HMRC have issued a BB 5(2024) on Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS) for business to business (B2B) wholesale supplies.
Ultimately, the policy allowing businesses to choose whether to apply TOMS to B2B wholesale supplies remains unchanged.
A Warning
There has been a great deal of debate on the subject of VAT and influencers, with HMRC issuing assessments for underdeclared output tax on “gifts” received by them.
What is an influencer?
An influencer is someone who has certain power to affect the purchasing decisions of others because of their; authority, knowledge, position, or relationship with their audience. These individuals are social relationship assets with which brands can collaborate to achieve their marketing objectives.
In recent years the growth of social media means that influencers have grown in importance. According to recent statistics, the projected number of global social media users in 2023 was 4.89 billion. This is a 6.5% rise from the previous year.
What is the VAT issue?
Business gifts to influencers
A business is not required to account for VAT on certain dealings if they meet certain conditions. For free gifts, the condition is that the total cost of all gifts to the same person is less than £50 in a 12-month period. Further, if the goods are “free samples” – used for marketing purposes and provided in a quantity that lets potential customers test the product, then the £50 rule does not apply. If an influencer receives free gifts or samples, there are no VAT implications for them.
HMRC Action
However, we understand that HMRC has decided that, in the majority of cases, the supply of goods to influencers were not ‘free gifts” but rather consideration for a taxable supply of marketing or advertising. They were also not considered free samples as, generally, influencers would not be in the position to test the goods, having no expertise in the field. It is also concluded that influencers, in most cases were “in business“.
The payment for the marketing, promotion or advertising services (the VAT treatment is similar, regardless of how the services are categorised) is by way of the supply of goods, rather than monetary consideration. That is; consideration is flowing in both directions. Consequently, output tax is due on this amount if the influencer is, or should be, VAT registered.
What is the value of the supply?
Non-monetary consideration
Non-monetary consideration includes goods or services supplied as payment, for example in a “barter” (including part exchange) agreement. 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.
VAT Registration
If an influencer receives gifts valued at over £90,000 in any 12-month period, or these gifts plus other monetary consideration, VAT registration is mandatory.
More on business promotions here.
Where goods are located in a shop can affect the VAT treatment. Nuts sold in the bakery aisle are VAT free, but those sold with snacks or confectionary are standard rated.
Latest from the courts
In the H Ripley & Co Limited First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether the appellant had satisfactory evidence to support the zero rating of the export of goods (scrap metal).
Background
HMRC denied zero rating on the basis that the appellant did not provide satisfactory evidence to support the fact that the scrap metal was removed from the UK.
The requirements are set out in VAT Notice 725 para 5 and acceptable documentary evidence may include:
or a combination of the above.
HMRC advised the appellant that it had received an information request from the Belgian tax authorities in respect of certain transactions and consequently, HMRC required information on the company’s documents in connection with the supplies. On receipt of the information HMRC concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support zero-rating so the sales were treated as standard rated and the appellant’s repayment claim was reduced to reflect this.
In these circumstances the burden of proof is on the appellant to show that it has satisfied the conditions set out in Notice 725 to zero-rate its supplies and provide documentation to show that the goods were removed from the UK.
Decision
The court noted that it was not HMRC’s position that supplementary evidence could not be provided post the required three-months period but that it was entitled to decline the additional evidence when it was provided some 18 to 30 months after the three-month period. It was clear that the evidence of removal must be obtained within three months and not that the valid evidence is brought into existence within the three-month time limit and obtained at some future date.
Notice 725 sets out the conditions which attach to the entitlement to zero-rate supplies. The FTT considered it to be clear from paragraph 4.3 and 4.4 (which have the force of law) that the onus is on the exporter company claiming zero-rating to gather sufficient evidence of removal within three months of the date of the supply. If it does not do so, it is not entitled to zero-rate the supplies.
Specifically, the court considered:
The appeal was dismissed, and the assessments were upheld because none of the documents either individually or taken as a whole, were sufficient evidence to support zero-rating.
Commentary
Yet another case illustrating the importance of insuring correct documentation is held. It is not sufficient that goods leave the UK, but the detailed evidence requirements must always be met.
Latest from the courts
In the Three Shires Trailers Limited First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issues were whether an input tax claim on the purchase of two Land Rover Discoveries was appropriate when they were converted from commercial vehicles to cars, or was a self-supply triggered?
Background
The vehicles were commercial vehicles when purchased and input tax was recovered. Subsequently, they were converted by the addition of three fold up seats with seat belts behind the driver seat and removing materials which had blacked out the rear windows which reclassified them as cars. This would have subjected them to an input tax block if purchased in that state.
The purpose of buying the vehicles was for the transport of trailers to customers, the collection of trailers from suppliers and to enable personnel of the appellant to attend trade fairs all over the country.
Technical
“A Motor Car” is defined as:
“any motor vehicle of a kind used on public roads which has three or more wheels and either:
(a) is constructed or adapted solely or mainly for the carriage of passengers; or
(b) has to the rear of the driver’s seat roofed accommodation which is fitted with side windows or which is constructed or adapted for the fitting of side windows…”
Issues
The appellant stated that the vehicles were used only for business purposes. Employees were not permitted to use the vehicles for private purposes and did not do so. The vehicles were kept at the business’s premises. He also explained that the vehicles were not converted to cars, if they were cars, they were qualifying cars and if they were non-qualifying cars, the use was only temporary, and they were converted back to commercial vehicles.
Initially, HMRC disallowed the claim because the vehicles became cars and subject to the input tax block.
Subsequently, HMRC’s case was that the vehicles had been converted from commercial vehicles to non-qualifying cars which triggers an irreversible self-supply under Article 5 of the Value Added Tax (Cars) Order 1992 so output tax equalling the claimed input tax was due.
Decision
The FTT decided that, at the time when the vehicles were acquired, they were indisputably commercial vehicles and the appellant was entitled to deduct the input tax on them.
The judge found that, after conversion, the vehicles were intended for use, and were used, only for business purposes. The appellant did not intend that the vehicles should be used for private purposes and so far as he was aware, there was no private use. The vehicles were therefore qualifying motor vehicles eligible for input VAT recovery. No output tax was due on a self-supply.
The appeal was allowed.
Commentary
Another case on the recovery of input tax on car purchases and the difference between commercial vehicles and cars. It is notoriously difficult to persuade HMRC that there is no private use of cars, but it is possible.
HMRC has amended Notice 708 which covers:
Sections 18.1 and 18.2 of the Notice and the certificates in those sections have been updated to show they have force of law under The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5, Note 12.
Latest from the courts
In this First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether serviced apartments qualify for exemption.
Background
Realreed owns a property called Chelsea Cloisters in Sloane Avenue, London. The property comprises; 656 self-contained apartments and some commercial units. 421 of these apartments are let on long leases (no VAT issues arise from these supplies). The appeal concerned the VAT treatment of the letting of the remaining 235 apartments, which include studio, one-bedroom or two-bedroom self-contained rooms. The appellant has, at all times, received a significant number of occupiers from corporate customers when they relocate their employees to London for a specified period, such as a secondment.
The contentions
Realreed argued that the letting of the apartments is a supply of accommodation which is exempt under The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 1, Item 1. Chelsea Cloisters operates like a ‘home from home’ for its tenants: it provides residential accommodation. The physical appearance of the building is very similar to that of other residential buildings in the vicinity. It does not have signage suggesting the serviced accommodation is a hotel or similar establishment. It is rare for hotels (or similar establishments) at the booking point to offer long-term availability in the same way as Realreed does. Chelsea Cloisters does not offer room service, or catering of any form. Tenants have fully functioning kitchens and other self-catering facilities within their apartments and have washing machines and dryers to do all their own laundry. Tenants can, and do, stay for extended periods of time (one for around 20 years). The business has always involved the provision of residential accommodation on a longer-term basis than would typically be found in a hotel, with a much higher degree of personal autonomy for the occupant.
HMRC contended that the use of the Apartments is carved out of the exemption in Item 1 by excepted item (d), which applies to “the provision in an hotel, inn, boarding house or similar establishment of sleeping accommodation”. Note 9 to Group 1 provides that “similar establishment” “includes premises in which there is provided furnished sleeping accommodation whether with or without the provision of board or facilities for the preparation of food, which are used or held out as being suitable for use by visitors or travellers”.
Decision
The court considered that Realreed provided sleeping accommodation in an establishment which is similar to a hotel. The two hallmarks of short-term accommodation coupled with additional services (daily maid service, linen changing, cleaning at the end of a stay, residents bar, concierge) mean that Chelsea Cloisters is an establishment in potential competition with the hotel sector, which also offers short-term accommodation with services.
The FTT found that Realreed provided furnished sleeping accommodation, so the remaining question was whether Chelsea Cloisters is used by or held out as being suitable for use by “visitors or travellers” per Note 9.
The FTT interpreted ‘visitor or traveller’ as referring to a person who is present in a particular place without making it their home, ie; they are not staying there with any degree of permanence. The average length of visit was less than a fortnight which must mean that the apartments were indeed made available to visitors or travellers.
The supplies were therefore standard rated.
Commentary
There is a distinction between leases and other room lettings for VAT. The most important issue is the degree of “permanence”, although other factors have a bearing. Businesses which let rooms should consider the nature of their supplies with reference to this case which helpfully sets out which factors need to be considered.
In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) the issue was whether subscriptions paid by members of the freemasons are exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 9, section 31, item 1(e) “Subscriptions to trade unions, professional and other public interest bodies” which exempts membership subscriptions paid to a non-profit making organisation which has objects which are of a political, religious, patriotic, philosophical, philanthropic or civic nature. UGLE submitted claims on the basis that its subscription income was exempt (and not standard rated as declared on previous returns) and HMRC declined to make the repayments.
Background
UGLE is an unincorporated association. It has approximately 175,000 members who, in turn, are members of some 6,500 local Lodges.
An organisation which has more than one main aim can still come within the exemption if those aims are all listed and described in the legislation. The fact that the organisation has other aims which are not set out in law does not mean that its services to members are not exempt provided that those other aims are not main aims. If, however, the organisation has a number of aims, all equally important, some of which are covered by the exemption, and some of which are not, then the services supplied by the organisation to its members are wholly outside the exemption.
In the first hearing the First-Tier Tribunal concluded that the services supplied by UGLE were not exempt from VAT. It also held that UGLE does not have a civic aim. The FTT held that if an organisation had more than one aim, its eligibility for the relief would depend on its main (or primary) aim, and if it had multiple main aims, it would only qualify for the relief if all its main aims fell within the listed exemptions. If it had a number of aims which were all equally important (ie; if it had no main aim), then all those aims would have to fall within the list to enable the organisation to qualify for exemption.
The FTT Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The judge decided that the supplies made by UGLE in return for subscription payments were properly standard rated.
It was common ground that the motives of the members in joining the organisation are irrelevant.
It was accepted that since 2000 freemasonry has become more outward looking and since then has become more involved in charitable work among those, and for the benefit of those, who are not freemasons or their dependants. That said, the judge was not satisfied that the charitable works of individual freemasons, such as volunteering to give time to a local charity, were undertaken by them as freemasons rather than simply as public-spirited members of the community.
It was found that UGLE did have aims of a philosophical, philanthropic and civic nature (the promotion of all aspects of the practice of freemasonry and charity was central to UGLE’s activities). However, it was not accepted that these were UGLE’s main or primary aims. At least 48% of payments made by UGLE were to freemasons and their dependants and in the FTT’s judgment such support remained one of the main aims of freemasonry and thus of UGLE. The importance of providing support for freemasons and their dependants who are in need is a central tenet of freemasonry – The duty to help other freemasons is clearly set out in the objects of the four central masonic charities. The evidence showed that the provision of relief to freemasons and their dependants was the more important than donations to good causes unconnected with freemasonry.
Civic aims
There was nothing in the evidence which indicates any civic aim. UGLE cannot be said to be an organisation that has aims pertaining to the citizen and the state. Indeed, freemasons are prohibited from discussing matters of religion and politics in lodges.
Consequently, as one of UGLE’s main aims could not be described as philosophical, philanthropic, or civic, its membership subscriptions were standard rated. Making payments to freemasons was more akin to self-insurance, rather than philanthropic in nature.
UT – Grounds for appeal
There were two specific grounds:
On the first ground the UT decided that this is not a situation in which the FTT had simply failed to set out every step of its reasoning, rather, the FTT did not give reasons for rejecting an important aspect of the Appellant’ case and found that the FTT therefore erred in law
On the second; The UT accepted that an aim may be considered to be philanthropic if an organisation aims to provide relief to specific categories of persons. However, it considered that there is a qualitative difference between organisations which raise and distribute funds for identified groups of persons and an organisation that raises funds from within the members that constitute that organisation with the aim of essentially re-distributing a large part of the funds back to some of those members and members’ dependents. That cannot be considered to be philanthropic in the sense of benevolence to the world at large, a love of mankind etc.
Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The UT rejected the contention that the FTT applied too narrow an interpretation of philanthropic. Consequently, UGLE’s membership income was standard rated for VAT purposes.
Chestnuts roasting by an open fire…
Roasted nuts in shells are zero rated, but if the shell is removed they become standard rated.
Ho, ho ho… VAT and nuts in the same sentence. Merry Christmas everybody.
HMRC have updated its payments on account (POA) guidance.
What are POA?
These are advance payments towards a business’s VAT bill. They are mandatory.
HMRC will notify a taxpayer to make POA if a business renders VAT returns quarterly, and it owes more than £2.3 million in any period of 12 months or less.
Under the POA arrangement, businesses make interim payments at the end of months two and three for each return quarter. The interim payment is intended to cover part of the overall VAT liability for the that quarter. The balancing payment for the return’s VAT liability will be settled when the business submits its VAT return payment. Quarterly VAT returns are filed online as normal.
POA calculation
HMRC will calculate POA based on a business’s annual VAT liability in the period that it goes over the threshold. The annual VAT liability in that period will be divided by 24 to arrive at an instalment amount.
A taxable person who has been in business for less than 12 months will have POA calculated by HMRC on a pro rata basis.
The payments on account cycle starts in the first quarter after a business exceeds the £2.3 million threshold.
The payments will remain the same until the start of the next annual cycle.
The annual cycle begins in April, May or June depending on which VAT return ‘stagger’ a business is on. HMRC bases the amount of payments during the annual cycle on the liability in the period known as the ‘reference year’.
POA due dates
The due dates for POA are the last working day of the second and third months of every VAT quarter no matter what the period end date is. The seven-day extension for paying electronically does not apply to POA.
POA that are not paid on time will be subject to late payment interest.
Balancing payments are due with the VAT return and must clear HMRC’s bank account by the last working day of the month if standard period end dates are used.
If a business does not make POA or the balancing payment in full and on time HMRC will:
If a business’s VAT liability falls below £2.3 million in the reference year HMRC will remove it from the arrangement six months later.
Alternative to payments on account
If making POA and submitting quarterly VAT returns does not suit a business, it can choose to make VAT returns and payments monthly.
Commentary
As may be seen, it is important to recognise the POA limit and to make payments on time. There is an obvious cash flow impact and plans should be put in place if the VAT turnover is nearing the threshold.