Category Archives: VAT Legislation

VAT: Tax representatives and tax agents – what is the difference and why it is important

By   13 August 2025
0

VAT Basics

A Non-Established Taxable Person (NETP) may be required to appoint a tax representative or tax agent if they make taxable supplies in the UK. The term NETP is used to describe a person who is liable to be registered for VAT under the VAT ACT 1994 Schedule 1a. A NETP must register for VAT as soon as it makes its first taxable supply in the UK, or when it expects to make taxable supplies here within the next 30 days, that is; there is no turnover limit for a NETP.

A NETP is a business which has no place of belonging in the UK. So, what is the difference between a representative and agent, and does the NETP get a choice?

Tax representative

A representative maintains the NETP’s VAT records, submits VAT returns and accounts for UK VAT on behalf of the NETP and dels with communication with HMRC. A representative is jointly and severally liable for any VAT debts incurred by the NETP.

A NETP may only appoint one person at a time to act on its behalf, although a tax representative may act for more than one NETP.

Tax agent

 An agent carries out a similar role to a representative, however, the important difference is that HMRC cannot hold an agent responsible for any of NETP’s VAT debts. HMRC reserve the right not to deal with any particular agent. In some circumstances, if HMRC deem think it necessary, it will insist that a tax representative is appointed.

As long as HMRC has not directed (see below) a NETP to appoint a tax representative, it can appoint an agent to deal UK VAT affairs. Any arrangement made will be subject to whatever contractual agreement the NETP and agent decide. In some circumstances, if HMRC think it is necessary, it may still insist that a tax representative is appointed.

Distinction

The tax representative and the tax agent both act on behalf of a NETP. However, while the tax agent operates in the name of the NETP, the tax representative operates in its own name. Consequently, a tax representative is personally committed to pay HMRC and must be accredited beforehand. Contracts between representatives/agents need to be clear on this point and fees charged for this work should reflect the difference in responsibilities. Should the NETP fail to pay VAT, penalties and interest due, HMRC will collect these directly from the tax representative, so, in effect, the tax representative represents a monetary insurance for HMRC.

Direction

HMRC can direct some NETPs to appoint a tax representative who must be:

this is via VAT Act 1994, section 48(1).

HMRC may choose to require some form of security from a NETP whether or not there has been any direction regarding the appointment of a representative.

Not appointing a tax representative or agent

If a NETP does not wish to appoint a tax representative or agent, and HMRC has not directed them to appoint a tax representative, it must meet all its obligations under UK VAT law itself. This includes, inter alia:

Post Brexit

For UK businesses making overseas supplies:

Businesses established within the EU are exempted from appointing a tax representative in other Member-States (MS) as international tax assistance is compulsory within the EU (the local tax administration can request assistance from the country of establishment to recover the money directly from the business). Since Brexit, the UK became a third country, so this rule does not apply, and MS have the choice to make the appointment of a tax representative compulsory for UK businesses. Most MS have done so, the notable exception being Germany.

New guidance for registration of a NETP here.

VAT: Transactions involving Bitcoin

By   21 July 2025
0
I have written about this subject a number of times about transactions involving cryptocurrencies, and considering the increased use of them, it seems timely to provide an update on the VAT treatment of certain business activities which use Bitcoins as a value for exchange, or payment for goods or services.

What is cryptocurrency?

Cryptocurrency is a line of computer code that holds monetary value. Cryptocurrency is also known as digital currency and it is a form of money that is created by mathematical computations. In order for a Bitcoin transaction to take place, a verification process is needed, this is provided by millions of computer users called miners and the monitoring is called mining. Transactions are recorded in the blockchain which is public and contains records of each and every transaction that takes place. Cryptocurrency is not tangible, although they may be exchanged for traditional cash. It is a decentralised digital currency without a central bank or single administrator (which initially made it attractive) and can be sent from user to user on the peer-to-peer network without the need for intermediaries.

What is Bitcoin?

Bitcoin was the first popular cryptocurrency and it first appeared in 2009. The advantage of bitcoin is that it can be stored offline on the owner’s local hardware (a process called cold storage) which protects the currency from being taken by others. If a person loses access to the hardware that contains the bitcoins, the currency is lost forever, and it is estimated that as much as 23% of bitcoin has been mislaid by miners and/or investors.

Exchange between currencies and bitcoin

The VAT treatment of transactions exchanging traditional currencies for Bitcoin, or Bitcoin for currencies carried out for consideration (added by the supplier) are exempt services in a similar way to any other currency transactions via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, group 5, item 1.

Paying for goods or services using Bitcoin

Similar to any other payment method, simply using Bitcoin to obtain goods or services is outside the scope of VAT and no VAT is due on the value the Bitcoin represents. That is to say that the authorities do not consider that such a transaction is a barter.

Provision of goods or services in return for Bitcoin payment

The provision of goods or services paid for in Bitcoin are treated in a similar way as any supplied for consideration consisting of

  • Traditional currencies, or
  • Non-monetary consideration

and the value is; anything received by the supplier in consideration of that supply.

Should the consideration be in Bitcoin, there two alternatives for the conversion of foreign currencies into a main currency (although these were drafted before the introduction of Bitcoin and originally relate simply to foreign currencies)

  • the latest exchange rate recorded on the most representative exchange market, or
  • the latest exchange rate published by the European Central Bank

However, as above, because Bitcoin is not administered by any bank, this may make valuation difficult. The VAT Committee of the European Commission (EC) has indicated that a potential resolution is to use Open Market Rate (OMR*) as the exchange of the virtual currency. This would be the responsibility of the supplier. This is likely to be commercially available information from the websites of the likes of; coindesk, Cryptocompare or Cointelegraph for eg.

All of the above seems logical, although confirmation provided by the VAT Committee is welcome.

* OMR is the amount for which an asset is transferred between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion.

VAT: Are poppadoms crisps? The Walkers Snack Foods case

By   4 June 2025
0

Latest from the courts  

In the Walkers Snack Foods Ltd Upper Tribunal (UT) case the issue was whether Sensations Poppadoms are similar to potato crisps and consequently excluded from the zero rating for food.

The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that the product was similar to crisps and that it was to be treated as being excepted items from zero-rating and was therefore standard rated.

Background

The salient matter was whether the poppadoms were “made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch” and were “similar” to potato crisps via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, item 1, excepted item 5.

Value Added Tax – excepted item 5 to item 1, Group 1, Part II, Schedule 8 Value Added Tax Act 1994 – whether First-tier Tribunal erred in law in finding Sensations Poppadoms were “made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch” and were “similar” to potato crisps

This sets out that the following is excepted from the zero rate for “Food of a kind used for human consumption”.

“5. Any of the following when packaged for human consumption without further preparation, namely, potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs, and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch, and savoury food products obtained by the swelling of cereals or cereal products; and salted or roasted nuts other than nuts in shell.”

Contentions

The appellant argued that the poppadoms should be zero-rated for VAT purposes because they fall within Item 1 of Group 1 as they are food, and that they are not included in the list of exceptions.

 HMRC contended that that the product fell within excepted item 5 of Group 1, because they are products similar to potato crisps…

Decision 

  • The UT agreed with the FTT that the words “made from the potato” can extend to products made from potato granules and was neither untenable nor a plain misapplication of the law to the facts. 
  • The UT recalled that the FTT had concluded that Sensations Poppadoms contained “more than enough potato content” for it to be reasonable to conclude that they were “made from the potato… or from potato starch”. Sensations Poppadoms have a combined potato content (potato granules and potato starch) of 39%-40%, so the potato content is significant. The question for the UT was whether the FTT reached a conclusion which no reasonable tribunal properly construing the statute could have reached. The UT answered “no”.
  • The UT noted that the FTT determined that Sensations Poppadoms were similar to potato crisps based on a multifactorial assessment of various factors, including; packaging, appearance, texture and taste. The FTT noted that while the manufacturing processes differ, the statute allows for similarity among products made from potato starch and flour. The FTT found that the potato content in Sensations Poppadoms contributed to a neutral flavour, which did not significantly distinguish them from potato crisps. Broadly, the UT agreed with this determination.

Consequently, for the above reasons the UT dismissed the appeal and the product is subject to the standard rate.

Commentary

Yet another case on the liability of ‘snack foods’. So now we know that: Doritos, Monster Munch, Wotsits and Poppadums are standard rated, however Pringles, Skips and Twiglets are VAT free. This demonstrates the complexity of classifying food and these decisions throw up more complications for producers as this market develops quickly as the public’s taste moves on.

VAT: Whether an online tool an ‘examination service’? The Generic Maths case.

By   12 May 2025
0

Latest from the courts.

In the Generic Maths Limited First Tier Tribunal case the issue was whether the appellant’s product; ‘ConquerMaths’ amounted to examination services so to be exempt via The VATA 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, Item 3.

Background

Generic Maths provided an online tool which was intended to be of benefit to students or their parents/teachers. The following facts concerning ConquerMaths were found:

  • it does not lead to any qualifications
  • users can drop in and out of the offering (unlike the way they might have to proceed if following a course leading to a qualification)
  • it includes many hundreds of available diagnostic tests that test students’ knowledge of the principles that will be taught on the various subjects
  • several short tutoring videos are included, although the number of videos is small in comparison to the number of diagnostic tests
  • the average user spends 75 minutes on diagnostic tests compared to five minutes on videos
  • the appellant’s witnesses described the product as diagnostic assessments, formative assessments, and summative assessments
  • in addition to the diagnostic tests, the product includes worksheets in an exam format. Pupils are encouraged to complete these offline and then feed the results into the system

The issue

Simply put; was the product predominantly a tool that provides assessments enabling those using the product to determine what level of maths ability the student has reached and identify any gaps in knowledge and therefore an exempt supply since it falls into the category “examination services”? Or, as HMRC contended, was it an online mathematical tutorial tool which was standard rated as it was a composite supply the predominant element of which was education and that the supply was not one of examination services? (There was no argument that these were exempt educational services).

The tests

The FTT considered that the correct test for determining the nature of the appellant’s supplies was an objective test, based on how they would be characterised by the typical consumer. On that basis, ConquerMaths was a teaching product designed to improve maths understanding, not an examination service.

Additionally, if the correct test was rather a functional test, the result would be the similar.

Decision

The Tribunal did not consider that the product was a supply of examination services within Item 3. It found that the assessment had been made using best judgment by HMRC and accordingly that the appeal should be dismissed.

Commentary

This is probably the correct decision, although the examination and education exemptions are open to interpretation. Care should be taken by taxpayers that the exemption is correctly applied. Although the definition of examination services is wider than formal public examinations, it was not wide enough to encompass ConquerMaths.

VAT: HMRC updates tax avoidance schemes guidance – Stop Notices

By   8 May 2025
0

HMRC has updated its guidance on promoters of tax avoidance schemes (guidance on Part 5 and Schedules 34 to 36 of the Finance Act 2014).

The guidance explains the rules that apply to promoters of tax avoidance schemes. These rules aim to deter the development and use of avoidance schemes by influencing the behaviour of promoters, their intermediaries, and clients.

Stop Notices

These Notices are covered by The Finance Act 2021, Schedule 30, part 1, section 236A

  1. An authorised officer may give a person a Notice (a “Stop Notice”) if the authorised officer suspects that the recipient promotes, or has promoted, arrangements of a description specified in the notice or proposals for such arrangements.

 HMRC issues Stop Notices to promotors of tax avoidance schemes, requiring them to stop selling or promoting the scheme.

The main aim of issuing these Notices is to reduce the number of tax avoidance schemes that are being marketed. This makes it more difficult for taxpayers to get involved in them.

When HMRC issues a stop notice to a promoter, it means:

  • the promoter who receives the notice must stop selling the specified scheme
  • the promoter who receives the notice must also pass a copy of it to certain associated persons, who are also subject to the stop notice and must also stop selling the specified scheme
  • all those persons subject to the notice must inform HMRC of all the people they have promoted the scheme to and any they continue to promote it to
  • the persons subject to the stop notice must inform all clients and intermediaries that they are subject to a stop notice, what this means, and provide them with a copy of the stop notice

If a promoter fails to comply with a stop notice they can face penalties of up to £100,000 which can increase to £1million.

Our approach to planning and HMRC

Marcus Ward Consultancy Ltd does not market, advise on, or advocate aggressive schemes. The company provides bespoke solutions to an individual business and does not believe in “one size fits all” mass-marketed schemes.  We will always work within the law and the spirit of the law.  We operate a full disclosure policy and may refuse to work with you if you do not subscribe to this attitude.  We will, on occasion, cross swords with HMRC if we believe we are correct and that HMRC is being unreasonable and we will fight to uphold our clients’ rights against any unfair accusations.

VAT: Tribunal costs

By   23 April 2025
0

    Latest from the courts

    In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Eurolaser IT Ltd regarding Kittel and Mecsek assessments and penalties:

    • whether an agent knew or should have known of fraud in supply chain – yes
    • whether such knowledge/means of knowledge to be attributed to Appellant – yes
    • whether Mecsek requires HMRC to show reasonable steps not taken by Appellant – yes
    • whether reasonable steps taken – no
    • unsurprisingly, the appeal was refused

    one interesting aspect was the award of costs.

    Generally, in FTT cases the rule is that each party will usually bear its own costs.

    However, it is worth recapping how the award of costs works via The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. In this instant case, the Appellant had not ‘opted out’ of the costs protection regime set out in rule 10(c)(ii) of the Rules. Consequently, the FTT ordered that Eurolaser must pay HMRC’s costs – a sting in the tail. So, what are the rules? (Where relevant here)

    Orders for costs

    “10.—(1) The Tribunal may only make an order in respect of costs (or, in Scotland, expenses)—

    (a) under section 29(4) of the 2007 Act (wasted costs) [and costs incurred in applying for such costs];

    (b) if the Tribunal considers that a party or their representative has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings; 

    (c) if—

    (i) the proceedings have been allocated as a Complex case under rule 23 (allocation of cases to categories); and

    (ii) the taxpayer (or, where more than one party is a taxpayer, one of them) has not sent or delivered a written request to the Tribunal, within 28 days of receiving notice that the case had been allocated as a Complex case, that the proceedings be excluded from potential liability for costs or expenses under this sub-paragraph”

    So, in “Complex” cases, an Appellant must submit a request that the case is excluded from the potential liability of costs being awarded, and HMRC must request repayment of its costs incurred in defending the case.

    What are Complex cases?

    These are complicated cases which:

    • require lengthy or complex evidence
    • require a lengthy hearing
    • involve complex or important principles or issues
    • involve large amounts or tax or penalties

    such cases are allocated to a ‘track’ within the FTT system.

    Other cost awards

    It is also worth remembering that costs can be awarded if the appeal is brought unreasonably. This usually means that it is vexatious or frivolous, so proper advice should be sought when considering an appeal.

    VAT Success Stories

    By   22 April 2025
    0
    I often write about how it is important to seek VAT advice at the right time, see triggerpoints. So, I thought that I’d give some practical examples on where we have saved our clients money, time and aggravation.

    Investment company

    HMRC denied claims for input tax incurred on costs relating to the potential acquisition of an overseas business and threatened to deregister the plc as it was not, currently, making taxable supplies. Additionally, HMRC contended that even if VAT registration was appropriate, the input tax incurred did not relate to taxable supplies and was therefore blocked.

    We were able to persuade HMRC that our client had a right to be VAT registered because it intended to make taxable supplies (supplies with a place of supply outside the UK which would have been taxable if made in the UK) and that the input tax was recoverable as it related to these intended taxable supplies (management charges to the acquired business). This is a hot topic at the moment, but we were able to eventually demonstrate, with considerable and detailed evidence that there was a true intention.

    This meant that UK VAT registration was correct and input tax running into hundreds of thousands of pounds incurred in the UK was repaid to our client.

    Restaurant

    We identified and submitted a claim for a West End restaurant for nearly £300,000 overpaid output tax. We finally agreed the repayment with HMRC after dealing with issues such as the quantum of the claim and unjust enrichment.

    Developer

    Our property developing client specialises in very high-end residential projects in exclusive parts of London. They built a dwelling using an existing façade and part of a side elevation. We contended that it was a new build (zero rated sale and no VAT on construction costs and full input tax recovery on other costs). HMRC took the view that it was work on an existing dwelling so that 5% applied and input tax was not recoverable. After site visits, detailed plans, current and historical photograph evidence HMRC accepted the holy grail of new build. The overall cost of the project was tens of millions.

    Charity

    A charity client was supplying services to the NHS. The issue was whether they were standard rated supplies of staff or exempt medical services. We argued successfully that, despite previous rulings, the supplies were exempt, which benefited all parties. Our client was able to deregister from VAT, but not only that, we persuaded HMRC that input tax previously claimed could be kept. This was a rather pleasant surprise outcome.  We also avoided any penalties and interest so that VAT did not represent a cost to the charity in any way.  If the VAT was required to be repaid to HMRC it is likely that the charity would have been wound up.

    Shoot

    A group of friends met to shoot game as a hobby. They made financial contributions to the syndicate in order to take part. HMRC considered that this was a business activity and threatened to go back over 40 years and assess for output tax on the syndicate’s takings which amounted to many hundreds of thousands of pounds and would have meant the shoot could not continue. We appealed the decision to retrospectively register the syndicate.

    After a four-year battle HMRC settled on the steps of the Tribunal. We were able to demonstrate that the syndicate was run on a cost sharing basis and is not “an activity likely to be carried out by a private undertaking on a market, organised within a professional framework and generally performed in the interest of generating a profit.” – A happy client.

    Chemist

    We assisted a chemist client who, for unfortunate reasons, had not been able to submit proper VAT returns for a number of years.  We were able to reconstruct the VAT records which showed a repayment of circa £500,000 of VAT was due.  We successfully negotiated with HMRC and assisted with the inspection which was generated by the claim.

    The message? Never accept a HMRC decision, and seek good advice!

    VAT: Types of legal entities

    By   10 April 2025
    0

    VAT Basics

    What types of entities can be a ‘taxable person’?

    The definition of a taxable person in the VAT Directive is any person or body “who, independently, carries out in any place any economic activity, whatever the purpose or results”. Economic activity in the UK broadly means any business activity. I consider this definition below. 

    So, what is a person or body?

     In practice, a taxable person or body is generally a business, sole trader or professional. Examples of types of legal entities are a:

    • Sole proprietor
    • Partnership
    • Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)
    • Limited company (limited by shares)
    • Private company (limited by guarantee)
    • Public Limited Company (PLC) – a company registered under the Companies Act (1980)
    • Community Interest Company (CIC)
    • Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO)
    • Private unlimited company
    • Club or Association
    • Unincorporated Association
    • Co-operative Society (Co-Op)
    • Community Benefit Society (BenCom)
    • Trust
    • Charity
    • Not For Profit (NPF) entity
    • Right To Manage company (RTM)
    • Financial Mutual
    • Societas Europaea (SE)
    • Co-operative or community benefit society
    • “Section 33” body, eg; Local Authorities, Fire and Rescue Authorities, Police, Lighthouses, the BBC etc – VAT Act 1995 s33. These bodies have different VAT rules, and they may not necessarily be a taxable person

    Each type of entity or structure is subject to separate rules; from; governance, direct tax, reporting, accounting, risks, costs, benefits, responsibilities to legal rights and obligations etc. However, from a VAT perspective, the VAT legislation applies equally to all taxable persons.

    Two or more corporate bodies may apply to register as a single taxable person (VAT group) if they can meet certain conditions.

    A corporate body can apply to register each division separately if it:

    • is organised in divisions
    • carries on its business in divisions
    • can meet certain conditions

    What are not taxable persons?

    Private individuals are not generally involved in business and will therefore not be classed as taxable persons.

    What is business?

    There is considerable case law on what constitutes ‘business’ for VAT purposes. I have written about this issue many times, as it is a fundamental issue in the tax.

    The following articles consider such case law:

    Wakefield College
    Longbridge
    Babylon Farm
    A Shoot
    Y4 Express
    Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. And Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft
    Healthwatch Hampshire CIC 
    Pertempts Limited
    Northumbria Healthcare

    Registration

    A guide to VAT registration here.

    VAT: Construction Services Reverse Charge – New HMRC Manual

    By   8 April 2025
    0

    The Construction Reverse Charge (RC) background details here.

    HMRC has recently published its VAT Reverse Charge for Building and Construction Services Manual.

    It includes:

    • how it works
    • which services are covered
    • the supplies of materials
    • the supplies of labour and/or staff
    • who needs to apply it
    • practical issues such as invoicing and adjustments to consideration
    • compliance issues

    The contents of the new manual are:

    A VAT Did you know?

    By   26 March 2025
    0

    Oils and fats used for animal food is zero-rated, unless it is waste oil from a fish and chip shop – which is standard rated… even if it is used to feed animals.