Tag Archives: input-tax

VAT: TOGC and deliberate errors – The Apollinaire case

By Marcus Ward 19 December 2022

Latest from the courts

In the First -Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Apollinaire Ltd and Mr Z H Hashmi the issues were:

whether the appellant’s input tax claim was valid
were the director’s actions “deliberate”
was a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) appropriate?

Background

Mr Hashmi (the sole director of Apollinaire) asserted that he sold his business, Snow Whyte Limited to a Mr Singh as a going concern, together with the trading name “Benny Hamish”. The purchase price was never paid. He alleged that Mr Singh traded for approximately one month and then sold stock worth £573,756 to Apollinaire. The appellant submitted an input tax claim for the purchase of the goods. HMRC refused to make the repayment and raised penalties for deliberate errors. HMRC subsequently issued a PLN to Mr Hashmi.

Issues

Initially HMRC stated that Mr Singh may not have existed, that there was no sale of Snow Whyte Ltd by Mr Hashmi to Mr Singh and similarly, no sale back to Mr Hashmi. However, this submission was later amended to argue that Mr Hashmi controlled the movement of the stock at all times and that the issue was whether the transfer of stock from Snow Whyte Limited was a Transfer Of a Going Concern (TOGC), whether or not Mr Singh existed.

Mr Hashmi appealed, contending that the transactions took place as described to HMRC.

Decision

Unsurprisingly, given Mr Hashmi’s previous history of dissolving companies, but continuing to trade under the same name as those companies (listed at para 14 of the decision) and failing to submit returns and payments, the FTT accepted HMRC’s version of events. Further, there was insufficient evidence to support the transactions (if they took place) and the judge fund that the appellant’s evidence was not credible. If the events did take place, there was no input tax to claim as all the tests (where relevant here) for a TOGC (Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995, Regulation 5) were met:

the assets were sold as a business as a going concern
the assets were used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business
there was no break in trading
both entities traded under the same name
both entities operated from the same premises
both entities had the same employees and tills

The appeal was dismissed.

Penalties

The FTT further decided that HMRC’s penalties and PLN [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] were appropriate. The claim for input tax was deliberately overstated and that Mr Hashmi was the controlling mind of both entities and was personally liable as the sole company director of Apollinaire.

HMRC relied on case law: Clynes v Revenue and Customs[2016] UKFTT 369 (TC) which reads as follows:

“On its normal meaning, the use of the term indicates that for there to be a deliberate inaccuracy on a person’s part, the person must have acted consciously, with full intention or set purpose or in a considered way…

…Our view is that, depending on the circumstances, an inaccuracy may also be held to be deliberate where it is found that the person consciously or intentionally chose not to find out the correct position, in particular, where the circumstances are such that the person knew he should do so.”

Commentary

This case is a reverse of the usual TOGC disputes as HMRC sought to establish that there was no taxable supply so no VAT was due. It underlines that:

care should always be taken with applying TOGC treatment (or appreciating the results of failing to recognise a TOGC)
penalties for deliberate errors can be significant and swingeing
directors can, and are, held personally responsible for actions taken by a company

Claiming UK VAT from overseas

By Marcus Ward 28 November 2022

With news that HMRC is testing a new electronic submission portal – the Secure Data Exchange Service (SDES) system for overseas businesses to recover VAT incurred in the UK, I thought it timely to look at the process. Especially as the deadline is 31 December 2022 for VAT incurred between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2022.

The SDES is currently being tested. However, it is available to businesses to make claims, but during the testing period a claimant will need to email HMRC to request access.

Access to SDES request

Claimants wishing to use SDES, are required to email newcastle.oru@hmrc.gov.uk and should include:

‘SDES’ in the subject field
confirmation that the business would like to use the SDES
whether there is a Business Tax Account already set up

HMRC says it will contact the requestor within 15 calendar days to start the registration process and provide registration guidance.

Any queries on the registration process, may be addressed to the Overseas Repayment Unit on 0300 322 9279

If it goes wonky

HMRC states that during testing there may be times when SDES be stopped without notice. If it is stopped, claimants will be told by HMRC updating its online guidance. Further: If the service is stopped, it will not affect the claims that have already been submitted through it.

The alternative to claiming during testing is the good old-fashioned paper claims.

Claims in the UK

A non-UK based business may make a claim for recovery of VAT incurred in the UK. Typically, these are costs such as; employee travel and subsistence, service charges, exhibition costs, tooling, imports of goods, training, purchases of goods in the UK, and clinical trials etc.

Who can claim?

The scheme is available for any businesses that are:

not VAT registered in the UK
have no place of business or other residence in the UK
do not make any supplies in the UK

What cannot be claimed?

The usual rules that apply to UK business claiming input tax also apply to claims from overseas. Consequently, the likes of; business entertainment, car purchase, non-business use and supplies used for exempt activities are usually barred.

Amount

There is no maximum claim amount, but for most periods of less than twelve months a minimum of £130 of VAT must be claimed. For annual claims or for periods less than three months ending on 30 June, the VAT must be at least £16.

Process

The business must obtain a Certificate Of Status (CoS) from its local tax or government department to accompany a claim.

The CoS must be the original and contain the:

name, address and official stamp of the authorising body
claimants name and address
nature of the claimant’s business
claimant’s business registration number

The CoS is only valid for twelve months. Once it has expired you will need to submit a new CoS.

HMRC has previously announced (RCB 12 – 2018) that it is taken a firmer stance on what constitutes an acceptable CoS.

Claim form

The application form is a VAT65A and is available here Original invoices which show the VAT charged must be submitted with the claim form and CoS. Applications without a certificate, or certificates and claim forms received after the deadline are not accepted by HMRC. It is possible for a business to appoint an agent to register to enable them to make refund applications on behalf of that business.

Deadline

Claim periods run annually up to 30 June and must be submitted by 31 December of the same year. With the usual Christmas rush and distractions, it may be easy to overlook this deadline and some claims may be significant. Unfortunately, this is not a rapid process and even if claims are accurate and the supporting documents are in all in order the claim often takes some time to be repaid. Although the deadline is the end of the year HMRC say that it will allow an additional three months for submission of a CoS (only).

Payment

Refunds are made within six months of a “satisfactory application”.

Further information is available here HMRC guidance.

VAT: HMRC to end making payable orders to NETPs

By Marcus Ward 9 November 2021

HMRC will stop issuing payable orders to overseas non-established taxpayers (NETP – taxpayers who are registered for UK VAT but do not have a business address here). The system automatically issued a payable order if a NETP was due a repayment.

Background

HMRC has received notifications and complaints from taxpayers advising that they can no longer cash their payable orders in their country or their bank. The impact of Brexit and COVID19 has seen an increase in banks/countries no longer accepting payable orders. Consequently, HMRC were sending repayments to NETPs with the knowledge they may not be able to cash them.

New Gform

To address this issue HMRC has created a Gform that will enable NETPs to send their bank account information in order that the issue of a payable order can be avoided and a Clearing House Automated Payment System (CHAPS) payment made instead.

Access

HMRC systems do not currently have CHAPS functionality or the ability to store overseas bank information. However, once a NETP has completed the form, which is accessed via the Government Gateway HMRC will set a lock on the taxpayer’s record to prevent the payable order being automatically issued. NETPs will then receive their repayments directly into their bank account without the need to visit their bank to cash a payable order.

Information required

Information requested on the Gform will include:

VAT registration number
address
email address
bank account information
payable order information if necessary

VAT: HMRC Toolkits updated

By Marcus Ward 4 June 2020

HMRC has updated the following online toolkits for June 2020:

Input tax

Output tax and

Partial exemption

The Toolkits

These toolkits can be a useful resource. Although designed for agents and advisers, they can equally be of assistance to businesses when completing VAT returns. The contents are based on HMRC’s view of how tax law should be applied, so they should not be used as a substitute for proper professional advice. These toolkits set out areas of risk, provide general checklists, details of record keeping and links to HMRC information. Many find that these toolkits are more user friendly than “traditional” HMRC guidance and they address many contentious areas.

Overview

For a helpful general guide to input tax and checklist please see here. And an introduction to partial exemption here.

VAT – Input tax claims. Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 1 June 2020

Latest from the courts

In the recent First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Aitmatov Academy an otherwise unremarkable case illustrates the care required when making input tax claims.

The quantum of the claim was low and the technical issues not particularly complex, however, it underlined some basic rules for making a VAT claim.

Background

A doctor organised a cultural event at the House of Lords for which no charge was made to attendees. The event organiser as shown on the event form was the doctor. Aitmatov Academy was shown as an organisation associated with the event. It was agreed that the attendees were not potential customers of Aitmatov Academy and that the overall purpose of the event was cultural and not advertising.

Issues

HMRC disallowed the claim. The issues were:

HMRC contended that the expenses were not incurred by the taxpayer but by the doctor personally (the doctor was not VAT registered)
that if the VAT was incurred by the Academy, it was not directly attributed to a taxable supply
that if the VAT was directly attributed to a taxable supply, it was business entertaining, on which input tax is blocked

Decision

The FTT found that the Academy incurred the cost and consequently must have concluded that the Academy was the recipient of the supply, not the doctor.

However, the judge decided that the awards ceremony was not directly or indirectly linked to taxable supplies made or intended to be made by the Academy, and therefore that the referable input tax should not be allowed. Consequently, the court did not need to consider whether the event qualified as business entertainment.

On a separate point, the appellant contended that, as a similar claim had been paid by HMRC previously, she could not see the difference that caused input VAT in this case to be disallowed. The Tribunal explained that its role is to apply the law in this specific instance and as such it cannot look at what happened in an early case which is not the subject of an appeal.

Commentary

A helpful reminder of some of the tests that need to be passed in order for an input tax claim to be valid. I have written about some common issues with claims and provided a checklist. Broadly, in addition to the tests in this case, a business needs to consider:

whether there was actually a supply
is the documentation correct?
time limits
the VAT liability of the supply
the place of supply
partial exemption
non-business activity – particularly charity and NFP bodies
if the claim is specifically blocked (eg; cars, and certain schemes)

I have also looked at which input tax is specifically barred.

Finally, “entertainment” is a topic all of its own. I have considered what is claimable here in article which includes a useful flowchart.

As always, the message is; if a business is to avoid penalties and interest, if there is any doubt over the validity of a claim, seek advice!

The penalty regime……the dark side of VAT

By Marcus Ward 22 May 2020

VAT Penalties

I have made a lot of references to penalties in other articles over the years. So I thought it would be a good idea to have a closer look; what are they, when are they levied, rights of appeal, and importantly how much could they cost if a business gets it wrong?

Overview

Broadly, a penalty is levied if the incorrect amount of VAT is declared, either by understating output tax due, or overclaiming input tax, or accepting an assessment which is known to be too low.

Amount of penalty

HMRC detail three categories of inaccuracy. These are significant, as each has its own range of penalty percentages. If an error is found to fall within a lower band, then a lower penalty rate will apply. Where the taxpayer has taken ‘reasonable care,’ even though an error has been made, then no penalty will apply.

An error, when reasonable care not taken: 30%;
An error which is deliberate, but not concealed: 70%;
An error, which is deliberate and concealed: 100%.

Reasonable care

There is no definition of ‘reasonable care’. However, HMRC have said that they would not expect the same level of knowledge or expertise from a self-employed person, as from a large multi-national.

HMRC expect that, where an issue is unclear, advice is sought, and a record maintained of that advice. They also expect that, where an error is made, it is adjusted, and HMRC notified promptly. They have specifically stated that merely to adjust a return will not constitute a full disclosure of an error. Therefore, a penalty may still be applicable.

Notification

What the penalty is based on

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

Defending a penalty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appealing a penalty

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

The normal time limit for penalties to four years. Additionally, where there is deliberate action to evade VAT, a 20 year limit applies. In particular, this applies to a loss of VAT which arises as a result of a deliberate inaccuracy in a document submitted by that person.

These are just the penalties for making “errors” on VAT returns. HMRC have plenty more for anything from late registration to issuing the wrong paperwork.

Even darker

There are even more severe penalties for deliberate acts, including significant terms of imprisonment. That is the subject of another article.

Assistance

My advice is always to check on all aspects of a penalty and seek assistance for grounds to challenge a decision to levy a penalty. We have a very high success rate in defending businesses against inappropriate penalties. It is always worth running a penalty past us.

VAT: Intention is crucial – The Sonaecom case

By Marcus Ward 18 May 2020

We cannot control the future…

The Sonaecom case

In the opinion* of the CJEU AG (C-42/19) the importance of a taxpayer’s intention was of utmost importance, regardless of whether that intention was achieved.

Background

Sonaecom intended to acquire a telecoms provider company. As is usual in such cases, input tax was incurred on consultancy received, from, amongst others; accountants and legal service providers. The intention post acquisition was for Sonaecom to make certain charges to the acquired co. These would have been taxable supplies.

Unfortunately, the intended purchase was aborted.

The issue

The issue before the AG was; as no taxable supplies took place as the deal fell through – to what should the input tax incurred on advice be attributed?

Opinion

In the AG’s view the fact that the acquisition was aborted was no reason for the claim for input tax to denied. This was based on the fact that:

Sonaecom was not a “pure holding company”
There was a genuine intention to make taxable supplies (to the acquired co)
There was a direct and immediate link between the costs and the intended supplies
Although the acquisition costs would exceed the proposed management charges, this was not a reason to invalidate the claim
The above analysis was not affected by the fact that the transaction did not take place

Commentary

There are often issues in relation to intentions of a taxpayer. It is clear, and was emphasised in this case, that intention is all important. Of course, intentions can change over a period of time and commercial and political events may thwart or cause intentions to be re-evaluated. There is often an issue about evidencing an intention. HMRC usually require comprehensive documentary evidence to demonstrate an objective. Such evidence is sometime not available for various reasons. Consequently, it is prudent for businesses to record (board meeting minutes etc at the very least) the commercial reasons for taking a certain course of action. This issue quite often arises in transactions in land and property – which can create additional technical issues.

There is legislation in place to cover situations when intentions, or actual events change and which affect the original input tax position: The Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Regs 108 and 109.

Other areas of VAT which often to raise issues are management charges and holding companies. HMRC apparently continue to be eager to attack taxpayers in these areas and I have looked at the role of holding companies and the VAT treatment here, here and here.

I think it is useful to bear in mind a question which, in itself does not evidence an intention, but provides commercial coherence – Why were the costs incurred if there was no intention to make the acquisition? This does leave aside the future management charges position but goes some way to provide business logic.

It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds, but I would find it very surprising if the court diverges from this AG opinion.

* AG’s Opinion

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) consists of one judge from each Member State, assisted by eleven Advocates General whose role is to consider the written and oral submissions to the court in every case that raises a new point of law, and deliver an impartial opinion to the court on the legal solution.

VAT Notice 700/57 Administrative agreements with trade bodies – Update

By Marcus Ward 5 May 2020

HMRC has published an updated version of VAT Notice 700/57: Administrative agreements with trade bodies.

This is an unusual publication as it lists situations where there are, or can be, deviations from “normal” VAT rules.

The agreements in the Notice permit members of trade bodies to use procedures which take into account their individual circumstances so they may meet their obligations under VAT law. The agreements apply only to areas where HMRC can exercise discretion, and HMRC say that they convey no direct financial advantage or relief from the legal requirements of the tax. However, there can be benefits a business can derive from the arrangements, including, but not limited to; simplification, cashflow, compliance and management.

The agreements can provide unique solutions to particular problems and reduce the burdens on businesses. Some of them might usefully be applied by other businesses, but it should be born in mind that a business cannot adopt any special method based on these agreements unless HMRC has given approval in advance.

The trade bodies covered in the Notice are:

London Bullion Market Association

Brewers’ Society

Association of British Factors and Discounters

Finance Houses Association Ltd

Association of British Insurers

Association of Investment Trust Companies

British Printing Industries Federation

Marine, Aviation and Transport Insurance Underwriters

Association of British Insurers, Lloyd’s of London, the Institute of London Underwriters and British Insurance and Investment Association

National Caravan Council Limited and the British Holiday and Home Park Association Limited

Association of Unit Trust and Investment Managers

British Bankers’ Association

British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association

Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders

Gaming Board for Great Britain and the British Casino Association

British Phonographic Industry

Thoroughbred Breeders Association and the British Horseracing Board

Meat and Livestock Commission

Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited

Retail Motor Industry Federation

if you or your clients are involved in business covered by, or similar to, the above entities, it maybe worthwhile considering whether any specialised trade agreements may be of benefit.

VAT: Retrospective claims – standard of proof. NHS Lothian case

By Marcus Ward 24 April 2020

Latest from the courts

An interesting and helpful comment was made by the judge in the NHS Lothian Health Board Court of Session (the Scottish equivalent of the Court of Appeal) case.

Background

The case involved a claim for overpaid VAT going back to 1974. The primary issue was not the existence of the taxpayer’s claim to recover overpaid VAT, but the quantification of that claim, and in particular whether the claim can be quantified with sufficient accuracy to permit an order for repayment of tax to be made. In the previous case it was held that the onus of proving that an amount of tax had been paid and not recovered rested upon the taxpayer and that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities and Lord Drummond Young agreed with that proposition here.

Judgement

The specific comments which will be of assistance with businesses with similar clams were:

“The fundamental problem in such cases is that primary evidence does not exist owing to the lapse of time. The absence of such evidence, at least in cases such as the present, is not the fault of the taxpayer, and the lack of evidence should not be held against the taxpayer,”

Outcome

The court urged Tax Tribunals (First Tier Tribunal – FTT and Upper Tribunal – UT) to apply a flexible approach to the burden and standard of proof when making decisions in similar cases; of which there is a considerable number. This approach should apply to so called “Fleming” claims and others in respect of overpaid output tax. We understand that 700 such claims were made by NHS authorities in Great Britain alone, and circa 200 of these remain unresolved.

Commentary

In most cases, a taxpayer is only required to retain records for six years. So the comments made in this case should bolster the chances of success for claims made by other businesses, whether they be for overpaid output tax or underclaimed input tax. There are many and varied reasons why sufficiently detailed could be unavailable; we are looking at a potential 46-year time span. In 1974 record keeping was a different world and physical/manual records were usually the only option. It seems only reasonable that HMRC should make the allowances suggested in this case when it is agreed that a claim is valid in all other respects.

Action

If you, or your client, have had a claim rejected on the basis of insufficient supporting primary evidence, it may be worthwhile revisiting it on the basis of this decision. It sets out helpful and clear guidance and provides businesses with effective, appropriate tax relief where applicable.

VAT: Recovery of input tax on fuel costs

By Marcus Ward 22 April 2020

Fuel costs

Road Fuel Scale Charge (RFSC) simplification.

It is common for a staff member to use a car for both business and private purposes (a staff member also covers sole proprietors and partners). Input tax is only recoverable in respect of the business use, so an apportionment is required. This may be done in the following ways.

Apply the RFSC. This is a set figure per month which represents a disallowance for private use and is repaid to HMRC
Keep detailed mileage records and only claim for the business element
If a business pays a mileage allowance for exact business miles travelled it may reclaim input tax on that actual payment. HMRC publish approved Advisory Fuel Rates, which are used to calculate the payments and the recoverable VAT
Do not make a claim at all (if business mileage is minimal or the administration outweighs the cost benefit)

Application

One RFSC must be applied for each car that is used both privately and for business. The fuel scale charges are calculated according to a car’s CO2 emissions and the fixed charge is added to the output figure on the VAT return.

A business will need to check the relevant car’s CO2 emissions figure. This is available for the car’s log book. For dual fuel cars, the lower of the two figures is used.

The calculation

The RFSC allows a business to account for the VAT on fuel in monthly, quarterly or annual returns. When calculating VAT on fuel, if the relevant car has a CO2 emission of 160g, and the business files quarterly returns, the VAT inclusive consideration for a three-month period is £319.00.

The RFSC for the private use of the vehicle will then be calculated as follows: £319.00 x 1/6 (the VAT fraction of the total figure) = £53.16

In this example, the VAT output tax due to HMRC is £53.16 and this is included in Box 1 of the VAT return.

This amount will compensate for any private use of fuel where VAT has already been claimed on the initial purchase of the fuel.

Notes

If a business uses the Flat Rate Scheme no VAT is reclaimable on fuel and no scale charge is applicable.

The RFSC does not apply to commercial vehicles (vans, lorries etc) however, if there is a significant level of private mileage, VAT claims should be adjusted to exclude input tax on this.

HMRC publish updated RFSC valuation tables annually. The latest table is here

Input tax claims may be restricted due to partial exemption or non-business activities.

Help

HMRC have also published a useful ready reckoner tool which assists with the process here

Mileage payments

If a business recovers input VAT based on mileage payments made to employees, it must ensure that employees submit fuel VAT receipts evidencing that they have incurred costs and VAT on fuel. Without such receipts, HMRC may deny the VAT recovery on mileage reimbursements. Clearly, the total VAT incurred on fuel must exceed the business element claimed.

Penalties

Unfortunately, as always with VAT, if errors are made, penalties and interest could apply.