Category Archives: VAT commentary

VAT: Construction industry – the new Reverse Charge

By Marcus Ward 11 June 2018

Builders will soon be required to charge themselves VAT.

HMRC has published an important new draft Statutory Instrument (SI) for technical consultation with a draft explanatory memorandum and draft tax information and impact note. The new rules are likely to be introduced in the autumn.

This sets out more details of the intended Reverse Charge (RC) for construction services. The draft legislation will make supplies of standard or reduced rated construction services between construction or businesses subject to the domestic RC, which means that the recipient of the supply will be liable to account for VAT due, instead of the supplier.

What supplies does the intended legislation cover?

The RC will apply to, inter alia:

construction, alteration, repair, extension, demolition or dismantling of buildings or structures
work on; walls, roadworks, electronic communications apparatus, docks and harbours, railways, pipe-lines, reservoirs, water-mains, wells, sewers, or industrial plant
installation in any building or structure of systems of heating, lighting, air-conditioning, ventilation, power supply, drainage, sanitation, water supply or fire protection
internal cleaning of buildings and structures, so far as carried out in the course of their construction, alteration, repair, extension or restoration
painting or decorating the internal or external surfaces of any building or structure
services which form an integral part of the services described above, including site clearance, earthmoving, excavation, tunnelling and boring, laying of foundations, erection of scaffolding, site restoration, landscaping and the provision of roadways and other access works.

What is not covered?

These are some supplies which are not covered by the draft SI

drilling for, or extraction of, oil or natural gas
extraction of minerals and tunnelling or boring, or construction of underground works, for this purpose
manufacture of building or engineering components or equipment, materials, plant or machinery, or delivery of any of these things to site
manufacture of components for systems of heating, lighting, air-conditioning, ventilation, power supply, drainage, sanitation, water supply or fire protection, or delivery of any of these things to site
the professional work of architects or surveyors, or of consultants in building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration or in the laying-out of landscape
signwriting and erecting, installing and repairing signboards and advertisements
the installation of seating, blinds and shutters or the installation of security.

Please note that neither of the lists above are exhaustive.

Further details

The rules do not apply to supplies to the end user (consumer) eg; retailers and landlords, but rather to other construction businesses which then use them to make a further supply. There are no de minimis limits, but the RC will not apply to associated businesses.

Deadline

Before these new rues come into effect, HMRC have asked for comments before 20 July 2018.

Why the new rules?

Briefly, the SI is intended to avoid Missing Trader Fraud (MTF). The rules avoids suppliers charging and being paid VAT, but failing to declare or pay this over to the government. HMRC has identified the building trade as an area where there has been considerable tax leakage in the past.

Technical

As a general rule, it is the supplier of goods or services who is required to account for VAT on those supplies. However, the VAT Act 1994, section 55A requires the recipient, not the supplier, to account for and pay tax on the supply of any goods and services which are of a description specified in an order made by the Treasury for that purpose.

Action

It is prudent to check whether you, or your clients’ businesses will be affected by the intended SI. If so, plans need to be put in place; whether as a supplier or recipient, to ensure that VAT is not charged incorrectly (supplier) and the RC is applied correctly (recipient). It is likely that output tax incorrectly shown on an invoice will be due to HMRC, but will not be recoverable by the recipient and the omission of levying the RC will lead to penalties.

Please contact us if you have any queries or require further information.

VAT: Wakefield College – Court of Appeal case

By Marcus Ward 1 June 2018

Latest from the courts

Further to my article on the Wakefield College case here the Court of Appeal (CA) has dismissed the college’s appeal that certain of its activities were non-business.

Background

The detailed background was set out in the above linked article, but to recap: In order for certain building works supplied to the appellant to be zero rated the resultant building has to be used for a “relevant charitable purpose” – that is; not for business purposes. This is the case even if there is a small amount of business activity in the building (as long as these can be shown to be insignificant; which is taken to be less than 5% of the activities in the whole building).

The issue

The issue here was whether the education provided by the college could be deemed non-business because, although the majority was grant funded, students were also required to make a contribution to their education. This is dependent upon whether the provision of courses by the college to students paying subsidised fees was, an economic activity carried on by it for the purposes of article 9 of the VAT Directive and consequently, a “business” within Note (6) of Group 5 in Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994.

The 1994 Act provides, at group 5 of schedule 8, for the zero-rating of various supplies made in the course of construction of certain buildings including:

“The supply in the course of construction of

(a) a building … intended solely for use for … a relevant charitable purpose…

of any services related to the construction other than the services of an architect, surveyor or any person acting as a consultant or in a supervisory capacity”.

Note (6) to group 5 provides:

“Use for a relevant charitable purpose means use by a charity… –

(a) otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a business.”

Decision

The CA found that the fact that the students paid for education (an exempt supply) meant that it was a business activity as consideration flowed in both directions. The proportion of the costs paid by the student amounted to between 25% and 30% of the total cost and could therefore not be deemed insignificant.

Commentary

It is worth reconsidering comments made by the judge in his summing up in the Upper Tribunal hearing.

“We cannot leave this appeal without expressing some disquiet that it should have reached us at all. It is common ground that the College is a charity, and that the bulk of its income is derived from public funds. Because that public funding does not cover all of its costs it is compelled to seek income from other sources; but its doing so does not alter the fact that it remains a charity providing education for young people. If, by careful management or good fortune, it can earn its further income in one way rather than another, or can keep the extent of the income earned in particular ways below an arbitrary threshold, it can escape a tax burden on the construction of a building intended for its charitable purpose, but if it is unable to do so, even to a trivial extent, it is compelled to suffer not some but all of that tax burden. We think it unlikely that Parliament intended such a capricious system. We consider it unlikely, too, that Parliament would consider it a sensible use of public money for the parties to litigate this dispute twice before the FTT and now twice before this tribunal. We do not blame the parties; the College is obliged to maximise the resources available to it for the pursuit of its charitable activities, just as HMRC are obliged to collect tax which is due. Rather, we think the legislation should be reconsidered. It cannot be impossible to relieve 16 charities of an unintended tax burden while at the same time protecting commercial organisations from unfair competition and preventing abuse”.

So, although the result may be seen as “unfair” on the college, the strict letter of the VAT legislation does not provide the courts with any alternative but to impose a VAT charge on the construction works – a charge which the college will have to bear as it is unable to recover it as input tax due to the partial exemption rules.

This illustrates the complexity with both the concept of business/non-business and property and construction issues. When the two technical areas collide, as in this case, matters can get very complicated and proper advice is vital. This is especially important with charities as they benefit from very few VAT reliefs and it is important to ensure that those available are correctly taken advantage of.

VAT: No such thing as a free meal (or drink) – The M&S case

By Marcus Ward 14 May 2018

Latest from the courts – Marks & Spencer First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case; what is the value of a “free” bottle of wine?

Background

I shall do this without the seductive TV ad voiceover… Like many retailers M&S has and does run various promotions designed to improve its financial performance. A number of those promotions are based on the proposition that a customer who buys certain products from M&S will receive something “free”. In this instant case, M&S sells a combination meal known as a “Dine In”. This comprises; a main course, a side dish and a pudding, along with a bottle of wine which is advertised as free: “Dine In for £10 with Free Wine”. I’m sure many have sampled these offers. The commercial rationale for the promotion involved M&S taking a calculated risk. It reached a decision to lower its aggregate profit margin on the separate items in the offer compared to their retail sales price in the expectation that this will be more than compensated for by changes in customer behaviour as a result of the promotion.

It is interesting to note that M&S anticipated the benefits could arise in a number of ways. Sales of the items included in the promotion might increase, which would improve turnover and put the retailer in a stronger negotiating position with its suppliers of those items. More casual customers might take up the promotion, increasing footfall. In doing so, they and other customers might take the opportunity to add other items to their shopping basket, the so-called “halo effect”. In a less tangible sense, the M&S’s brand might be generally enhanced.

In M&S’s online T&Cs the following narrative appears “For the avoidance of doubt, as the value attributed to the free wine in this deal is £0.00, if returned, no refund will be due…”

The aggregate shelf price of the three food items in the Dine In promotion, if bought separately, varied considerably but would always have been at least £10, and in most cases more.

The VAT issue

Should output tax be accounted for on the whole supply? Or, assuming that the food was zero rated, what, if any, output tax should be declared on the wine? Or should the entire supply be VAT free?

The contentions

M&S’s first contention was that the wine was free so no output tax was due. The reason why the wine was provided free was for M&S to receive certain benefits (set out above). Secondly, the Dine In Promotion is in fact two promotions. The first is an offer of three food items for £10. The second promotion, conditional on the first, is an offer of free wine. The former offer makes commercial sense both for M&S and the customer on its own terms. The food offer is complete in its own right, and the supply of wine for no consideration is a separate transaction. Thirdly, this is a multiple supply. The Dine In Promotion results in three or four separate supplies for VAT purposes, namely the three food items and the wine. This is not a case of what would otherwise be a single supply being artificially broken down. There are separate transactions, entitled to be valued separately for VAT. A further argument was that there is no separate or allocable consideration for the wine element of the Dine In Promotion. The free wine is an inducement, and is conditional on the food offer, but does not generate any separate identifiable consideration for VAT purposes.

Clearly HMRC disagreed and argued that the Dine In deal represented the sale of four items for £10. There was no free gift of the wine and consequently, an element of the £10 should be allocated to the value of the wine. Or put another way, it was a single promotional deal and is not a sale of food items for £10 plus a supply of wine for nil consideration. HMRC further contended that the duty to account for output tax and the right to deduct input tax form an “inseparable whole”. M&S’s position, if correct, would result in a failure to impose a charge to tax on the ultimate consumer, and untaxed (or, in effect, zero rated) consumption of standard rated goods and that militates very strongly against M&S’s position.

It was agreed that, by purchase value, the wine represented the most expensive part of the meal deal. HMRC proposed a value of output tax of 70 pence per meal deal was appropriate.

Decision

The judge agreed with HMRC and that output tax was due on the element of the £10 price attributable to the wine. Contractually, the meal deal was a single offer with a conditional element, ie; the provision of the wine was conditional on the customer paying £10 for the purchase of the food items. Although the customer may perceive the wine to be free (presumably as a result of the way in which the meal deal was held out and advertised) however, for VAT purposes, the customer paid £10 for all four elements of the deal. The Dine In promotion was a single offer, with all four items supplied simultaneously and in the same till transaction for consumption on the payment of £10. Receipt of the wine was conditional on payment of the £10 and the purchase of the food items. The wine was not provided unconditionally and with no strings attached.

Commentary

This was hardly a surprising decision. Similar retail offers have been considered in the past and the outcomes were broadly similar to this decision. The FTT distinguished Hartwell, Lex, Kuwait Petroleum, and Tesco plc cases in this respect which the appellants put forward to support their arguments. As always with VAT, promotions and offers can create valuation issues. It is important to consider VAT when marketing offers are provided.

UPDATE

July 2019

Via the Upper Tribunal (UT) case Marks and Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2019] BVC 514 the UT upheld the FTT decision and dismissed M&S’s appeal.

VAT – Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) What is it? How does it work?

By Marcus Ward 14 May 2018

ADR and VAT

What is ADR?

ADR is the involvement of a third party (a facilitator) to help resolve disputes between HMRC and taxpayers. It is mainly used by SMEs and individuals for VAT purposes, although it is not limited to these entities. Its aim is to reduce costs for both parties (the taxpayer and HMRC) when disputes occur and to reduce the number of cases that reach statutory review and/or Tribunal.

The process

Practically, a typical process is; HMRC officials and the facilitator meet with the taxpayer and adviser in a room, and agree on what the disputes are. They then retire to two separate, private rooms, and the facilitator goes between the two parties and mediates on a resolution.

ADR is a free service and the only costs the taxpayer will incur are fees from their advisers on preparation and any representation they require on the day.

Features of ADR

Without prejudice discussions – Anything said or documents produced during the ADR process cannot be used in future proceedings without the express consent of both parties subject to the obligations placed on the parties by the operation of English law
Evidence is that ADR can work for both VAT and Direct Taxes disputes both before and after an appealable decision or assessment has been made. However, ADR for VAT disputes is more suited to post appealable decision and assessments
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a Code of Conduct – a MOU is created to commit taxpayers/agents to the requirements of the ADR process
The average time for all completed ADR cases is 61 days. This figure is from application to resolution. The average elapsed time for VAT it is 53 days
The average age of VAT disputes is eight months
An ADR Panel has been created to accept or reject applications for ADR. It screens all applications and not just those where ADR was thought to be inappropriate.
Customer / Agent Questionnaire Summary – Findings from customers and agents included:
- An appreciation of the personal interaction that the ADR process allowed
- Facilitators were even handed and impartial in all cases and kept the taxpayer well informed
- ADR was particularly well suited to resolution of long standing disputes.

Is Tribunal preferable?

Taking a case to Tribunal is often an expensive, complicated and time consuming option, but used to be the only option open to a taxpayer to challenge a decision made to HMRC. From personal experience, the number of cases from which HMRC withdraw “on the steps of the court” illustrate a weakness in their legal procedures and possibly a lack of confidence in presenting their cases. This is very frustrating for our clients as they have already incurred costs and invested time when HMRC could have pulled out a lot earlier. Of course, our clients cannot apply for costs. The sheer number of cases going through the Tribunal process means that there are often very long and frustrating delays getting an appeal heard.

A true alternative?

Therefore, should we welcome ADR as a watered down version of a Tribunal hearing? Or is it actually something else entirely?

HMRC say that “ADR provides an excellent opportunity for Local Compliance to handle disputes in a modern and collaborative way. It is not intended to replace statutory internal review which is an already established process aimed at resolving disputes without a tribunal hearing. Review looks at legal challenges to decisions whereas ADR is more suitable for disputes where there might be more than one tenable legal outcome”.

Results so far

After an initial two-year pilot which shaped the final programme, and was guided by a Working Together group that included CIOT, AAT, ICAEW and legal representatives HMRC concluded that “ADR has shown that many disputes, where an impasse has been reached, can be resolved quickly without having to go to tribunal.” And “ADR is a fair and even-handed way of resolving tax disputes between HMRC and its customers and helps save time and costs for everyone.” Ignoring the dreadful use of the word “customers”… what has the profession made of the scheme?

Hui Ling McCarthy – Barrister has reported “HMRC’s ADR studies have produced extremely encouraging and positive results – owing in large part to HMRC’s willingness to engage with taxpayers, advisers and the professional bodies and vice versa. Taxpayers involved in a dispute with HMRC would be well-advised to take advantage of ADR wherever appropriate”.

Outcome

So what was the outcome of the two year scheme? The headline is that 58% of cases were successfully resolved, 8% were partially resolved and 34% were unresolved.

Of the fully resolved facilitations

33% were resolved by educating the taxpayer/agent about the correct tax position.
24% were resolved due to the facilitator obtaining further evidence.
23% were resolved by educating the HMRC decision maker about the correct tax position.
20% were resolved through facilitators restoring communication between both parties.

Conclusion

These figures are encouraging and the conclusion that; well planned, constructive meetings, with the intervention of an HMRC facilitator, do increase the chances of dispute resolution, appear to be well founded.

Further, the fact that the project team saw no evidence of any demand from HMRC, taxpayers or their agents for access to external mediators and that there is also conclusive evidence from taxpayers that HMRC facilitators have acted in a fair and even-handed manner add to the feeling that ADR is a useful new tool.

Commentary

The comments from HMRC on ADR is (probably understandable) positive. However, reactions from the profession and taxpayers who have gone through the process are equally generous on ADR as a mechanism for settling disputes.

My view is that any alternative to a Tribunal hearing is welcome and even if ADR works half as well as reports conclude then it should certainly be explored. It should definitely be considered as an alternative to simply accepting a decision from HMRC with which a taxpayer disagrees.

VAT – The Partial Exemption Annual Adjustment

By Marcus Ward 8 May 2018

What is the annual adjustment? Why is it required?

An annual adjustment is a method used by a business to determine how much input tax it may reclaim.

Even though a partly exempt business must undertake a partial exemption calculation each quarter or month, once a year it will have to make an annual adjustment as well.

An annual adjustment is needed because each tax period can be affected by factors such as seasonal variations either in the value supplies made or in the amount of input tax incurred.

The adjustment has two purposes:

to reconsider the use of goods and services over the longer period; and
to re-evaluate exempt input tax under the de minimis rules.

A MWCL explanation of the Value Added Tax Partial Exemption rules is available here

Throughout the year

When a business makes exempt supplies it will be carrying out a partial exemption calculation at the end of each VAT period. Some periods it may be within the de minimis limits and, therefore, able to claim back all of its VAT and in others there may be some restriction in the amount of VAT that can be reclaimed. Once a year the business will also have to recalculate the figures to see if it has claimed back too much or too little VAT overall. This is known as the partial exemption annual adjustment. Legally, the quarterly/monthly partial exemption calculations are only provisional, and do not crystallise the final VAT liability. That is done via the annual adjustment.

The first stage in the process of recovering input tax is to directly attribute the costs associated with making taxable and exempt supplies as far as possible. The VAT associated with making taxable supplies can be recovered in the normal way while there is no automatic right of deduction for any VAT attributable to making exempt supplies.

The balance of the input tax cannot normally be directly attributed, and so will be the subject of the partial exemption calculation. This will include general overheads such as heating, lighting and telephone and also items such as building maintenance and refurbishments.

The calculation

Using the partial exemption standard method the calculation is based on the formula:

Total taxable supplies (excluding VAT) / Total taxable (excluding VAT) and exempt supplies x 100 = %

This gives the percentage of non-attributable input VAT that can be recovered. The figure calculated is always rounded up to the nearest whole percentage, so, for example, 49.1 becomes 50%. This percentage is then applied to the non-attributable input VAT to give the actual amount that can be recovered.

Once a year

Depending on a businesses’ VAT return quarters, its partial exemption year ends in either March, April, or May. The business has to recalculate the figures during the VAT period following the end of its partial exemption year and any adjustment goes on the return for that period. So, the adjustment will appear on the returns ending in either June, July, or August. If a business is newly registered for VAT its partial exemption “year” runs from when it is first registered to either March, April or May depending on its quarter ends.

Special methods

The majority of businesses use what is known as “the standard method”. However, use of the standard method is not mandatory and a business can use a “special method” that suits a business’ activities better. Any special method has to be “fair and reasonable” and it has to be agreed with HMRC in advance. When using a special method no rounding of the percentage is permitted and it has to be applied to two decimal places.

Commonly used special methods include those based on staff numbers, floor space, purchases or transaction counts, or a combination of these or other methods.

However, even if a business uses a special method it will still have to undertake an annual adjustment calculation once a year using its agreed special method.

De minimis limits

If a business incurs exempt input tax within certain limits it can be treated as fully taxable and all of its VAT can be recovered. If it exceeds these limits none of its exempt input tax can be recovered. The limits are:

£625 per month on average (£1,875 per quarter or £7,500 per annum) and;
50% of the total input VAT (the VAT on purchases relating to taxable supplies should always be greater than the VAT on exempt supplies to pass this test)

The partial exemption annual adjustments are not errors and so do not have to be disclosed under the voluntary disclosure procedure. They are just another entry for the VAT return to be made in the appropriate VAT period.

Conclusion

If a business fails to carry out its partial exemption annual adjustment it may be losing out on some input VAT that it could have claimed. Conversely, it may also show that it has over-claimed input tax. When an HMRC inspector comes to visit he will check that a business has completed the annual adjustment. If it hasn’t, and this has resulted in an over-claim of input VAT, (s)he will assess for the error, charge interest, and if appropriate, raise a penalty. It is fair to say that partly exempt businesses tend to receive more inspections than fully taxable businesses.

VAT: Latest from the courts – Are loan administration services exempt?

By Marcus Ward 1 May 2018

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Target Group Limited (Target) the appeal was against a decision by HMRC that loan administration services supplied by Target to a UK bank, Shawbrook Bank Limited (Shawbrook) were standard rated.

Background

Target contracted with Shawbrook to provide services related to loans provided by Shawbrook to its customers in the course of its lending business. Target’s description of its services was “loan account administration services” which amounted to Shawbrook outsourcing the management of the loans to Target. The services that Target provided covered the entire lifecycle of the loans, apart from the making of the initial loan. Target established loan accounts using its own systems, communicates with borrowers as an undisclosed agent of Shawbrook, and dealt with payments by borrowers and all administrative issues that arose. Target had limited discretion. The terms of the loans, including interest rates, were set by Shawbrook. Although Target is involved in dealing with arrears, any enforcement action would be a decision for Shawbrook. Specifically, the contract described Target as being “a provider of loan origination and account operation services” which “performs activities including the functions of: payment processing and servicing and portfolio management services”

Issue

It was accepted that Shawbrook made the loans (not Target) and that the services provided by Target were to Shawbrook and comprised a single (composite) supply for VAT purposes, rather than multiple supplies. Details of the definition between the two types of supply have been hot news in the VAT world for some time. My commentary on relevant recent case law here here here here here and here

The issue was the precise nature of the supplies and whether they qualified for exemption. The areas of dispute included whether Target’s supplies were excluded from exemption as debt collection, and whether the loan accounts fall to be treated as current accounts.

Target’s case was that the principal supply it made to Shawbrook related to payments and transfers in the same way as in the Electronic Data Services Ltd (EDS) case, which related to similar customer-facing loan administration services. (EDS provided loan arrangement and execution services to banks in relation to the granting of personal loans. The services included the provision of a staffed call centre, the printing and despatch of loan agreement documentation, the transfer of funds via the BACS system on the release of loans and the administrative work related to handling loan accounts and repayments). In the alternative, the principal or core supply relates to the operation of accounts (specifically, current accounts), or amounts to transactions concerning debts.

Technical

Article 135(1)(d) of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC (the Principal VAT Directive, or “PVD”) requires Member States to exempt the following transactions: “transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit and current accounts, payments, transfers, debts, cheques and other negotiable instruments, but excluding debt collection;”

This is transposed into UK legislation via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, items 1 and 8:

“Item 1. The issue, transfer or receipt of, or any dealing with, money, any security for money or any note or order for the payment of money. …

Item 8. The operation of any current, deposit, or savings account.”

Decision

It was decided that Target’s supplies did not qualify for exemption and they therefore fell to be standard rated. What was fatal to the appellant’s case was the fact that there was an absence of any involvement in the initial loan. Consequently, although it was possible to view the services as “transactions concerning payments” they fell within the debt collection definition and accordingly were not exempt. The judge also ruled that the supplies may be loan accounts, these did not qualify as an exempt operation of a current account.

Commentary

Of course, this decision was important for the recipient of the supply (Shawbrook) as well as Target. Because its supplies were exempt, the VAT on the outsourcing expenditure would be irrecoverable thus creating an extra 20% cost.

This case once again demonstrates that even the smallest variation of facts can produce an unexpected VAT outcome. Care must be taken to analyse precisely what is being provided. Financial Services is a minefield for VAT and it is certainly one area that assumptions of the VAT treatment should be avoided and timely advice sought.

Picture: A loan arranger (apologies)

Tax Tribunal backlog continues to increase

By Marcus Ward 26 April 2018

Both the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) which both hear VAT cases, report an increase in the number of cases waiting to be heard. In the case of the FTT the increase is 507 last year which means 28,521 cases are outstanding. The increase of UT cases outstanding is around 40%.

These are not all VAT cases and it is likely that the backlog is predominantly caused by

HMRC’s increased willingness to attack what they see as tax avoidance and evasion (see here)
More businesses being prepared to go to court
HMRC’s determination to “win on every point” rather than, perhaps, seeking a negotiated settlement, and
The increasing complexity of cases heard.

This backlog works in HMRCs favour as in the majority of cases the disputed tax must be paid before a hearing can take place. Delays may also cause anxiety and the burden of devoting resources to appeals which may cause the applicant to withdraw. It is not usually an inexpensive process to go to court and some cases can take a number of years to resolve.

In the current climate, it is more important than ever to challenge HMRC’s decisions. We have found that in the majority of cases we have been able to reduce HMRC assessments, in many cases, to zero. We always work on the basis that it is very important to try to resolve matters with HMRC before going to Tribunal. This is an increasingly difficult task given the political pressure on HMRC to reduce the tax gap (the difference between the amount of tax that should, in theory, be collected by HMRC, against what is actually collected) and the seemingly common tactic of HMRC becoming “entrenched” and being unprepared to shift their position.

Please contact us if you have a dispute with HMRC or are being challenged on any technical points. It is better to deal with these as soon as possible to avoid going to court.

VAT: Longer prison sentences for tax fraud

By Marcus Ward 16 April 2018

The latest figures from the Ministry of Justice show that for fraud offences including; VAT, Excise Duty, and Custom Duty the average length of custodial sentences has increased by around 25%. The average sentence is now four years one month, up from three years three months as the government clamps down on tax evasion.

Why longer in jail?

It is thought that the reasons for this are that:

HMRC is demanding longer sentences
HMRC is pursuing an increasing number of suspected fraudsters
HMRC is devoting more resources to carrying out investigations
CPS has been pushing for tax frauds to be considered as a more serious offence (which, obviously, carry longer sentences).

Criminal prosecution has also increased enormously as a result of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office being incorporated with the CPS. HMRC is no longer just interested in getting the VAT, it wants prosecutions, the convictions….and the tax. A person criminally prosecuted for evasion does not escape paying the tax and they will be chased for it. A fraudster may be prosecuted under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Money Laundering Act 2007.

More resources

The news comes as companies including Amazon and eBay have agreed to give their data to HMRC in an effort to crack down on VAT evasion by overseas retailers. The deal will mean the companies will provide merchant’s data to tax officials so that fraudulent trends can be spotted.

HMRC have also been using increasingly technical procedures on data which was previously unavailable to them – details here

Naming and shaming

In addition, HMRC also publish details of people who deliberately “get their tax affairs wrong”. The current list is here

What is evasion, and what is the difference between that and avoidance?

I am often asked about the distinction between avoidance and evasion. Broadly, the difference between avoidance and evasion is legality. Tax avoidance is legally exploiting the tax system to reduce current or future tax liabilities by means not intended by Parliament. It often involves artificial transactions that are contrived to produce a tax advantage. Tax avoidance is not the same as tax planning or mitigation.

Tax evasion is to escape paying taxes illegally. This is usually when a person misrepresents or conceals the true state of their affairs to tax authorities, for example dishonest tax reporting.

Technical

The relevant legislation covering the offences of fraudulent evasion of VAT is under section 72(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, furnishing false information under section 72(3) and committing evasion over a period under section 72(8). Section 72(8)(b) sets out that the offence is subject to”…imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years…”.

Summary

The message is clear; after being criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for not have a clear strategy for dealing with tax fraud and not pursuing criminal prosecution in enough cases HMRC has demonstrated that it is prepared to go after more businesses and individuals and put more resources into detecting and prosecuting fraudulent activities.

Sleep tight

We always recommend full disclosure to HMRC, it is preferable to sleep at night (rather than trying to sleep in a prison cell). Of course, the very best course of action is not to commit tax fraud…

VAT – Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) A Brief Guide

By Marcus Ward 11 April 2018

VAT and TOMS: Complex and costly

Introduction

The tour operators’ margin scheme (TOMS) is a special scheme for businesses that buy in and re-sell travel, accommodation and certain other services as principals or undisclosed agents (ie; that act in their own name). In many cases, it enables VAT to be accounted for on travel supplies without businesses having to register and account for VAT in every EU country in which the services and goods are enjoyed. It does, however, apply to travel/accommodation services enjoyed within the UK, within the EU but outside the UK, and wholly outside the EU.

Under the scheme:

VAT cannot be reclaimed on margin scheme supplies bought in for resale. VAT on overheads outside the TOMS can be reclaimed in the normal way.
A UK-based tour operator need only account for VAT on the margin, ie; the difference between the amount received from customers and the amount paid to suppliers.
There are special rules for determining the place, liability and time of margin scheme supplies.
VAT invoices cannot be issued for margin scheme supplies.
In-house supplies supplied on their own are not subject to the TOMS and are taxed under the normal VAT rules. But a mixture of in-house supplies and bought-in margin scheme supplies must all be accounted for within the TOMS.
No VAT is due via TOMS on travel/accommodation/tours enjoyed outside the EU.

Who must use the TOMS?

TOMS does not only apply to ‘traditional’ tour operators. It applies to any business which is making the type of supplies set out below even if this is not its main business activity. For example, it must be used by

Hoteliers who buy in coach passenger transport to collect their guests at the start and end of their stay
Coach operators who buy in hotel accommodation in order to put together a package
Companies that arrange conferences, including providing hotel accommodation for delegates
Schools arranging school trips
Clubs and associations
Charities.

The CJEC has confirmed that to make the application of the TOMS depend upon whether a trader was formally classified as a travel agent or tour operator would create distortion of competition. Ancillary travel services which constitute ‘a small proportion of the package price compared to accommodation’ would not lead to a hotelier falling within the provisions, but where, in return for a package price, a hotelier habitually offers his customers travel to the hotel from distant pick-up points in addition to accommodation, such services cannot be treated as purely ancillary.

Supplies covered by the TOMS

The TOMS must be used by a person acting as a principal or undisclosed agent for

‘margin scheme supplies’; and
‘margin scheme packages’ ie single transactions which include one or more margin scheme supplies possibly with other types of supplies (eg in-house supplies).

‘Margin scheme supplies’ are those supplies which are

bought in for the purpose of the business, and
supplied for the benefit of a ‘traveller’ without material alteration or further processing

by a tour operator in an EU country in which he has established his business or has a fixed establishment.

A ‘traveller’ is a person, including a business or local authority, who receives supplies of transport and/or accommodation, other than for the purpose of re-supply.

Examples

If meeting the above conditions, the following are always treated as margin scheme supplies.

Accommodation
Passenger transport
Hire of means of transport
Use of special lounges at airports
Trips or excursions
Services of tour guides

Other supplies meeting the above conditions may be treated as margin scheme supplies but only if provided as part of a package with one or more of the supplies listed above. These include

Catering
Theatre tickets
Sports facilities

Of course, who knows how Brexit will impact TOMS. It may be that UK businesses will be unable to take advantage of this easement and will be required to VAT register in every Member State that it does business * shudder *

This scheme is extremely complex and specialist advice should always be sought before advising clients.

VAT: Latest from the courts – option to tax, TOGC and deposits

By Marcus Ward 26 March 2018

Timing is everything

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Clark Hill Ltd (CHL) illustrates the detailed VAT considerations required when selling property. Not only are certain actions important, but so is timing. If a business is one day late taking certain actions, a VAT free sale may turn into one that costs 20% more than anticipated. That is a large amount to fund and will obviously negatively affect cashflow and increase SDLT for the buyer, and may result in penalties for the seller.

The case considered three notoriously difficult areas of VAT, namely: the option to tax, transfers of going concerns and deposits.

Background

CHL owned four commercial properties which had opted to tax. CHL sold the freehold of these properties with the benefit of the existing leases. As a starting point VAT would be due on the sale because of the option. However, the point at issue here was whether the conditions in Article 5 of the Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 were met so that the sale could be treated as a transfer of a business as a going concern (TOGC) and could therefore be treated as neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services for VAT purposes, ie; VAT free. The point applied to two of the four sales. The vendor initially charged VAT, but the purchasers considered that the TOGC provisions applied. CHL must have agreed and consequently did not charge VAT. HMRC disagreed with this approach and raised an assessment for output tax on the value of the sale.

TOGC

In order that a sale may qualify as a TOGC one of the conditions is that; the assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part. It is accepted that in a property business transfer, if the vendor has opted to tax, the purchaser must also have opted by the “relevant date”. If there is no option in place at that time HMRC do not regard it as “the same kind of business” and TOGC treatment does not apply.

Relevant date

If the purchaser opts to tax, but, say, one day after the relevant date, there can be no TOGC. The relevant date in these circumstances is the tax point. Details of tax points here

Basically put, a deposit can, in some circumstances, create a tax point. In this case, the purchaser had paid a deposit and, at some point before completion of the transfer of the property, the deposit had been received by the seller or the seller’s agent. The seller notified HMRC of the option to tax after a deposit had been received (in two of the relevant sales). The issue here then was whether a deposit created a tax point, or “relevant date” for the purposes of establishing whether the purchaser’s option to tax was in place by that date.

Decision

The judge decided that in respect of the two properties where the option to tax was not notified until after a deposit had been paid there could not be a TOGC (for completeness, for various other reasons, the other two sales could be treated as TOGCs) and VAT was due on the sale values. It was decided that the receipt of deposits in these cases created a relevant date.

Commentary

There is a distinction between opting to tax and notifying that option to HMRC which does not appear to have been argued here (there may be reasons for that). However, this case is a timely reminder that VAT must be considered on property transactions AND at the appropriate time. TOGC is an unique situation whereby the seller is reliant on the purchaser’s actions in order to apply the correct VAT treatment. This must be covered off in contracts, but even if it is, it could create significant complications and difficulties in obtaining the extra payment. It is also a reminder that VAT issues can arise when deposits are paid (in general) and/or in advance of an invoice being issued.

We recommend that VAT advice is always taken on property transactions ad at an early stage. Not only can situations similar to those in this case arise, but late consideration of VAT can often delay sales and can even cause such transactions to be aborted.