Category Archives: VAT- Output Tax

VAT: Are poppadoms crisps? The Walkers Snack Foods case

By Marcus Ward 4 June 2025

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 Marcus Ward 20 May 2025

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

VAT annual statistics updated

By Marcus Ward 15 May 2025

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 Marcus Ward 12 May 2025

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 Planning: design and build

By Marcus Ward 6 May 2025

Planning

The construction of a new house, and the materials used by the contractor to build it, are zero-rated. However, architect and other building professional fees, eg; surveyors, supervisors, engineers, project or construction management and consultants, are always standard rated; even in respect of a new build.

This will represent an absolute VAT cost to:

individuals
entities which will rent the house(s) after completion
housing associations (in some circumstances)
certain entities which are not in business
any entity which will use the building(s) for other exempt purposes
entities which do not sell the house(s) – so onward zero-rating is not possible
any entity which cannot recover all of its input tax for various reasons

Aims

If it is not possible to structure matters so that these fees can be recovered (there are a number ways to do this, but not all will be available to all parties) then advisers need to consider ways to remove the VAT charge – this may also be preferable for cashflow purposes even if full input tax recovery is possible.

VAT Planning

Design and build – the steps

the housebuilder creates a separately VAT registered design and build company (newco)
newco purchases the professional services and construction services and incurs the VAT on these (the construction element is zero-rated)
these supplies are incorporated into a single onward supply of zero-rated design and build services to the housebuilder (a bundle) – the professional services are a cost component of the construction
zero rating applies to the supply to the housebuilder as the predominant supply of the bundle is the construction of new dwellings
newco recovers the input tax incurred on professional fees etc, as it relates to an onward taxable supply
newco is in a repayment position and HMRC refunds the VAT incurred on the costs – often after a pre-cred query

It is also possible to use an independent design and build company, or engage a contractor to carry out both the design and construction elements of the project with a similar result.

Considerations

It is important to implement the planning correctly. This means that appropriate contracts must be in place, the operation is carried out on sound business principles (actual supplies are made and it is not simply the moving of money).

Arrangements

In order to evidence the proper commerciality of the structure, it is important to bear in mind that:

appropriate contracts are in place
proper invoicing is required
the arrangements are at arm’s length
a profit for newco would emphasise the commercial aspect
all parties’ accounts reflect the transactions
newco combines all of its costs (including overheads/admin etc) and supplies them to the housebuilder as part of a single package of zero-rated design and build services
newco acts as principal and not agent (that the professional services are not disbursements)
the newco and the housebuilder are not in the same VAT group
care should be taken if loans are required (they may compromise arm’s length and genuine commercial contentions)

HMRC’s view

In HMRC’s Internal Guidance Manual VCONST02720 it states that:

“Zero-rating the construction of buildings: services excluded from zero rating: design and build

Architectural or design services supplied as part of a design and build contract can be treated as part of the zero-rated supply of construction services.

A typical design and build contract will require the contractor to complete the design for the works and complete the construction of the works.

In such circumstances HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) sees the design element as a cost component of the construction and not as a separate supply of architectural services which would be liable to VAT at the standard rate”.

Consequently, this planning is recognised and accepted by HMRC, however, it is important that it is applied effectively so it is difficult for HMRC to challenge.

A VAT Did you know?

By Marcus Ward 28 April 2025

Grass seed is zero-rated, but turf is standard rated.

VAT Success Stories

By Marcus Ward 22 April 2025

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: Construction Services Reverse Charge – New HMRC Manual

By Marcus Ward 8 April 2025

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 Marcus Ward 26 March 2025

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.

VAT treatment of lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed goods

By Marcus Ward 24 March 2025

Is output tax due on goods that, for various reasons, cannot be sold, or are sold at a discount?

HMRC says that the VAT treatment depends on whether or not there was actually a supply of goods, what happened to them, who was responsible for them at the time and whether a VAT invoice was issued. The value of any supply will also need to recognise any credit given to the customer.

So, as often is the case with the tax, the answer is: “It depends”. So, let’s look at the categories to find out:

Lost goods

This depends on who lost the goods.

Sometimes a business will sell goods to a customer, but they did not receive them because they went astray. This could happen, for example, if goods are lost in the post.

customer is responsible for loss

If the customer is responsible for any losses before the goods are delivered, then VAT is due on the full amount of the sale.

supplier responsible for loss

If the supplier is responsible for any losses before the goods are delivered, then the way VAT is dealt with will depend on whether an invoice has been issued.

If an invoice has been issued, output tax is due on the amount invoiced, less the value of any credit given to the customer. So, if credit has been given a full refund, no VAT will be due.

If no invoice has been issued, there is no VAT due. This is because nothing has been supplied. It is prudent to make a note in the business records that the goods were lost an no invoice was raised.

Stolen goods

If goods are stolen from a business’ premises no VAT is due – as long as any customer has not been invoiced. HMRC are very likely to examine such circumstances as it is sometimes used as an ‘excuse’ for underdeclarations. Consequently, we always advise businesses to hold as much evidence as possible to support a claim that theft has taken place.

Goods stolen from a supplier’s premises after they have been sold to a customer- If the contract with the customer means that they are responsible for the goods while they are on the supplier’s premises – there has been a supply and output tax is due.

If the customer is not responsible for the goods when they are stolen, then if:

a VAT invoice issued – VAT is due on the amount invoiced (but subject to subsequent amendment to the quantum)
no invoice has been issued – there is no VAT due because there is no supply

NB: If cash is stolen from a business, this does not reduce the value of output tax on any supply.

Fraud

If goods are lost due to fraud it can be difficult to demonstrate or evidence. To avoid paying output tax on goods lost to a fraud a business is required to:

report the incident to the police
contact HMRC and give them the case details – this will entail providing a crime or case reference number given by the police. HMRC will consider each case and advise appropriately

Damaged goods

Damaged goods may be sold on at a discounted price, or they might have some scrap value. Output tax is due on whatever income is received for the goods sold. If an insurer makes a payment in respect of the damage, no VAT is due on this income.

Destroyed goods

If goods are destroyed such that they cannot be sold, and these are handed over (or what is left of them) to the insurer, no VAT is due on the disposal. Furthermore, there is no output tax due on any money received from the insurer. HMRC will need to see evidence of the insurance claim, and details of any insurance payment, on their next inspection of the business.

Records

Maintaining meticulous records is crucial for VAT compliance and it is very likely that such issues will be examined closely on HMRC inspections. This is because unexpected reductions in output tax will usually trigger enquiries. Input tax claims for the original purchase of the goods will be unaffected, so any mark-up type exercise will flag up the discrepancy.