at 0.5% pa and therefore a substantially lower payment would be due to a taxpayer.

Technical

The relevant legislation covering the repayment supplement is contained in The VAT Act 1994 Section 79

Commentary

The entire point of the supplement is to focus HMRC’s mind on making the payment at the appropriate time, just as the default surcharge does for submitting a VAT return and paying VAT for a business. This is fair. To withdraw the repayment supplement does away with any incentive for HMRC to make repayments on time and this must represent an imbalance. To effectively withhold money from a business to which it is properly entitled is plain wrong. It can often significantly impact on cashflow and cause serious problems for a business.

It is quite often a fight to obtain a repayment supplement and in my personal experience HMRC do as much as possible to resist making these payments. It is no surprise that they are trying to wriggle out of their responsibility.

Let us hope that representations to HMRC against this plan are successful.

Right, I’m going to cool off…

VAT – When is chocolate not chocolate (and when is it)?

By Marcus Ward 4 September 2018

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Kinnerton Confectionery Ltd the issue was whether a product could be zero rated as a cooking ingredient, or treated as standard rated confectionary (a “traditional” bar of chocolate.)

Background

The product in question was an allergen free “Luxury Dark Chocolate” bar. It was argued by the appellant that it was sold as a cooking ingredient and consequently was zero rated via The Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 30(2) Schedule 8. HMRC decided that it was confectionary, notwithstanding that it could be used as a cooking ingredient.

Decision

The judge stated that what was crucial was how the chocolate bar was held out for sale. In deciding that the chocolate bar was confectionary the following facts were persuasive:

the Bar was held out for sale in supermarkets alongside other confectionery items and not alongside baking products
it was sometimes sold together with an Easter egg as a single item of confectionery
although the front of the wrapper included the words “delicious for cakes and desserts”, it contained no explicit statement that the Bar was “cooking chocolate” or “for cooking”
the back of the wrapper made no reference to cooking. It also stated that the portion size was one-quarter of a bar. Portion sizes are indicative of confectionery, not cooking chocolate
Kinnerton’s website positioned the Bar next to confectionery items, and did not say that it was cooking chocolate, or that it could be used for cooking
neither the wrapper nor Kinnerton’s website contained any recipes, or any indication of where recipes could be found
the Kinnerton brand is known for its confectionery, not for its baking products. All other items sold by Kinnerton are confectionery, and the brand is reflected in the company’s name
the single advertisement provided as evidence positioned the Bar next to confectionery Items, and did not say that the Bar was “cooking chocolate”; instead it made the more limited statement that it was “ideal for cooking”
consumers generally saw the Bar as eating chocolate which could also be used for cooking

Commentary

Clearly, the FTT decided that consumers would view the chocolate bar as… a chocolate bar, so the outcome was hardly surprising. This case demonstrates the importance of packaging and advertising on the VAT liability of goods. Care should be taken with any new product and it is usually worthwhile reviewing existing products. This is specifically applicable to food products as the legislation is muddled and confusing as a result of previous case law. This extends to products such as pet food/animal feedstuffs which while containing identical contents have different VAT treatment solely dependent on how they are held out for sale. And we won’t even mention Jaffa Cakes (oops, too late).

VAT – Place of supply of professional services flowchart

By Marcus Ward 23 August 2018

A question I am often asked by my legal and accountant clients is “Do we charge VAT on our invoices?” The main issue with this general question is the place of supply (POS). Consequently, I have produced a simple flowchart which covers most situations and applies to all providers of professional services. Of course, this being VAT, there are always unusual or one-off queries, but this chart, with the notes should address the most common issues.

Place of supply Of Services Flowchart

POS services flowchart

Notes to flowchart

As always, nothing in VAT is as simple as it seems. So I hope the following notes are of assistance.

Place of belonging

If the services are supplied to an individual and received by him otherwise than for the purpose of any business carried on by him, he is treated as belonging in whatever country he has his “usual place of residence”.

If the services are in respect of an individual’s business interests, then more complex rules on the place of belonging may apply. The issue is usually where more than one “establishment” exists. In these cases, the rule is the place of belonging is the “establishment” at which, or for the purposes of which, the services are most directly used or to be used.

A guide to belonging here

Property rental in the UK

Property rental is treated as a business for VAT purposes. We must decide whether a rented property here creates a business establishment in the UK for the landlord. If a person has an establishment overseas and owns a property in the UK which it leases to tenants; the property does not in itself create a business establishment. However, if the entity has UK offices and staff or appoints a UK agency to carry on its business by managing the property, this creates a business establishment (place of belonging) in the UK. VAT Act 1994 s. 9 (5) (a). In these cases, the professional services would likely be UK to UK and be standard-rated.

Difference between business and non-business:

Services provided to an individual are likely to be non-business unless the services are linked to that individual’s business activities, eg; as a sole proprietor. Therefore, an individual’s tax return is, in most cases, likely to be in the recipient’s non-business capacity (although it may be prudent to identify why a UK tax return is required for a non-UK resident individual, ie; what UK activities have taken place and do these activities amount to a business or create a business establishment?)

This is an area that often gives rise to uncertainties and differences in interpretation (particularly when deciding which establishment has most directly used the services). It may be helpful to reproduce a specific example provided by HMRC:

Example

“A UK accountant supplies accountancy services to a UK incorporated company which has its business establishment abroad. However, the services are received in connection with the company’s UK tax obligations and therefore the UK fixed establishment, created by the registered office, receives the supply.”

As always, please contact us should you have any queries.

Changes to the import of goods

By Marcus Ward 10 August 2018

If a business imports goods from countries outside the EU, there are changes being made by HMRC which it needs to beware of. If a business currently uses the UK Trade Tariff to make Customs declarations it will be affected by these changes.

The changes are set out here for imports. We understand that the changes for exports will be made available later in the year.

If a business’ agent or courier completes its declarations on its behalf, it may be prudent for a business to contact them discuss the impact of the changes.

Background

An overview of the changes may be found here

And a general guide to importing here

Why is the Tariff changing?

HMRC is phasing in the new Customs declaration Service (CDS) here from August to replace the current Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) system. As well as being a modern, digital declaration service, CDS will accommodate new legislative requirements under the Union Customs Code UCC here In order to comply with the UCC, a business will need to provide extra information for its declarations which can be found in the tariff.

When will a business be required to use the new Tariff?

The majority of importers will start using CDS after November 2‌018, once their software provider or in-house software team has developed a CDS compatible software package. Some importers will start making declarations on CDS before this, but there is no action for a business to take unless it has been contacted by HMRC to be part of this group.

Brexit

As is very common with Brexit, it is unknown how the UK leaving the EU will affect this position. With a No-Deal Brexit seeming likely, the above rules are likely to apply to goods brought into the UK from other EU Member States after next March.

Please contact us should you have any queries.

VAT: Adecco Court of Appeal case. Agent or principal?

By Marcus Ward 6 August 2018

Latest from the courts

In the recent Court of Appeal (CA) case of Adecco here the issue was whether the services provided by Adecco – an employment bureau which supplied its clients with temporary staff (temps) were by way of it acting as principal or agent.

Background

Details of the issues as considered in the FTT and UT were covered here

Overview

As is often the case in these types of arrangements, there are some matters that point towards the appellant acting as agent, and others indicating that the proper VAT treatment is that of principal. The important difference, of course, being whether output tax is due on the “commission” received by Adecco or on the full payment made to it (which includes the salaries of the relevant workers).

Decision

The CA decided that the supply of temporary staff by Adecco was as principal and consequently, VAT was due on the full amount received, not just the commission retained.

Reasoning

The CA focussed on the contractual position. Among the reasons provided for this decision were as follows (I have somewhat summarised). I think it worthwhile looking in some detail at these:

There was no question of the temps having provided their services under contracts with the clients: no such contracts existed. The contractual position must be that the temps’ services were provided to clients in pursuance of the contracts between Adecco and its clients and Adecco and the temps.
Although the contract between Adecco and a temp referred to the temp undertaking an assignment “for a client” and providing services “to the client”, it also spoke of the client requiring the temp’s services “through Adecco” and of the temp being supplied “through Adecco”.
While temps were to be subject to the control of clients, that was something that the temps agreed with Adecco, not the clients. The fact that the contract between Adecco and a temp barred any third party from having rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 confirms that the relevant provisions were to be enforceable only by Adecco, which, on the strength of them, was able to agree with its clients that the temps should be under their control. Adecco can fairly be described as conferring such control on its clients. (Broadly; the employment regulations required Adecco to treat itself as a principal with the result that that it could not therefore treat itself as an agent).
Adecco paid temps on its own behalf, not as agent for the clients.
Adecco by did not drop out of the picture once it had introduced a temp to a client. It was responsible for paying the temp (and for handling national insurance contributions and the like) and had to do so regardless of whether it received payment from the client Adecco also enjoyed rights of termination and suspension. It is noteworthy (as the UT said) that the contract between Adecco and a temp proceeded on the basis that a temp’s unauthorised absence could “result in a breach of obligations which we owe to the client”.
Adecco did not perform just administrative functions in relation to the temps. The temps, after all, were entitled to be paid by Adecco, not the clients.
Adecco charged a client a single sum for each hour a temp worked. It did not split its fees into remuneration for the temp and commission for itself.
The fact that Adecco had no control over a temp in advance of his taking up his assignment with the client did not matter.
Adecco undoubtedly supplied the services of employed temps to its clients.
In all the circumstances, both contractually and as a matter of economic and commercial reality, the temps’ services were supplied to clients via Adecco. In other words, Adecco did not merely supply its clients with introductory and ancillary services, and VAT was payable on the totality of what it was paid by clients.

Action

Clearly this was not the outcome the appellant desired, and it may impact similar arrangements in place for other businesses. Although found on the precise nature of the relevant contracts, the outcome of this case is not limited to employment bureaux and similar but must be considered in most cases where commission is received by an “agent”. These may include, inter alia; taxi services, driving schools, transport, travel agents, training/education, online services, repairs, warrantee work and many other types of business. It is crucial that contracts are regularly reviewed the ensure that the appropriate VAT treatment is applied and that they are clear on the agent/principal relationship. If there is any doubt, please contact us as it is often one of the most ambiguous areas of VAT.

VAT – Zipvit Court of Appeal decision

By Marcus Ward 18 July 2018

Latest from the courts

The Zipvit Court of Appeal (CA) case here

Background

A full background of this long running case may be found here

In summary: It was previously decided that certain supplies made by Royal Mail (RM) to its customers were taxable. This was on the basis of the TNT CJEU case. RM had treated them as exempt. HMRC was out of time to collect output tax, but claims made by recipients of RM’s services made retrospective claims. These claims were predicated on the basis that the amount paid to RM included VAT at the appropriate rate (it was embedded in the charge) and that UK VAT legislation stipulates that the “taxable amount” for any supply, is the amount paid by the customer including any VAT included in the price. HMRC maintained that the absence of a VAT invoice showing that VAT was charged to Zipvit by RM, and giving details of the rate of tax and the amount charged, was fatal to Zipvit’s claim to recover input tax.

The decisions in the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) went against Zipvit so the appeal went to the CA.

Decision

The CA upheld the decisions in the previous courts. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the relevant VAT had been “due or paid” on the supplies received from RM. It further appeared that evidence which was not present at earlier hearings showed that the amounts paid were exclusive of VAT which meant that VAT was not embedded in the consideration paid.

Importance

In the words of the judge Lord Justice Henderson the appeal raised some important questions of principle in the law of VAT. They arise when supplies of goods or services, which were wrongly assumed by the parties to the relevant transactions and by HMR to be exempt from VAT at the time of supply, are later discovered to have been subject to the standard rate of tax when they were made, following a decision to that effect by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Where the recipient of those goods or services was itself a registered trader which made taxable supplies on which it accounted for output tax, the basic question is whether, once the true position has become known, the recipient is in principle entitled to recover as an input tax credit the tax element of the consideration which it paid for the original supplies. If so, does it make any difference if the supplier has failed to pay the tax which should have been paid on the original supplies, and if the recipient is in consequence unable to produce a tax invoice from the supplier showing the amount of the input tax which it seeks to recover?

So a fundamental tenet of VAT was considered, as well as the matter of this being the lead case behind which many others were stood. I understand that the quantum of claims submitted is circa £1 billion in total so there was a lot riding on this decision.

Commentary

In my view, this is an important case for the above technical reasons and the whole decision bears reading in order to understand some of the intricacies of a business claiming input tax.

VAT – Making Tax Digital (MTD) Update

By Marcus Ward 17 July 2018

Time moves on and HMRC has published further information on MTD. I outlined the basics of MTD here

The recent publication lists software suppliers which HMRC say have both:

tested their products in HMRC’s test environment
already demonstrated a prototype of their software to HMRC

HMRC will update this list as testing progresses. We advise to check with your existing software supplier to see if they will be supplying suitable software for the pilot, or contact one listed below in the HMRC publication:

Background

HMRC state that more than 130 software suppliers have told them that they are interested in providing software for MTD for VAT. Over 35 of these have said they will have software ready during the first phase of the pilot in which HMRC is testing the service with small numbers of invited businesses and agents. The pilot will be opened up to allow more businesses and agents to join later this year.

Good luck everyone!

Beyblades – a Customs Duty case

By Marcus Ward 17 July 2018

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal (CA) case of Hasbro European Trading BV (Hasbro) the issue was whether Customs Duty (CD) was due on the import of Beyblades. If they fall within the definition of a toy CD is payable at 4.7%. However, if they are more accurately classified as a game they are treated as duty free – so a significant difference in import cost dependent on what, superficially, appears to be a somewhat question of semantics.

Beyblades

For the purposes of the case, it is important to understand what a Beyblade is and how it is used.

Beyblade is the brand name for a line of spinning tops originally developed and manufactured by Tomy in Japan. The main novelty is that they are a series of items which are customisable, with interchangeable parts. A Beyblade is set in motion by means of a rip-cord powered launcher.

A “game” is played with two players. Each player is allowed a number of Beyblades to choose from during a match. Players may use any parts available to them to make their Beyblades), but may not switch parts once a match has started. The first player to reach seven points wins. Points are awarded to the player based on how their Beyblade knocks out the opponent’s

One point is awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade stops spinning
One point is awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade is knocked out of the stadium or into a pocket on the edge of the ring
Two points are awarded if the opponent’s Beyblade breaks during a game

The Arguments

The case concerned the classification of Beyblades’. The appellant, Hasbro contended that Beyblades are correctly classified as “articles for … table or parlour games” under heading 9504 of the Combined Nomenclature. In contrast, HMRC maintained that Beyblades should be classified as “other toys” under heading 9503, The First-tier Tribunal FTT and the Upper Tribunal (U’) both previously agreed with HMRC’s analysis.

Classification

There are “explanatory notes” to the Harmonised System (HSENNs). The CA ruled that the classification rule which prefers the most specific description does not apply at the level of the HSENs: they are an important guide to interpretation, but do not have force of law.

The Decision

The CA allowed the appeal and went against the decisions in the FTT and UT. The judge concluded that “In the circumstances, it seems to me to fall to us to decide which of the alternative headings provides the more specific description. In my view, it is heading 9504. As I see it, “articles for … parlour games” encompasses a more limited range of goods than “toys” and “more clearly identifies Beyblades”, particularly since, as I say, “articles for … parlour games” reflects the fact that Beyblades are meant to be used in games…”. The fact that Beyblades are used in a competitive scenario seems to have swung the decision which knocked out HMRC. Consequently, there was no CD payable as they fell to be duty free.

Commentary

It does beg the question; why did this issue need to get to the CA for the appellant to finally win (but of course, this isn’t the first case which has raised that question). Perseverance was clearly the key word here. If you are convinced that HMRC is wrong on ay matter, it really does pay to challenge any ruling.

Small businesses/start ups: Should I register for VAT voluntarily?

By Marcus Ward 6 July 2018

Why?

OK, so why would a business choose to VAT register when it need not? Let’s say its turnover is under the VAT registration limit of £85,000, isn’t it just best to avoid the VATman if at all possible?

Planning

This is not an article which considers whether a business MUST register, but rather it looks at whether it is a good idea to register on a voluntary basis if it is not compulsory. The first time a business would probably consider VAT planning.

Decision

As a general rule of thumb; if you sell to the public (B2C) then probably not. If you sell to other VAT registered businesses (B2B) then it is more likely to be beneficial.

If you sell B2B to customers overseas it is almost certain that VAT registration would be a good thing, as it would if you supply zero rated goods or services in the UK. This is because there is no output tax on sales, but full input tax recovery on costs; VAT nirvana! A distinction must be made between zero rated supplies and exempt supplies. If only exempt supplies are made, a business cannot register for VAT regardless of level of income.

Compliance

Apart from the economic considerations, we have found that small businesses are sometimes put off VAT registration by the added compliance costs and the potential penalties being in the VAT club can bring. Weighed against this, there is a certain kudos or prestige for a business and it does convey a degree of seriousness of a business undertaking. It may also make life simpler (and reduce costs) if a business buys goods or services from other EC Member States. We also come across situations where a customer will only deal with suppliers who are VAT registered.

The main issue

The key to registration is that, once registered, a business may recover the VAT it incurs on its expenditure (called input tax). So let us look at some simple examples of existing businesses for comparison:

Examples

Example 1

A business sells office furniture to other VAT registered business (B2B).

It buys stock for 10,000 plus VAT of 2,000

It incurs VAT on overheads (rent, IT, telephones, light and heat etc) of 2,000 plus 400 VAT

It makes sales of 20,000.

If not registered, its profit is 20,000 less 12,000 less 2400 = 5600

If VAT registered, the customer can recover any VAT charged, so VAT is not a disincentive to him.

Sales 20,000 plus 4000 VAT (paid to HMRC)

Input tax claimed = 2400 (offset against payment to HMRC)

Result: the VAT is neutral and not a cost, so profit is 20,000 less 12,000 = 8000, a saving of 2400 as compared to the business not being registered. The 2400 clearly equals the input tax recovered on expenditure.

Example 2

A “one-man band consultant” provides advice B2B and uses his home as his office. All of his clients are able to recover any VAT charged.

He has very little overheads that bear VAT as most of his expenditure is VAT free (staff, train fares, use of home) so his input tax amounts to 100.

He must weigh up the cost (time/admin etc) of VAT registration against reclaiming the 100 of input tax. In this case it would probably not be worthwhile VAT registering – although the Flat Rate Scheme may be attractive, please see article here

Example 3

A retailer sells adult clothes to the public from a shop. She pays VAT on the rent and on the purchase of stock as well as the usual overheads. The total amount she pays is 20,000 with VAT of 4000.

Her sales total 50,000.

If not VAT registered her profit is 50,000 less 24,000 = 26,000

If VAT registered she will treat the value of sales as VAT inclusive, so of the 50,000 income 8333 represents VAT she must pay to HMRC. She is able to offset her input tax of 4000.

This means that her profit if VAT registered is 50,000 less the VAT of 8333 = 41,667 less the net costs of 20,000 = 21,667.

Result: a loss of 4333 in profit.

As may be seen, if a business sells to the public it is nearly always disadvantageous to be voluntarily VAT registered. It may be possible to increase her prices by circa 20%, but for a lot of retailers, this is unrealistic.

Intending traders

If a business has not started trading, but is incurring input tax on costs, it is possible to VAT register even though it has not made any taxable supplies. This is known by HMRC as an intending trader registration. A business will need to provide evidence of the intention to trade and this is sometimes a stumbling block, especially in the area of land and property. Choosing to register before trading may avoid losing input tax due to the time limits (very generally a business can go back six months for services and four years for goods on hand to recover the VAT). Also cashflow will be improved if input tax is recovered as soon as possible.

Action

Careful consideration should be given to the VAT status of a small or start-up business. This may be particularly relevant to start-ups as they typically incur more costs as the business begins and the recovery of the VAT on these costs may be important. In most cases it is also possible to recover VAT incurred before the date of VAT registration.

This is a basic guide and there are many various situations that require further consideration of the benefits of voluntary VAT registration. We would, of course, be pleased to help.