Size matters Part III – Bay plants are VAT free – as long as they are no bigger than 50cm and they have not been clipped or shaped.
Tag Archives: HMRC
Extension of VAT energy-saving materials relief
HMRC have published a new Policy Paper on the extension of energy-saving materials (ESMs).
Installations of ESMs in residential accommodation currently benefit from a temporary VAT zero rate until 31 March 2027, after which they revert to the reduced rate of VAT at 5%.
This measure extends the relief to installations of ESMs in buildings used solely for relevant charitable purposes, such as village halls or similar recreational facilities for a local community.
It also expands the scope of the relief to the following technologies:
- electrical batteries that store electricity generated by certain ESMs and from the National Grid
- water-source heat pumps
- diverters that enable excess electricity from certain ESMs to be used within a building in which it is generated rather than exported to the grid
It also adds certain preparatory groundworks that are necessary for the installation of ground- and water-source heat pumps.
The changes apply from 1 February 2024
The policy objective is to incentivise the installation of ESMs across the UK to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions.
The measures are implemented by The Value Added Tax (Installation of Energy-Saving Materials) Order 2024.
VAT: Alternative Dispute Resolution guidance updated
HMRC has, this month, updated its guidance on how to use Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to settle a tax dispute.
Anyone can apply for ADR to help resolve a dispute with HMRC, or to get more information about issues that need to be taken for a legal ruling. The Guidance explains how to apply for ADR and when you can use it to resolve a VAT disagreement with HMRC.
A full overview of the ADR system written by us here, but broadly, it is the involvement of a third party (a facilitator) to help resolve disputes between HMRC and taxpayers. Its aim is to reduce costs for both the taxpayer and HMRC when disputes occur and to reduce the number of cases that reach statutory review and/or Tribunal.
VAT treatment of serviced apartments: The Realreed Limited case
Latest from the courts
In this First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether serviced apartments qualify for exemption.
Background
Realreed owns a property called Chelsea Cloisters in Sloane Avenue, London. The property comprises; 656 self-contained apartments and some commercial units. 421 of these apartments are let on long leases (no VAT issues arise from these supplies). The appeal concerned the VAT treatment of the letting of the remaining 235 apartments, which include studio, one-bedroom or two-bedroom self-contained rooms. The appellant has, at all times, received a significant number of occupiers from corporate customers when they relocate their employees to London for a specified period, such as a secondment.
The contentions
Realreed argued that the letting of the apartments is a supply of accommodation which is exempt under The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 1, Item 1. Chelsea Cloisters operates like a ‘home from home’ for its tenants: it provides residential accommodation. The physical appearance of the building is very similar to that of other residential buildings in the vicinity. It does not have signage suggesting the serviced accommodation is a hotel or similar establishment. It is rare for hotels (or similar establishments) at the booking point to offer long-term availability in the same way as Realreed does. Chelsea Cloisters does not offer room service, or catering of any form. Tenants have fully functioning kitchens and other self-catering facilities within their apartments and have washing machines and dryers to do all their own laundry. Tenants can, and do, stay for extended periods of time (one for around 20 years). The business has always involved the provision of residential accommodation on a longer-term basis than would typically be found in a hotel, with a much higher degree of personal autonomy for the occupant.
HMRC contended that the use of the Apartments is carved out of the exemption in Item 1 by excepted item (d), which applies to “the provision in an hotel, inn, boarding house or similar establishment of sleeping accommodation”. Note 9 to Group 1 provides that “similar establishment” “includes premises in which there is provided furnished sleeping accommodation whether with or without the provision of board or facilities for the preparation of food, which are used or held out as being suitable for use by visitors or travellers”.
Decision
The court considered that Realreed provided sleeping accommodation in an establishment which is similar to a hotel. The two hallmarks of short-term accommodation coupled with additional services (daily maid service, linen changing, cleaning at the end of a stay, residents bar, concierge) mean that Chelsea Cloisters is an establishment in potential competition with the hotel sector, which also offers short-term accommodation with services.
The FTT found that Realreed provided furnished sleeping accommodation, so the remaining question was whether Chelsea Cloisters is used by or held out as being suitable for use by “visitors or travellers” per Note 9.
The FTT interpreted ‘visitor or traveller’ as referring to a person who is present in a particular place without making it their home, ie; they are not staying there with any degree of permanence. The average length of visit was less than a fortnight which must mean that the apartments were indeed made available to visitors or travellers.
The supplies were therefore standard rated.
Commentary
There is a distinction between leases and other room lettings for VAT. The most important issue is the degree of “permanence”, although other factors have a bearing. Businesses which let rooms should consider the nature of their supplies with reference to this case which helpfully sets out which factors need to be considered.
VAT: Are freemasons’ aims philanthropic? The United Grand Lodge UT case
In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) the issue was whether subscriptions paid by members of the freemasons are exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 9, section 31, item 1(e) “Subscriptions to trade unions, professional and other public interest bodies” which exempts membership subscriptions paid to a non-profit making organisation which has objects which are of a political, religious, patriotic, philosophical, philanthropic or civic nature. UGLE submitted claims on the basis that its subscription income was exempt (and not standard rated as declared on previous returns) and HMRC declined to make the repayments.
Background
UGLE is an unincorporated association. It has approximately 175,000 members who, in turn, are members of some 6,500 local Lodges.
An organisation which has more than one main aim can still come within the exemption if those aims are all listed and described in the legislation. The fact that the organisation has other aims which are not set out in law does not mean that its services to members are not exempt provided that those other aims are not main aims. If, however, the organisation has a number of aims, all equally important, some of which are covered by the exemption, and some of which are not, then the services supplied by the organisation to its members are wholly outside the exemption.
In the first hearing the First-Tier Tribunal concluded that the services supplied by UGLE were not exempt from VAT. It also held that UGLE does not have a civic aim. The FTT held that if an organisation had more than one aim, its eligibility for the relief would depend on its main (or primary) aim, and if it had multiple main aims, it would only qualify for the relief if all its main aims fell within the listed exemptions. If it had a number of aims which were all equally important (ie; if it had no main aim), then all those aims would have to fall within the list to enable the organisation to qualify for exemption.
The FTT Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The judge decided that the supplies made by UGLE in return for subscription payments were properly standard rated.
It was common ground that the motives of the members in joining the organisation are irrelevant.
It was accepted that since 2000 freemasonry has become more outward looking and since then has become more involved in charitable work among those, and for the benefit of those, who are not freemasons or their dependants. That said, the judge was not satisfied that the charitable works of individual freemasons, such as volunteering to give time to a local charity, were undertaken by them as freemasons rather than simply as public-spirited members of the community.
It was found that UGLE did have aims of a philosophical, philanthropic and civic nature (the promotion of all aspects of the practice of freemasonry and charity was central to UGLE’s activities). However, it was not accepted that these were UGLE’s main or primary aims. At least 48% of payments made by UGLE were to freemasons and their dependants and in the FTT’s judgment such support remained one of the main aims of freemasonry and thus of UGLE. The importance of providing support for freemasons and their dependants who are in need is a central tenet of freemasonry – The duty to help other freemasons is clearly set out in the objects of the four central masonic charities. The evidence showed that the provision of relief to freemasons and their dependants was the more important than donations to good causes unconnected with freemasonry.
Civic aims
There was nothing in the evidence which indicates any civic aim. UGLE cannot be said to be an organisation that has aims pertaining to the citizen and the state. Indeed, freemasons are prohibited from discussing matters of religion and politics in lodges.
Consequently, as one of UGLE’s main aims could not be described as philosophical, philanthropic, or civic, its membership subscriptions were standard rated. Making payments to freemasons was more akin to self-insurance, rather than philanthropic in nature.
UT – Grounds for appeal
There were two specific grounds:
- The FTT failed to address or give reasons for rejecting UGLE’s case that it had one main philosophical aim and that its activities in support of the Masonic charities were in service of the philosophy of Freemasonry, in particular the third of the three Grand Principles, Relief, and thus fell within its philosophical aim.
- Even if its activities related to UGLE’s charities could be treated as an aim which was not in service of its main philosophical aim, the activities of UGLE in support of the Masonic charities fall within the ordinary meaning of the word ‘philanthropic’. The FTT misdirected itself in law by failing to apply the ordinary meaning of the word and instead adopted a meaning of ‘philanthropic’ which is too narrow.
On the first ground the UT decided that this is not a situation in which the FTT had simply failed to set out every step of its reasoning, rather, the FTT did not give reasons for rejecting an important aspect of the Appellant’ case and found that the FTT therefore erred in law
On the second; The UT accepted that an aim may be considered to be philanthropic if an organisation aims to provide relief to specific categories of persons. However, it considered that there is a qualitative difference between organisations which raise and distribute funds for identified groups of persons and an organisation that raises funds from within the members that constitute that organisation with the aim of essentially re-distributing a large part of the funds back to some of those members and members’ dependents. That cannot be considered to be philanthropic in the sense of benevolence to the world at large, a love of mankind etc.
Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The UT rejected the contention that the FTT applied too narrow an interpretation of philanthropic. Consequently, UGLE’s membership income was standard rated for VAT purposes.
VAT: Electronic Sales Suppression (ESS)
HMRC has published new guidance on ESS and information on how to make a disclosure.
What is ESS?
ESS is also known as till fraud or till manipulation. It is where a business manipulates their till systems to hide or reduce the true value or number of sales. This is carried out through the use of ESS tools such as misusing built in till functions or installing software specifically designed to suppress sales. HMRC call this sales suppression and it is done either at, or after, the point of sale (POS). The records then appear to be correct and complete.
Businesses do this to reduce their turnover so that they pay less tax. They also do this to try to appear compliant.
Misusing a till system reduces the recorded turnover of the business and the amount of VAT payable, whilst providing what appears to be an accurate and complete record.
ESS is tax fraud. You are involved with ESS if you have made, supplied, promoted, possess or have access to an ESS tool.
You are also involved in ESS if:
- you own an ESS tool
- have access to an ESS tool
- have tried to access an ESS tool
What is an ESS tool?
An ESS tool is a piece of software, computer code script or hardware. It allows a business to hide or reduce the value of individual transactions on its electronic sales records. This includes using and/or configuring a till, or point of sale system, in a way that suppresses sales.
You do not have to have used an ESS tool to suppress sales or pay less VAT for HMRC to charge a penalty for being involved in ESS, it is fraud regardless.
HMRC powers
Finance Act 2022, Schedule 14 allows HMRC to issue an information notice for ESS. This means HMRC can ask for certain information that only applies to ESS. It allows the issue of a Notice to a ‘relevant person’ for a ‘relevant purpose’.
Who is a ‘relevant person’
A ‘relevant person’ is any person who HMRC think it might be able to charge a penalty for being involved in ESS.
What is a ‘relevant purpose’
A ‘relevant purpose’ is the reason that HMRC is asking for information about ESS and ESS Tools. The law allows HMRC to do this in three types of situations which are to help it:
- decide whether a relevant person has made, supplied, promoted, or possesses an ESS tool — HMRC would be able to charge this person a penalty
- understand how an ESS tool works
- identify any other person who has made, supplied, promoted, or possesses the ESS tool
Disclosure
HMRC is offering an opportunity for those involved in ESS to make a disclosure. Early voluntary disclosure could lead to a reduction in financial penalties. Use the ‘Make a disclosure about misusing your till system’ form to tell HMRC that you have been using your till system to reduce your tax bill.
Further reading and more detailed information on penalties here.
Why are Certificates Of Origin important? An overview
What is a Certificate of Origin (CO)?
A CO is a formal, official document which evidences in which country a good or commodity was manufactured. The certificate of origin contains information regarding the product, its destination, and the country of export.
A CO is required for most treaty agreements for cross-border trade and have become more important since Brexit (no more single market alas).
Why is a CO important?
The CO is an important document because it determines whether certain goods are eligible for import, or whether goods are subject to duties.
CO – General
Customs officials expect the CO to be a separate document from other commercial documents such as invoices or packing lists. Officials may also expect it to be signed by the exporter, the signature notarised, and the document subsequently signed and stamped by a Chamber of Commerce. Additionally, the destination Customs authority may request proof of review from a specific Chamber of Commerce.
Some countries accept electronically issued COs which have been electronically signed by a Chamber of Commerce.
Types of CO
A CO can be either in paper or digital format and must be approved by the requisite Customs Authority.
There is no standard CO document for global trade, but a CO prepared by the exporter, has at least the basic details about the product being shipped.
Non-Preferential Cos
Non-preferential COs, also known as “ordinary COs” indicate that the goods do not qualify for reduced tariffs or tariff-free treatment under trade arrangements between countries. If an exporting country does not have in place a treaty or trade agreement with the importing country, an ordinary CO will be needed.
Preferential COs
This is for shipments between countries with a trade agreement or reduced tariffs and proves the goods qualify for reduced import duties.
Legalised CO
Some countries require additional information to demonstrate the authenticity of the information in the CO. A Legalised CO is an ordinary CO that has been further authenticated. The legalisation process usually involves the CO being validated by various appropriate authorities to give more evidence to its authenticity.
Certified CO
A Certified CO is similar to a n ordinary CO. However, it has been certified by a Chamber of Commerce, government agency or other relevant authority to confirm its authenticity.
Certification involves an in-depth review of all of the information declared on the CO, as well as a thorough side-by-side comparison with the requirements of the trade agreement and regulations of the country of import to ensure full compliance.
EUR1
A EUR1 certificate is used in trade between the UK and partner countries. It is used to confirm that goods originate in the EU or a partner country so that the importer can benefit from a reduced rate of import duty.
EUR1 certificates are issued by Chambers of Commerce or Customs offices.
Contents of a CO
A CO will typically contain the following information:
- name and contact information of the manufacturer of the goods
- country of origin
- contact information of the exporting agent
- contact information of the receiver/importing agent
- description of the goods, including the appropriate product codes
- quantity, size, and weight of goods
- A waybill or bill of lading number
- means of transport and route information
- commercial invoice of payment
* A waybill is a document issued by a carrier giving details and instructions relating to the shipment of a consignment of cargo. It shows the names of the consignor and consignee, the point of origin of the consignment, its destination, and route.
How do I find out if I need a CO?
A business will need to check with its local Chamber of Commerce.
VAT: Payments on account – update
HMRC have updated its payments on account (POA) guidance.
What are POA?
These are advance payments towards a business’s VAT bill. They are mandatory.
HMRC will notify a taxpayer to make POA if a business renders VAT returns quarterly, and it owes more than £2.3 million in any period of 12 months or less.
Under the POA arrangement, businesses make interim payments at the end of months two and three for each return quarter. The interim payment is intended to cover part of the overall VAT liability for the that quarter. The balancing payment for the return’s VAT liability will be settled when the business submits its VAT return payment. Quarterly VAT returns are filed online as normal.
POA calculation
HMRC will calculate POA based on a business’s annual VAT liability in the period that it goes over the threshold. The annual VAT liability in that period will be divided by 24 to arrive at an instalment amount.
A taxable person who has been in business for less than 12 months will have POA calculated by HMRC on a pro rata basis.
POA start date and annual cycle
The payments on account cycle starts in the first quarter after a business exceeds the £2.3 million threshold.
The payments will remain the same until the start of the next annual cycle.
The annual cycle begins in April, May or June depending on which VAT return ‘stagger’ a business is on. HMRC bases the amount of payments during the annual cycle on the liability in the period known as the ‘reference year’.
POA due dates
The due dates for POA are the last working day of the second and third months of every VAT quarter no matter what the period end date is. The seven-day extension for paying electronically does not apply to POA.
POA that are not paid on time will be subject to late payment interest.
Due dates for quarterly balancing payments
Balancing payments are due with the VAT return and must clear HMRC’s bank account by the last working day of the month if standard period end dates are used.
Late payments
If a business does not make POA or the balancing payment in full and on time HMRC will:
- take immediate action to recover the debt
- charge late payment interest
- consider charging late payment penalties on amounts unpaid after the balancing payment due date
- consider transferring a business from quarterly to monthly returns
Removal from a POA arrangement
If a business’s VAT liability falls below £2.3 million in the reference year HMRC will remove it from the arrangement six months later.
Alternative to payments on account
If making POA and submitting quarterly VAT returns does not suit a business, it can choose to make VAT returns and payments monthly.
Commentary
As may be seen, it is important to recognise the POA limit and to make payments on time. There is an obvious cash flow impact and plans should be put in place if the VAT turnover is nearing the threshold.
VAT: What is a proforma invoice and how can it be used?
VAT basics
Proforma invoices (proformas) are preliminary documents usually sent to buyers in advance of a delivery of goods/provision of services. Proformas will typically describe details of the purchase of goods/services and other important information, such as the terms of the transaction. Proformas are not “official” documents and represent an informal agreement. Usually, requesting a proforma represents a more serious interest on the part of a buyer than a quote – a buyer is generally committed to making a purchase but want to understand the details before proceeding with the approval process and making a binding agreement with the seller. They are therefore a useful business tool and use of them may result in a beneficial cashflow position for VAT (please see below).
Proforma translates from Latin as “for the sake of form”, and this provides an indication that the document is provisional or a step in a process.
It is also worth noting that the use of proformas is not mandatory.
The difference between an invoice and a proforma
Invoices (also called commercial invoices, VAT invoices or tax invoices) are distinct from proformas. They may contain similar information but serve different purposes. It is important to avoid confusing the two, since only invoices are legal documents; that is, they evidence a transaction and is the document on which VAT may be claimed. An invoice must contain certain information and there are specific legal obligations for providing them.
It is a matter of law whether an invoice is valid and when they must be issued. A proforma is not required to follow any set form, apart from the facts that they must not have an invoice number and must state that it is a proforma invoice. We also recommend that a proforma does not show the supplier’s VAT number for the avoidance of doubt.
Contents of a proforma
Proformas can be considered as “dummy invoices” and they are prepared by the seller usually to provide details of:
- the issuing business’s name, address, and contact details
- customer’s name and address
- date of issue
- length of time the pricing is valid
- the goods/services requested, including quantities, type, and physical specifications
- pricing, including individual costs as well as the total amount to be charged
- terms of sale, including eg; shipping and delivery dates
- payment terms
- whether VAT is applicable
However, there are no set formats for proformas.
Use for buyer
The purpose of a proforma is to provide the buyer with an accurate and complete good faith estimate they can use to decide whether or not to go ahead with a transaction. It also avoids surprises when the actual tax invoice is issued.
VAT implications
The main distinctions are that, compared to a tax invoice, a proforma:
- does not create a tax point
- the recipient is unable to recover input tax on a proforma
Very broadly, the tax point (time of supply) this is the earliest of; invoice date, receipt of payment, goods transferred or services completed. The tax point fact is helpful in tax planning for suppliers. Broadly, using proformas, requests for payment, or similar documents rather than issuing an invoice, defers a tax point and consequently when VAT is payable to HMRC. This is especially relevant to businesses which provide ongoing services (known as continuous supplies of services).
Please contact us if you require more information on the commercial use of proformas.
VAT: Contact lens services – taxable or exempt? The Vision Direct case
Latest from the courts
In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Vision Dispensing Limited the issue was whether services linked to the online sale of prescription contact lenses were covered by the exemption at The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, group 7, item 1 (b) – the provision of medical care.
Generally speaking, opticians provide two types of supply
- exempt medical care; sight tests, measuring and fitting
- the standard rated supply of goods; spectacles, contact lenses, accessories etc
Almost always a customer pays a single amount which covers the services as well as the goods, so an apportionment is required. HMRC updated guidance on apportionment here.
Background
The Appellant “VDL” supplies services in connection with the online sale of contact lenses and this appeal was concerned with the question whether those supplies are subject to VAT at the standard rate.
The legislation provides for exemption for medical care by a person registered or enrolled in either of the registers of Ophthalmic Opticians or the register of Dispensing Opticians kept under the Opticians Act 1989. The exemption is also extended to persons who are not registered/enrolled under the Act but are directly supervised by a person who is so registered or enrolled.
VDL is a UK incorporated company and a member of the Vision Direct corporate group. VDL has a sister group company called Vision Direct BV (“VDBV”) which is based in The Netherlands. VDL operates a warehouse facility in the UK. Goods (contact lenses and other optical products) belonging to VDBV were stored in the warehouse and dispatched to purchasers by VDL, using its own workforce. VDL also employed customer assistants, who deal with a range of enquiries from customers. VDBV operates the website visiondirect.co.uk through which prescription contact lenses and other optical goods are supplied to UK customers. Customers purchasing prescription contact lenses or other optical products online enter two contracts; one with VDBV for the supply of contact lenses and one with VDL for the supply of dispensing services. There is also a contract between VDL and VDBV. VDL is not paid a fee by VDBV, its income comprises by the fee paid by customers.
The arguments
HMRC contended that there is little evidence to support that there was advice being provided to customs by VDL and consequently, there were serious questions about whether healthcare services are being supplied. The supplies fall short of a number of regulatory requirements and that the supplies described as dispensing services cannot properly be described as professional clinical advice or therapeutic care. HMRC stated that VDL has never seen a single customer. Clinical advice cannot be delivered in an impersonal or generic way.
HMRC pointed out that:
- the website makes it clear that VDL does not provide advice on which customers can depend. Consequently, it cannot rely on the website as evidence of medical care
- there is no direct link between the use of the website and payments to VDL. For there to be a supply, there must be a direct link between the supplier and the recipient
VDL contended that its dispensing services are superior to those available on the High Street. Contrary to HMRC’s case, it is able to identify multiple examples of clinical advice and the purpose of its supplies is to assist in the treatment of defective eyesight. All services are directly supervised by those with the appropriate qualifications.
Deliberation
The FTT was required to determine whether VDL’s services constituted medical care and were those services wholly performed or directly supervised by appropriate persons?
It was agreed that the advice does not need to be complex or personalised to be covered by the exemption as long as it contributes to the efficacy of the overall therapeutic process. The material provided on the website was comprehensive and covered the entire process from an eye test, the diagnosis of an eye defect, and then the selection, measuring and fitting of spectacles or lenses to the supply of those spectacles or lenses.
It was concluded by the FTT that the provision of the website was by VDBV as in the T&Cs VDBV operates it and owns the intellectual property rights to its content. Consequently, the provision of the website could not be part of the supply by VDL. VDL supplied the material or reviewed its content for VDBV pursuant to a contract between the two companies.
Decision
The FTT concluded that:
- the quality, quantity, and nature of the optical information on the website was such that its provision could amount to medical care, but;
- the information on the website is not provided by VDL (but by VDBV)
- even if it were provided by VDL, the terms on which it is made available mean that it is not part of any supply made by VDL to customers and must be left out of account when it comes to characterising the supplies VDL does make
- what VDL does do is choose the correct lenses and dispatch them. There is no element of medical care in VDL’s supply
- there was little evidence as to how the opticians monitored the performance of the staff so that they could satisfy themselves that their performance was of a suitable standard, so it could not be said that there was direct supervision.
As a result, VDL did not provide medical care and in any case, the services were not wholly performed or directly supervised by appropriately qualified individuals so exemption could not apply
The appeal was dismissed.
Commentary
Opticians have long produced VAT challenges since the cases of Leightons and Eye-Tech in the 1990s. Any businesses using a similar business model are advised to review the treatment of their supplies in light of this case.