HMRC has updated this Notice to reflect the new de minimis limits (para 6.1.1).
Latest from the courts
In the First-Tier Tribunal case of Sports Invest UK Ltd the issue was the place of supply (POS) of a football agent’s services (commission received for a player’s transfer).
The POS is often complex from a VAT perspective and depends on the place of belonging (POB) of the supplier and the recipient of the supply. These rules determine if VAT is charged, where VAT is charged and the rate of VAT applicable, additionally, they may impose requirements to register for VAT in different jurisdictions.
Background
Sports Invest was a football agent based in the UK. It received fees in respect of negotiating the transfer of a player: João Mário from a Portuguese club: Sporting Lisbon to an Italian club: Internazionale (Inter Milan). The appellant signed a representation contract with the player which entitled it to commission, and a separate agreement with Inter Milan entitling it to a fee because the player was permanently transferred.
The Issues
To whom did Sports Invest make a supply – club or player? What was the supply? Was there one or two separate supplies? What was the POS?
As appears normal for transactions in the world of football the contractual arrangements were complex, but, in essence as a matter of commercial and economic reality, Sports Invest had agreed the commission with the player in case it was excluded from the deal. However, this did not occur, and the deal was concluded as anticipated. Inter Milan paid The Appellant’s fee in full, but did this affect the agreement between Sports Invest and the player? That is, as HMRC contended, did Inter Milan pay Sports Invest on the player’s behalf (third party consideration) such that there were two supplies; one to the player and one to the cub?
The FTT stated that there was no suggestion that the contracts were “sham documents”.
VAT Liability
The arrangements mattered, as pre-Brexit, a supply of services by a business with a POB in the UK to an individual (B2C) in another EU Member State would have been subject to UK VAT; the POS being where the supplier belonged. HMRC assessed for an element of the fee that it saw related to the supply to the player. The remainder of the fee paid by the club was accepted to be consideration for a UK VAT free supply by the agent to the club (B2B).
Decision
The court found that there was one single supply by The Appellant to Inter Milan. This being the case, the supply was B2B and the POS was where the recipient belonged and so that the entire supply was UK VAT free. There was no (UK) supply to the individual player as that agreement was superseded by the contractual arrangements which were actually put in place and the player owed the agent nothing as the potential payment under that contract was waived.
The appeal against the assessment was upheld.
Commentary
The court’s decision appears to be logical as the supply was to the club who were receiving “something” (the employment contract with the player) and paying for it. The other “safeguarding” agreement appeared to be simple good commercial practice and was ultimately “not required”. This case highlights the often complex issues of; establishing the nature of transactions, the identity of the recipient(s), agency arrangements, the POS and the legal, commercial and economic reality of contracts.
Latest from the courts
In the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) it was ruled that electric vehicle charging via public charging points, was a supply of goods, regardless that some elements of the supply were services, ie; access technical support, reservation of a charging point, and a parking space while charging. The overriding supply was the provision of electricity which is classified as goods.
The full P. In W. case here.
It is unlikely that the UK authorities will form a different view.
Although in most cases there is unlikely to be a significant difference, although there could be issues with the time of supply (tax point).
HMRC has published updated guidance on the evidence required to zero rate the export of goods. VAT Notice 703 sets out the following changes on the documentation which is required for proof of export:
“An accurate description of the exported goods and quantities are required, for example ‘2000 mobile phones (Make ABC and Model Number XYZ2000), value £50,000’.
If the evidence is found to be unsatisfactory you as the supplier will become liable for the VAT due.
If you’ve described goods inaccurately on an export declaration you may be liable for a customs penalty.
The rest of this paragraph has force of law.
The evidence you obtain as proof of export, whether official or commercial, or supporting must clearly identify:
Vague descriptions of good, quantities or values are not acceptable. An accurate value must be shown and not excluded or replaced by a lower or higher amount”.
Overview
It is vitally important that exporters obtain the correct evidence that goods have physically left the UK and that all descriptions of the goods are accurate and satisfy HMRC requirements. There has been a significant amount of case law on export documentation (an example here) which illustrates that this is often an area of dispute.
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:
While we await the fine details, trade between GB and Northern Ireland is likely to be subject to new rules. These are set out under the heading of The Windsor Framework published by HM Government.
(Very) General
Via the Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP), Northern Ireland operated under the EU VAT rules. There are revised VAT rules set out in The Windsor Framework. The EU rules on VAT rates will not apply to a list of goods for consumption in Northern Ireland in certain circumstances.
The Windsor Framework amends the legal text of the NIP to ensure that Northern Ireland will be subject to the same VAT and excise rules that apply in the rest of the UK.
The Framework means that legislation to apply the zero-rate of VAT to energy saving materials can be introduced. A number of other flexibilities should enable UK-wide VAT changes to apply in Northern Ireland. It is anticipated that future VAT issues can be addressed in order to manage any divergences in policy between GB and Northern Ireland.
A bit more detail
The Windsor Framework sets up a new UK internal trade scheme, based on commercial data-sharing rather than traditional international customs processes.
Under the NIP, a framework exists that allows goods to move from GB to Northern Ireland tariff-free. If the goods do not fall within that framework, they are treated as if moving across an international border and full customs declarations are required.
This Framework introduces arrangements through a new UK internal market system (colloquially called the “Green Lane”) for internal trade. Goods being sold in Northern Ireland will not be subject to “unnecessary paperwork, checks and duties”.
The new scheme will significantly expand the number of businesses able to move goods using the Green Lane by being classed as internal UK traders.
The Changes
To ensure that internal UK trade is protected, the agreement expands the number of businesses able to be classed as internal UK traders and move goods as ‘not at risk’ of entering the EU through three changes:
Businesses in the scheme that can show their goods will stay in Northern Ireland will gain access to a simplified process for goods movements, using ordinary commercial data rather than customs data.
Goods moving to the EU will be subject to normal third-country processes and requirements.
Reduction in so-called frictions
The Framework seeks to address a range of issues that added frictions or costs for internal UK trade:
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 issued new guidance for the insurance sector. It will be relevant to those dealing with partial exemption for insurers, including business and HMRC when discussing how partial exemption applies in practice for an insurer.
The guidance is intended to help insurers agree a fair and reasonable partial exemption special method (PESM) with the minimum of cost and delay. It also helpfully sets out definitions of various insurance/reinsurance transactions and business structures.
Background
Insurance businesses usually make a mixture of exempt and taxable supplies and may also provide specified services to customers located outside of the UK which incur a right to recover input tax.
When determining how to calculate the recoverable elements of input tax, the starting point is with the standard partial exemption method, as defined within The VAT Regulations 1995, regulation 101, but this will rarely be suitable for the insurance sector.
Many insurance businesses are complex organisations that provide many different services of differing liabilities to customers, often in different countries, using costs form suppliers around the world in different proportions. In addition, certain costs may have little relation to the value of the supplies for which they are incurred.
Therefore, most insurance businesses will need to apply to HMRC for approval to use a PESM.
Fair and reasonable
Partial exemption is the set of rules for determining recoverable input tax on costs which are used, or intended to be used, in making taxable supplies which carry a right of deduction. The first step is usually allocating costs which are directly attributable to taxable or exempt supplies. The balance (overhead input tax, or “the pot”) is required to be apportioned by either a standard method (The “standard method” requires a comparison between the value of taxable and exempt supplies made by the business) or a PESM.
A PESM needs be fair and reasonable, namely:
HMRC will only agree the use of a PESM if a business declares that it has taken reasonable steps to ensure the method is fair and reasonable. HMRC cannot confirm that a special method is fair and reasonable but will make enquiries based on an assessment of risk and will never knowingly approve an unfair or unreasonable special method.
Attribution of input tax
In the insurance sector, relatively few costs are either used wholly to make taxable or exempt supplies.
The VAT regulations (see above) require direct attribution to be carried out before cost allocation to sectors. However, direct attribution at this stage can cause difficulties where tax departments are unaware of how particular costs are used and have a large number of such costs to review.
It has therefore been agreed between HMRC and the Association of British Insurers that, whilst direct attribution must still take place, it need not always be the first step, and could, for some costs, follow the allocation stage. Methods could refer to direct attribution both pre- and post-allocation, so that costs are dealt with in the most appropriate way. The underlying principle is that the method must be both fair and reasonable.
Types of PESMs
The guidance gives the following examples of special methods:
with descriptions of each method.
The European Commission has issued a new tool which enables businesses to check on the VAT rate for specific supplies. It is based on commodity codes but there are drop down menus for detailed descriptions. The tool covers both goods and services. There are both a simple and advanced search functions and the database also covers other taxes:
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.