Tag Archives: court

VAT – Compound or multiple supplies? Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 17 March 2015

In Colaingrove Limited the Upper Tribunal (UT) this week was required to decide whether the supply of electricity to a mobile home was an independent supply, or just one element of part of an overall supply of holiday accommodation.

This is a notoriously difficult area of VAT as the recent case of WM Morrison Supermarket Limited (“Morrisons”) demonstrates. In this case disposable barbecues (standard rated) were sold with charcoal (reduced rated when sold independently) and the UT decided that it was not possible to carve out the reduced rated element form the overall supply so the whole supply was standard rated.

In Colaingrove a flat-rate charge was made to holidaymakers who paid it as part of the hire charge for self-catering accommodation in mobile homes. The appellant argued that the electricity charge was separately identifiable and quantifiable and should consequently be treated as a reduced rated (5% rather than 20%) independent supply.

The logic in Morrisons was applied in this case and the UT ruled that the charge for the electricity should properly be included in the price of the standard rated holiday accommodation. The charge should not be split out, so the entire charge for the accommodation was standard rated, including the specified sum charged for the electricity.

The judge acknowledged that this case was not an easy one to decide and that the arguments advanced on behalf of the taxpayer were both powerful and attractive. It would seem likely that an appeal to the Court of Appeal will be made.

This case further illustrates that care must be taken when analysing the VAT treatment of supplies. There is significant case law on this matter, but there still remains a certain overlap and sometimes conflicting opinions. The precise facts of the matter are very important when determining whether supplies are compound or multiple for VAT purposes.

Overview

Whether there is a compound or multiple supply is determined by the tests set out in the Card Protection Plan case, namely; firstly, whether there is a principal element of the supply to which all other parts are ancillary and, secondly, whether, in the eyes of the customer, the ancillary element provides a means of better enjoying the principal element. If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then there is a single supply.

VAT – Are e-books books? Update on ECJ’s decision 5 March 2015

By Marcus Ward 5 March 2015

Books are zero rated for VAT purposes, but only (currently) if they are of the traditional dead tree variety. The zero rating does not extend to e-books which are standard rated for VAT. There has been a long standing argument between EC Member States (and between other interested parties) that similar content should not be taxed at different rates solely depending on the method of delivery. This argument is about to be tested in the courts. The UK is not permitted by the EC to extend its current zero rating for printed matter, however, it is expected that the contention in this case will be that the inclusion of new products will not extend the zero rating, but rather the development of technology has created a supply that should be covered by the existing zero rating legislation.

If it is accepted by the courts that all types of book should attract the same rate of VAT, it may mean that the rate will be equalised upwards. So, by the end of the year we could be looking at VAT of 5% being added to books, newspapers and other printed matter which was hitherto VAT free – A “tax on learning” as previous protests had it when there was a threat to tax free books.

UPDATE

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has today ruled that France and Luxembourg must raise their reduced VAT rates on sales of e-book. This will conclude ongoing disputes (see above) between EC countries over whether e-books may be treated similarly to printed books at the nil or reduced rates. The UK and Germany were the main protagonists in challenging those Member States where e-books have been treated the same as printed versions.

Initially, Luxembourg and France began reclassifying e-books at the same rate as printed books – 3% and 5.5% in 2012. Subsequently, Italy and Malta joined them at the start of 2015, reducing the rates to 4% and 5%.

These rates where challenged by the UK and Germany who asked the EC to impose rules to ensure that e-books could not take advantage of the printed book rates. Today, the ECJ published its ruling, stating that since e-books do not have the same physical characteristics as printed books and therefore cannot benefit from the printed book reduced VAT rules.

This decision does seem to go against common sense,but the ECJ’s hands were somewhat tied by the VAT rules which were introduced before e-books existed.

VAT Penalties: A Discussion Document by HMRC

By Marcus Ward 11 February 2015

A discussion document is seeking views by 11 May about potential improvements to how HMRC applies penalties for failing to pay what is owed or to meet deadlines for returns or registration.

As HMRC designs a tax system for the modern, digital world, it wants to ensure that its approach to penalties also keeps up to date with both technology and behavioural science. 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.

HMRC is looking for feedback from individuals and businesses. The purpose of the discussion is to seek views on the policy design and any suitable possible alternatives, before consulting later on a specific proposal for reform.

I look at the main points below and identify where changes to the penalty system are most likely to be made.

The document may be accessed here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/400211/150130_HMRC_Penalties_a_Discussion_Document_FINAL_FOR_PUBLICATION__2_.pdf

Summary

In terms of Indirect Tax there are two main areas which HMRC is focussing on:

VAT default surcharge – HMRC highlights 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.

Excise regulatory penalties – This also considers proportionality, noting that regulatory failures can lead to very large penalties, because the penalty is fixed as a percentage of the duty. The size of such penalties might be viewed as disproportionate.

The existing, long-standing default surcharge regime has always had issues with the principle of proportionality. The regime has been challenged in the Courts – notably in the Trinity Mirror Plc case (soon to be heard at the UT) where the earlier FTT allowed the appeal against a default surcharge on the grounds of proportionality.

If you would like assistance in making a representation please contact me.

The penalty regime….the dark side of VAT!

By Marcus Ward 9 February 2015

I have made a lot of references to penalties in my other articles. So what are they, and how much could they cost if a business gets it wrong?

HMRC detail three categories of inaccuracy. These are significant, as each has its own range of penalty percentages. If an error is found to fall within a lower band, then a lower penalty rate will apply. Where the taxpayer has taken ‘reasonable care,’ even though an error has been made, then usually HMRC will not apply a penalty.

Penalty Categories

– An error, when reasonable care not taken: 30%;

– An error which is deliberate, but not concealed: 70%;

– An error, which is deliberate and concealed: 100%.

Unhelpfully, there is no definition of ‘reasonable care’. However, HMRC have said that they would not expect the same level of knowledge or expertise from a self-employed person, as from a large multi-national. HMRC expect that, where an issue is unclear, advice is sought, and a record maintained of that advice. They also expect that, where an error is made, it is adjusted, and HMRC notified promptly. They have specifically stated that merely to adjust a return will not constitute a full disclosure of an error. Therefore a penalty may still be applicable.

The amount of the penalty is calculated by applying the appropriate penalty rate (above) to the ‘Potential Lost Revenue’ or PLR. This is essentially the additional amount of VAT due or payable, as a result of the inaccuracy, or the failure to notify an under-assessment. Special rules apply where there are a number of errors, and they fall into different penalty bands.

Defending a penalty

The percentage penalty may be reduced by a range of ‘defences:’

– Telling; this includes admitting the document was inaccurate, or that there was an under-assessment, disclosing the inaccuracy in full, and explaining how and why the inaccuracies arose;

– Helping; this includes giving reasonable help in quantifying the inaccuracy, giving positive assistance rather than passive acceptance, actively engaging in work required to quantify the inaccuracy, and volunteering any relevant information;

– Giving Access; this includes providing documents, granting requests for information, allowing access to records and other documents.

Further, where there is an ‘unprompted disclosure’ of the error, HMRC have power to reduce the penalty further. This measure is designed to encourage businesses to have their VAT returns reviewed.

A disclosure is unprompted if it is made at a time when a person had no reason to believe that HMRC have discovered or are about to discover the inaccuracy. The disclosure will be treated as unprompted even if at the time it is made, the full extent of the error is not known, as long as fuller details are provided within a reasonable time.

HMRC have included a provision whereby a penalty can be suspended for up to two years. This will occur for a careless inaccuracy, not a deliberate inaccuracy. HMRC will consider suspension of a penalty where, given the imposition of certain conditions, the business will improve its accuracy. The aim is to improve future compliance, and encourage businesses which genuinely seek to fulfil their obligations.

Appealing a penalty

HMRC have an internal reconsideration procedure. A business should apply to this in the first instance. If the outcome is not satisfactory, the business can pursue an appeal to the Tribunal. A business can appeal whether a penalty is applicable, the amount of the penalty, a decision not to suspend a penalty, and the conditions for suspension.

The normal time limit for penalties to four years. Additionally, where there is deliberate action to evade VAT, a 20 year limit applies. In particular, this applies to a loss of VAT which arises as a result of a deliberate inaccuracy in a document submitted by that person. These are just the penalties for making errors on VAT returns. HMRC have plenty more for anything from late registration to issuing the wrong paperwork.

Help

In my view there is generally a very good chance of success in a business challenging a penalty. Each case should at least be reviewed by an adviser, and experience insists that a robust defence often results in full or part mitigation. We have a very good track record in appealing HMRC decisions and have taken cases right up to High Court. However, most cases can be settled before they get to Tribunal, and indeed, the greatest chance of success is usually at the beginning of the process before HMRC become entrenched.

Crime doesn’t pay……..VAT? Is there tax on illegal activities?

By Marcus Ward 26 January 2015

A number of people have been surprised to find that crime does pay tax, thank you very much. It seems bad enough that the police should chase and catch you, put you in the dock and send you to prison, without finding that your first visitor is HMRC….

Dodgy perfume?

Goodwin & Unstead were in business selling counterfeit perfume. They were also up-front about what they were doing. Unstead claimed that “Everything I can carry in my vehicle, everything I trade in and sell, is a complete copy of the real thing. I do not sell goods as the real thing. In fact I sell my goods for a quarter of the original price. I am not out to defraud or con the public. I only appeal to the poseurs in life.”

The real manufacturers might have sued these men for passing off the product of their chemistry experiments in trademarked bottles, but it was HMRC who sent them to jail – for failing to register and pay VAT on their sales. The amount they should have collected was estimated at £750,000, which shows that they must have appealed to a great many poseurs.
.
If they had paid the VAT, Customs would have had no problem with them. Their customers must have been reasonably satisfied – if your counterfeit perfume smells something like the real thing, why worry?
They tried to get out of jail with an ingenious argument – if the sale of the perfume was illegal, surely there shouldn’t be VAT on it. It wasn’t legitimate business activity, so it wasn’t something that ought to be taxable. The European Court had no time for this. They pointed out that it would give lawbreakers an advantage over lawful businesses; they wouldn’t have to charge VAT. The judges suggested that maybe people would even deliberately break the law so they could get out of tax; in this case, the only thing that made the trade illegal was treading on someone’s trademark rights, and that was something that might happen at any time in legitimate businesses. The judges said that VAT would apply to any trade which competed in a legal marketplace, even if the particular sales broke the law for some reason. Counterfeit perfume is VATable because real perfume is too. Of course, Customs have traditionally had two main roles – looking for drug smugglers, and dealing with VAT-registered traders. They have generally treated both with much the same suspicion, but the ECJ made it clear in this case that the two sets of customers are completely separate.

“Personal” services?

Customers paid the escort £130, of which £30 was paid to the agency. VAT on £130 or VAT on £30?

The first hearing before the Tribunal went something like this (this may be using artistic licence, but the published summary implies it was so):

HMRC: “We think the VAT should be on £130 because the escorts are acting as agents of the escort business.”
Trader: “No, it’s just £30, the £100 belongs to the escort and is nothing to do with me.”
Tribunal chairman: “All right, tell me a bit about how the business operates.”
Customs: “No.”
Tribunal chairman: “What?”
Customs: “You don’t want to know.”
Tribunal chairman: “How can I decide whether the escorts are acting as agent or principals without knowing how the business operates?”
Customs: “Don’t go there, just give us a decision.”
Tribunal chairman: “Trader, you tell me how the business operates.”
Trader: “I agree with him, you don’t want to know.”
The Tribunal seems to have been a bit baffled by this. They were aware that Customs had a great deal more evidence which had been collected during the course of a thorough investigation, and they asked the parties to go away and decide whether they might let the Tribunal see a bit more of it so they could make a judgement rather than a guess.

What about drugs then?

It’s well-known that you are allowed to smoke dope in some establishments in Amsterdam, although the Dutch authorities are thinking about restricting this to Netherlands’ residents. They may find that such a rule contravenes the European Law on freedom of movement – under the EU treaty, you can’t be meaner to foreigners than you are to your own people just because they are foreign. That’s a nice idea, but individuals and governments keep trying it on. Anyway, the Coffeeshop Siberie rented space to drug dealers who would sell cannabis at tables for people to take advantage of the relaxed atmosphere. Presumably they are preparing to examine passports or local utility bills before making the sale, if only the Dutch are to be allowed to get stoned. Anyway, the Dutch authorities asked the coffee shop’s owners for VAT on the rent paid by the dealers, and the owners appealed to the ECJ. This time, surely, it was sufficiently illegal. Although the consumption of drugs was tolerated, it was still against the law, and it must therefore be not VATable.
The judges pointed out that the coffee shop was not actually selling drugs. They were just providing the space for other people to sell drugs. Although selling drugs was completely illegal, and there was no legitimate market in cannabis, renting space was a normal business activity. Renting space to someone who did something illegal with it was in the same category as the dodgy perfume sales in Goodwin & Unstead: it was a bit illegal, but not illegal enough. The VAT was still due.

Counterfeiting?
In a German case, the ECJ ruled that the importation of counterfeit money was outside the scope of VAT. The Advocate-General observed that a line must be drawn between, on the one hand, transactions that lie so clearly outside the sphere of legitimate economic activity that, instead of being taxed, they can only be the subject of criminal prosecution, and, on the other hand, transactions which though unlawful must nonetheless be taxed, if only for ensuring in the name of fiscal neutrality, that the criminal is not treated more favourably than the legitimate trader’.

So, there you have it, if you are of a criminal disposition, and you want to avoid VAT, funny money is the way to go. Please note, this does not constitute advice…..!

Holding companies in VAT groups and input tax recovery

By Marcus Ward 29 September 2014

Care must be taken when considering the recoverability of input tax incurred by a holding company.

In the past holding companies which were members of a VAT Group were treated in the same way as any other member of the group. As a result, input tax incurred by the holding company were recoverable by reference the the VAT group’s (as a whole) recovery position.

As a result of the recent Court of Appeal judgement in the case of BAA Ltd HMRC have announced an updated policy HERE

The revised policy is that that input tax is only recoverable by holding companies where it is incurred in the course of an economic activity and there is a direct and immediate link to taxable supplies, This means that a passive holding company cannot now rely solely on its membership of a VAT group to recover input tax. For recovery, the VAT must be incurred in respect of taxable supplies made by the holding company itself.

For information on the impacts on this change – please contact us.

Taxpayer loses in “TNT” claims lead case.

By Marcus Ward 9 July 2014

In the recent FTT case of Zipvit the court considered retrospective claims by businesses in cases where Royal Mail (and Parcelforce) had treated individually negotiated supplies of postage etc as exempt. In the previous ECJ case of TNT it was ruled that these services should have been standard rated. The claims (said to be over £1billion in total stood behind Zipvit) were made on the basis that recipients of these services could reclaim the VAT as input tax that should properly have been charged by the Royal Mail.
The three salient points where:

1. Where the supplies taxable? – On this point the court agreed with the taxpayer, the UK legislation must be read with the same restrictions as in the relevant EC Directive.
2. Was VAT due from, or paid by, the appellant? – Curiously, the judge did not agree with either party and stated that both had been labouring under a misapprehension. No further submissions were requested however, and on this point the appeal failed.
3. Lack of VAT invoice – Although HMRC have the discretion to accept alternative evidence to support an input tax claim, it was not obliged to. The FTT supported HMRC’s refusal and noted that there would, in any event, be a windfall for the applicant. The appeal was dismissed.

The judge commented that it was likely that this case would be appealed to a higher court.
If you have an appeal stood behind Zipvit, or have previously received exempt supplies from Royal Mail or Parcelforce in respect of individually negotiated contracts – please contact us for further information.

Court of Appeal judgement on Subway hot food case

By Marcus Ward 11 June 2014

The CoA has just released its judgement in the Subway hot food case. It concerns the liability of toasted sandwiches (known as Subs) with a hot filling; meatball marinara.

This is a lead case for a large number of claims submitted on the basis that VAT has been over declared on certain supplies of hot takeaway food, that are (it was argued) essentially the same as supplies that have obtained zero rating. The Court has dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal.

If you have any “hot food” claims lodged – please contact us for further information.

Latest from the courts – Trinity Mirror plc

By Marcus Ward 1 May 2014

Good news for taxpayers who submit returns or payments slightly late.

There is an HMRC default surcharge regime whereby a taxpayer is penalised when he fails to lodge a VAT return or payment by the due date (usually one month and one week after the end of the VAT period). There was no dispute over the fact that the return and payment was indeed a day late.

Trinity Mirror plc appealed against a default surcharge of £70,909 at the 2% rate. Broadly, the company was late twice within the same 12 month period. However, the return was just one day late and the company contended that such a surcharge was disproportionate having regard to domestic and EC legislation. Applying the Upper Tribunal’s decision in the case of Total Technology (Engineering) Ltd, the Tribunal held that proportionality had to be assessed at the level of the default surcharge regime as a whole and at the individual level by asking whether the penalty imposed on a particular taxpayer based on the particular facts of its case was proportionate. The Tribunal held that the surcharge in Trinity Mirror plc’s case was unfair as the company had been previously compliant and the default was only one day. The chairman went on to comment that this penalty was harsh and excessive in light of the low gravity of the infringement.

Because there are no provisions for the Tribunal to mitigate such a surcharge, it had no option but to completely set aside the penalty.

This may well provide a taxpayer with an additional weapon in their armoury when dealing with HMRC’s surcharges and provides additional clarity on proportionality in relation to the levying of default surcharges. There already exists a concept of “reasonable excuse” which goes toward mitigation of surcharges and there is significant case law to illustrate what constitutes a reasonable excuse. If you have received what you consider to be an unfair or harsh penalty, please contact us as experience insists that in the majority of cases we have dealt with we have been able to either remove or reduce HMRC’s penalties.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) – What is it? How does it work?

By Marcus Ward 31 March 2014

ADR is the involvement of a third party (a facilitator) to help resolve disputes between HMRC and taxpayers. It is mainly used by SMEs and individuals for VAT purposes. Its aim is to reduce costs for both parties (the taxpayer and HMRC) when disputes occur and to reduce the number of cases that reach statutory review and/or Tribunal.

Practically, a typical process is; HMRC officials and the facilitator meet with the taxpayer and adviser in a room, and agree on what the disputes are. They then retire to two separate, private rooms, and the facilitator goes between the two parties and mediates on a resolution.

ADR is a free service from HMRC and the only costs the taxpayer will incur are fees from their advisers on preparation and any representation they require on the day.

Taking a case to Tribunal is often an expensive, complicated and time consuming option, but until recently, it has been the only option open to a taxpayer to challenge a decision made to HMRC. From personal experience, the number of cases from which HMRC withdraw “on the steps of the court” illustrate a weakness in their legal procedures and possibly a lack of confidence in presenting their cases. This is very frustrating for our clients as they have already incurred costs and invested time when HMRC could have pulled out a lot earlier. Of course, our clients cannot apply for costs. The sheer number of cases going through the Tribunal process means that there are often very long and frustrating delays getting an appeal heard.

Therefore, should we welcome ADR as a watered down version of a Tribunal hearing? Or is it actually something else entirely?

HMRC say that “ADR provides an excellent opportunity for Local Compliance to handle disputes in a modern and collaborative way. It is not intended to replace statutory internal review which is an already established process aimed at resolving disputes without a tribunal hearing. Review looks at legal challenges to decisions whereas ADR is more suitable for disputes where there might be more than one tenable legal outcome”.

After a two-year pilot which shaped the final programme, and was guided by a Working Together group that included CIOT, AAT, ICAEW and legal representatives HMRC concluded that “ADR has shown that many disputes, where an impasse has been reached, can be resolved quickly without having to go to tribunal.” And “ADR is a fair and even-handed way of resolving tax disputes between HMRC and its customers and helps save time and costs for everyone.” Ignoring the dreadful use of the word “customers”… what has the profession made of the scheme?

Hui Ling McCarthy – Barrister has reported “HMRC’s ADR pilot studies have produced extremely encouraging and positive results – owing in large part to HMRC’s willingness to engage with taxpayers, advisers and the professional bodies and vice versa. Taxpayers involved in a dispute with HMRC would be well-advised to take advantage of ADR wherever appropriate”.

So what was the outcome of the two year scheme? The headline is that 58% of cases were successfully resolved, 8% were partially resolved and 34% were unresolved.

Of the fully resolved facilitations –

33% were resolved by educating the taxpayer/agent about the correct tax position.
24% were resolved due to the facilitator obtaining further evidence.
23% were resolved by educating the HMRC decision maker about the correct tax position.
20% were resolved through facilitators restoring communication between both parties.

These figures are encouraging and the conclusion that; well planned, constructive meetings, with the intervention of an HMRC facilitator, do increase the chances of dispute resolution – appear to be well founded.

Further, the fact that the project team saw no evidence of any demand from HMRC, taxpayers or their agents for access to external mediators and that there is also conclusive evidence from taxpayers that HMRC facilitators have acted in a fair and even-handed manner add to the feeling that ADR is a useful new tool.

Features of ADR:

Without prejudice discussions – “anything said or documents produced during the ADR process cannot be used in future proceedings without the express consent of both parties subject to the obligations placed on the parties by the operation of English law”
Appropriate place for ADR in the lifecycle of a compliance check – Evidence is that ADR can work for both VAT and Direct Taxes disputes both before and after an appealable decision or assessment has been made. However, ADR for VAT disputes is more suited to post appealable decision and assessments.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a Code of Conduct – a MOU is created to commit customers/agents to the requirements of the ADR process. The project team are exploring the introduction of a Code of Conduct for HMRC staff.
Elapsed time – The average elapsed time for all closed ADR cases is 61 days. This figure is from application to resolution or the papers being returned to either the caseworker or the review team. The average elapsed time for VAT it is 53 days.
The average age of VAT disputes entering the project was 8 months.
At the time of writing there have been 334 applications in both stages. Excluding applications currently in process, the ADR Panel has rejected fewer than 30% of applications.
ADR Panel – An ADR Panel has been created to accept or reject applications for ADR. This is in order to strengthen procedures and reduce dependency on the project manager. It screens all applications and not just those where ADR was thought to be inappropriate.
Customer / Agent Questionnaire Summary – Findings from customers and agents included:
- An appreciation of the personal interaction that the ADR process allowed.
- Facilitators were even handed and impartial in all cases and kept the taxpayer well informed
- ADR was particularly well suited to resolution of long standing disputes.

Conclusion of the HMRC pilot scheme:

Project objectives have been met.
HMRC facilitators have proven to be objective and even-handed for all types of taxpayers.
External stakeholders strongly support the project and its roll-out to business as usual.
Successful facilitations have ensured that the right amount of tax has been identified and secured with less delay for both parties.
A better understanding of disputes has been gained.
Resource savings have been identified.

The commentary from HMRC on ADR is (probably understandable) positive. However, reactions from the profession and taxpayers who have gone through the process are equally generous on ADR as a mechanism for settling disputes.

My view is that any alternative to a Tribunal hearing is welcome and even if ADR works half as well as reports conclude then it should certainly be explored. It should definitely be considered as an alternative to simply accepting a decision from HMRC with which a taxpayer disagrees.