Category Archives: Valuation

VAT & Customs Duty – Valuation for import purposes

By Marcus Ward 5 August 2022

Methods of calculating import value

There are six methods for calculating the value of imported goods to assess the amount of Customs Duty and import VAT a business to pay. The same value is also used for trade statistics.

All six methods are outlined below and should be tried in order. If Method 1 does not apply, try Method 2. If that does not apply, try 3 and so on. However, Method 5 can be tried before 4.

Method 1

The transaction value – the price payable to the seller. This is the most common valuation and is used in most cases.

Try Method 2 if there has been no sale of goods.

Method 2

The customs value of identical goods, produced in the same country as the imports.

Try Method 3 if there are no identical goods.

Method 3

The customs value of similar goods, which must be:

produced in the same country
able to carry out the same tasks and be
commercially interchangeable

Try Method 4 if there are no similar goods.

Method 4

The selling price of the goods (or identical or similar goods) in the UK.

Try Method 5 if there are no UK sales of the goods.

Method 5

The production cost of the goods, including the cost of any materials, manufacturing and any other processing used in production.

Try Method 6 if this production cost information is unavailable.

Method 6

Reasonably adapting one of the previous methods to fit unusual circumstances.

Legislation

In the UK valuation is covered by the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 & The Customs (Import Duty) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 and The VAT Act 1994, Section 19.

What to include in the Method 1 calculation

If they are not already included in the seller’s price, the importer must add the costs of:

delivery to the EU border
most commissions (except buying commission)
royalties and licence fees paid by you on the imported goods as a condition of sale
containers and packing
any proceeds of resale the seller will receive
goods and services you provide to the seller for free or at a reduced cost – eg components incorporated in the imported goods, or development and design work carried out outside the EU and necessary for the production of the imports

If you import goods from a processor – ie a business that assembles or otherwise works on one or more sets of existing products to create your new imported products – transaction values can be built up by adding to the processing costs the value of any materials or components you provided to the processor.

What to exclude from your calculation

Items to be left out of the customs value if certain conditions are met include:

delivery costs within the EU
EU duties or taxes
taxes paid in the country of origin or export
quantity and trade discounts and those relating to cash and early settlement, that are valid at the time the goods are valued
dividend payments to the seller
marketing activities related to the imports
buying commission
export quota and licence costs
interest charges
rights of reproduction
post-importation work, eg construction or assembly
management fees

Further details here.

VAT: The Reverse Charge

By Marcus Ward 24 June 2022

Normally, the supplier is the person who must account to the tax authorities for any VAT due on the supply. However, in certain situations, the position is reversed, and it is the customer who must account for any VAT due. Don’t get caught out!

Purchasing services from abroad

These will be obtained free of VAT from an overseas supplier. What is known as the ‘reverse charge’ (RC) procedure must be applied. Where the RC applies, the recipient of the services must act as both the supplier and the recipient of the services. On the same VAT return, the recipient must account for output tax, calculated on the full value of the supply received, and (subject to partial exemption and non-business rules) include the VAT charged as input tax.

The effect of these provisions is that the reverse charge has no net cost to the recipient if he can attribute the input tax to taxable supplies and can therefore reclaim it in full. If he cannot, the effect is to put him in the same position as if had received the supply from a UK supplier rather than from one outside the UK. Thus, creating a level playing field between purchasing from the UK and overseas.

Accounting for VAT and recovery of input tax.

Where the RC procedure applies, the recipient of the services must act as both the supplier and the recipient of the services. On the same VAT return, the recipient must

account for output tax, calculated on the full value of the supply received, in Box 1
(subject to partial exemption and non-business rules) include the VAT stated in box 1 as input tax in Box 4
include the full value of the supply in both Boxes 6 and 7

Value of supply

The value of the deemed supply is to be taken to be the consideration in money for which the services were in fact supplied or, where the consideration did not consist or not wholly consist of money, such amount in money as is equivalent to that consideration. The consideration payable to the overseas supplier for the services excludes UK VAT but includes any taxes levied abroad.

VAT Implications of Transfer Pricing – Valuation

By Marcus Ward 21 April 2022

When can Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments affect the application of VAT?

There is a continuing potential conflict between the way sales are valued. For TP purposes value is determined via arm’s length (open market value) versus the subjective value, ie; the price actually paid, for VAT purposes.

More detail on VAT valuation/consideration here.

Transfer Pricing

The arm’s length principle is the international transfer pricing standard that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries have agreed, and which should be used for tax purposes by Multinational Enterprise Group (“MNE group”) and tax administrations, including the price, match comparable market conditions and that profits are fairly divided between the jurisdictions in which MNE operates.

According to the OECD TP Guidelines, by seeking to adjust profits by reference to the conditions which would have been obtained between independent enterprises for comparable transactions and under comparable circumstances, ie; in “comparable uncontrolled transactions” the arm’s length principle treats the members of an MNE group as entities operating separately rather than as inseparable parts of a single unified business. Because the separate entity approach treats the members of an MNE group as if they were independent entities, attention is focused on the nature of the transactions between those members and on whether the conditions thereof differ from those that would be obtained in comparable uncontrolled transactions.

VAT

It is not generally required for VAT purposes that the consideration which must be present in order for a transaction to be qualified as taxable, has to reflect the market value of the goods or services supplied. In fact, as to the concept of “consideration”, it is settled case law of the CJEU that the taxable amount for the supply of goods or services is represented by the consideration actually received for them.

It is an important area of tax and I recommend reading the EC Working Paper for any business or adviser involved in international supplies. It is also an interesting read for students of the tax technical side of such supplies.

We have a strong global structure of skilled advisers which are able to assist if you have any queries.

VAT: What is consideration and why is it important?

By Marcus Ward 18 March 2022

VAT Basics

Consideration – background

There is no definition of consideration in legislation. The meaning was originally taken from contract law, but after the European Court of Justice ruled that the term is to be given the Community meaning and is not to be variously interpreted by Member States the UK adopted that approach.

The expression “consideration” means everything received in return for the supply of goods or the provision of services, including incidental expenses (packing, transport, insurance etc). Consideration is a payment for the supply of goods or services. It is usually a payment in money, but can also be of a “non-monetary” nature, such as goods or services supplied in return.

The phrase “in return for the supply” is interpreted to mean that there must be a direct link between the supply and the consideration.

Therefore, in order that a supply for a consideration can be made, there must be at least two parties and a written or oral agreement between them under which something is done or supplied for the consideration. There is a direct link between the supply and the consideration because the supplier expects something in return for his supply and would not fulfil his obligation unless he thought that payment would be forthcoming.

Profit

It is important to recognise that the concept of consideration and profit are wholly different, and the fact that a business makes no profit on a supply does not mean that there is no consideration for it. Whether payment yields a profit or loss is immaterial and has no bearing on whether or not it is consideration for VAT purposes.

Importance

If consideration is not recognised, or undervalued, a business can expect HMRC assessments and penalties. Overstating consideration will result in an overpayment of tax.

if there is no consideration, there is no supply.

Consideration hallmarks

Consideration is defined widely to bring within the tax everything which the taxable person receives as consideration for the goods or services supplied.
The consideration must be capable of being expressed in money.
There must be some form of bargain or transaction between the parties.
A payment should be related to what the payer receives although the fact that people pay the same amount for varying benefits does not stop it from being consideration.

Consequently, if the provision of goods or services is incapable of being expressed in money, it is not consideration and is outside the scope of VAT.

Indicators of no consideration

The absence of any consensual element on the part of the payer.
A lack of control by the payer over the services provided.

Valuation of consideration

This may seem obvious, but as the amount of case law demonstrates, this is not always the case. The starting point is:

Monetary consideration

Monetary consideration includes cash and payment by cheque, credit card, bank transfer, contactless payment, deduction from pay, etc. This is set out in The VAT Act 1994, section 19(2).

Non-monetary consideration

Non-monetary consideration includes goods or services supplied as payment, for example in a “barter” (including part exchange) agreement. Services provided include the giving up of a right, refraining from doing something, agreeing to suffer some loss etc in return for the supply. At first sight these may appear to be merely conditions of an agreement, but are in fact consideration for a supply. If the supply is for a consideration not consisting or not wholly consisting of money, its value shall be taken to be such amount in money as, with the addition of the VAT chargeable, is equivalent to the consideration. Where a supply of any goods or services is not the only matter to which a consideration in money relates, the supply is deemed to be for such part of the consideration as is properly attributable to it.

In determining the taxable amount, the only advantages received by a supplier that are relevant are those obtained in return for making the supply should be recognised. Non-monetary consideration has the value of the alternative monetary payment that would normally have been given for the supply.

What is not consideration

Donations

If a monetary donation is freely given, it is not consideration for any supply and so is outside the scope of VAT. In this situation, the donation has to be unconditional, and the following points dictate whether this is the case.

Does the donor receive anything in return for the payment?
Are there any conditions attached to the payment?
What will the payments be used for?
If the donor does not benefit directly, does any third party receive a benefit?
Is there a contract and what are the terms and conditions?

Donations must be contrasted to sponsorship.

It is necessary to distinguish between donations and sponsorship payments. Whereas a donation means the donor does not expect anything in return, sponsorship involves the sponsor receiving identifiable benefits. These benefits may include advertising, publicity or use of facilities and any sponsorship payment is within the scope of VAT.

Open Market Value

The VAT Act 1994, section 19 (5) states that “…the open market value of a supply of goods or services shall be taken to be the amount that would fall to be taken as its value …if the supply were for such consideration in money as would be payable by a person standing in no such relationship with any person as would affect that consideration”.

Difficult areas

Commonly, areas which give rise to VAT consideration problems include, but are not limited to:

when consideration is provided in return for supplies of differing VAT liabilities
Special Valuation Provisions in The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 6
supplies to staff or goods for own use
discounts and special offers (eg; persons providing selling or introductory services to traders who receive goods for a reduced cash payment, or BOGOF)
barter transactions – when each supply has a different value
part-exchange
apportionment of monetary consideration
separate/composite supplies
supplies between connected parties
direct selling structures
gifts, prizes, and reward goods.
imports
prompt payment discounts
deemed supplies
non-business use of business assets or of services supplied to a business
reverse charges
reduced rate accommodation
supplies expressed in foreign currencies
transfer pricing
business gifts/samples
caravans sold with contents
self supplies
club membership benefits
correspondence courses
opticians and hearing aid dispensers (exempt services vs standard rated goods)
rebates/refunds
disbursements
tour operators (TOMS)
partial exemption

Further reading

For purposes of research or interest, the following cases on consideration are worth reading:

Staatssecretaries van Financien v Cooperatieve Aardapplenbewarr-plaats ((1981) ECR 445; (1981) – The Dutch Potato case for ease!

BAZ Bausystem Gmbh v Finanzamt Munchen Fur Korperschaften

Apple & Pear Development Council (APDC), (ECJ (1988) STC 221; (1988)2 CMLR 394)

Tolsma C-16/93 (1994 STC 509)

Naturally Yours Cosmetics Ltd

Empire Stores Ltd

VAT: Bad Debt Relief. The Regency Factors case

By Marcus Ward 7 February 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Regency Factors plc Court Of Appeal (CoA) case the issue was the validity of the appellant’s claim for Bad Debt Relief (BDR) on amounts it had not received after the issue of an invoice.

Technical

BDR is a mechanism which goes some way to protect a business from payment defaulters. Under the normal rules of VAT, a supplier is required to account for output tax, even if the supply has not been paid for (however, the use of cash accounting or certain retail schemes removes the problem of VAT on bad debts from the supplier). The specific relief for unpaid VAT is via the BDR scheme.

A guide to BDR here.

Commentary on the Upper Tribunal (UT) hearing in this case here.

Background

In the CoA case the issue was whether the appellant met the conditions in The VAT General Regulations 1995, Reg 168 for claiming BDR via The VAT Act 1994, section 36.

Regency provided a factoring service to its clients for which it is paid a fee. VAT invoices for those fees were issued to clients when the invoices which are being factored are assigned to Regency for collection.

Regency appealed against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) which dismissed Regency’s appeal against VAT assessments made by HMRC to withdraw BDR which Regency had claimed in its VAT returns.

The UT held that the BDR claim was not valid because

there was no bad debt; and
Regency had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the making of a claim.

Regency appealed against the decision of the UT on the second point.

Decision

The CoA decided that as Regency’s record keeping was insufficient to support a BDR claim. Specifically, although it did keep the records required by Regulation 168 (2), it did not keep a single VAT BDR account which is required by Regulation 168 (3). The ruling commented that this requirement was a legitimate feature of the scheme as it enables an inspector to check the claim easily. It is not acceptable for a claimant to simply have a pile of unsorted documents which may, or may not, evidence a valid claim.

The court also said that it was possible for HMRC to allow a discretionary claim (clearly, they did not use that discretion in this case) and that the legal requirement was not a barrier to Regency making a proper BDR claim. The appeal was dismissed.

“In short, Regency had the opportunity to prove its claim for bad debt relief in the FTT… but it failed to do so. It is not entitled to a second opportunity”.

Commentary

As always with VAT, accurate record-keeping is essential. As the tax is transaction based, it is vital to keep comprehensive evidence of those transactions and associated payments. Failure to do so may result in:

assessments and penalties
give HMRC the opportunity to refuse otherwise legitimate input tax recovery
refuse other VAT claims (in this case BDR).
confusion and uncertainty which often creates costs in time and other resources, and extended relations with HMRC, which is in no business’ interest.

If Regency had taken “one step further” with its record keeping, BDR would have been paid by HMRC.

VAT: Valuation

By Marcus Ward 15 November 2021

Further to my article on apportionment valuation and case review here and Transfer Pricing valuation I thought it useful to consider HMRC’s internal guidance on its approach to valuation.

Sometimes a single monetary consideration may represent payment for two or more supplies at different VAT rates. In such cases, a business is required to allocate a “fair proportion” of the total payment to each of the supplies. This requirement is set out at in The VAT Act 1994, Section 19(4).

“Where a supply of any goods or services is not the only matter to which a consideration in money relates, the supply shall be deemed to be for such part of the consideration as is properly attributable to it.”

Although this section requires an apportionment of the consideration to be performed, it does not prescribe the methods by which this is to be achieved. The most common methods are based upon the costs incurred in making the supplies or the usual selling prices of the supplies.

Examples of methods that have been found to be of general application are contained in VAT Notice 700 para 8. A business is not obliged to adopt any of these suggested methods, and HMRC may accept alternative proposals provided that they achieve a fair and reasonable result that can be supported by valid calculation.

Some sectors have special methods called margin schemes to determine apportionment of the monetary consideration. Details of these found in their notices and guidance. The schemes include:

Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme Notice 709/5 (HMRC website)
Second Hand Car Margin Scheme Notice 718/1 (HMRC website)
VAT Margin and Global Accounting (second hand goods, works of art, antiques and collectors’ items) Notice 718 (HMRC website)

Basics

Before it is possible to perform an apportionment calculation, there are four basic questions that need to be addressed to determine whether an apportionment is appropriate and if so, what supplies it relates to.

Is there more than one supply?
Is there a single consideration?
Can any part of the payment be treated as outside the scope of VAT?
What are the liabilities of the supplies in question?

The issue of whether there is a single or multiple supply has created problems from the outset of the tax. The volume of case law illustrates that each decision is based on the facts of each case and there cannot be a one-size fits all approach to this issue. The most important and recent cases are here:

Card Protection Plan Ltd

Stocks Fly Fishery

Metropolitan International Schools

The Ice Rink Company Ltd

General Healthcare Group Limited

VAT: Farm in business? The Babylon case

By Marcus Ward 21 September 2021

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).

New VAT rate for hospitality

By Marcus Ward 13 August 2021

A reminder that a new VAT rate of 12.5% comes into force on 1 October 2021.

This is the first time this rate has been used and affected businesses should ensure that they are prepared.

The government announced on 8 July 2020 that it intended to legislate to apply a temporary 5% reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies relating to certain hospitality, supplies.

The reduced rate was initially introduced to last for a temporary period between 15 July 2020 and 12 January 2021. This period was subsequently extended to 31 March 2021.

The government then announced at Budget 2021 that the temporary reduced rate will be extended for a further six-month period at 5% until 30 September 2021.

A new reduced rate of 12.5% will then be introduced which will end on 31 March 2022. The scope of the relief will remain unchanged.

From 1 April 2022 the usual 20% standard rate will apply, unless there are further government concessions.

The 12.5% applies to

hospitality: supplies in the course of catering including supplies of hot and cold food and drink to be consumed on the premises and supplies of hot takeaway food and drink to be consumed off the premises
accommodation: the provision of hotel and holiday accommodation, pitch fees for caravan parks and tents and related facilities
attractions: admission to attractions not covered by the cultural exemption.

The VAT Fractions

This is used to calculate the VAT element of a VAT inclusive figure.

5% = 1/21

12.5% = 1/9

20% = 1/6

Deposits

If a deposit is received, output tax will be calculated on the VAT rate in place at the time the deposit is received.

Other Issues

If a business supplies hospitality services and goods, but also makes sales not covered by the new rate, eg; alcohol, it must be able to identify the values at the different rates.

Does your accounting package have a defined 12.5% tax rate? It may be necessary to add this new rate to your software package.

VAT: Input tax recovery – whether a taxable supply. The Door Specialist case

By Marcus Ward 9 June 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal case of The Door Specialist Limited (TDSL) the issue was whether an HMRC assessment for overclaimed input tax was correct.

Background

The appellant recovered input tax on the import of goods (doors). The company did not sell the doors, but simply gave the goods (no consideration provided) to a separate company called Just Doors (JD). It was JD who made the sales of the doors to third party customers. TDSL and JD were under common ownership but no VAT group in place at the relevant time. TDSL was VAT registered as it made separate, unrelated taxable supplies of property rental

Arguments

HMRC contended that as there was no onward taxable supply of the doors by TDSL, no input tax was recoverable per The VAT Act 1994 section 24 (1). TDSL relied on HMRC’s published guidance (Notices 700 and 700/7) in relation to gifts and proposed that it would be proper to assess for output tax on the “supply” to JD rather than denying the input tax claim.

Issues

The issues may therefore be summarised as whether;

the relevant goods were used for the purpose of any economic activity by TDSL
the doors could be treated as business gifts as contended by the applicant such that the input tax was recoverable.

Further cases on economic activity/business here, here and here

Decision

It was decided that as there was no direct and immediate link between the purchase of the goods and any onward taxable supply in the course of business or economic activity by TDSL (as required by the outcome of the cases of BAA Ltd JDI International Leasing Ltd) the disallowance of the input tax was appropriate. The advancement of the business gifts contention did not assist the taxpayer as this was not an economic activity in itself. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Commentary

A clear example of not considering the VAT implications when carrying out transactions. This tax cost could have easily been avoided if TDSL had sold the doors to JD. As both parties were fully taxable, there would have been no VAT hit. Business gifts and promotional activities are also often a complex area of VAT and as one former colleague once remarked “If you have a marketing department you have a VAT issue”.

VAT: What is open market value? The Jupiter case

By Marcus Ward 11 May 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Jupiter Asset Management Group Ltd the issue was the value of management services to an associated third party VAT group.

Background

The value is important because if HMRC believe that a supply between two connected parties (as defined by The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Section 839) is undervalue and the recipient cannot recover the relevant input tax in full, it is permitted via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 6, PART 2, para 1 (1) to substitute open market value (OMV) by way of a Notice.

This paragraph is specifically intended to counter tax avoidance. If a supply between connected persons is made below open market value for a legitimate reason that the trader can substantiate, and which is unconnected with avoidance HMRC has the discretion not to issue a Notice. In Jupiter, HMRC directed that OMV be used to calculate the charge as it considered that value was too low and issued an assessment for underdeclared output tax.

Decision

In the absence of comparable supplies, OMV was to be determined by reference to:

the full cost of making the supplies;
the full cost included the costs incurred on goods and services used in making the supplies and general overhead costs the input tax in respect of which had been recovered
the remuneration paid to the executive directors to the extent that that remuneration related to activities performed by the executive directors in making the supplies of the management services

Consequently, the appeal against the output tax assessment was dismissed.

Commentary

An expected outcome, but ne which emphasises that care should be taken with transactions between connected parties, management charges and inter-company charges in general. This is even more relevant since the decision in the Norseman Gold plc case