Tag Archives: EC

VAT Latest from the courts – what is a business?

By Marcus Ward 8 June 2016

In the CJEU case of * * takes a deep breath * * Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft the court considered whether these Not For Profit companies were making taxable supplies (economic activity). This then dictated whether input tax incurred by them was recoverable.

As a starting point, it may be helpful to look at what the words “economic activity”, “business”, “taxable supplies” and “taxable person” mean: The term “business” is only used in UK legislation, The Principal VAT Directive refers to “economic activity” rather than business and since UK domestic legislation must conform to the Directive both terms must be seen as having the same meaning. Since the very first days of VAT there have been disagreements over what constitutes a “business”. I have only recently ended a dispute over this definition for a (as it turns out) very happy client. In the UK the tests were set out as long ago as 1981 and may be summarised as follows:

Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made (bearing in mind that exempt supplies can also be business)?
Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
Is the activity predominately concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
Are the taxable supplies that are being made of a kind which, subject to differences of detail, are commonly made by those who seek to profit from them?

If there is no business, an entity cannot be making taxable supplies.

In EC Legislation, Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112 provides: that “a ‘Taxable person’ shall mean any person who, independently, carries out in any place any economic activity, whatever the purpose or results of that activity.”

The case

The case involved the Not For Profit companies constructing and operating a water disposal system. When complete, it was intended to charge a “modest” fee to users of the system. The companies engaged in economic activities that were not intended to make a profit and only engaged in a commercial activity on an ancillary basis.

The majority of the funding for the work was provided by State (Hungarian) and EC aid. The Hungarian authority formed the view that, because a nominal fee was charged this did not amount to an economic activity and so there was no right to deduct input tax incurred on the costs of getting the system operational. The CJEU went straight to judgement and decided that the construction and operation of the system could rightly be regarded as an economic activity and found for the taxpayer. It also provided a very helpful and clear summary in respect of “business” by commenting that “… the fact that the price paid for an economic transaction is higher or lower than the cost price, and, therefore, higher or lower than the open market value, is irrelevant for the purpose of establishing whether it was a transaction effected for consideration …”.

NB: The one area that the CJEU did refer back to the National Court however, was whether the transaction at issue in the case was a wholly artificial arrangement which did not reflect economic reality and was set up with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage.

It is interesting to compare this finding with the UK case law above, especially the points concerning “a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made” and “sound and recognised business principles”. I strongly suspect that what constitutes a business will continue to occupy advisers and HMRC and throw up disputes until the end of time (and/or the end of VAT….).

Full case here

VAT – Latest from the courts; use and enjoyment provisions

By Marcus Ward 25 April 2016

Telefonica Europe Plc and Telefonica UK Limited

The VAT Use and Enjoyment provisions set out an additional layer of rules which establish the place of supply of certain services. They apply to; telecommunications and broadcasting services; electronically supplied services (for business customers); hired goods; and hired means of transport. Broadly, effective use and enjoyment takes place where a recipient actually consumes the services, regardless of any contractual arrangements, payment, or beneficial interest. The intention of this provision is to correct instances of distortion which remain as a result of considering only where the provider and the customer belong. HMRC give the example of supplies such as telecommunications services which are actually consumed outside the EC, to be subject to UK VAT. Of course, the converse is that it would be distortive for there to be no EC VAT on such services where they are consumed in the UK.

In the Upper Tribunal case of Telefonica Europe Plc and Telefonica UK Limited the dispute involved the way in which the appellant calculated the value of its mobile telephone services which were used and enjoyed outside the EC (and thus UK VAT free). Over a number of years Telefonica had an agreement with HMRC whereby the amount of outside the EC supplies was calculated by reference to revenue, ie; comparing call, text and data income relating to non-EC supplies to total income.

HMRC subsequently formed the view that this method of calculation was distortive because higher charges were made to non-EC users than EC consumers. HMRC proposed a “usage methodology” which used call times, texts sent and volume of data used. As may be expected, this resulted in a lower percentage of supplies that were outside the scope of UK VAT thus increasing HMRC’s VAT take.

The appellant contended that the usage methodology was contrary to EC and UK VAT legislation. Not surprisingly, the UTT rejected this argument, deciding that Telefonica had not established that HMRC’s proposal was unlawful.

So then the outcome would be expected to be that the usage methodology should be used, but no. It was decided that the most accurate method would be one based on the time a customer has access to the network outside the EC; which differs from both the usage and revenue methods.

This type of dispute is quite common and also appears regularly in partial exemption situations. There are nearly always alternative ways to view apportionment calculations and it pays to obtain professional advice; not only to ensure that a fair result is achieved, but as assistance with negotiations (which may avoid having to go to Tribunal).

VAT – Latest from the courts: Frank A Smart & Son Limited

By Marcus Ward 4 April 2016

Recovery of input tax incurred on the purchase of Single Farm Payment Entitlement (SFPE) units.

HMRC often reject claims for input tax as they consider that they relate to non-business activities, or more nebulously the costs are not reflected in the prices of supplies made by the claimant (the so called “cost component” approach). This very helpful Upper Tribunal (UT) case provides insight into the logic applied by HMRC in reaching a decision to disallow a claim for VAT incurred.

This was a company which farmed land and also paid VAT on the purchase of SFPE units. These units entitled the company to receive benefits via the EC Single Farm Payment Scheme. HMRC contended that the receipt of the SFPE payments was non-business, or in the alternative, they were not a cost component of any taxable supply made by the farming company.

The UT refused HMRC’s appeal against the initial FT-T decision in favour of the appellant. It found that there was sufficient evidence that the purchase of the SFPE units (and the income which resulted in the acquisition of them) was not a separate activity to the farming supplies so the non-business argument did not apply. Further, the Chairman stated that “…it is unnecessary for the company to prove that the cost in question was actually built into the price charged for the supply”. Therefore the cost component contention put forward by HMRC also failed.

The Chairman’s comments appear to go against HMRC’s published guidance on “direct and immediate link with the taxable person’s business”, particularly in respect of holding companies.

If you are aware of any situation where HMRC have disallowed claims for input tax for either non-business or non-cost component reasons please contact us as this case may be of benefit.

Full decision here

What VAT CAN’T you claim?

By Marcus Ward 2 March 2016

The majority of input tax incurred by most VAT registered businesses may be recovered. However, there is some input tax that may not be. I thought it would be helpful if I pulled together all of these categories in one place:

Blocked VAT Claims

A brief overview

No supporting evidence

In most cases this evidence will be an invoice (or as the rules state “a proper tax invoice)” although it may be import, self-billing or other documentation in specific circumstances. A claim is invalid without the correct paperwork. HMRC may accept alternative evidence, however, they are not duty bound to do so (and rarely do). So ensure that you always obtain and retain the correct documentation.

Incorrect supporting evidence

Usually this is an invalid invoice, or using a delivery note/statement/pro forma in place of a proper tax invoice. To support a claim an invoice must show all the information set out in the legislation. HMRC are within their rights to disallow a claim if any of the details are missing. A full guide is here: https://www.marcusward.co/vat-invoices-a-full-guide/

Input tax relating to exempt supplies

Broadly speaking, if a business incurs VAT in respect of exempt supplies it cannot recover it. If a business makes only exempt supplies it cannot even register for VAT. There is a certain easement called de minimis which provide for recovery if the input tax is below certain prescribed limits. Input tax which relates to both exempt and taxable activities must be apportioned. More details of partial exemption may be found here: https://www.marcusward.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Partial-Exemption-Guide.pdf

Input tax relating to non-business activities

If a charity or NFP entity incurs input tax in connection with non-business activities this cannot be recovered and there is no de minimis relief. Input tax which relates to both business and non-business activities must be apportioned. Business versus non-business apportionment must be carried out first and then any partial exemption calculation for the business element if appropriate. More details here: https://www.marcusward.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Charities-and-Not-For-Profit-Entities-A-Brief-VAT-Guide.pdf

Time barred

If input tax is not reclaimed within four years of it being incurred, the capping provisions apply and any claim will be rejected by HMRC.

VAT incurred on business entertainment

This is always irrecoverable unless the client or customer being entertained belongs overseas. The input tax incurred on staff entertainment costs is however recoverable.

Car purchase

In most cases the VAT incurred on the purchase of a car is blocked. The only exceptions are for when the car; is part of the stock in trade of a motor manufacturer or dealer, or is used primarily for the purposes of taxi hire; self-drive hire or driving instruction; or is used exclusively for a business purpose and is not made available for private use. This last category is notoriously difficult to prove to HMRC and the evidence to support this must be very good.

Car leasing

If a business leases a car for business purposes it will normally be unable to recover 50% of the VAT charged. The 50% block is to cover the private use of the car.

A business using certain schemes

For instance, a business using the Flat rate Scheme cannot recover input tax except for certain large capital purchases, also there are certain blocks for recovery on TOMS users

VAT charged in error

Even if you obtain an invoice purporting to show a VAT amount, this cannot be recovered if the VAT was charged in error; either completely inappropriately or at the wrong rate. A business’ recourse is with the supplier and not HMRC.

Goods and services not used for your business

Even if a business has an invoice addressed to it and the services or goods are paid for by the business, the input tax on the purchase is blocked if the supply is not for business use. This may be because the purchase is for personal use, or by anther business or for purposes not related to the business.

VAT paid on goods and services obtained before VAT registration

This is not input tax and therefore is not claimable. However, there are exceptions for goods on hand at registration and services received within six months of registration if certain conditions are met.

VAT incurred by property developers

Input tax incurred on certain articles that are installed in buildings which are sold or leased at the zero rate is blocked.

Second hand goods

Goods sold to you under one of the VAT second-hand schemes will not show a separate VAT charge and no input tax is recoverable on these goods.

Transfer of a going concern (TOGC)

Assets of a business transferred to you as a going concern are not deemed to be a supply for VAT purposes and consequently, there is no VAT chargeable and therefore no input tax to recover.

Disbursements

A business cannot reclaim VAT when it pays for goods or services to be supplied directly to its client. However, in this situation the VAT may be claimable by the client if they are VAT registered. For more on disbursements see here: https://www.marcusward.co/disbursements-vat/

VAT incurred overseas

A business cannot reclaim VAT charged on goods or services that it has bought from suppliers in other EC States. Only UK VAT may be claimed on a UK VAT return. There is however, a mechanism available to claim this VAT back from the relevant VAT body in those States. However, in most cases, supplies received from overseas suppliers are VAT free, so it is usually worth checking whether any VAT has been charged correctly.

Input tax incurred on expenditure is one of the most complex areas of VAT. It also represents the biggest VAT cost to a business if VAT falls to be irrecoverable. It is almost always worthwhile reviewing what VAT is being reclaimed. Claim too much and there could well be penalties and interest, and of course, if a business is not claiming as much input tax as it could, this represents a straightforward cost.

VAT – Overseas Holiday Lets; a warning

By Marcus Ward 8 February 2016

It is important to understand the VAT consequences of owning property overseas. It may not be commonly known that the UK has the highest VAT threshold in the EC. This means that for many ‘sideline’ businesses such as; the rental of second or holiday properties in the UK, the owners, whether they are; individuals, businesses, or pension schemes, only have to consider VAT if income in relation to the property exceeds £82,000 pa. and this is only likely if a number of properties are owned.

However, other EC Member States have nil thresholds for foreign entrepreneurs meaning that if any rental income is received, VAT registration may be compulsory. Consequently, a property owner that rents out a property abroad will probably have a liability to register for VAT there. Failure to comply with the domestic legislation of the relevant Member State means; payment of back VAT and interest and fines being levied. It is also not a good idea to provoke the interest of overseas tax authorities. VAT registration however, does mean that a property owner can recover input tax on expenditure in connection with the property, eg; agent’s fees, repair and maintenance and other professional costs. Such claims may be restricted if the home is used for own use.

It should be noted that, unlike other types of rental of homes, holiday lettings are always standard-rated. Also, the letting of holiday homes is always treated as a business activity unless lettings are very infrequent. If lettings are a one-off or rare, evidence should be retained to evidence this fact. There is no set number of times a property can be let before it is treated as a business, and the interpretation may differ between different Member States. Details of taxable supplies and being in business here

Given that every EC Member State has differing rules to the UK, it is crucial to check all the consequences of letting property overseas.

A final word of warning; I quite often hear the comment “I’m not going to bother – how will they ever find out?”

If an overseas property owner based in the UK is in competition with local letting businesses, those businesses generally do not have any compulsion in notifying the authorities. In addition, I have heard of authorities carrying out very simple initiatives to see if owners are VAT registered. In many resorts, income from tourism is vital and this is a very important revenue stream for them so it is well policed.

Please contact us for further details. We have experience in dealing with overseas VAT matters on our clients’ behalf.

VAT legislation – relationship between EU and UK law. A guide

By Marcus Ward 22 January 2016

As most people will know, UK domestic VAT law is derived from EU legislation, but what is the actual relationship?

It is important to understand how both elements of legislation work in cases of dispute with HMRC as it often provides additional ammunition.

History

Most Member States already had a system of VAT before joining the EU but for some countries VAT had to be introduced together with membership of the EU. When the UK joined the EU in 1972 it replaced two taxes; purchase tax and selective employment tax with VAT.

In 1977, the Council of the European Communities sought to harmonise the national VAT systems of its Member States by issuing the Sixth Directive to provide a uniform basis of assessment and replacing the Second Directive promulgated in 1967.

Council Directive 2006/112/EC (the VAT Directive) sets out the infrastructure for a common VAT system which each Member State is required to implement by means of its own domestic legislation. This important Directive codifies into one piece of legislation all the amendments to the original Sixth Directive, thus clarifying EU VAT legislation currently in force.

Intention

The aim of the VAT Directive is to harmonise the indirect tax within the EU, and it specifies that VAT rates must be within a certain range. The basic aims are:

Harmonisation of VAT law
Harmonisation of content and layout of the VAT declaration
Regulation of; accounting, providing a common legal accounting framework
Common framework for detailed description of invoices and receipts
Regulation of accounts payable
Regulation of accounts receivable
Standard definition of national accountancy and administrative terms

EU Statements

There are four types of EU statements:

Regulations – Are binding in their entirety and have general effect to all EU Member States. They are directly applicable in the UK legal system.
Directives – Are binding as to result and their general effect is specific to named EU countries. The form and methods of compliance are left to the addressees.
Decisions – Are binding in their entirety and are specific to an EU country, commercial enterprise or private individual.
Recommendations and Opinions – Are not binding and are directed to specific subjects on which the Council’s or Commission’s advice has been sought.

EU Legislation as part of UK Legislation

EU law is made effective for UK legislation via European Communities Act 1972 section 2. The effects of EU law as regards UK VAT legislation is summarised as follows.

Direct effect

The Court of Justice has held “wherever the provisions of a directive appear … to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may … be relied upon as against any national provision which is incompatible with the directive insofar as the provisions define rights which individuals are able to assert against the state” (Case: Becker). Also in UFD Ltd it was stated that “in all appeals involving issues of liability, the Tribunal should consider the relevant provisions of the Council directives to ensure that the provisions of the UK legislation are consistent therewith”.

Primacy of EU Directives over UK legislation

A UK court which is to apply provisions of EU law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation.

Interpretation of UK law

If UK VAT legislation is unclear or ambiguous, Tribunals are “entitled to have regard to the provisions of the relevant EU Directive in order to assist in resolving any ambiguity in the construction of the provisions under consideration’ (Case: English-Speaking Union of the Commonwealth).

Legal principles

In implementing the common VAT structure, domestic legislation is required to recognise certain legal principles.

Examples of some of these are the principle of:

Equality of citizens
Subsidiarity and proportionality
Non-discrimination on grounds of nationality
Fiscal neutrality
Legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.

Practical application for most taxpayers

Practically, a result of the above is that taxpayers are regularly able to recover VAT (plus interest) paid to HMRC in error in cases where the UK domestic legislation has not implemented EU law correctly. However, HMRC has no right to recovery where VAT has been under-collected as a result of inappropriate implementation of the EU legislation.

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 – Where do I belong?!

By Marcus Ward 16 November 2015

The concept of “belonging” is very important in VAT as it determines where a supply takes place and thus the rate applicable and the country in which is due. (The so-called “Place Of Supply, or POS). It is necessary, for most supplies, to establish where both the supplier, and the recipient belongs. Because this is a complex area of VAT it is not difficult to be overpaying tax in one country, not paying tax where it is properly due, or missing the tax issue completely.

A relevant business person `belongs’ in the relevant country. A `relevant country’ means:

the country in which the person has a business establishment, or some other fixed establishment (if it has none in any other country);
if the person has a business establishment, or some other fixed establishment or establishments, in more than one country, the country of the relevant establishment (ie; the establishment most directly concerned with the supply); and
otherwise, the country of the person’s usual place of residence (in the case of a body corporate, where it is legally constituted).

A person who is not a relevant business person `belongs’ in the country of his usual place of residence. The `belonging’ definition applies equally to the recipient of a supply, where relevant.

Business establishment is not defined in the legislation but is taken by HMRC to mean the principal place of business. It is usually the head office, headquarters or ‘seat’ from which the business is run. There can only be one such place and it may take the form of an office, showroom or factory.

Fixed establishment is not defined in the legislation but is taken by HMRC to mean an establishment (other than the business establishment) which has both the technical and human resources necessary for providing and receiving services on a permanent basis. A business may therefore have several fixed establishments, including a branch of the business or an agency. A temporary presence of human and technical resources does not create a fixed establishment in the UK.

Usual place of residence. A body corporate has its usual place of residence where it is legally constituted. The usual place of residence of an individual is not defined in the legislation. HMRC interpret the phrase according to the ordinary usage of the words, ie; normally the country where the individual has set up home with his/her family and is in full-time employment. An individual is not resident in a country if only visiting as a tourist.

More than one establishment. Where the supplier/recipient has establishments in more than one country, the supplies made from/received at each establishment must be considered separately. For each supply of services, the establishment which is actually providing/receiving the services is normally the one most directly connected with the supply but all facts should be considered including

for suppliers, from which establishment the services are actually provided;
for recipients, at which establishment the services are actually consumed, effectively used or enjoyed;
which establishment appears on the contracts, correspondence and invoices;
where directors or others who entered into the contract are permanently based; and
at which establishment decisions are taken and controls are exercised over the performance of the contract.

However, where an establishment is actually providing/receiving the supply of services, it is normally that establishment which is most directly connected with the supply, even if the contractual position is different.

VAT groups

A VAT group is treated as a single entity. This also applies when applying the ‘place of belonging’. As a result, a group has establishments wherever any member of the group has establishments.

This is an area which often leads to uncertainty, and therefore VAT issues. It is also an area where VAT planning may; save time, resources and avoid unexpected VAT costs, either in the UK or another country.

For more on our International Services

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.