Latest from the courts
HMRC has published an update on taxpayers’ appeals. This is a round up of the status of recent cases.
It is helpful for businesses which operate in similar areas, or have tax issues with HMRC and for a general overview on how the courts are approaching certain matters.
The cases which HMRC lose often provide opportunities for retrospective claims for other businesses.
Latest from the courts
In the The Towards Zero Foundation First Tier Tribunal case the issue was whether part of the appellant’s activities could be “stripped out”, classified as non-business, and therefore result in a loss of input tax.
This case follows a long succession of recent cases on the distinction between business (economic activity) and non-business. I have considered these in other articles:
Wakefield College (referred to at this Tribunal)
Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft
and new HMRC guidance on the subject.
VAT attributable to non-business activities is not input tax and cannot be reclaimed. However, if the non-business activity is part of wider business activities then it may be recovered as input tax.
Background
The Appellant is a charity. Its primary objective is to achieve zero road traffic fatalities principally through the operation of New Car Assessment Programmes (NCAP) – testing car safety.
When it received money as consideration for carrying out the testing, it was agreed by all parties that that this represented economic activity.
As part of this activity, the charity purchased new cars (so called “mystery shopping” exercises) and carried out tests at its own expense. In this start-up phase for an NCAP it is necessary to test vehicles without manufacturer support as the independence of the testing programme is critical in order to establish consumer credibility.
The results of the tests (usually giving rise to substandard or unsatisfactory outcomes) are published and the Appellant generates publicity of the results through social media, news coverage, trade press etc. These results inform and influence customer buying behaviour which in turn drives manufacturers to improve the safety features.
As the market sophistication increases the NCAP star ratings for vehicles are used by the manufacturers in promotion of its vehicles.
The aim of the Appellant is for each jurisdictional NCAP to ultimately become self-funding through manufacturer testing fees.
Contentions
HMRC argued that when the appellant carried out tests on purchased vehicles this should be recognised as a specific activity which could not be a business as it generated no income – the tests should be considered in isolation. Consequently, the input tax which was recovered was blocked and an assessment was issued to disallow the claim.
The Foundation contended that it published the results of those tests, and this resulted in the commercial need for manufacturers to improve safety standards by way of commissions for further research. This research was funded by the car makers and was therefore economic activity. The “free” testing needed to be undertaken so as to create a market for manufacturer funded testing – the initial testing was just one element of the overall taxable supply. Consequently, all residual input tax incurred is attributed to its taxable business activities and fully recoverable.
Decision
The FTT found that it was clear that manufacturers would not proactively seek to have vehicles tested without an initial unfavourable baseline assessment. If the free testing had been a genuinely independent activity HMRC would be correct, but the evidence did not support this analysis. It found that the provision of free testing was an inherent and integral part of the appellant’s business activity.
This being the case there was no reason to attribute any VAT to non-business activities, and the input tax weas fully claimable.
Commentary
Another reminder, if one were needed, of the importance of correctly establishing whether the activities of a body (usually charities, but not exclusively) are business or non-business. The consequences will affect both the quantum of output tax and claiming VAT on expenditure. More on the topic here.
The decision was as anticipated, but this case illustrates HMRC’s willingness to challenge (often unsuccessfully) VAT treatment in similar situations.
Latest from the courts
In the Court of Appeal (CoA) case of Tower Bridge GP Ltd the issue was whether the appellant could claim input tax in a situation where it did not (and does not) hold a valid tax invoice.
Background
Tower Bridge was the representative member of a VAT group which contained Cantor Fitzgerald Europe Ltd (CFE). CFE traded in carbon credits. These carbon credit transactions were connected to VAT fraud.
The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that CFE neither knew, nor should have known, that the transactions it entered into before 15 June 2009 were connected to VAT fraud but that it should have known that its transactions were connected to fraud from 15 June 2009. The appeal relates only to transactions entered into before that date.
CFE purchased carbon credits from Stratex Alliance Limited (“Stratex”) The carbon credits supplied to CFE were to be used by the business for the purpose of its own onward taxable transactions (in carbon credits). The total of VAT involved was £5,605,119.74.
The Stratex invoices were not valid VAT invoices. They did not show a VAT registration number for Stratex, nor did they name CFE as the customer. Although Stratex was a taxable person, it transpired that Stratex was not registered for VAT (and therefore could not include a valid VAT number on its invoices) and that it fraudulently defaulted on its obligation to account to HMRC for the sums charged as output tax on these invoices.
Subsequent investigations by HMRC resulted in Stratex not being able to be traced.
Contentions
The appellant contended that it is entitled to make the deduction either as of right, or because HMRC unlawfully refused to use its discretion to allow the claim by accepting alternative evidence.
HMRC denied Tower Bridge the recovery of the input tax on the Stratex invoices on the basis that the invoices did not meet the formal legal requirements to be valid VAT invoices. HMRC also refused to exercise their discretion to allow recovery of the input tax on the basis that:
Decision
Dismissing this appeal, the CoA ruled that where an invoice does not contain the information required by legislation (The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 No 2518 Part III, Regulation 14), or contains an error in that information, which is incapable of correction, the right to deduct cannot be exercised. The appellant did not have the ability to make a claim as of right.
The Court then considered whether HMRC ought to have permitted Tower Bridge to make a claim using alternative evidence. It found that the attack on HMRC’s exercise of discretion fails for the reasons contended by HMRC (above). These were perfectly legitimate matters for HMRC to take into account in deciding whether to exercise the first discretion in the taxable person’s favour.
CFE had failed to carry out “the most basic of checks on Stratex”.
So, the appeal was dismissed.
Commentary
This was hardly a surprising outcome considering that if an exception were to be made, there would be a loss to the public purse consisting of the input tax, with no corresponding gain to the public purse from the output tax that Stratex ought to have paid, but fraudulently did not.
This case demonstrates the importance of obtaining a proper tax invoice and to carry out checks on its validity. Additionally, there is a need to conduct accurate due diligence on the supply chain. I have summarised the importance of Care with input tax claims which includes a helpful list of checks which must be carried out.
HMRC has published updated guidance on childcare following the decision in the RSR Sports Limited (RSR) case. The issue being what supplies fell within the definition of “services… closely linked to the protection of children and young persons” and supplies of “welfare services” – VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 9.
The guidance in VATWELF3032 states that RSR could be distinguished from Sports Academies (Decision No TC05171), a case where the tribunal had held that the activities element predominated.
The important key features were:
Other providers supplying services can similarly exempt their supplies where the facts demonstrate that they qualify and exhibit the key features set out by the FTT in RSR.
HMRC no longer interprets activity-based clubs to include those clubs exhibiting these key features. Such clubs can therefore, qualify for the welfare exemption if they otherwise meet the conditions.
Latest from the courts
In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Haymarket Media Group Limited (Haymarket) the issue was whether the sale of Teddington TV Studios qualified as a VAT free Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC).
Background
The site in question was subjected to an Option To Tax (OTT) by the supplier. The sale of the property was with the benefit of planning consent for the development of flats and houses on the site after demolition of the TV studios.
Subject of the appeal
The transferor/vendor had previously let a small building on the site to the purchaser’s advisers and, on this basis, the sale was structured to be a TOGC as a property rental business. HMRC raised an assessment as it considered that neither a property rental business, nor a property development business had been transferred.
Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The FTT found that, despite the short lived and minor letting, this did not constitute a business. Further, that even if this had been a business, the contract required vacant possession so a business could not have been continued.
The contention that a property development business was being carried on was also rejected. Despite significant costs being incurred by Haymarket in obtaining the planning permission, the intention* was always to sell the site to a developer, rather than the appellant carrying out the development itself (there was no meaningful work being carried out on the site). The fact that planning permission was obtained did not mean that there was an ongoing property development business which could be transferred.
* The importance of “intention” in VAT is considered here and here.
Technical
In order for a transaction to qualify for a VAT free TOGC, ALL of the following conditions must be met:
In this case, the first, second and third tests was failed leaving the supply to be VAT-able as a result of the OTT.
More on the complex subject of TOGCs including case law here, here, here, and here.
Commentary
TOGCs are often a minefield for taxpayers and their advisers, especially if property is involved. Not only is land law and the relevant VAT legislation complex, but property transactions are usually high value, with a lot of VAT at stake (the VAT in this case was £17 million). Additionally, they are often “one-offs” and frequently outside the usual commercial expertise of people running the business. We strongly advise that comprehensive technical advice is always obtained when TOGC is mooted by one side or the other, particularly when the relevant asset is involved in property letting or development.
Latest from the courts
In the First-Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Hodge and Deery Limited the issue was whether ground works preparatory to installing flexi vault burial chambers exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, group 8, item 2 – “The making of arrangements for or in connection with the disposal of the remains of the dead.”
Background
The vaulting system was installed in graveyards with unstable soil structures which can result in issues with toxins and in subsidence of an existing grave when another grave is dug in the adjacent plot. The burial plots are ready for use and the element above the plots is landscaped (which was undertaken by a third-party).
The appellant’s case
The appellant considered that the installation of the flexible burial vaults should be treated as the advance digging of multiple graves. It should not be regarded differently from the preparation of “normal” graves. The sole purpose of the preparation of a grave is to dispose of the remains of the dead and it should not matter that the undertaker does not prepare the grave himself.
HMRC’s case
HMRC considered that the installation of flexible burial vaults do not fall within the exemption because:
Decision
The judge considered that the services resulted in the provision of many graves for the disposal of the remains of the dead and that the result of the services satisfied the object of the exemption. The digging of graves is central to the disposal of the remains of the dead, the services are made in connection with the disposal of the remains of the dead and within Item 2.
Commentary
In this case, it did not matter that the services are provided in advance, and nor did it matter that the services are not provided in connection with a specific funeral. It also confirms that the funeral director or undertaker need not provide all the services themselves. It seems obvious that the digging of graves is pivotal to the disposal of the remains of the dead and once it was established that a third party could dig the grave, the appeal was bound to be successful.
Latest from the courts
In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of 50 Five (UK) Limited the issue was the VAT rate applicable to energy saving materials. An additional twist was that there was a sale of the business between the tax point of the relevant supplies and HMRC’s assessment.
Background
The appeal was brought in the name of the Appellant in respect of assessments raised by HMRC against the company prior to the date on which it was purchased by the present owners. The present owners were not made aware of the assessment at the time of purchase. It had not been disclosed to them as part of the due diligence which was undertaken.
The Appellant’s business was that of supply and installation of heating and hot water systems. The customers were supplied with fully installed systems. The Appellant did not ask the customers to separately source the parts for such systems and then simply fit them. These supplies were treated as those of energy saving materials and the reduced rate of 5% was applied.
HMRC raised an assessment after taking the view that the supply should have properly been standard rated at 20%.
Decision
The FTT decided that legislation which permits the sale of energy saving materials at the reduced rate of VAT apply only where the supply of those materials is independent of an installation service. In this case, as the Appellant was the provider of the goods, and also the installer, the supply to the end customer was standard rated (a composite supply).
It was noted that this outcome was counter intuitive and the result does indeed seem unfair to the taxpayer, but as there was no reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding, it was struck out. The assessment and interest was now payable by the new owners.
Commentary
An unfortunate outcome for the new owners, but it highlights three VAT issues:
The only recourse the new owners have now is taking action against the sellers of the business.
I have looked at the Default Surcharge regime in detail here but as statistics show more business to be in default (which is probably accurately attributable, inter alia, to the pandemic) I consider how a penalty may be mitigated, by the provision of a “Reasonable Excuse”. HMRC has updated its internal guidance on Reasonable Excuse this month.
Specifically: HMRC state that “…where a person has not been able to meet an obligation on time due to the impact of COVID-19, HMRC will usually accept that they will have a reasonable excuse.”
What is a Default Surcharge?
The Default Surcharge is a civil penalty issued by HMRC to encourage businesses to submit their VAT returns and pay the tax due on time.
A default occurs if HMRC has not received your return and all the VAT due by the due date. The relevant date is the date that cleared funds reach HMRC’s bank account. If the due date is not a working day, payment must be received on the last preceding working day.
More on late returns here and on late payments here.
New rules forthcoming
It is noted that there is a new regime for penalties, details here although these changes have been delayed until 1 January 2023
Reasonable Excuse
If a business has a reasonable excuse for failing to pay on time, and it remedies this failure without unreasonable delay after the excuse ends, it will not be liable to a surcharge. The onus is on a business to satisfy HMRC that it has a Reasonable Excuse.
Definition
There’s no statutory definition of Reasonable Excuse and it will depend on the particular circumstances of a case. A Reasonable Excuse is something that prevented the business meeting a tax obligation on time which it took reasonable care to meet. There is a great deal of case law on this particular issue. Please contact us should there be doubt about a Reasonable Excuse.
What may count as a Reasonable Excuse?
HMRC give the following examples:
This list is not exhaustive.
What is NOT a reasonable excuse
Statute identifies two specific situations that are not a reasonable excuse:
There can be exceptions to these two exclusions. For example, an insufficiency of funds may be a reasonable excuse where the insufficiency is a result of events outside the person’s control.
HMRC also states that these situations would not normally be accepted, on their own, as a reasonable excuse:
Facts
HMRC will establish what facts the business believes gave rise to a Reasonable Excuse. The facts may include:
Case Law
Although not a VAT issue, in the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Christine Perrin [2018] UKUT 156 [TC], the judge provided guidance on how the Tribunal should approach a Reasonable Excuse defence. There are four steps:
Appeal
If HMRC refuse to accept an advance of a Reasonable Excuse and the Default Surcharge is maintained, there are two potential remedies:
If a business disagrees with a decision that it is liable to a surcharge or how the amount of surcharge has been calculated, it is possible to:
If you ask for a review of a case, a business will be required to write to HMRC within 30 days of the date the Surcharge Liability Notice Extension (SLNE) was sent. The letter should give the reasons why a business disagrees with the decision.
We are able to assist with all disputes with HMRC and have an enviable record of succeeding in having Default Surcharges removed.
A number of people have been surprised to find that crime does pay tax, thank you very much. It seems bad enough that the police should chase and catch you, put you in the dock and send you to prison, without finding that your first visitor is HMRC…. Let’s look at some examples:
Dodgy perfume?
Goodwin & Unstead were in business selling counterfeit perfume. They were also up-front about what they were doing. Unstead claimed that “Everything I can carry in my vehicle, everything I trade in and sell, is a complete copy of the real thing. I do not sell goods as the real thing. In fact I sell my goods for a quarter of the original price. I am not out to defraud or con the public. I only appeal to the poseurs in life.”
The real manufacturers might have sued these men for passing off the product of their chemistry experiments in trademarked bottles, but it was HMRC who sent them to jail – for failing to register and pay VAT on their sales. The amount they should have collected was estimated at £750,000, which shows that they must have appealed to a great many poseurs.
If they had paid the VAT, Customs would have had no problem with them. Their customers must have been reasonably satisfied – if your counterfeit perfume smells something like the real thing, why worry?
They tried to get out of jail with an ingenious argument – if the sale of the perfume was illegal, surely there shouldn’t be VAT on it. It wasn’t legitimate business activity, so it wasn’t something that ought to be taxable. The European Court had no time for this. They pointed out that it would give lawbreakers an advantage over lawful businesses; they wouldn’t have to charge VAT. The judges suggested that maybe people would even deliberately break the law so they could get out of tax; in this case, the only thing that made the trade illegal was treading on someone’s trademark rights, and that was something that might happen at any time in legitimate businesses. The judges said that VAT would apply to any trade which competed in a legal marketplace, even if the particular sales broke the law for some reason. Counterfeit perfume is VATable because real perfume is too. Of course, Customs have traditionally had two main roles – looking for drug smugglers, and dealing with VAT-registered traders. They have generally treated both with much the same suspicion, but the ECJ made it clear in this case that the two sets of customers are completely separate.
“Personal” services?
Customers paid the escort £130, of which £30 was paid to the agency. VAT on £130 or VAT on £30?
The first hearing before the Tribunal went something like this (this may be using artistic licence, but the published summary implies it was so):
HMRC: “We think the VAT should be on £130 because the escorts are acting as agents of the escort business.”
Trader: “No, it’s just £30, the £100 belongs to the escort and is nothing to do with me.”
Tribunal chairman: “All right, tell me a bit about how the business operates.”
Customs: “No.”
Tribunal chairman: “What?”
Customs: “You don’t want to know.”
Tribunal chairman: “How can I decide whether the escorts are acting as agent or principals without knowing how the business operates?”
Customs: “Don’t go there, just give us a decision.”
Tribunal chairman: “Trader, you tell me how the business operates.”
Trader: “I agree with him, you don’t want to know.”
The Tribunal seems to have been a bit baffled by this. They were aware that Customs had a great deal more evidence which had been collected during the course of a thorough investigation, and they asked the parties to go away and decide whether they might let the Tribunal see a bit more of it so they could make a judgement rather than a guess.
What about drugs then?
It’s well-known that you are allowed to smoke dope in some establishments in Amsterdam, although the Dutch authorities are thinking about restricting this to Netherlands’ residents. They may find that such a rule contravenes the European Law on freedom of movement – under the EU treaty, you can’t be meaner to foreigners than you are to your own people just because they are foreign. That’s a nice idea, but individuals and governments keep trying it on. Anyway, the Coffeeshop Siberie rented space to drug dealers who would sell cannabis at tables for people to take advantage of the relaxed atmosphere. Presumably they are preparing to examine passports or local utility bills before making the sale, if only the Dutch are to be allowed to get stoned. Anyway, the Dutch authorities asked the coffee shop’s owners for VAT on the rent paid by the dealers, and the owners appealed to the ECJ. This time, surely, it was sufficiently illegal. Although the consumption of drugs was tolerated, it was still against the law, and it must therefore be not VATable.
The judges pointed out that the coffee shop was not actually selling drugs. They were just providing the space for other people to sell drugs. Although selling drugs was completely illegal, and there was no legitimate market in cannabis, renting space was a normal business activity. Renting space to someone who did something illegal with it was in the same category as the dodgy perfume sales in Goodwin & Unstead: it was a bit illegal, but not illegal enough. The VAT was still due.
Counterfeiting?
In a German case, the ECJ ruled that the importation of counterfeit money was outside the scope of VAT. The Advocate-General observed that a line must be drawn between, on the one hand, transactions that lie so clearly outside the sphere of legitimate economic activity that, instead of being taxed, they can only be the subject of criminal prosecution, and, on the other hand, transactions which though unlawful must nonetheless be taxed, if only for ensuring in the name of fiscal neutrality, that the criminal is not treated more favourably than the legitimate trader’.
So, there you have it, if you are of a criminal disposition, and you want to avoid VAT, funny money is the way to go. Please note, this does not constitute advice…..
Latest from the courts
In the Julie Lalou t/a Dogs Delight First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether the teaching of dog grooming qualified as private tuition and was therefore exempt.
Background
The Appellant operated a business providing dog grooming and dog grooming courses. The appeal was concerned only with the supplies of dog grooming tuition as it was accepted that dog grooming in itself is taxable.
Technical
The sole issue in dispute in this appeal was whether the supplies fall within the private tuition exemption as for provided by The Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, item 2 “The supply of private tuition, in a subject ordinarily taught in a school or university, by an individual teacher acting independently of an employer”.
HMRC’s view was that “to be eligible for exemption dog grooming would need to be a course that is ‘ordinarily’ taught in schools and universities which it is not…”
The appellant wrote to HMRC giving a list of seven “local Colleges and Universities where the Level 3 Dog Grooming Diploma is ordinarily taught”. The appellant went on to state “There are many more within the UK” which were said to represent around 30% of English colleges. Further it was stated that the business was a City & Guilds approved centre and that the courses were not recreational.
Decision
It was accepted that the courses that the appellant taught involved her making supplies of tuition in that she transferred to her students skills and knowledge.
But, unsurprisingly, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant had failed to demonstrate that dog grooming is taught at a wide number of schools and universities
The court also determined that the appellant needed to provide some evidence of whether dog grooming was taught at schools and universities in the EU (again, something she had failed to do).
Commentary
The exemption for private tuition is fraught with complexities and the amount of case law on the subject is significant, which indicates the difficulties in analysing the VAT position. An example here. It is important to establish what is being provided and that research is carried out to consider the degree of ubiquity of the subject in education. A general guide to education here. The phrase “ordinarily taught” is rather nebulous and it would be prudent to obtain as much evidence as possible that a subject is s commonly or ordinarily taught in schools and universities if a supply is treated as exempt.