HMRC has published the annual yearly and spot foreign exchange rates in CSV format.
You should use these exchange rates if you have to convert any foreign currency to sterling for Customs and VAT purposes.
When searching for exchange rates a business should consider what it requires the rates for and and the type of rate needed.
HMRC have published guidance on the use of exchange rates for tax and accounting purposes:
HM Treasury has published a consultation paper on the treatment of the service of management of special investment funds (SIFs).
SIF meaning in VAT terms
There is no definition of a SIF in existing legislation.
Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Trust plc (case C-363/05) ruled on the interpretation of the term ‘Special Investment Funds as defined by Member States’.
The key points in this judgment are:
According to the Court, the purpose of the exemption is to facilitate investment in securities for investors through investment undertakings. This requires there to be VAT neutrality between the direct investment in securities and investment through collective investment undertakings, as the latter incurs a management charge. Furthermore, there must be equality of VAT treatment for funds which are similar to, and in competition with, funds falling within the scope of the exemption.
As a result of the case, the exemption was extended so that there was a level VAT playing field for all similar collective investment undertakings which compete in the UK retail market. This includes closed and open-ended collective investment undertakings, umbrellas and sub-funds, as well as some pension schemes.
The fund management exemption is limited to the management of SIFs. Consequently, the management of other investment funds will generally be standard-rated.
Legislation
The current VAT fund management regime is provided for by UK legislation, retained EU law and case law. The VAT Act 1994 implemented the Directive. Schedule 9, Group 5, Items 9 and 10 of the Act lists specific types of funds, the management of which is exempted from VAT.
Place of supply
This is important for SIFs management as if the supply is in respect of overseas funds the services are excluded from the exemption (they are outside the scope of UK VAT) when received overseas. This means that there is no output tax on the supply, but unlike exemption, it affords full recovery on input tax incurred in the UK. The perfect VAT outcome.
HMRC Consultation
The technical consultation sets out proposed reform of the legislation that provides for the VAT treatment of fund management. This is required because the fund management industry continues to innovate and introduced new types of funds to the marketplace, and the existing approach has struggled to keep pace with the evolution of the industry and proliferation of fund types.
The purpose of the exercise is to improve the legislative basis of the current VAT treatment of fund management.
Danger?
It is proposed that the following criteria for a fund to be considered a SIF would be legislated for:
a) the fund must be a collective investment
b) the fund must operate on the principle of risk-spreading
c) the return on the investment must depend on the performance of the investments, and the holders must bear the risk connected with the fund; and
d) the fund must be subject to the same conditions of competition and appeal to the same circle of investors as a UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities), that is funds intended for retail investors
There is a danger that if the exemption is broadened, fund managers which can now recover input tax may be denied so in the future.
If you have any queries, please contact us.
HMRC has updated the following online toolkits for June 2020:
Output tax and
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.
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:
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.
Finance Order 2020
The government has laid the Value Added Tax (Finance) Order 2020 (“Finance Order 2020”) on 4 March 2020 to widen the VAT exemption for the management of investment funds.
The Finance Order 2020 will come into effect on the 1st April 2020 and will provide for exemption for the management of certain pension funds (as defined) and will also remove the current restriction on the type of assets that a close-ended collective investment undertaking can invest in for its management to qualify for exemption.
It replaces the Value Added Tax Finance (EU Exit) Order 2019 (“Finance Order 2019”) which was revoked last July, following discussion with industry about the need for certainty about the date of implementation and provide sufficient lead in time. The Finance Order 2020 will make the same changes to the legislation as the Finance Order 2019 would have made except that (1) new paragraph (k) inserted into Item 9 now refers to a ‘qualifying’ pension fund as opposed to a ‘recognised’ pension fund and (2) the changes will not apply in the case of pension funds that are established overseas (ie; outside the UK and the EU).
VAT overpayments – New direct claims?
If a recipient of a supply makes an overpayment of VAT (usually as a result of standard rated tax being charged when a supply is reduced rated, zero rated or exempt) the remedy for the customer is to go to the supplier to obtain a new invoice/VAT only credit note and. repayment of the VAT paid. However, this can cause practical problems, disputes and an actual cost if a supplier has ceased business or become insolvent. HMRC has recognised that if the supplier has paid output tax on the supply then there is an inherent unfairness.
Following the decision in PORR Építési Kft. (C 691/17) which considered the principles of; proportionality, fiscal neutrality and effectiveness, HMRC invited interested parties to discuss a direct HMRC claim process where the taxpayer has pursued a refund via its supplier for overpaid incorrectly charged VAT but where, as stated in the cases, “recovery is impossible or excessively difficult”. In such cases the taxpayer “must be able to address its application for reimbursement to the tax authority directly”. In the past, HMRC has directed that such claims from them are pursued via the High Court (or County Court if under £30,000). The meeting discussed the new route to direct claims without initial court action including guidance, time limits and claim processes.
We await the outcome eagerly as this situation is quite common, I have found it is an issue particularly in; property and construction supplies, Financial Services and cross-border transactions (place of supply issues). If HMRC are minded to introduce a “direct claim” this will bring welcome relief to taxpayers and introduce fairness for all parties and do away with windfalls received by HMRC.
With the end of the Brexit transition period looming, the EU have announced new measures:
e-commerce VAT fraud
The first measure is the European Commission (EC) approving (this month) new measures to transmit and exchange payment data in order to fight e-commerce VAT fraud. Member States will be assisted in their fight against e-commerce VAT fraud by the launch of a Central Electronic System of Payment (CESOP) information arrangement.
CESOP will keep records of cross-border payment information within the EU, as well as payments to third countries or territories, for a period of five years. This will allow tax authorities to properly control the correct fulfilment of VAT obligations on cross-border Business to Consumer (B2C) supplies of goods and services.
The measures will be implemented on 1 January 2025.
Simplified rules for small businesses
The EC has also recently adopted simplified VAT rules applicable to small businesses. The new measures are intended to reduce the administrative burden and compliance costs for small enterprises and create a fiscal environment which will help small enterprises grow and trade across borders more efficiently.
The measures foresee that small enterprises will be able to qualify for simplified VAT compliance rules where their annual turnover remains below a threshold set by a Member State concerned, which cannot be higher than 85 000 EUR. Under certain conditions, small enterprises from other member states, which do not exceed this threshold, will also be able to benefit from the simplified scheme, if their total annual turnover in the whole of the EU does not exceed 100 000 EUR.
The new rules will apply as of 1 January 2025.
New rules for exchange of VAT payment data
In addition to the anti e-commerce fraud proposals above, new measures will enable Member States to collect, in a harmonised way, the records made electronically available by payment service providers, such as banks. These complement the VAT regulatory framework for e-commerce coming into force in January 2021 which introduced new VAT obligations for online marketplaces and simplified VAT compliance rules for online businesses.
The new measures will apply as of 1 January 2024.
How these new incentives affect UK businesses remains to be seen as our future trading relationship with the EU is, to put it diplomatically, unclear.
The (current) EU Member States have reached political agreement on correcting the current discriminatory and unfair rules on non-resident businesses. Unfortunately, these new measures will not come into effect until 1 January 2025 (well after the UK will have left the EU).
Background
Under the current rules a Non-Established Taxable Person (NETP) is required to register and account for VAT in a Member State as soon as any supply is made there. There is a zero threshold, so, for example, if a French company makes a UK supply of £100 it will be required to register here. Compare this to a UK company which will be able to make supplies up to £85,000 per annum without needing to register or pay UK VAT. Blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary based on where a company belongs. It also distorts competition and is inherently unfair. This is the position across the EU, so UK businesses will be suffering in other countries. This has long been a bugbear of mine!
New rules
From 2025 EU Member States have agreed to extend the threshold to all business making supplies. NETPs will have similar VAT registration thresholds as domestic businesses in each country. The registration limits will not be able to exceed €85,000 per year and overseas businesses may only benefit from this if their total sales across the EU are below an amount of €100,000. This is to avoid large enterprises benefiting from the small company threshold.
Outcome
The change will bring a level playing field between domestic and overseas business and will remove significant compliance costs which fall disproportionally on SMEs. This could also encourage small businesses to explore overseas markets without falling foul of; overseas regimes, potential penalties for innocent errors and the disincentive of domestic businesses having a commercial competitive tax advantage over those based overseas.
It is a pity that these changes will not be applied for another five years. It does beg the question why it will take so long. Of course, we have yet to see how Brexit plays out. It is not outside the bounds of reason to imagine the EU Member States excluding the UK from the new rules, nor the UK not implementing them at all here.
Latest from the courts
Hot on the heels of the update to e-publications here comes new from the Upper Tribunal (UT) in the News Corp UK and Ireland Ltd case.
Background
The issue was whether electronic editions of The Times (plus other e-newspapers from the same company: The Sunday Times, The Sun and The Sun on Sunday) were “newspapers” within the meaning of The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 3, Item 2 and could therefore be treated as zero rated.
The relevant part of Schedule 8, Group 3 (where relevant), lists the following items:
“1 Books, booklets, brochures, pamphlets and leaflets.
2 Newspapers, journals and periodicals…”,
At the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) the appeal was dismissed, and the decision went in favour of HMRC. Details here. The facts were consistent throughout both hearings.
Decision
The UT agreed with the FTT in that there was no material difference between the two types of supply despite the sale of e-newspapers being supplies of services and the sale of physical newspapers being supplies of goods.
That being the case, it was possible to interpret Schedule 8, Group 3. Item 2 as extending to e-publications, which, of course, did not exist when the legislation was drafted in 1972. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the e-newspapers were zero rated. Such treatment did not extend the scope of UK zero rating which would not be permitted by the EU.
The UT also indicated that the zero rating would be subject to some restrictions in respect of what may be treated as e-publications.
It was observed that it is important that the legislation should be interpreted in a way that maintained its relevance and that the “always speaking” * principle is preserved.
Commentary
The EC European Council (EC) has previously agreed to allow Member States to apply reduced VAT rates to electronic publications. This UT case appears to confirm that this will extend to UK zero rating. Other Members States have already applied reduced rates or are in the process of doing so. The UK have not previously announced its approach, so this decision is likely to force their hand (notwithstanding the fallout from Brexit…).
Action
Supplies or e-publications should review their sales and decide whether their supplies are on fours with this case. If so, it may be possible to make a retrospective claim for overpaid output tax, subject to certain conditions.
Recipients of such supplies should consider approaching their suppliers and obtain a repayment of overpaid VAT if it represents a cost to them.
HMRC Guidance
Further to my articles on cryptocurrencies here, here and here HMRC have update their guidance on cryptoassets which was published on 20 December 2019.
Background
VAT is due in the normal way on any goods or services sold in exchange for cryptoasset exchange tokens.
The value of the supply of goods or services on which VAT is due will be the pound sterling value of the exchange tokens at the point the transaction takes place.
Definition
Cryptocurrency (an example being Bitcoin) is a line of computer code that holds monetary value. Cryptocurrency is also known as digital currency and it is a form of money that is created by mathematical computations. In order for a Bitcoin transaction to take place, a verification process is needed, this is provided by millions of computer users called miners and the monitoring is called mining. Transactions are recorded in the blockchain which is public and contains records of each and every transaction that takes place. Cryptocurrency is not tangible, although they may be exchanged for traditional cash. It is a decentralised digital currency without a central bank or single administrator (which initially made it attractive) and can be sent from user to user on the peer-to-peer network without the need for intermediaries.
Cryptoassets
For VAT purposes, bitcoin and similar cryptoassets are to be treated as follows:
The VAT treatments outlined above are provisional pending further developments; in particular, in respect of the regulatory and EU VAT positions.
Bitcoin exchanges
In 2014, HMRC decided that under The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 5, item 1, the financial services supplied by bitcoin exchanges – exchanging bitcoin for legal tender and vice versa – are exempt from VAT.
This was confirmed in the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in the Swedish case, David Hedqvist (C-264/14). The appellant planned to set up a business which would exchange traditional currency for Bitcoin and vice versa. It was not intended to charge a fee for this service but rather to derive a profit from the spread (the difference between his purchase and sell price).
Questions were referred to the CJEU on whether such exchange transactions constitute a supply for VAT purposes and if so, would they be exempt.
The CJEU referred to the judgment in First National Bank of Chicago (C-172/96) and concluded that the exchange transactions would constitute a supply of services carried out for consideration.
The Court also ruled that the exchange of traditional currencies for non-legal tender such as Bitcoin (and vice versa) are financial transactions and fall within the exemption under VAT Directive Article 135(1) (e).
A supply of any services required to exchange exchange tokens for legal tender (or other exchange tokens) and vice versa, will be exempt from VAT under The VAT Act Schedule 9, Group 5 item 1.
Commentary
As always, the legislation and case law often struggles to keep pace with technology and new business activities. Although the focus of the guidance is more towards direct taxes, it is a helpful summary of HMRC’s interpretation of UK and EU law and decided case law.