Tag Archives: international-services

The future of VAT and online marketplaces

By Marcus Ward 7 May 2019

Latest

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently held a forum which considered how to level the playing field between traditional and online businesses and to collect the correct amount of tax. It is recognised that the current rules and different application of those rules in different countries has led to VAT not being collected in full in respect of online transactions.

OECD

The OECD Global Forum on VAT is a platform for a global dialogue on international VAT standards and key issues of VAT policy and operation.

The report

The subsequent report The role of digital platforms in the collection of VAT/GST on online sales focuses on the design of rules and mechanisms for the effective collection of VAT on digital sales of goods, services and intangibles, including sales by offshore digital sellers. It states that it provides “practical guidance to tax authorities on the design and implementation of a variety of solutions for enlisting the platforms economy, including e-commerce marketplaces and other digital platforms, in the effective and efficient collection of VAT/GST on digital sales”.

Background

Tax action is necessary as global B2C e-commerce sales of goods alone are now estimated to be worth in the region of USD 2 trillion annually with projections indicating they may reach USD 4.5 trillion by 2021, USD 1 trillion of which is estimated to be cross-border e-commerce with approximately 1.6 billion consumers buying online. This clearly represents considerable VAT revenue which is at stake.

See details on online evasion here

Issues

The problems which have been identified in previous report are:

imports of low-value parcels from online sales which are treated as VAT free in many jurisdictions, and
the strong growth in the trade of services and intangibles, particularly B2C, on which often no, or an inappropriately low amount of VAT is levied due to the complexity of enforcing VAT payment on such supplies

Exemptions for imports of low-value goods have become increasingly controversial in the growing digital economy. At the time when most of these exemptions were introduced, internet shopping did not exist and the level of imports benefitting from the relief was relatively small. Over recent years, many countries have seen a significant and rapid growth in the volume of low-value imports of goods on which VAT is not collected. This results in decreased VAT revenues and unfair competitive pressures on domestic retailers who are required to charge VAT on their sales.

Summary

The focus was on the rôle of digital platforms. These are capable of collecting a vast amount of data. The report stated that it is reasonable to require this information/data to be shared and that is proportionately relevant for VAT compliance purposes, ie; necessary to satisfy the tax authorities that the tax for a supply has been charged and accounted for correctly by the underlying supplier.

The two potential models are:

to make the digital platform fully liable for the payment and remittance of VAT on the online sales they facilitate
or, alternatively, to limit the responsibility of the digital platforms to simply assisting authorities in the collection of VAT

Implementation

Two options could be considered for the implementation of any information sharing obligation for digital platforms in connection to online sales:

provision of information on request. Under this option, a jurisdiction requires that a digital platform retains records of the sales that are subject to VAT in that jurisdiction, and that this information be made available on request.
systematic provision of information. Via this option, a digital platform is required to systematically and periodically provide information on online sales carried out via the platform to the tax authority of the jurisdiction of taxation.

Overall

The report is a good “solid” and long study (I cannot however, recommend it as holiday reading, although the above précis may assist). The proposed solutions are sensible, considered and workable and are likely to, at least, provide more equality and a better way for tax authorities to collect tax which is due.

VAT: Transactions in Bitcoins

By Marcus Ward 1 May 2019

Further to my articles here and here concerning transactions involving cryptocurrencies, and considering the increased use of them, it seems timely to provide an update on the VAT treatment of certain business activities which use Bitcoins as a value for exchange, or payment for goods or services.

What is cryptocurrency?

Cryptocurrency 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.

What is Bitcoin?

Bitcoin was the first popular cryptocurrency and it first appeared in 2009. The advantage of bitcoin is that it can be stored offline on the owner’s local hardware (a process called cold storage) which protects the currency from being taken by others. If a person loses access to the hardware that contains the bitcoins, the currency is lost forever, and it is estimated that as much as 23% of bitcoin has been mislaid by miners and/or investors.

Exchange between currencies and bitcoin

The VAT treatment of transactions exchanging traditional currencies for Bitcoin, or Bitcoin for currencies carried out for consideration (added by the supplier) are exempt services in a similar way to any other currency transactions via The VAT Directive Article 135(1)(e).

Paying for goods or services using Bitcoin

Similar to any other payment method, simply using Bitcoin to obtain goods or services is outside the scope of VAT and no VAT is due on the value the Bitcoin represents. That is to say that the authorities do not consider that such a transaction is a barter.

Provision of goods or services in return for Bitcoin payment

The provision of goods or services paid for in Bitcoin are treated in a similar way as any supplied for consideration consisting of

Traditional currencies, or
Non-monetary consideration

and the value is; anything received by the supplier in consideration of that supply.

Should the consideration be in Bitcoin, there two alternatives for the conversion of foreign currencies into the main currency of a Member State (although these were drafted before the introduction of Bitcoin and originally relate simply to foreign currencies)

the latest exchange rate recorded on the most representative exchange market of the Member State, or
the latest exchange rate published by the European Central Bank

However, as above, because Bitcoin is not administered by any bank, this may make valuation difficult. The VAT Committee of the European Commission (EC) has indicated that a potential resolution is to use Open Market Rate (OMR*) as the exchange of the virtual currency. This would be the responsibility of the supplier. This is likely to be commercially available information from the websites of the likes of; coindesk, Cryptocompare or Cointelegraph for eg.

All of the above seems logical, although confirmation provided by the EC VAT Committee is welcome.

* OMR is the amount for which an asset is transferred between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion.

VAT: Zero rating of prescriptions

By Marcus Ward 29 April 2019

Latest from the courts

The UK is unique in the EU for the zero rating of medicines prescribed by a registered medical practitioner.

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Pearl Chemist Ltd (Pearl) the issue was whether the development of new technology and legislation affected the zero rating of prescriptions written by UK registered and non-UK registered doctors and the interpretation of “registered medical practitioner”.

Background

Pearl is authorised to dispense medicines prescribed online by doctors based in countries based in the European Economic Area. It contracted with a third party which operated websites which offered medical screening and services, primarily for conditions such as erectile dysfunction, hair loss and obesity/weight loss.

Customers of the third party could obtain an online consultation with qualified doctors. If the doctor decided to issue a prescription, the written prescription would be sent to Pearl who would then despatch the medicine directly to the individual customer on behalf of the third party. Pearl treated all these supplies as zero-rated. The relevant law covering such prescriptions changed in 2008 such that it was now possible to dispense drugs prescribed by a qualified doctor based outside the UK.

HMRC formed the view that these supplies were not covered by the UK zero rating on the basis that an EU qualified doctor who is not registered with the GMC is not a registered medical practitioner. An assessment for output tax was issued in respect of supplies made against prescriptions written by non-UK doctors.

The issues

The issues, broadly were:

Are qualified doctors based outside the UK covered by the description “registered medical practitioner” in UK legislation?
If not, does this breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality? (Whether there is clear discrimination between identical supplies made on the prescription of UK doctors and doctors from other EU countries)

Decision

The judge ruled that the UK zero rating does not cover prescriptions written by non-UK doctors as they are not within the definition of “registered medical practitioner” Consequently, the supplies must be standard rated in the UK. However, the exclusion of medicines prescribed by overseas doctors from the zero-rating constitutes a breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality. This seemed good news for Pearl, but…the Tribunal stated that it was unable to provide an effective remedy for that breach and accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed HRMC’s assessment.

Commentary

This decision seems rather harsh on the appellant. It appears that the judge ruled that she had no power to override UK Parliament’s intention despite the inherent “unfairness” of the outcome of this intention where identical supplies were treated differently depending on where the prescription was written.

Certainly an odd one and I wonder if this is the last of this matter. Any business in a similar situation may need to review its position on the basis of this decision.

Changes to recovery of VAT on imports

By Marcus Ward 15 April 2019

HMRC have recently issued RCB 2 (2019) which sets out HMRC’s view on Toll Manufacturers (TM). TM is an arrangement in which a company which has a specialised equipment processes raw materials or semi-finished goods for another company. It may also be called toll processing. Typically, a TM will import, say, pharmaceutical goods, process and distribute them within the UK for clinical trials on behalf of an overseas owner.

HMRC has become aware that a number of UK TMs have paid import VAT on behalf of overseas customers have also claimed a corresponding deduction for input tax under VAT Act 1994 Section 24. However, there is no provision in UK law for such deduction.

Current treatment

TMs will usually act as importer and recover import VAT via a C79 despite them not being the owner of the goods (the owner instructs the TM to carry out works on their goods on their behalf).

HMRC has now confirmed that this VAT treatment is incorrect, and it will no longer be permitted.

New treatment

Only the owner of the goods will be treated as the importer and be able to recover import VAT. TMs will no longer be able to claim this VAT.

However, HMRC will not require TMs to make adjustments to past claims and the treatment will only be required going forward.

Introduction

The change comes into effect from 15 July 2019

Affect

Affected TMs are likely to need to make significant changes to their systems before that date.

Overseas owners of the relevant goods will either need to:

register for UK VAT and claim the import VAT on a “regular” return, or
make a claim via the Thirteenth VAT Directive (86/560/EEC)

NB: In cases where title has passed before import into the UK (businesses sell on the goods before importing them into the UK so ownership and title has passed to the new owner, however the business that sold the goods acts as importer on UK import declarations, pays the import VAT to HMRC and receives the import VAT certificate – C79) the correct procedure is for the new owner of the goods to be the importer of record and reclaim the import VAT and not the previous owner.

As with many areas of VAT, a No-Deal Brexit is likely to increase the complications for such cross-border transactions in the future.

Please contact us if you have any queries or require assistance on this matter.

VAT: Increased input tax recovery for suppliers of financial services – Brexit

By Marcus Ward 5 April 2019

If the UK leaves the EU in a no-deal scenario there may be a benefit for UK based suppliers of financial and insurance services (so called Specified Supplies) to recipients in the EU. These Specified Supplies attract beneficial input VAT treatment pursuant to the VAT (Input Tax) (Specified Supplies) Order 1999 (the Specified Services Order).

Current position

Currently, these Specified Supplies are exempt and consequently, there is no right to deduct input tax incurred in connection with such services. However, if the Specified Supplies are provided to recipients located outside the EU, they are also VAT free, although any attributable input tax is recoverable; a good VAT position.

Post Brexit position

If the UK leaves the EU, the VAT treatment of supplies to non-EU countries is also applicable to the EU 27 countries; the EU would essentially become a “third country”.

Example

A City of London based bank supplies financial services to both Germany and the US clients. Income from these two clients is 50:50. At the current time the bank would be restricted to a claim of circa half of the VAT it incurs on expenditure in the UK. After Brexit, via The Value Added Tax (Input Tax) (Specified Supplies) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 all input tax incurred will be recoverable in full.

What are Specified Supplies?

Specified Supplies are broadly:

the issue, transfer or receipt of, or any dealing with, money, any security for money or any note or order for the payment of money.
granting of credit
dealing in; shares, stocks, bonds, notes (other than promissory notes), debentures, debenture stock
the operation of any current, deposit or savings account.
the management of certain investment funds/schemes
insurance
and intermediary services in respect of the above supplies

This list is not exhaustive and is only a very general example of types of supplies which may be considered as Specified Supplies. Please seek advice on specific services.

Other matters

The government says that this change will ensure that UK businesses compete for business in the EU on an even footing with businesses in other non-EU countries.

The proposed legislation also provides that partial exemption special methods (PESM) agreed before a no-deal Brexit will be honoured so businesses will not need to apply to HMRC for approval of a new PESM. Please see guide to partial exemption here

NB: If a deal is agreed between the UK and the EU, the above legislation will not be enacted, and the current VAT treatment will continue throughout the implementation period set out in a withdrawal agreement.

VAT: HMRC Impact Assessment of a No-Deal Brexit

By Marcus Ward 1 April 2019

HMRC have issued an impact assessment for VAT and services if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

The impact assessment covers the effect on businesses of amendments to existing VAT legislation and the introduction of transitional provisions for the supply of services between the UK and the EU

Summary

Under current rules:

VAT is charged on most goods and services sold within the UK and the EU
the place of supply rules for services determine the country in which a business should charge and account for VAT

If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, he UK will continue to have a VAT system. This is unsurprising as it is a major revenue raiser for the Treasury and the taxpayer is required to do all the heavy lifting the tax involves.

HMRC say the published Statutory Instruments (Sis – details of which may be found in the impact assessment but mainly The Taxation – Cross-border Trade Act 2018) broadly maintain the current VAT treatment in the event of a No-Deal Brexit. It expects that “they will have either a negligible impact on the administrative burden on businesses or no impact.”

This seems, prima facie, difficult to swallow.

HMRC also anticipate that an exception to the above is the removal of the VAT Mini One Stop Shop (MOSS), which “may have a significant ongoing cost for some EU and non-EU businesses.”

The impact assessment refers to the Economic Analysis of Brexit which makes interesting reading.

Of course, the House has voted against a No-Deal Brexit, so we can rely on that… can’t we?

VAT MOSS and No-Deal Brexit

By Marcus Ward 11 March 2019

In the event of an increasingly likely no deal Brexit, changes have been put in place to the existing MOSS (Mini One Stop Shop) arrangements. Details of MOSS here.

These intended changes will affect UK businesses which provide electronically supplied services such as cross-border telecommunication, television and radio broadcasting, or digital services to non-business (eg; individuals) recipients in the EU.

Such services include:

website hosting
supply of software
access to databases
downloading apps or music
online gaming
distance teaching

The existing threshold of £8818 pa introduced by Schedule 4A, para 15(1) of the VAT Act 1994 will be removed via SI2019/404.

This means that if there is a no deal Brexit UK businesses supplying such services will either be required to:

MOSS Non-Union Scheme

A business may use the Non-Union scheme when it supplies cross-border electronically supplied services to consumers in all EU countries (including the EU country selected as the Member State of identification).

The EU countries where a business supplies services to are known as Member States of consumption.

Selecting a member state of identification

A business must designate a Member State of identification. This can be any EU country a business chooses. A business may change the member state of identification at a later date if it wants. Again, this can be any EU country a business chooses.

Registration

A business registers online via the Member State of identification’s portal.

VAT rules

A business will be allocated a VAT number by the EU country chosen to be the Member State of identification and charge VAT at the rate of the EU countries where its customers reside. The same invoicing rules as your Member State of identification must be used (although an invoice is not required in most countries when supplying services under the MOSS scheme).

VAT returns

A business must submit detailed online quarterly VAT returns within 20 days of the end of each return period. The information is then securely transferred from your Member State of identification to the relevant Member State of consumption.

VAT rates

VAT rates can be checked for the supply of telecommunications, broadcasting and electronically supplied services using the Tax Information Communication database.

For further information and to register for MOSS please see here.

VAT: Place of supply of “erotic services”

By Marcus Ward 19 February 2019

Latest from the courts

Readers of a nervous disposition may want to look away now.

In the case of Geelen C-568/17 (in French) the advocate General (AG) was asked for an opinion on the supply of what was coyly called webcam sessions.

Background

The defendant in the main proceedings, Mr Geelen, was a VAT registered person in The Netherlands. He provided the services of the organisation and provision of interactive erotic sessions broadcast live over the Internet. The models were located in the Philippines and Mr Geelen provided them with the necessary hardware and software to transmit the sessions over the Internet. Customers contacted the models via a website after creating an account for this purpose. The sessions were broadcast live and were interactive, which meant that customers had the opportunity to communicate with the models and give them instructions. The services provided by the defendant were intended for the Dutch market. I set out the arrangements here, as I am sure that none of my readers will be aware of such things * polite cough *

This is interesting as an example of technology overtaking legislation which was enacted before such services could even be contemplated (well, by the people drafting the VAT legislation anyway).

The issue

The issue was where was the place of supply of these services. If they were in The Netherlands, then Dutch VAT would apply, but if they were deemed to be outside the EU, no EU VAT would be payable. The tax authorities considered that such services were subject to VAT in The Netherlands and issued a tax assessment notice.

Technical

Generally, the rule is that for B2C services the place of supply (POS) is where the supplier belongs. However, there is an exception for cultural, artistic, and entertainment activities. These are taxed where performed (outside the EU in this case if the exception is applicable).

Opinion

It was the AG’s opinion that, in the first place, there was no doubt that the services in question were entertaining…

However, he opined that the only way to provide cultural activities, entertainment, education, etc. was either to bring service users together at the actual place of service delivery, or to provide a service at the location of the users.

The technological development that has taken place since the relevant legislation was drafted has enabled services in which beneficiaries participate remotely, sometimes even actively, in a cultural, entertainment or other event, without necessarily doing so in real time. In a cultural reference: The “unity of action, time and place”, to refer to the categories of classical theatre, was thus upset.

In the AG’s opinion, these services were not intended to be covered by the exception. Consequently, these were not services “supplied where performed” and the general B2C rules applied, so the POS was The Netherlands and Dutch VAT was applicable. It was concluded that performance does not take place where the models are based, or where the consumer was located, but where Mr Geelen brought together all elements of the supply.

Summary

The legislation must be interpreted as meaning that the services of organising and providing live interactive webcam sex do not constitute services for entertainment purposes within the meaning of the relevant provisions.

VAT and Brexit – Latest

By Marcus Ward 21 January 2019

HMRC has released additional information on a No Deal Brexit. The so-called Partnership Pack It covers:

Customs
Excise
VAT
Regulatory changes
Trade Tariff
Trading goods regulated under the ‘New Approach’

This is a quite detailed document at 119 pages and it states that:

“The government will work closely with industry to ensure that cross-border activity continues to be conducted in a way which minimises delays and additional burdens for legitimate trade, while robustly ensuring compliance.”

We shall see how well this works in practice in the event of a No Deal Brexit.

Specifically, there are details for the following matters:

Businesses importing from the EU only
Businesses exporting to the EU only
Trading with the EU and the rest of the world
Trading with the rest of the world only
Service industries
Businesses supplying services to the EU
Express courier industry and postal services
Tour operators
Creative, cultural and sport
Agrifood, animals and plants
Business importing and exporting plants and plant products from/to the EU and elsewhere
Businesses buying and selling timber or timber products in the EU Updates to this pack
Businesses selling duty-suspended alcohol, tobacco or fuel in the UK
Businesses and individuals exporting controlled goods
Businesses supplying medicines and medical devices
Businesses producing and exporting chemicals from outside the European Economic Area (EEA)
Businesses shipping waste into and out of the EU
Transporters
Haulage companies operating between the UK and the EU
Ferry or Channel Tunnel operators moving goods between the UK and the EU
Freight forwarders
Other operators at the UK border
Customs agents
Ports and airports
Customs warehouses
Temporary storage operators
Communication resources

This list is not exhaustive.

It is a useful document for any business to read but I hope that it is never required.

EC clamp down on yacht and aircraft VAT abuse

By Marcus Ward 8 November 2018

The European Commission (EC) has stepped up its agenda to tackle tax avoidance in the yacht and aircraft sectors by implementing infringement proceedings on tax breaks being applied in the pleasure craft industries of the Isle of Man. These provisions can generate major distortions of competition, as highlighted by last year’s ‘Paradise Papers’ leaks.

The EC has sent a formal notice to the UK in respect of the Isle of Man’s abusive VAT practices relating to sales and leasing of aircraft.

Background

Input tax is only deductible when it relates to business use of an asset. The EC says that supplies of aircraft, including leasing services, intended expressly for private use, should not be effectively VAT free. The EC believes that the UK has not taken sufficient action against abusive VAT practices in the Isle of Man on supplies and leasing of aircraft. This perceived abuse is facilitated by UK national rules which do not comply with EU law.

Broadly, arrangements are made such that a (seemingly) artificial leasing businesses is put in place and through which individuals rent their own jets from themselves. The most high-profile example of this structure is one used by Lewis Hamilton for his private jet.

Features of such arrangements are said to be:

Users of the scheme recover 100% of import VAT when it appears that an adjustment should be made for the proportion of the amount of private use intended for the aircraft
VAT should be declared and paid to any European Member States whose airports are used for leisure flights.
The leasing businesses set up for jets usually appear to be a letterbox companies with no real economic purpose. Consequently, it is unlikely that such entities should be entitled to reclaim VAT from the Isle of Man.

It is understood that the Isle of Man government has called in the HMRC which will review of 231 tax refunds issued to private jet owners since 2011 valued at circa $1billion of VAT.

Representatives of the EC are due to visit the Isle of Man this month. Similar action is being taken against Italy in respect of the lease of yachts and excise duty rates for motor boats.

What happens next?

The UK now has two months to respond to the arguments put forward by the EC regarding VAT on aircraft. If the UK authorities do not act within those two months, the EC will send a reasoned opinion. If the UK does not act within the next two months on the reasoned opinion the EC may bring the case before the Court of Justice of the EU.

Pierre Moscovici, the Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs Union, said: “It’s simply not fair that some individuals and companies can get away with not paying the correct amount of VAT on products like yachts and aircraft. Favourable tax treatment for private boats and aircraft is clearly at odds with our commonly agreed tax rules and heavily distorts competition in the maritime and aviation sectors. With this in mind, the Commission is taking action to clamp down on rules that try to circumvent EU law in these areas.”

For More Information

On the general infringements procedure, MEMO/12/12.

On the EU infringements procedure.

Commentary

We do not design, sell or advocate such schemes. Our view is that these and similar structures are, quite rightly, open to attack from the relevant authorities. They do not reflect well on those that put these structures in place nor those that benefit from them. Using a leasing scheme as such is not necessarily abusive. However, if one takes the other elements in the targeted schemes into consideration, such as the absence in motive of setting up those companies and the fact that those companies do not seem to have any substance, it is likely to lead to the action we see from the EC and its view that these schemes are abusive.

How Brexit will impact on these and similar situations remains to be seen.