Category Archives: VAT- Output Tax

VAT: The United Carpets case – single of multiple supplies?

By   5 August 2025
0

Latest from the courts

Yet more on composite or separate supplies. As a background to the issue please see previous relevant cases here here here and here. This is the latest the seemingly endless and conflicting series of cases on whether certain supplies are multiple or single. 

In the First-Tier Tribunal case (FTT) of United Carpets (Franchisor) Limited (UC) the issue was whether the appellant made a single supply of flooring and fitting or whether there were two separate supplies

Background

UC is a retailer of flooring (including carpets, underlay, vinyl and wood flooring), as well as beds. A customer who purchased flooring from the appellant was given the option to have an independent, self-employed, fitter to carry out the fitting of the purchased flooring. Each store has a pool of fitters who take on fitting work referred to them by the appellant. If the customer chooses, the fitter will attend the customer’s home to fit the flooring, as directed by the customer. The fitter is then paid by the customer for that work, with the money being received and retained, in full, by the fitter.

The fitters are self-employed and they use their own tools, and drive their own vehicles. They also have their own public liability insurance and are not covered by any of the appellant’s insurance policies. They are not paid by the UC and are not on the UC’s payroll. Since they are self-employed, the fitters have no ongoing obligations to the appellant (or vice versa) and can take on referrals as they please. The appellant does not hold any formal records for the fitters and is not aware of how much the fitters earn by way of the referrals. The rates charged by the fitters are determined by the fitters themselves.

The appellant’s Terms and Conditions of Sale included the following statements:

“The carpet fitting and delivery services provided by the Installer are supplied under a separate contract from the supply of goods to the Customer by the Company (UC). The Company is not responsible for the delivery or fitting of the Goods to the Customer.

“Full payment for the fitting services is due upon fitting payable by cash or cheque directly to the Installer. As detailed on the invoice, payment for the carpet fitting is made directly to the Installer under a separate contractual agreement between the Customer and the Installer…”

The issue

Whether the supplies of fitting services made to customers following the referral to the fitter by UC were supplies made by the self-employed carpet fitters who performed the services, or by UC as a single supply of flooring and fitting such that output tax was due from UC on both the retail sales and the fitting fees.

Contentions

HMRC determined that the appellant had incorrectly treated the supply of carpet fitting and contended that it supplied fitting services via sub-contractors and assessed the appellant for output tax on the fitting fees. HMRC further contend that the appellant made those supplies as part of a single supply, comprising both the flooring and the fitting services. Assessments were raised to recover the deemed underdeclared output tax.

UC’s position is that the self-employed fitters were completely independent, and that the fitting services do not form a single supply. Consequently, VAT was only due on the retail sales and not the fitting income.

Decision

The FTT concluded that there were two separate supplies:

  • the supply of goods by UC to the customer, and
  • the supply of services by the fitter to the customer.

After a review of the contractual documentation and the economic and commercial reality, the court was satisfied that there were three agreements:

  • between UC and the customer
  • between UC and the fitter
  • between the fitter and the customer

The fitter provided services to the end consumer who was liable to pay the fitter.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the assessments were set aside.

A significant amount of case law was cited (a list too long to reproduce here) but included were the cases of: Secret Hotels 2 Limited v HMRC; All Answers Ltd v HMRC and Tolsma v Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting Leeuwarden which were considered and applied.

Commentary

Yet another case on the perennial composite/single supply issue. This case was more straightforward than many on this subject and the outcome was no surprise. It is essential that businesses that potentially deal with agent/principal matters or make supplies at different VAT rates consider their position. Both contracts, other documentation and the commercial reality need to be considered. We recommend that in such circumstances a review is carried out specifically to establish the proper VAT position .

 A VAT Did you know?

By   22 July 2025
0

Sweetened rice cakes are zero-rated, but savoury flavoured ones are VATable. 

BUT… The problem area is salted rice cakes. Lightly salted cakes are considered to require further preparation before consumption (and are therefore zero-rated) whereas more heavily salted rice cakes do not and are standard rated. However, there is no guideline as to where this borderline falls .

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: Holiday Lets – don’t get caught out

By   10 July 2025
0
Further to the usual complexity with VAT and property, I have been increasingly asked about the VAT position of holiday lets, so, with the holiday season in full swing, this is a timely piece on the subject.

All residential letting is exempt… except holiday lets, which are standard rated at 20%. So, what is the difference? After all a house is a house, but the VAT treatment depends on how the property is advertised or “held out”.

If a property is held out for holiday accommodation, then the rental income is taxable.

What is holiday accommodation?

Holiday accommodation includes, but is not restricted to; any house, flat, chalet, villa, beach hut, tent, caravan or houseboat. Accommodation advertised or held out as suitable for holiday or leisure use is always treated as holiday accommodation. Also, increasingly, it is common for farms and estates to have cottages and converted barns within their grounds, which are exploited as furnished holiday lets so this use must be recognised for VAT purposes. Residential accommodation that just happens to be situated at a holiday resort is not necessarily holiday accommodation.

This treats holiday lets the same way as hotels, inns and B&B were VAT applies, which is fair.

Off-season lettings

If holiday accommodation is let during off-season, it should be treated as exempt from VAT provided it is let as residential accommodation for more than 28 days and holiday trade in the area is clearly seasonal.

What does this mean?

If the letting business exceeds the VAT registration threshold, currently £90,000, it must register for VAT. This usually means that either the business would lose a sixth of its income to HMRC or its letting fees would increase by 20% – which is not usually an option in a particularly price sensitive market. The only upside to registration is that VAT incurred on costs relating to the letting (input tax) would be recoverable. This may be on expenditure such as; agents’ fees, maintenance, refurbishments, laundry, websites and advertising etc.

Agents

If a property owner provides a property to a holiday letting agent and the agent itself provides the letting directly to the end users, this does not avoid the standard rating, even if the agent pays a guaranteed rent to the freeholder. This can catch some property owners out.

Sale of the property

When the owner sells the property, although it may have been used for standard rated purposes, the sale is usually treated as exempt. However, zero rating may be available for the first sale or long lease if it is a new dwelling with no occupancy restrictions. The sale of a “pure” holiday property is likely to be standard rated if it is less than three years old. To add to the complexity, it is also possible that the sale may qualify as a VAT free Transfer Of A Going Concern (TOGC).  These are important distinctions because they determine, not only if VAT is chargeable, but, if the sale is exempt, there is usually a clawback of input tax previously claimed, potentially visa the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS).

Overseas properties

A final point: please do not forget overseas property lets. My article here sets out the tax risks.

Summary

There are a lot of VAT pitfalls for a business providing holiday lettings. But for a single site business, unless the property is large or very high end, it is likely that the income will below £90,000 and VAT can be ignored. However, it is important to monitor income and costs to establish whether:

  • registration is required
  • voluntary registration is beneficial (usually, but not exclusively, for major refurbishment projects).

A VAT Did you know?

By   30 June 2025
0

Lugworms and maggots are standard rated, unless they are also suitable for human consumption, in which case they may be zero-rated – Yum.

VAT: New guidance – Online Marketplace supplies

By   24 June 2025
0

HMRC issued new guidance for businesses which sell goods using an online marketplace on 20 June 2025. It enables online marketplace (an e-commerce site that connects sellers with buyers where transactions are managed by the website owner) operators to check if a seller is established outside the UK, so that it can establish which party is liable for VAT on sales.

Background

An online marketplace operator is liable for VAT on goods of any value that are both:

  • located in the UK at the point of sale
  • sold by an overseas business through the operator’s online marketplace

The operator needs to establish who is liable for VAT on sales of goods which are facilitated. To confirm this, the operator needs to take all reasonable steps to check whether a seller is established outside the UK. A business is required to keep evidence to show that it has taken all reasonable steps.

This new guidance includes details about how to check where an online marketplace seller is established and provides information about checks and process businesses can put in place. HMRC will review this evidence and will consider all evidence which has been used to establish where the seller is established. In each case, it will consider:

  • what steps were performed, including any that are designed to address the risks of a particular case
  • to what extent steps were appropriate, adequate and timely in relation to addressing the risks identified
  • what the results of the checks indicate
  • whether a business took appropriate action in response to the results

Examples of checks

HMRC give the following examples of types of checks which might be undertaken to determine if an online seller is UK-established:

  • check for a UK principal place of business
  • check that the VAT registration available for the seller matches their legal name and details on HMRC’s Check a UK VAT number tool
  • check that the seller is registered at Companies House with a UK address
  • establish whether directors reside in the UK, eg; as shown on the Companies House register
  • check that payment or financial information shows a UK presence. This can include:
    • UK bank or credit card details
    • UK merchant address attached to the seller bank account
    • other financial data provided by independent payment service providers
  • check other commercially relevant information such as credit checks and other background checks from third party sources
  • check that the device used by the seller has a UK IP address, or check another method of geolocation
  • establish whether the seller uses a phone number with a UK country code

Overview of online sellers

More general guidance from HMRC on online sellers:

The rules aim to avoid VAT evasion by non-UK online sellers.

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.

A VAT Did you know?

By   20 May 2025
0

The sale of ostriches is zero rated, but kangaroos are standard rated. Both are sold as food.

VAT annual statistics updated

By   15 May 2025
0

HMRC has updated its publication on the VAT official statistics from 2023 to 2024. It covers information on VAT receipts in the UK, statistics on the trader population and VAT registrations. The tables and commentary have been updated to reflect recent receipts.

Headlines

  • total VAT receipts in the financial year 2023 to 2024 increased by 7% to £168 billion compared to £158 billion in 2022 to 2023
  • the VAT population in 2023 to 2024 was 2,178,950, with 238,176 new registrations and 273,768 de-registrations in-year
  • total net VAT liability in 2023 to 2024 was £173 billion
  • the wholesale and retail sector was the largest contributor to net VAT liability (32%) with a total of £55 billion
  • traders with an annual turnover of greater than £10 million paid 75% of total net VAT liability (£130 billion).

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.