Tag Archives: court

VAT – The Default Surcharge. What is it, is it fair and will the regime change?

By Marcus Ward 1 December 2015

What is the Default Surcharge?

Default Surcharge is a civil penalty to encourage businesses to submit their VAT returns and pay the tax due on time.

When will a Default Surcharge be issued?

A business is in default if it sends in its VAT return and or the VAT due late. No surcharge is issued the first time a business is late but a warning (a Surcharge Liability Notice) is issued. Subsequent defaults within the following twelve months (the “surcharge period”) may result in a surcharge assessment. Each time that a default occurs the surcharge period will be extended. There is no liability to a surcharge if a nil or repayment return is submitted late, or the VAT due is paid on time but the return is submitted late (although a default is still recorded).

How much is the surcharge?

The surcharge is calculated as a percentage of the VAT that is unpaid at the due date. If no return is submitted the amount of VAT due will be assessed and the surcharge based on that amount. The rate is set at 2 per cent for the first default following the Surcharge Liability Notice, and rises to 5 per cent, 10 per cent and 15 per cent for subsequent defaults within the surcharge period. A surcharge assessment is not issued at the 2 per cent and 5 per cent rates if it is calculated at less than £200 but a default is still recorded and the surcharge period extended. At the 10 per cent and 15 per cent the surcharge will be the greater of the calculated amount or £30.

Specific issues

The default surcharge can be particularly swingeing for a fast growing company. Let’s say that a small company grows quickly. In the early days the administration was rather haphazard, as is often the case, and a number of returns and payments were submitted late. Fast forward and the turnover, and the VAT payable, has grown significantly. Being late at this time means that the amount of default surcharge is considerably higher than when the original default which created the surcharge took place. This leads us onto whether the surcharge is proportionate.

A business with cashflow difficulties may well ask whether it should be penalised by HMRC for having those difficulties; which of course will add to the problem.

Proportionality

The existing, long-standing default surcharge regime has always had issues with the principle of proportionality. The regime has regularly been challenged in the Courts.

Is it proportionate that a same penalty is applied for a payment which is one day late and one which is one year late? This is a matter which has concerned both HMRC and the Courts for a number of years.

In the Upper Tribunal case of Total Technology (Engineering) Ltd the Judge concluded that it was possible for an individual surcharge to be disproportionate, but that the system as a whole was not fundamentally flawed. It is also worth noting that in In Equoland judgment the judge stated that a penalty which is automatic and does not take into account the circumstances is at the least tending towards being disproportionate. The default surcharge is automatic and it is one of the few penalties that cannot be mitigated in any circumstances.

Defence against a surcharge

In order to have a surcharge withdrawn it is necessary to demonstrate that a business had a reasonable excuse for the default.

This is a subject of an article on its own. Certain factors, like relaying on a third party are not accepted as a reasonable excuse. HMRC state that a business will not be in default if they, or the independent tribunal, agree that there is a reasonable excuse for failing to submit a VAT Return and/or payment on time.

There is no legal definition of reasonable excuse but HMRC will look closely at the circumstances that led to the default.

If the circumstance that led to the default were unforeseen and inescapable and a business is able to show that its conduct was that of a conscientious person who accepted the need to comply with VAT requirements, then it may amount to a reasonable excuse.

What sort of circumstances might count as reasonable excuse?

HMRC provide guidelines on circumstances where there might be a reasonable excuse for failing to submit a VAT Return and/or payment on time. These include:

computer breakdown
illness
loss of key personnel
unexpected cash crisis – where funds are unavailable to pay your tax due following the sudden reduction or withdrawal of overdraft facilities, sudden non-payment by a normally reliable customer, insolvency of a large customer, fraud or burglary. A simple lack of money is unlikely to be accepted as a reasonable excuse.
loss of records

Latest

A recent discussion document sought views from businesses and individuals on potential improvements to how HMRC applies penalties (including the default surcharge) for failing to pay what is owed or to meet deadlines for returns or registration.

HMRC is considering whether and how it should differentiate between those who deliberately and persistently fail to meet administrative deadlines or to pay what they should on time, and those who make occasional and genuine errors for which other responses might be more appropriate.

In the document HMRC highlight two issues with the current VAT default surcharge regime. The first is the concern that while the absence of penalty for the initial offence in a 12 month period gives business the chance to get processes right, some customers simply ignore this warning.

The second concern is the issue of proportionality which fails to distinguish between payments that are one or two days late or many months late.

In my view, it is likely that in the near future we will hear proposals for the system being amended. I think we may anticipate the introduction of mitigation and suspension.

VAT Compound Interest – Latest

By Marcus Ward 24 November 2015

Proposed introduction of a new tax.

The Littlewoods case is slowly making its way through the court system with the CJEU ruling that there is a right to the taxpayer of adequate indemnity in respect of tax incorrectly collected via a mistake of law. There are myriad claims to which this will apply, especially “Fleming” claims where they covered a significant period of time a number of years ago.

HMRC has now applied to Supreme Court’s decision for permission to appeal the decision and we expect the Supreme Court’s verdict within the next month.

HMRC appear very concerned that it will ultimately be required to pay large amounts of interest to taxpayers who have suffered as a result of HMRC applying the relevant law incorrectly. Consequently, it has announced that the Summer Finance Bill 2015 will impose a 45% corporation tax charge on compound interest. There will be no right of set off or deduction for other losses. HMRC will withhold the corporation tax from any payment of interest made. This will take effect on 21 October 2015 (although the relevant legislation will not become law until 2016 indicating that HMRC is indeed running scared).

It is understood that there are a number of parties currently working on ways to challenge the legality of the proposed legislation.

Action

Claims already submitted

No immediate action is required, although it may be beneficial to review the basis of the claim, how it was made and what the status of it is currently.

New claims

For businesses which have received repayments due to HMRC error, it may be worthwhile reviewing the position to determine whether a claim for compound interest is appropriate and if so, to make a claim as soon as possible. We would, of course, be happy to advise on this and assist where necessary.

VAT – An important ECJ case which will affect charities – Sveda

By Marcus Ward 28 October 2015

A benefit to charities?

In the case of Sveda (C-126/14) which was recently heard by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) the issue was whether input tax was recoverable on the construction of a recreational woodland path which ended at a shop that Sveda owned and made taxable supplies from. Full case here

90% of the construction costs were met by Grant received from the Lithuanian Ministry of Agriculture on the condition that the path was made available free of charge to the public for a period of five years. There was no dispute that the grant was outside the scope income for Sveda.

The authorities disallowed the VAT claimed on 100% of the costs on the grounds there was no link to taxable supplies since free access is a non-economic activity because there was no consideration paid to use the path. Alternatively, there was a contention that only 10% of the VAT should be reclaimed, since the company only met 10% of the cost.

Sveda argued that, although the path could be used free of charge, the purpose was increase taxable sales from its shop (food, drink and souvenirs). This meant there was a link between the VAT incurred and its economic activity as a whole.

The ECJ rejected the view that the input tax should be blocked in its entirety or in part. Its view was that the expenditure was incurred with the intention of carrying out an economic taxable activity, even if there was no direct link to any one specific supply and use of the path was free. The VAT was overhead VAT. No exempt supplies (that would break the chain of deduction) took place.

So, although the path was used for a non-business activity (free access) the ECJ deemed that the input tax incurred on the costs of building the path was deductible. As there was a link to economic activities the VAT is treated as overhead and, in this case, fully recoverable.

Although Sveda is a commercial company and the decision will no doubt be of assistance to commercial entities, there may be a significant impact on charities and NFP organisations. This judgment highlights the basic right to deduct VAT where a link to taxable supplies made by a taxable person can be demonstrated. It does not matter whether the link is to one taxable supply or to all the taxable economic activities. The non-business use of the asset did not prevent recovery. The outcome would no doubt have been different if Sveda was only involved in building the path and just providing free access to it without also selling items form the shop.

On a personal note, this case has echoes of one I took to Tribunal for The Imperial War Museum – with a similar successful outcome. HMRC views here

Let’s hope it will be just as useful for the taxpayer as the landmark IWM decision.

If you think you, or a charity you are aware of, or a client of yours may be affected by this decision, please contact me. This may be the case if the charity undertakes both business and non-activities. I would always counsel that a charity should have its activities reviewed from a VAT perspective. There are usually savings that could be made.

VAT – Trading in Bitcoin ruled exempt by ECJ

By Marcus Ward 22 October 2015

VAT – Trading in Bitcoin ruled exempt by ECJ

Further to my article of 13 March 2014 here

The European Court of Justice (ECJ), the highest court of appeal for EC matters, has ruled that trading in digital, such as bitcoin, is exempt. this is on the basis that they are a method of payment with no intrinsic value, like goods or commodities. They are therefore covered by the exemption relating to “currency, bank notes and coins used as legal tender” – (Article 135 (1) of the VAT directive).

This confirms that the UK authority’s approach is correct and that the VAT treatment applied in Germany, Poland and Sweden where those authorities treated the relevant transactions as subject to VAT, is erroneous.

This is good news for the UK as it is a big (if not the biggest) player in the bitcoin sector.

VAT – Latest from the courts on multiple or composite supplies

By Marcus Ward 14 October 2015

In the seemingly endless and conflicting series of cases on whether certain supplies are multiple (at different VAT rates) or single, the latest decision from the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) this week doesn’t really clarify matters.

In Metropolitan International Schools

The Appellant provided distance learning courses. The courses in question included various trade courses, such as electrical and plumbing courses. One single price was charged for the courses. Customers were provided with manuals that described the particular subject matter on a step-by-step basis. The Appellant’s aim was that the manuals should be entirely comprehensive, and that the information contained in them would be all that was required to enable customers to master the particular subjects. There was no additional provision of classroom tuition. Tutor support was provided via phone calls or emails. No examinations were provided, nor any degrees, qualifications or diplomas. The courses were generally designed to prepare customers to take third party examinations.

Both the appellant and HMRC contended that the supply of distance learning courses was a single supply. Unsurprisingly, the appellant thought that the supply was of zero rated printed matter, and HMRC contended that it was a single supply of (non-exempt) education so all of the supply was standard rated.

Among others, the main point was whether the Appellant’s supplies of distance learning courses were single or multiple supplies and, assuming that the provision was of one single composite supply, whether that supply was a supply of zero-rated books coupled with ancillary services or standard-rated education (with the books being ancillary).

This meant that, if a single supply, it was necessary to consider which element was predominant.

The FTT held that the end result sought by customers from the supply made by the Appellant was to learn, and to accomplish that aim essentially by reading the vast amount of printed material. The Appellant’s essential supply was the sale of manuals and all of the other features of the supply were appropriately regarded as add-on ancillary functions. The Tribunal therefore held that there was only one single supply in the present case and that it took its nature from that of the principal supply, namely the zero-rated provision of books. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that there was one single supply of zero-rated books.

It should be noted that The Tribunal found it difficult to rationalise all of the relevant case law authorities and to arrive, with confidence, at the correct tests to apply in identifying the nature of the single supply. Indeed, the Tribunal observed that this decision may well lead to appeals to a higher court, and quite possibly a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union for guidance.

So… are we any further on with this matter? Not really.

VAT and Insurance – The Riskstop case

By Marcus Ward 12 October 2015

Latest from the courts

Generally, supplies of insurance and insurance broking are exempt from VAT. However, it is important to look at exactly what is being provided as there is no “blanket” exemption.

The latest First Tier Tribunal case of Riskstop Consulting Limited illustrates the precise tests that must be applied and met in order for exemption to apply.

VAT and sales promotion vouchers – Latest

By Marcus Ward 5 October 2015

HMRC has appealed to the Upper Tribunal against the First-Tier Tribunal’s decision in the Associated Newspapers matter. The FTT decided that Associated Newspapers could recover input tax incurred on vouchers given away in its sales promotion schemes.

A previous decision by the FTT that no output tax is due on the vouchers when given away as part of a sales promotion is subject to an appeal and both cases will be heard together this week.

This is likely to have a significant impact on the VAT treatment of vouchers and sales promotion schemes and will be watched with interest by many businesses. The outcome may also affect staff incentive schemes where vouchers are provided.

The interaction between vouchers and VAT has had a turbulent past and the matter is complex. I hope that we obtain some clarity from the courts before too long.

VAT – Proof of evidence of Intra-EC supplies

By Marcus Ward 23 September 2015

A B2B supply of goods from one Member State to another (a dispatch) is VAT free (with the recipient dealing with acquisition tax in the Member State of receipt). However, in order to VAT free treatment to apply evidence that the goods have moved cross-border must be provided and satisfy the authorities in the Member State of dispatch.

The level of evidence and type of documents required to support the right to VAT free treatment varies significantly between Member States. This has led to confusion and difficulties for businesses.

As a result the EC VAT Expert Group* have, this week, produced a paper (paper 46) named “‘Proof of evidence of Intra-EU supplies’” Here: 46 – Proof of IC Supplies

As well as identifying the wide discretion afforded to Member States as to the type of documents required, it notes that this discretion and lack of clarity often leads to disproportionate compliance burdens for businesses involved in the cross border supply of goods. This also results in the fundamental principle of fiscal neutrality and the free movements of goods being impaired.

In summary

The Group’s findings may be summarised:

Diversity of documentation

Most Member States rely on a myriad of documents which may not be listed in national legislation. Such diversity is a problem and may require businesses to provide documentary evidence that cannot be reasonably obtained. This practice does not reconcile with principles established by the ECJ. The paper adds that tax authorities tend to focus on certain formalities and not permit alternative evidence.

Local initiatives

The paper notes that based on Article 131 of the VAT Directive, and often in light of the fight against fraud, tax authorities are introducing local initiatives. The compatibility of these with the EC framework may be questioned and is causing increasing burdens and costs on legitimate taxpayers.

Importance given by tax authorities to the “knowledge test”

The paper considers that the level of demand from tax authorities to document intra-EC trade should not be upgraded because of fraud cases. Documentary evidence is of a type fraudsters would typically provide. The wide margin of interpretation left to tax authorities and judges regarding concepts such as “good faith” means that further guidance may be required. This, however, should not extend up to a requirement for suppliers to show evidence to authorities that their customers acted in good faith.

Diversity of practices; timing versus legal certainty

The diversity of approaches across EC Member States generates costs and increase risks for businesses operating in different Member States.

Conclusion

The paper considered some recent ECJ case law on cross-border transactions and concluded VAT free treatment should be granted to the supplier when:

1) It demonstrates that the transaction meets the substantive criteria of that provision, namely that it is entered into with another taxable person in a Member State other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods begins. This would be done with the supplier holding at least three non-contradictory documents or elements certifying the transport or dispatch to another Member State.

2) In this context, a reasonable customer assessment could be expected from taxpayers when tax authorities audit whether the transactions are taking place in the context of fraud and/or abuse.

Next Steps

It is recommended that new guidance could be adopted in an Implementing Regulation or an explanatory note to the relevant Articles in the VAT Directive could be prepared by the Commission.

It will be interesting to see if these recommendations are adopted. It would make life a lot more straightforward for businesses who trade cross-border in the EC. Although the UK has one of the most practical regimes in this respect, even genuine movements of goods from the UK can result in an unexpected and unwelcome VAT charge because of a lack of specific documentation.

* The VAT Expert Group assists and advises the European Commission on VAT matters. Details here

VAT- Is the Upper Tribunal bound by High Court decisions?

By Marcus Ward 6 May 2015

Upper Tribunal versus High Court

In the recent case of Meena Seddon Settlement which involved Inheritance Tax, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) was required to decide whether the Upper Tribunal is bound by decisions made in the High Court. The FTT decision will doubtless affect VAT cases in the future.

It decided to follow a precedent set by the Upper Tribunal over an earlier decision by the High Court.

The taxpayer contended that the matter should be decided on the basis of a previous High Court decision. HMRC argued on the basis of a later Upper Tribunal decision. In normal circumstances, a later decision should take precedence over the earlier if both decisions have the same authority and have fully considered the previous judgments. However, if the taxpayer was correct to say that the Upper Tribunal was bound by precedents set by the High Court, the later decision could be disregarded as being wrong in law.

The FTT decided that it was the intention of Parliament that the Upper Tribunal was not bound to follow High Court precedents. This was notwithstanding the fact that a High Court could have a supervisory role over the Upper Tribunal in cases of judicial review. Therefore, it determined the case on the authority of the later Upper Tribunal decision in favour of HMRC.

VAT Planning Overview – The Four “A”s

By Marcus Ward 23 March 2015

To a degree, VAT planning may be considered as something of an abstract concept. It may be straightforward, or very complex, but what does all successful VAT planning have in common? What process should be applied in order to get the right solution and to ensure that nothing is missed? Well this is my technique and it helps me to focus on what is necessary:

The planning process may be broken down into four distinct elements:

Planning process – The four As

Ascertainment
Analysis
Alternatives
Action

One must initially obtain all relevant information and consider the appropriate legislation, case law and HMRC documents etc – Ascertainment

In my experience, the most difficult part of this is obtaining all of the relevant information. It is not always clear if you have received everything available – so it is often difficult to establish what is relevant and what is not. The skill is asking the right questions of course. Any competent VAT adviser should be able to “get the answer” if (s)he has the full picture.

Then one must analyse the information – Analysis

Whether it is reading contracts closely, considering EC legislation, reviewing audit trails, searching case law, looking at documentation or carrying out calculations a full analysis is vital in the process of delivering accurate, useful and relevant advice.

The next step is to use the analysis to construct some various alternatives on how to proceed – Alternatives

The most appropriate solution may present itself immediately, or various structures may need to be considered in detail in order to find some workable alternatives. It is important not to miss anything at this point and to communicate properly with one’s client. Consideration is required of a client’s attitude to, inter alia; complexity, risk, time invested and tax in general in order to properly tailor VAT advice.

Finally, consideration is given to the alternatives and a decision made on what action to take – Action

This is another point at which good communication with one’s client is important. The client needs to understand the technicalities, the risks, the impact on business, the resources required etc in order to make an informed decision. A good adviser will also be aware of the appropriate level of assistance required with implementation. I also find it helps if the worst case scenario is explained in each alternative and the level of resistance form HMRC one is likely to encounter. I also always bear in mind that most people do not “speak VAT jargon”, spend their waking hours studying indirect tax legislation or reviewing VAT cases, so clear and straightforward English is needed! (Also, I find my diagrams and flowcharts created at meetings a help, even if just to amuse clients with my artistic skills!)