Tag Archives: indirect-tax

Taxpayer loses in “TNT” claims lead case.

By Marcus Ward 9 July 2014

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

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

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

VAT implications of renewable energy sources

By Marcus Ward 8 July 2014

If you own land and install solar panels (which we shall use as an example, although the rules apply equally to any way of generating renewable power), it is relatively straightforward; as you are either consuming the power, or are the provider supplying electricity back to the National Grid.

Where the position may get slightly more complicated is where a solar panel business buy the ‘space’ to install energy producing equipment from someone else. Many businesses are renting the roof space from others upon which to install the solar panels. The businesses may pay the roof owners with ‘free’ electricity in return for renting out this space. Supply of electricity to the owners of the site

For a solar panel business leasing a site, the supply of electricity to the owners of that site is deemed to be a supply of goods.

The business installing the solar panels is the taxable person (if they are, or should be registered for VAT) and they are supplying the owners of the site with a ‘cheap’ supply of electricity in the course of the furtherance of their business.

The supply of electricity for domestic use is a reduced-rate supply under Group 1 of Schedule 7A VATA 1994. The reduced rate of VAT is 5%. If the site owner is using the electricity for domestic purposes then the reduced rate of 5% should apply. If the electricity is being used for business purposes then the supply becomes standard-rated at 20%. However, if there is mixed use, then so long as more than 60% of the use is domestic then the whole supply will be treated as ‘qualifying use’ ie; domestic, and the 5% will apply to the entire amount. Generally speaking, VAT charged at 5% is fully or partly irrecoverable by the recipient.

So in this scenario, the land owner is providing something in exchange for this electricity use; the land owner is giving the solar panel business the use of his land. Therefore this is ‘consideration’ for a service; even if it is ‘non-monetary’ consideration.

This means that the solar panel business will have to calculate a value for this consideration and then charge 5% (or 20%) VAT as necessary, on this amount if they are VAT registered.

The value placed on this non-monetary consideration is not usually a concern for the land owner making the supplies of this land, as this land supply is itself exempt from VAT.

The supply of the land
This is a supply of land by the owner of the site. Unless the land has been ‘opted to tax’ (OTT) then this supply will be exempt from VAT. If the land has been OTT by the landowner – the parties will need to look at the valuation of the (non-monetary) consideration as this will be subject to VAT at 20%. If there is no OTT and the supply is exempt; for a non-VAT registered person, this will have no impact, and this income will not be included in taxable supplies which count towards the VAT registration threshold. If a VAT registered entity makes exempt supplies of land, consideration must be given to his partial exemption position.

VAT consequences of the Feed-In Tariff
In recognition of the higher cost of producing electricity in this manner, people participating in the Feed in Tariff scheme will receive payment under a “generation tariff”. This payment is not consideration for any supply and it is therefore outside the scope of VAT.

Supply of electricity to the electricity board
In addition to the Feed-In Tariff there is the additional income which you may receive from the electricity board ie; the “Export Tariff”. These payments are “consideration for supplies of electricity by people participating in the Feed in Tariff scheme to the electricity company, where they are made by taxable persons in the course of their business”. The export tariff is not outside the scope of VAT and therefore it is a supply of electricity made in the course of the furtherance of your business to the electricity supplier. It will attract standard rated VAT as it is not the supply for domestic use.

Update

A recent Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU – the EU’s highest court) case has ruled in favour of the taxpayer after he argued that solar panels installed on his house constituted a business for VAT purposes. This is good news for any people who supply any energy into the grid and are paid a feed-in tariff (FiT) for doing so.

It means that anyone receiving the FiT can VAT register and reclaim (at least some) VAT incurred on the purchase and installation of solar panels plus input tax incurred on any other goods and services relating to the panels.

The supply and installation of “energy saving materials”, including solar panels, is currently subject to a reduced VAT rate of 5% in the UK. The European Commission is currently challenging this policy, arguing that the tax incentive goes beyond the scope of the law. The VAT Directive only allows member states to apply reduced VAT rates to a limited number of goods and services, which are specified in an annex to the directive. So the cost of buying and installing solar panels may increase in the future.

It is anticipated that HMRC will need to deal with “thousands” of extra registration applications resulting in significant additional VAT repayments.

Some Odd VAT Facts

By Marcus Ward 23 June 2014

We all know that the VAT rules throw up some oddities which are mainly the result of new products, technology and the way people live their lives now. I do think that the law needs a significant, consistent overhaul rather than a piecemeal approach, but let’s just consider some of the weird results the present system throws up. This is a MOSS* for all tabloid journalists….

* Mini One-Stop Shop

An odd rule applies to gingerbread men. No VAT is charged if the figure has two chocolate spots for its eyes, but any chocolate-based additions, such as buttons or a belt, mean VAT is payable.

The sale of a horse is standard rated. However, the sale of a dead one (for horse meat) is zero rated. I wouldn’t really want to dwell on the VAT planning aspects of this…

A downloaded purchase of the bible is standard rated while “saucy” top shelf magazines are VAT free.

So that’s what it’s called….. From HMRC guidance – “For the purposes of establishing the place of supply of services, stallion nominations (The right to nominate a mare to be covered by a stallion in one breeding season) and the covering of mares is treated as ‘work carried out on goods’”.

Food for wild birds is zero rated while food for caged birds is at 20%.

Well, what do you know?! Jaffa cakes are cakes, Pringles are crisps and now Lucozade Sport is a beverage. That’s what the Upper Tribunal has just ruled, so the drink is now subject to VAT. So now we know.

(And since this is VAT, we have to mention Jaffa cakes – again!) It was ruled as a fact that cakes go hard when stale whereas biscuits go soft.

Food that is too hot to eat can be classed as cold food for VAT purposes.

Orange juice is zero rated. Lemon juice is zero rated. Mix them, and you have a standard rated product.

Peanuts in shells are zero rated, salted peanuts are standard rated.

If your shop is burgled, it’s best to let the robbers take your stock. Goods lost to theft are not subject to VAT, but if cash (which customers have paid for goods) is taken from the till a VATable supply has still been made and VAT is due on it.

The sales of kangaroos are standard-rated but kangaroo steaks are zero-rated.

Rabbits are zero-rated, even if sold as pets. Sales of pets are standard rated.

The sales of counterfeit (illegal) goods are subject to 20% VAT, but the sale of counterfeit banknotes are not.

There was a planning scheme called the golden toothbrush, but it didn’t matter what colour the toothbrush was.

Ferret food has recently been ruled to be subject to 20% when it was VAT free from 1973.

Caviar is deemed a necessity in terms of VAT, while orange squash is a luxury item.

Buying a coffin is standard-rated but hiring a hearse is VAT free.

Children’s clothing with rabbit and gazelle fur (and even dog skin) is zero-rated but if it has Tibetan goat fur it is subject to VAT.

Tuition provided by a sole practitioner is exempt, but if the tutor incorporates then their supplies become standard-rated.

In the Spearmint Rhino case it was ruled that there is no VAT on lap dances.

Under some VAT schemes, zero rated and exempt supplies are subject to VAT (and even some which are “Outside the scope of UK VAT”).

Dog food for a poodle is subject to VAT but exactly the same food can be zero rated if it is for a Labrador.

Court of Appeal judgement on Subway hot food case

By Marcus Ward 11 June 2014

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

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

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

New house builds to be subject to 20% VAT?

By Marcus Ward 9 June 2014

Reports that a recently issued EC consultation document is proposing to harmonise VAT rates across Europe thus removing the UK’s zero rate have stirred up something of a hornet’s nest. Clearly, in this delicate (although slowly improving) climate for house builders an additional 20% cost could damage the market irrevocably adding £50,000 to the cost of a £250,000 house. Commentators in the trade have announced that it would be a disaster for new home buyers, the construction sector, and the UK economy in general.

However, are these reports in the national press all that they seem? Or is this another tabloid attack on the EC? Such consultation documents are issued regularly and they consider many aspects of VAT across the EC. An EC spokesman, when questioned about this issue, stated “the consultation was not pre-empting a move and considering VAT ‘in general’” Additionally, a spokesman for the Treasury announced “’The UK government has no intention of agreeing to such a proposal, and there is no consultation to change the zero tax rate”. Historically, UK authorities have fought doggedly to retain all of the UK’s zero rates because once they are removed, it is not possible under EC legislation, to reinstate them. The UK is unique in applying the zero rate to items such as food, new houses, books and newspapers and while it is not possible to widen or extend the scope of the zero rating, the UK is permitted, for the time being, to retain those which are in place. So, is there any truth in these “rumours”? It appears that the report was published by the Daily Mail, which in turn appears to have obtained the story from The Daily Express. Although there is a continuing will to harmonise VAT across the EC, I would be very surprised indeed if the UK was to be forced to standard rate new house builds. My personal view is that there appears to be a little mischief making here and the house building industry has enough to worry about rather than this imposed 20% price hike.

Please see here for our land and property services

Are e-books books?

By Marcus Ward 21 May 2014

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

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

Added VAT Cost For Charities

By Marcus Ward 7 April 2014

Charities have a very hard time of it in terms of VAT, since not only do they have to contend with complex legislation and accounting (which other businesses, no matter how large or complicated do not) but VAT represents a real and significant cost.

By their very nature, charities carry out “non-business” activities which means that VAT is not recoverable on the expenses of carrying out these activities. Additionally, many charities are involved in exempt supplies which also means a restriction on the ability to recover VAT on attributable costs.

These two elements are distinct and require separate calculations which are often very convoluted. The result of this is that charities bear an unfair burden of VAT, especially so since the sector carries out important work in respect of; health and welfare, poverty, education and housing etc. Although there are some specific reliefs available to charities, these are very limited and do not, by any means, compensate for the overall VAT cost charities bear.

Another issue is legal uncertainty over what constitutes “business income” for charities, especially the VAT status of grants. It’s worth bearing in mind here the helpful comment in the EC case of Tolsma translated as: “…the question is whether services carried on by [a person] were carried on for the payment or simply with the payment”.

Many charities depend on donations which, due to the economic climate have fallen in value at a time when there is a greater demand on charities from struggling individuals and organisations.

What can be done?

Ensure any applicable reliefs are taken advantage of.
If significant expenditure is planned, ensure that professional advice is sought to mitigate any tax loss.
Review the VAT position to ensure that the most appropriate partial exemption methods and non-business apportionment is in place.
Review any land and property transactions. These are high value and some reliefs are available. Additionally it is possible to carry out planning to improve the VAT position of a property owning charity.
Review VAT procedures to ensure that VAT is declared correctly. Penalties for even innocent errors have increased recently and are incredibly swingeing.
Consider a VAT “healthcheck” which often identifies problems and planning opportunities.

We have considerable expertise in the not for profit sector and would be pleased to discuss any areas of concern, or advise on ways of reducing the impact of VAT on a charity.

Please click here for more information on our Charity Services

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

By Marcus Ward 31 March 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of the fully resolved facilitations –

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

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

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

Features of ADR:

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

Conclusion of the HMRC pilot scheme:

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

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

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

VAT – Changes to the treatment of electronically-supplied services from 2015

By Marcus Ward 24 March 2014

Although it seems some time away, these changes, which come into effect on 1 January 2015, will have a significant impact on any business which provides e-services (wherever in the EC it is based). It is important for suppliers to understand and plan for the new rules; the sooner the better.

What are e-services for VAT purposes? – Broadly these are services usually obtained via the internet and may comprise; films, music, information, software for which the supplier makes a charge.

Are all of these services affected? – No, only B2C services (where the recipients are not in business, eg; an individual). The rules for B2B supplies will not change.

What are the changes? At present, suppliers based in the EC charge VAT at the rate applicable in the EC Member State in which the business is located. Currently, therefore, VAT planning insists that technology companies locate in countries with low VAT rates. However, to combat this, the EC will introduce a rule whereby the place of supply (where VAT is due) changes to where the customer is located (not where the supplier belongs). Consequently, a company currently based in Luxembourg supplying a service which is downloaded by an individual in the UK will charge VAT at 15% (the rate in Luxembourg). From 1 January 2015, the UK recipient will pay VAT at 20% (the UK rate).

Businesses will need to introduce these changes and manage budgets and forecasts to recognise what, on the whole, will be a significant increase in VAT payable. This will, for most businesses result in a reduction in profits or an increase in prices for customers.

As may be seen, this will add considerable complexity for businesses to deal with and with the current penalty regime care must be taken to avoid even further costs. Businesses affected must start to plan for these changes as soon as possible.

Are there any easements available? The new rules change would require EC suppliers to register and account for VAT in every EC Member State where their services are downloaded by non-business customers. In order to avoid this burden a “mini one stop shop” (MOSS) is also being introduced. This will allow suppliers to register just once in their own EU Member State. This single registration will then allow them to account for VAT due in other Member states. HMRC has indicated that businesses will be able to register under the MOSS from October 2014. How this will actually work in practice remains to be seen.

Good luck everybody!

Please click here for more information on our International Services

Agent or principal? Latest from The Supreme Court

By Marcus Ward 13 March 2014

There is a very important distinction in VAT terms between agent and principal as it dictates whether output tax is due on the entire amount received by a “middle-man” or just the amount which the middle-man retains (usually a commission). It is common for the relationship between parties to be open to interpretation and thus create VAT uncertainty in many transactions. It appears to me that this uncertainty has increased as a result of the increasing amount of on-line sales and different parties being involved in a single sale.

A very helpful recent case; Secret Hotels 2 Ltd (formerly Med Hotels) heard at the Supreme Court, has clarified some grey areas in agent/principal relationships.

Very broadly, in this case which the taxpayer won, the judgement tips the balance back into the favour of common law as opposed to civil law principles for UK taxpayers and that the nature of a supply is to be determined by the construction of the contract – unless it is a ‘sham’.

This Supreme Court Judgment helpfully indicates that we must place far greater emphasis on the form of the arrangement (contract) as opposed to the economic substance (as often argued by HMRC).

The full decision is available here: http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0036_PressSummary.pdf

Although there will always be disputes over agent/principal relationships, this decision goes some way to clarifying the analysis and demonstrating the importance of the contract over what HMRC describe as “economic reality”.

Please contact us if you are, or have been, in dispute with HMRC on this point as it provides additional ammunition for the taxpayer.

Please click here for information on disbursements for agents