Tag Archives: court

VAT: HMRC Requirement for security – The BPF Tanks Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 1 November 2019

Latest from the courts

The BPF Tanks Ltd First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case considered whether the imposition of a Notice Of Requirement (NOR) to provide security in respect of VAT was appropriate.

What is a NOR?

If HMRC decide that a business’s past history presents a risk to the revenue, it may issue a NOR via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 11 para 4. Such a bond (or cash deposit) can cover a number of taxes, but if one is received for VAT it is as a result of HMRC believing that a business represents a risk of non-payment of its liability.

A NOR is commonly issued in situations where a business and/or a previous business connected to the same individual(s) has failed to meet its VAT obligations, eg; submitting returns or not paying VAT due. If no action is taken by the business in respect of the NOR, HMRC will issue a penalty and prevent the business trading until the security is paid. Continuing to trade when HMRC have prevented this via the NOR rules is a criminal offence.

Amount of security

The amount of security is be based on the estimated VAT liability of six months plus any existing arrears from a previous business. If the new business is yet to submit any VAT returns, these estimates will be based on turnover levels in the previous business.

Penalties

If a business continues to trade without settling the NOR matter, the penalty is £5,000 for every transaction carried without paying security.

Case background

The sole director of the appellant had also been a director of two previous companies in the same business. The first went into administration owing a significant amount of VAT. The second bought the assets of the first out of the administration but was wound up two years later, also owing HMRC a substantial amount of VAT. Because of the appellant’s compliance history, unsurprisingly, HMRC issued a NOR to the latest company.

The appellant essentially argued that HMRC had been ‘unreasonable’ in demanding the security and that no commissioners, properly directed, could have reached the decision to issue a NOR. He contended that it was unreasonable to require security when he had a time to pay (TTP) arrangement with HMRC and unreasonable to take into account the two previous companies.

NB: Unfortunately for the appellant, the TTP agreement was in respect of PAYE and not VAT, despite what the appellant understood.

Decision

The judge accepted that the appellant misunderstood the terms of the TTP but that misunderstanding did not mean that HMRC was unreasonable in reaching the conclusion to issue the NOR.

On the previous companies point; it was decided that it was not unreasonable for HMRC to take into account the two predecessor companies. This was because they;

were both run by the appellant
traded in the same industry
were run from the same address
traded in the same financial climate and
had the same customers

Consequently, there was sufficient links to the previous two companies to be taken into account and the history of them to be a relevant consideration when considering the risk presented by the appellant to the revenue.

For the above reasons the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

An obvious outcome and the judge didn’t really have any other option. It does underline that to ignore the mantra; right tax, right time is a recipe for disaster and can lead to HMRC ending a business. It is worth bearing this in mind if you have clients that may be “reluctant” to meet their VAT obligations.

If you, or a client receives a NOR, the options are to:

pay the security in full
negotiate a TTP arrangement
appeal against the NOR. (This is usually a very difficult route and there must be genuine grounds to contend that HMRC’s decision either contained an error of law or was so unreasonable that no Commissioner could have reached those decisions).
cease the business

Clearly, the best thing is to avoid one in the first place!

VAT: What’s a TOGC (and what’s not)? – The General Distribution Storage case

By Marcus Ward 7 October 2019

Latest from the courts

A Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC) is an area of VAT which produces a lot of issues and is a subject which is returned to on a regular basis in the courts. The General Distribution Storage Ltd (GDSL) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) TC 07352 [2019] case provides a warning that getting it wrong can be costly.

Background

The appellant owned the freehold of a commercial property. This property was rented to a third party. Subsequently, the property was sold with the benefit of the existing lease, to Hartlone Scaffolding Ltd (HSL). Output tax was charged and paid on the value of the sale as the property was subject to an option to tax. HSL also opted to tax before the date of completion. On the same day, HSL sold on the property to Foundry Investments Ltd (FIL) and again, VAT was charged and paid.

FIL made a claim for the input tax charged which caused a pre-credibility enquiry from HMRC. During the inspection, HMRC noted that, although GDSL had charged VAT, it had neither declared, nor paid the VAT to HMRC. An assessment was issued to recover this output tax.

The appellant claimed that no VAT was due because the sale of the tenanted building qualified as a VAT free TOGC, ie; it was not a taxable sale of an opted commercial property, but rather, it was the sale of a property letting business which was a going concern.

Technical

TOGC provisions

Normally the sale of the assets of a VAT registered business will be subject to VAT at the appropriate rate. A TOGC, however is the sale of a business including assets which must be treated as a matter of law, as “neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services” by virtue of meeting certain conditions (summarised below). It is always the seller who is responsible for applying the correct VAT treatment. Transfer Of a Going Concern treatment is not optional. A sale is either a TOGC or it isn’t. It is a rare situation in that the VAT treatment depends on; what the purchaser’s intentions are, what the seller is told, and what the purchaser actually does. All this being outside the seller’s control. Full details of TOGCs here.

TOGC Conditions

The conditions for VAT free treatment of a TOGC:

The assets must be sold as a business, or part of a business, as a going concern
The assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part (HMRC guidance uses the words “intend to use…” which, in some cases may provide additional comfort)
There must be no break in trading
Where the seller is a taxable person (VAT registered) the purchaser must be a taxable person already or immediately become, as a result of the transfer, a taxable person
Where only part of a business is sold it must be capable of separate operation
There must not be a series of immediately consecutive transfers

Where the transfer includes property which is standard-rated, either because the seller has opted to tax it or because it is a ‘new’ or uncompleted commercial building the purchaser must opt to tax the property and notify this to HMRC no later than the date of the supply.

Please note that the above list has been compiled for this article from; the legislation, HMRC guidance and case law. Specific advice must be sought.

Decision

It was decided that TOGC could not apply in these circumstances. The buyer, HSL, at the time of the sale, could not have intended to carry on the property letting business as it immediately sold on the freehold (at a profit) on the same day. As above, TOGC treatment does not apply if there is a “series of immediately consecutive transfers”. The appeal was consequently dismissed, and output tax was therefore properly due.

Commentary

This appears to have been the only available conclusion. It illustrates the importance of considering VAT whenever a supply of property is made. It is unclear why VAT was initially charged and why this was not declared to HMRC (and it if was thought a TOGC, why the VAT position was not subsequently corrected by the issue of a VAT only credit note). This is a complex area of the tax and an easy issue to miss when there are a considerable number of other factors to consider when a business (or property) is sold. Extensive case law (example here and changes to HMRC policy here ) insists that there is often a dichotomy between a commercial interpretation of a going concern and HMRC’s view.

Contracts are important in most TOGC cases, so it really pays to review them from a VAT perspective.

I very strongly advise that specialist advice is obtained in cases where a business, or property is sold. Yes, I know I would say that!

VAT: ‘Intention’ – The Euro Beer case

By Marcus Ward 7 October 2019

Latest from the courts, the Euro Beer Distribution Ltd First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case.

The intention of a taxpayer is extremely important for a number of reasons. It is relevant where:

a VAT registration is requested
input tax is claimed
and in this case; whether deregistration is compulsory

Broadly, immediate action is dependent upon whether a business intends to make taxable supplies in the future. This intention dictates whether registration is possible, whether input tax may be claimed, and whether a business may remain VAT registered. Even if a business has the intention to make taxable supplies, it is sometimes difficult to evidence this to HMRC’s satisfaction.

Background

Euro Beer was in the business of importing and selling alcoholic drinks. It had been in business since 2004 and was also approved and registered as an owner of duty suspended goods under the Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999.

Technical

HMRC compulsorily deregistered Euro Beer via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, para 13 (2) on the grounds that it believed that the appellant had ceased making taxable supplies. Nil returns had been submitted since 2016 and, after enquires, formed the view that there was no intention to make supplies in the future.

Euro Beer contended, unsurprisingly, that there was an intention to make taxable supplies in the future such that continued VAT registration was appropriate. Additionally, the reason for the nil returns was simply, at that time, business had dried up. The appellant provided limited evidence to support its intention. This comprised; emails between the directors and third-party contacts.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed and Euro Beer’s VAT deregistration (and revocation of approval from the Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999) was confirmed as appropriate.

Commentary

This was hardly a surprising decision and one wonders why it got to court. It does, however, emphasise the importance of the concept of intention. This can be a subjective matter and HMRC place significant weight on documentary evidence. There is no question in law that HMRC must register/maintain registration/repay input tax if it is satisfied that there is a business which does not make taxable supplies but ‘intends to make such supplies in the course or furtherance of that business’ – VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, para 9 (b). However, ensuring HMRC is satisfied is often problematic.

This is specifically difficult in the area of land and property. VAT registration and the associated input tax claims of a property developer is often the source of disputes. It is important to differentiate between an intention, and what actually happens. Often business plans change, or the original intention is not fulfilled. In such cases, there is a mechanism for repaying input tax claimed (VAT Gen regs 1995 reg 108) but this is only applicable in certain circumstances. The case of Merseyside Cablevision Ltd (MAN/85/327, VTD 2419) demonstrates that if an intention to make taxable supplies is thwarted, input tax claimed is not clawed back (a person who carries on activities which are preparatory to the carrying on of a business is to be treated as in business and is a taxable person).

It should be noted that a business does not have to specify a date by which it expects to make taxable supplies, or to estimate the value of them.

The lesson is; to document every business decision made:

board minutes, emails, business plans, letters etc
retain all correspondence with; third-parties
provide written advice from legal advisers, accounts etc
invoices demonstrating expenditure in respect of a new venture are persuasive
budgets and considered estimates can be of use
retain all advertising media, offers, promotions and other publicity.

Clearly for land and property additional; planning permission, land registry details, plans, surveys, fees, etc will build up a picture that there is an intention to make taxable supplies.

These are just examples and different business may have alternative evidence.

In commercial terms, it will be difficult for HMRC to be unsatisfied if a business is incurring costs in relation to a project – why would they devote time/staff/advisers/financial resources to something when there is no intention of deriving income?

One final point on the Euro Beer case. The judge stated; ‘an intention to make supplies requires more than a mere hope to be in a position to make supplies at some unspecified time in the future’. It is not enough for a business to ‘generally’ state that there is an intention.

VAT: Apportionment and best judgement – The Homsub case

By Marcus Ward 3 October 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Homsub Ltd case the issue was the apportionment of values when a supply comprises goods at different VAT rates.

Further to the M & S case here is another First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case on the value of food and drink in meal deals. It also considered whether HMRC exercised ‘best judgement’ when it carried out an invigilation exercise to establish the percentage split between supplies subject to VAT and those which were not.

Background

Homsub is a franchisee in respect of Subway products, essentially being hot and cold food, which can be consumed either on or off their premises.

HMRC had concerns that the correct amount of output tax was being declared on sales. Consequently, it carried out an invigilation exercise as follows: The invigilators recorded, in respect of each of the five outlets, each sale made and annotated it with whether it was eat in or take out. A record was also made as to whether the food was hot or cold. Those differences needed to be recorded because of the different VAT treatment in respect of hot food and cold food on the one hand and eat in and take out food on the other. All eat in food is taxable, while some takeaways are zero rated. Further information here.

Contentions

Homsub complained that the methodology adopted by HMRC was flawed as it was not sufficiently refined to give rise to a reasonably reliable overall picture. It was argued that the exercise should have been undertaken by reference to transaction values, rather than the number of transactions. That is – HMRC should have looked at the value of supplies made which did attract VAT as compared to the value of supplies made which did not attract VAT.

The court identified that the true area of concern on the part of the respondents was that Subway sometimes had promotions called “Meal Deals” whereby several products would be bundled together for a single headline price.

Homsub contended that a meal deal offer was available to customers whereby for the all in price of £3 a customer could purchase a sandwich (hot or cold) and a drink (which could be a fizzy drink or hot beverage upon which VAT would be due). If the meal deal involved hot food, then it would be subject to VAT.

HMRC’s issue was that because of the way in which the appellant’s till was set up, it treated £2.99 of each meal deal as attributable to the sandwich (VAT free if cold) and only 1p to the accompanying drink which, if subject to VAT, would mean that the VAT would be one fifth of one penny.

Outcomes

Homsub stated that it is entitled to run its business as it sees fit and to make such commercial decisions as best suit its business. The appellant said that it is entitled to sell loss leaders, as do many major retailers, or to sell stock at less than cost price if that somehow serves the best overall commercial interests of the business.

The court ruled that this was not a true loss leader situation. This was a transaction were goods are packaged together to be sold at a single price. What must be done is to look at the reality of the transaction when apportioning the part of the money paid by the customer between the various components within the package of goods sold. Consequently, Homsub needed to apportion the sales value in a different way. This would not necessarily be on the basis of the relevant retail prices. This is because accurate apportionment is difficult, especially as, as Homsub explained, that labour is by far the largest cost component within the cost of a sandwich and the overall meal deal package, that is; much more staff labour was devoted to preparing sandwiches than serving drinks.

If the case stopped there, there would be additional output tax for Homsub to pay. However…

Methodology and best judgement

The court decided that the assessment methodology adopted by HMRC was significantly flawed and potentially misleading. A simple count of transactions that did attract VAT and those which did not attract VAT might be capable of being appropriate in certain kinds of business, but not in this case. Further, a statistician or forensic accountant would be ‘alarmed to find that the methodology used by HMRC was considered to be either acceptable or such as to give rise to a reasonably reliable result’. In court, the representative of HMRC was forced to agree with this interpretation- which must have caused embarrassment. The court also said that it was not its function to go on to undertake any kind of assessment to ascertain what, if any, additional VAT might be due.

Decision

In the court’s judgement the methodology was flawed to such an extent that it would be wholly unreasonable, and unfair to the appellant, to base a best judgement assessment thereon. The appeal was therefore allowed.

Commentary

Always have assessments of this sort reviewed. There is significant case law on ‘best judgement’ most salient being: Van Boeckel v C&E [1981] and Rahman v HMRC. Additionally, HMRC often make certain assumptions on assessments based on invigilation and mark up exercises. These can be challenged, as can the methodology. As examples, HMRC need to recognise, inter alia;

seasonal trade variations
discounts
customer preferences (in this case, Homsub explained that at some of its shops’ locations a lot of customers were students and preferred to take away rather than eating in)
representative periods
sales/special offers
the times invigilations were carried out (were they representative of all trade?)
the number of invigilations and ‘test meals’ – were they sufficient to establish a fair overall picture of the business?
own and staff use
business promotions
loss of goods (destroyed, waste, stolen etc)
gross/net
gifts to customers
alternative methods
HMRC staff experience etc

All of these and other situations can affect expected sale values.

I have further set out how HMRC operate in these situations here.

I have a success rate of over 90% in getting these types of assessments reduced or completely withdrawn. Please do not simply accept HMRC’s decision, nor the, increasingly, bullying stance they can adopt. Always challenge!

VAT: Extent of welfare exemption – The Lilias Graham Trust case

By Marcus Ward 3 October 2019

Latest from the courts

Certain welfare services are exempt from VAT via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, Item 9 – services which are directly connected with the care or protection of children. In the The Lilias Graham Trust (LGT) First Tier Tribunal case, the scope of the exemption was considered.

Background

LGT, which has charitable status, operated residential assessment centres, which supported parents (many of whom had mental health issues) in learning how to care for their children.

It was common ground that LGT’s services were as summarised in a letter from Glasgow City Council (where relevant):

LGT is an assessment centre providing assessment services on the parenting capacity of those referred to the service
The assessment services cover families where there is an uncertainty about whether the parent(s) can safely look after their children
LGT is simply acting as an observer watching the parent’s care for their own children and providing information in the form of advice
LGT is not providing any treatment in the form of medical care for any illness or injury
LGT’s recommendation following the assessment provides a recommendation to social workers around whether the parent(s) has sufficient capacity to keep their child safe and healthy
GCC viewed the residential accommodation as a fundamental part of the provision of the assessment services on the parenting capacity of those families which were referred to LGT.

Although the major part of LGT’s income came from the Local Authority fees, it is also subsidised to a degree by grants and donations.

Technical

In this case the odd position was that HMRC was arguing for exemption because, in learning how to care for their children, the services were “closely linked” to welfare services or “directly connected” to them as provided for by the Principal VAT Directive and the VAT Act in turn.

LGT contended that their supplies to a Local Authority (which could recover any VAT charged) were taxable as they did not fall within the welfare definition. LGT admitted that there was a causal relationship between the services provided and the care and protection of children, but the connection was too remote to be deemed to be a direct connection – There were several intervening factors and intermediaries between the service provided and the care and protection of children.

At issue was net input tax of circa £400,000 which would be recoverable by LGT if its supplies were taxable, but not if they were exempt. Guide to partial exemption here.

Decision

The court found that the essential purpose of the supplies made by LGT was to ensure that the child was better cared for and had optimal protection. That is precisely why the Local Authority employed LGT. Its supplies are both closely linked and directly connected with the protection of children as also to their care. Accordingly, the appellant made supplies of welfare services which are exempt from VAT. The fact that LGT provided its services to the Local Authority rather than the parents did not mean that its services should be taxable. Therefore, there was no output tax chargeable to the Local Authority and no input tax recovery by LGT on expenditure attributable to those exempt supplies.

Commentary

In this case, HMRC originally ruled that the services were taxable and LGT were required to VAT register, it even issued a late registration penalty. HMRC clearly subsequently changed its view which put input tax which LGT had recovered at risk. There are often disputes on the extent of the exemption, and sometimes debates on whether a service is supplied, or simply staff providing their services. It is important to understand these sometimes subtle differences as getting it wrong can be costly, as LGT found out.

VAT: Disaggregation – The Caton case

By Marcus Ward 12 September 2019

Latest from the courts.

In the Charles John Caton First Tier tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether HMRC were correct in deciding that a business was artificially split to avoid VAT registration (so called disaggregation, details here).

Background

The appellant ran a café known as The Commonwealth for a number of years. Subsequently, his wife opened a restaurant in adjoining premises. HMRC decided that this was a single business and required a backdated VAT registration. This resulted in a retrospective VAT return and associated penalties for late registration.

HMRC pointed to the leases, the liability insurance and the alcohol licence, which are all in Mr Caton’s name, together with the fact he signed a questionnaire stating that he was sole proprietor of the restaurant, and the fact that the washing up area is shared, and say that these show that there was only one business. They also said that the fact that Mrs Caton did not have a bank account and therefore card takings from the restaurant went into Mr Caton’s bank account further bolsters their case.

The appellant proffered the following facts to support the contention that there were two separate businesses: There were separate staff in the restaurant and the café. Those for the cafe were hired by Mr Caton, and are his responsibility, and those for the restaurant were hired by Mrs Caton and are her responsibility. The cooking is done completely separately, by different people using different cooking areas. The menus are completely different, and when the café sells the restaurant ‘specials’ they are rung up on the till with a marker that shows they are restaurant sales. Although the majority of the food is ordered from the same place, there are separate orders (even though these orders are placed at the same time and paid for using Mr Caton’s bank account). Mrs Caton decides on the menu for the restaurant and the prices. She keeps the cash generated from the sales in the cafe, and this is not banked in Mr Caton’s account. Depending on the ratio of cash sales to card sales in any given month, she may need to pay some of it to Mr Caton for the rent, rates etc, but any surplus she keeps.There were two tills, one for the restaurant and one for the cafe.

The Law

The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 1A provides that:

(1) Paragraph 2 below is for the purpose of preventing the maintenance or creation of any artificial separation of business activities carried on by two or more persons from resulting in an avoidance of VAT.

(2) In determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above whether any separation of business activities is artificial, regard shall be had to the extent to which the different persons carrying on those activities are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links.

VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 2 provides that:

(1)… if the Commissioners make a direction under this paragraph, the persons named in the direction shall be treated as a single taxable person carrying on the activities of a business described in the direction…

Decision

The judge decided that she considered the facts that point to the businesses being run and owned as two separate operations were significantly stronger that facts that point to a joint ownership. And the appeal was allowed.

Commentary

These types of cases are decided on the precise facts. I think that this one must have been a close call. It appears the fact that may have swung it was that the judge commented “We find it extremely surprising, in this case, that HMRC have never met with Mrs Caton or, in correspondence, asked her for any details. Mr Caton and HMRC have both told us that he has consistently maintained from the first meeting the fact that Mrs Caton runs the restaurant. We find it impossible that HMRC could be in possession of facts sufficient to make a reasonable decision on this case without hearing from Mrs Caton.” That approach by HMRC is never going to play well in court. It strikes me that this type of approach is increasing in the department. Whether this is down to lack of training, resources or simple corner cutting to save time I cannot say.

If HMRC issue a direction under VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1 para 2 that two or more businesses should be treated as one, it is always worth having that decision reviewed. This is especially relevant in cases such as this where customers are the final consumers making the VAT sticking tax.

VAT: Exempt medical treatment – The Skin Rich case

By Marcus Ward 9 September 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Skin Rich Ltd [2019] TC 07310 First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether Botox and nail treatments could be exempt as health and welfare services: “The supply of services consisting in the provision of medical care” by a “registered person” (principally, doctors, opticians, osteopaths, chiropractors and nurses).

Background

Skin Rich Ltd operated a skin culture and aesthetics clinic offering a range of specialist skin treatments including, but not limited to, Botox and dermal filler treatments or ‘Injectables’ and fungal nail treatments it contended were exempt from VAT.

The appellant employed several medical professionals to administer the injectables arguing it was a medical procedure and exempt under VATA 1994, Sch. 9, Grp. 7, items 1 and 2. It was not enough, however, that the services were provided by persons registered as appropriate, they had to be providing “medical care” in order to meet the terms of the exemption. Their principal purpose had to be the protection, including the maintenance or restoration of health. Whilst it was conceded a cosmetic benefit would not preclude a treatment having a primary purpose to protect, restore or maintain the health of an individual.

Decision

The FTT dismissed the appeal that Botox services and fungal nail treatment supplied by them were exempt under VATA 1994, Sch. 9, Grp. 7, items 1 and 2, or alternatively item 4. Consequently, output tax was due on the full value of these supplies. The FTT was not persuaded the services were principally to protect, restore or maintain the health of an individual. They did not, therefore, meet the definition of medical care established by the relevant case law. Furthermore, they did not consider the taxpayer to be “state regulated” as required by item 4.

Commentary

This can be a difficult area of the tax. I have dealt with a number of cases where apparent cosmetic surgery (breast augmentation and liposuction etc) were argued to have beneficial mental health outcomes. Case law on this matter is sometimes conflicting. Care should be taken when determining the VAT liability of certain procedures. The tests are more than something being “sort of medical”.

This was not an unexpected outcome, but presumably the appellant thought that, for the tax involved, it was worth going to court.

VAT: What is an economic activity? The Pertemps’ case

By Marcus Ward 12 August 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Pertemps Limited the issue was whether the operation of the respondent’s salary sacrifice scheme to provide travel and subsistence payments to employees was a supply for VAT purposes and, indeed, whether it was an economic activity at all.

I have considered what is an economic activity (business) many times, examples here, here, here and here. It is a perennial VAT issue and goes to the very heart of the tax. EU legislation talks of economic activity, which is taken to be “business activity” in the UK. There is no legal definition of either economic or business activity so case law on this point is very important.

Background

Employees of the respondent were offered the option of;

being paid a salary, from which they would have to meet any travel and subsistence expenses, or
participating in Pertemps’ scheme where they would be paid their travel and subsistence expenses but receive a reduced salary.

The amount of the reduction was equal to the amount of the expense payment plus a fixed amount to defray the costs of running the scheme. The issue was whether the charge for using the scheme was taxable.

HMRC’s appeal against the FTT decision [2018] UKFTT 369 (TC) was based on the view that the scheme involved a taxable supply of services by Pertemps to its participating employees such that output tax was due of the fixed payments. The FTT concluded that Pertemps did supply services to the employees. but the supply was not within the scope of VAT because the operation of the scheme was not an economic activity. It allowed Pertemps’ appeal. The FTT also held that, if there had been a supply, it would have been exempt.

Decision

The UT decided that, although the FTT erred in law when it concluded that Pertemps made a supply of services to the employees who participated in the scheme, it was correct when it concluded that Pertemps was not carrying on any economic activity when it provided the scheme for employees. The charge only arose in the context of the employment relationship, and it could not be compared to an open market supply of accountancy services.

Therefore, HMRC’s appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

Care should always be taken with salary sacrifice schemes. Some, but not all, sacrifices are subject to output tax. HMRC internal guidance on the subject here. This case is a helpful clarification on the matter of certain charges to staff. It also adds another layer to the age-old issue of what constitutes a business activity. VAT is only due on business supplies, and it is crucial to appreciate what is, and isn’t an economic activity. This is especially important in respect of charities and NFP bodies.

VAT: What are zero rated animal foodstuffs?

By Marcus Ward 12 August 2019

Modelled by Lola. (R) Collar: models’ own

Latest from the courts

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Westland Horticulture Limited highlights the complexities of; the VAT treatment of food, animal foodstuffs, seeds, crops and how these are all held out for sale. One only has to consider the myriad VAT liabilities of seemingly similar products sold at, say, a garden centre, to realise that this is can be a VAT minefield.

Examples

Food for a budgerigar is standard rated, but pigeon grit is zero rated.
Peanuts and sunflower seeds are zero rated, unless advertised as wild bird food when they are standard rated
Food for a Labrador is standard rated, unless the dog is used as a gun dog when it is zero rated
Lavender seeds are zero rated. Daffodil bulbs are standard rated.

This is a very small list of examples where the VAT treatment of precisely the same product may change depending on use, and/or where a slight difference of the type of goods can have a surprising tax outcome.

A full guide to garden centre liabilities here

The case

HMRC state in Public Notice 701/38 para 5.3

“Most grass seed is zero-rated because of the extensive use of grass as animal feed. This includes supplies to and by garden centres, local authorities and grass seed to be grown on set aside land.

But pre-germinated grass seed and turf are not used for the propagation of animal feed and are therefore standard-rated.”

Zero rating is available per VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 1, item 3: “…seeds or other means of propagation of plants comprised in animal feeding stuffs”

In Westland’s case, it sold a product called Aftercut Patch Fix, which, although was 90% grass seed, also contained sowing granules and an ingredient called Clinoptilolite which, apparently, neutralises the effects of excess salts and ammonia found in pet urine. The grass seed was of various varieties and is not in itself any different to “ordinary” grass seed sold without any additives.

Having a new puppy, I can verify the damage one small hound can do to lawns and this is a product I may will need to invest in. The product was held out (see below) to help fix damage to grass that, in my case, a small Lola (and larger Libby) can do.

Decision

Unsurprisingly, the judge ruled that the product was standard rated on the grounds (no pun intended) that it was clearly intended to be used on people’s gardens rather than to be planted to grow animal food. Therefore, the zero rating provided via PN 701/38 does not apply.

The Product was physically different to generic grass seed as it contained more than just seed. The product (as distinct from the seed within the product) is therefore not a similar product to generic grass seed for the purposes of fiscal neutrality.

Commentary

A discrete issue you may think. However, the tax in this single case amounted to over half a million pounds. It illustrates how much care must be taken in establishing the correct liability of; food, animal foodstuff, pet food and ornamental versus edible plants, seeds, bulbs, shrubs and trees.

One of the salient tests is how the goods are “held out for sale” (held out)

Held out means the:

way a product is labelled, packaged, displayed, invoiced, advertised or promoted
heading under which the product is listed in a catalogue, web page or price list

In this case, the packaging and description on the appellant’s website was a major factor in the decision.

Manufacturers and retailers may need to review how their products are described, what the contents are and how they are displayed in-store. Even the location of the goods, how they are displayed, and the signage used may affect the VAT treatment (it doesn’t matter if I buy zero rated working dog food and feed it to my two who are never going to do a day’s work in their life….).

VAT: Bad Debt Relief – The Total case

By Marcus Ward 1 July 2019

Latest from the courts

Bad Debt Relief (BDR) is often an area that creates disputes with HMRC. The legislation has changed over the years and the current rules are described here.

Background

Broadly speaking, under normal VAT rules, a supplier is required to account for output tax, even if the supply has not been paid for (however, the use of cash accounting or certain retail schemes removes the problem of VAT on bad debts from the supplier). BDR, as the names suggests, is intended to provide relief on the VAT element of a bad debt. Output tax previously claimed may be “reclaimed” by using the BDR mechanism.

The law which governs the claiming of bad debt relief is The VAT Act 1994, Section 36, and Section 26A which covers the repayment of input tax when a customer fails to pay for supplies received within six months of the relevant date, and The VAT Regulations 1995, Parts XIX, XIXA and XIXB.

Conditions for claiming bad debt relief

A business must have accounted for the VAT on the supplies and paid it to HMRC
It must have been written off the debt in its day to day VAT accounts and transferred it to a separate bad debt account
The value of the supply must not be more than the customary selling price
The debt must not have been paid, sold or factored under a valid legal assignment
The debt must have remained unpaid for a period of six months after the date of the supply

The case

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Total Catering Equipment Ltd [2019] TC 07184, heard on 4 June 2019, the issue was whether payments from customers which were diverted by a dishonest employee should be recognised as a payment for a supply of goods (no BDR available as the money was received then stolen) or whether the fact that the business did not actually receive the payment meant that a BDR was appropriate. Total supplied goods to customers, some of whom paid by credit or debit cards. The member of staff responsible for these transactions, set up a separate (from the business) bank account and fraudulently diverted customers; payments into his own account. A BDR claim was made by the appellant when the crime was discovered. The claim was refused by HMRC on the grounds that the employee had received payment “on behalf” of Total before making payment into his own account.

Decision

The judge found for the appellant. The appeal was allowed – it was decided that Total had never actually received payment for the goods supplied, so BDR was available. A distinction was made between the diversion of monies in this case (where the supplier was deemed to never had received the money) and a theft by an employee from, eg; a till or subsequent withdrawals from the business’ bank account (where a business would have received payment before the money was stolen).

Commentary

I have written about VAT and illegal activities here. There can be a fine line between taxable illegal activities and non-taxable illegal activities, and subtleties around tax points (time of supply) misrepresentation and consideration. If you, or your clients have been in the unfortunate position of being on the receiving end of crime, it would be adding insult to injury to have to account for tax on money you do not have. I would always advise that any demands from HMRC, or refusals to refund VAT should be properly reviewed.