Tag Archives: latest-vat-news

Changes to the import of goods

By   10 August 2018
0

If a business imports goods from countries outside the EU, there are changes being made by HMRC which it needs to beware of. If a business currently uses the UK Trade Tariff to make Customs declarations it will be affected by these changes.

The changes are set out here for imports. We understand that the changes for exports will be made available later in the year.

If a business’ agent or courier completes its declarations on its behalf, it may be prudent for a business to contact them discuss the impact of the changes.

Background

An overview of the changes may be found here

And a general guide to importing here

Why is the Tariff changing?

HMRC is phasing in the new Customs declaration Service (CDS) here from August to replace the current Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) system. As well as being a modern, digital declaration service, CDS will accommodate new legislative requirements under the Union Customs Code UCC here In order to comply with the UCC, a business will need to provide extra information for its declarations which can be found in the tariff.

When will a business be required to use the new Tariff?

The majority of importers will start using CDS after November 2‌018, once their software provider or in-house software team has developed a CDS compatible software package. Some importers will start making declarations on CDS before this, but there is no action for a business to take unless it has been contacted by HMRC to be part of this group.

Brexit

As is very common with Brexit, it is unknown how the UK leaving the EU will affect this position. With a No-Deal Brexit seeming likely, the above rules are likely to apply to goods brought into the UK from other EU Member States after next March.

Please contact us should you have any queries.

VAT – Making Tax Digital (MTD) Update

By   17 July 2018
0

Time moves on and HMRC has published further information on MTD. I outlined the basics of MTD here

The recent publication lists software suppliers which HMRC say have both:

  • tested their products in HMRC’s test environment
  • already demonstrated a prototype of their software to HMRC

HMRC will update this list as testing progresses. We advise to check with your existing software supplier to see if they will be supplying suitable software for the pilot, or contact one listed below in the HMRC publication:

Background

HMRC state that more than 130 software suppliers have told them that they are interested in providing software for MTD for VAT. Over 35 of these have said they will have software ready during the first phase of the pilot in which HMRC is testing the service with small numbers of invited businesses and agents. The pilot will be opened up to allow more businesses and agents to join later this year.

Good luck everyone!

The VAT gap rises

By   20 June 2018
0

In the latest figures released by HMRC the amount of unpaid tax has increased by circa £1 billion.

What is the tax gap?

The VAT gap is the difference between the amount of VAT that should, in theory, be collected by HMRC, against what is actually collected. The ‘VAT total theoretical liability’ (VTTL) represents the VAT that should be paid if all businesses complied with both the letter of the law and HMRC’s interpretation of the intention of Parliament in setting law, referred to as the spirit of the law below.

Summary

Here is an overview of the figures which are for the year 2016-17:

The VAT gap is estimated to be £11.7 billion in which equates to 8.9% of net VAT total theoretical liability. HMRC report that there has been a long-term reduction between 2005-06 and 2016-17 for the VAT gap (12.5% to 8.9%). The information is provided by The Office for National Statistics, National Accounts Blue Book 2017 and Consumer Trend.

MTIC

The Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) fraud estimate reduced to less than £0.5 billion in 2016-17, from between £0.5 billion and £1 billion in 2015-16.. VAT debt has been fairly stable since 2011-12. It is estimated at £1.5 billion in 2016-17. Around 70% of the VAT total theoretical liability in 2016-17 was from household consumption. The remaining gap was from consumption by businesses making exempt supplies and from the government and housing sectors. Around half of household VAT-able expenditure was from restaurants and hotels, transport and recreation and culture.

VAT debt

The contribution of debt to the VAT gap is defined as the amount of VAT declared by businesses but not paid to HMRC. The VAT gap showed a peak at 12.6% in 2008-09, which was partly because the recession caused an increase in VAT debt from £0.9 billion in 2007-08 to £2.4 billion in 2008-09. VAT debt has been fairly stable since 2011-12. It is estimated at £1.5 billion in 2016-17.

Avoidance

VAT avoidance is another component of the VAT gap. HMRC say that avoidance is artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce a tax advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. VAT avoidance is estimated at £0.1 billion in 2016-17.

Other indirect taxes

The overall excise tax gap is estimated to be £4.1 billion (£3.1 billion in excise duty and £1 billion in VAT). This is analysed as:

  • £2.5 billion tobacco tax gap, with associated losses in tobacco duty (£1.9 billion) and VAT (£0.5 billion )
  • £1.3 billion alcohol tax gap, with associated losses in alcohol duty (£0.9 billion) and VAT (£0.4 billion)
  • £150 in GB diesel duty and associated VAT
  • £40 in Northern Ireland (NI) diesel duty and associated VAT
  • £170 in other excise duties

Overall tax gap

The report indicates that small businesses were most likely to be underpaying tax generally. They accounted for £13.7 billion of last the overall tax gap. Large businesses had underpaid £7 billion and medium-sized businesses £3.9 billion.

The tax gap for Income Tax, National Insurance and Capital Gains Tax was 4.2%.  Along with VAT there has been a long-term downward trend in the Corporation Tax gap. This has reduced from 12.4% in 2005/06 to 7.4% last year.

It appears that the days of large tax avoidance schemes have passed and HMRC is now concentrating on compliance mistakes and routine errors.  HMRC is also increasingly challenging legal interpretations of tax law in order to recover more tax. Please see here for further details on HMRC’s approach.

What causes the tax gap?

The behaviour giving rise to the gap are as follows:

  • £5.9 billion – failure to take reasonable care
  • £5.4 billion – criminal attacks
  • £5.3 billion – legal interpretation
  • £5.3 billion – evasion
  • £3.4 billion – non-payment
  • £3.2 billion – error
  • £3.2 billion – hidden economy
  • £1.7 billion – avoidance

VAT: Construction industry – the new Reverse Charge

By   11 June 2018
0

Builders will soon be required to charge themselves VAT.

HMRC has published an important new draft Statutory Instrument (SI) for technical consultation with a draft explanatory memorandum and draft tax information and impact note. The new rules are likely to be introduced in the autumn.

This sets out more details of the intended Reverse Charge (RC) for construction services. The draft legislation will make supplies of standard or reduced rated construction services between construction or businesses subject to the domestic RC, which means that the recipient of the supply will be liable to account for VAT due, instead of the supplier.

What supplies does the intended legislation cover?

The RC will apply to, inter alia:

  • construction, alteration, repair, extension, demolition or dismantling of buildings or structures
  • work on; walls, roadworks, electronic communications apparatus, docks and harbours, railways, pipe-lines, reservoirs, water-mains, wells, sewers, or industrial plant
  • installation in any building or structure of systems of heating, lighting, air-conditioning, ventilation, power supply, drainage, sanitation, water supply or fire protection
  • internal cleaning of buildings and structures, so far as carried out in the course of their construction, alteration, repair, extension or restoration
  • painting or decorating the internal or external surfaces of any building or structure
  • services which form an integral part of the services described above, including site clearance, earthmoving, excavation, tunnelling and boring, laying of foundations, erection of scaffolding, site restoration, landscaping and the provision of roadways and other access works.

What is not covered?

These are some supplies which are not covered by the draft SI

  • drilling for, or extraction of, oil or natural gas
  • extraction of minerals and tunnelling or boring, or construction of underground works, for this purpose
  • manufacture of building or engineering components or equipment, materials, plant or machinery, or delivery of any of these things to site
  • manufacture of components for systems of heating, lighting, air-conditioning, ventilation, power supply, drainage, sanitation, water supply or fire protection, or delivery of any of these things to site
  • the professional work of architects or surveyors, or of consultants in building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration or in the laying-out of landscape
  • signwriting and erecting, installing and repairing signboards and advertisements
  • the installation of seating, blinds and shutters or the installation of security.

Please note that neither of the lists above are exhaustive.

Further details

The rules do not apply to supplies to the end user (consumer) eg; retailers and landlords, but rather to other construction businesses which then use them to make a further supply. There are no de minimis limits, but the RC will not apply to associated businesses.

Deadline

Before these new rues come into effect, HMRC have asked for comments before 20 July 2018.

Why the new rules?

Briefly, the SI is intended to avoid Missing Trader Fraud (MTF). The rules avoids suppliers charging and being paid VAT, but failing to declare or pay this over to the government. HMRC has identified the building trade as an area where there has been considerable tax leakage in the past.

Technical

As a general rule, it is the supplier of goods or services who is required to account for VAT on those supplies. However, the VAT Act 1994, section 55A requires the recipient, not the supplier, to account for and pay tax on the supply of any goods and services which are of a description specified in an order made by the Treasury for that purpose.

Action

It is prudent to check whether you, or your clients’ businesses will be affected by the intended SI. If so, plans need to be put in place; whether as a supplier or recipient, to ensure that VAT is not charged incorrectly (supplier) and the RC is applied correctly (recipient). It is likely that output tax incorrectly shown on an invoice will be due to HMRC, but will not be recoverable by the recipient and the omission of levying the RC will lead to penalties.

Please contact us if you have any queries or require further information.

VAT: No such thing as a free meal (or drink) – The M&S case

By   14 May 2018
0

Latest from the courts – Marks & Spencer First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case; what is the value of a “free” bottle of wine?

Background

I shall do this without the seductive TV ad voiceover… Like many retailers M&S has and does run various promotions designed to improve its financial performance. A number of those promotions are based on the proposition that a customer who buys certain products from M&S will receive something “free”. In this instant case, M&S sells a combination meal known as a “Dine In”. This comprises; a main course, a side dish and a pudding, along with a bottle of wine which is advertised as free: “Dine In for £10 with Free Wine”. I’m sure many have sampled these offers. The commercial rationale for the promotion involved M&S taking a calculated risk. It reached a decision to lower its aggregate profit margin on the separate items in the offer compared to their retail sales price in the expectation that this will be more than compensated for by changes in customer behaviour as a result of the promotion.

It is interesting to note that  M&S anticipated the benefits could arise in a number of ways. Sales of the items included in the promotion might increase, which would improve turnover and put the retailer in a stronger negotiating position with its suppliers of those items. More casual customers might take up the promotion, increasing footfall. In doing so, they and other customers might take the opportunity to add other items to their shopping basket, the so-called “halo effect”. In a less tangible sense, the M&S’s brand might be generally enhanced.

In M&S’s online T&Cs the following narrative appears “For the avoidance of doubt, as the value attributed to the free wine in this deal is £0.00, if returned, no refund will be due…”

The aggregate shelf price of the three food items in the Dine In promotion, if bought separately, varied considerably but would always have been at least £10, and in most cases more.

The VAT issue

Should output tax be accounted for on the whole supply? Or, assuming that the food was zero rated, what, if any, output tax should be declared on the wine? Or should the entire supply be VAT free?

The contentions

M&S’s first contention was that the wine was free so no output tax was due. The reason why the wine was provided free was for M&S to receive certain benefits (set out above).  Secondly, the Dine In Promotion is in fact two promotions. The first is an offer of three food items for £10. The second promotion, conditional on the first, is an offer of free wine. The former offer makes commercial sense both for M&S and the customer on its own terms. The food offer is complete in its own right, and the supply of wine for no consideration is a separate transaction. Thirdly, this is a multiple supply. The Dine In Promotion results in three or four separate supplies for VAT purposes, namely the three food items and the wine. This is not a case of what would otherwise be a single supply being artificially broken down. There are separate transactions, entitled to be valued separately for VAT. A further argument was that there is no separate or allocable consideration for the wine element of the Dine In Promotion. The free wine is an inducement, and is conditional on the food offer, but does not generate any separate identifiable consideration for VAT purposes.

Clearly HMRC disagreed and argued that the Dine In deal represented the sale of four items for £10. There was no free gift of the wine and consequently, an element of the £10 should be allocated to the value of the wine.   Or put another way, it was a single promotional deal and is not a sale of food items for £10 plus a supply of wine for nil consideration. HMRC further contended that the duty to account for output tax and the right to deduct input tax form an “inseparable whole”. M&S’s position, if correct, would result in a failure to impose a charge to tax on the ultimate consumer, and untaxed (or, in effect, zero rated) consumption of standard rated goods and that militates very strongly against M&S’s position.

It was agreed that, by purchase value, the wine represented the most expensive part of the meal deal. HMRC proposed a value of output tax of 70 pence per meal deal was appropriate.

Decision

The judge agreed with HMRC and that output tax was due on the element of the £10 price attributable to the wine. Contractually, the meal deal was a single offer with a conditional element, ie; the provision of the wine was conditional on the customer paying £10 for the purchase of the food items. Although the customer may perceive the wine to be free (presumably as a result of the way in which the meal deal was held out and advertised) however, for VAT purposes, the customer paid £10 for all four elements of the deal. The Dine In promotion was a single offer, with all four items supplied simultaneously and in the same till transaction for consumption on the payment of £10. Receipt of the wine was conditional on payment of the £10 and the purchase of the food items. The wine was not provided unconditionally and with no strings attached.

Commentary

This was hardly a surprising decision. Similar retail offers have been considered in the past and the outcomes were broadly similar to this decision.  The FTT distinguished Hartwell, Lex, Kuwait Petroleum, and Tesco plc cases in this respect which the appellants put forward to support their arguments. As always with VAT, promotions and offers can create valuation issues. It is important to consider VAT when marketing offers are provided.

UPDATE

July 2019

Via the Upper Tribunal (UT) case Marks and Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2019] BVC 514 the UT upheld the FTT decision and dismissed M&S’s appeal.

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

By   14 May 2018
0

ADR and VAT

What is ADR?

ADR is the involvement of a third party (a facilitator) to help resolve disputes between HMRC and taxpayers.  It is mainly used by SMEs and individuals for VAT purposes, although it is not limited to these entities.  Its aim is to reduce costs for both parties (the taxpayer and HMRC) when disputes occur and to reduce the number of cases that reach statutory review and/or Tribunal.

The process

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

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

Features of ADR

  • Without prejudice discussions – Anything said or documents produced during the ADR process cannot be used in future proceedings without the express consent of both parties subject to the obligations placed on the parties by the operation of English law
  • Evidence is that ADR can work for both VAT and Direct Taxes disputes both before and after an appealable decision or assessment has been made. However, ADR for VAT disputes is more suited to post appealable decision and assessments
  • Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a Code of Conduct – a MOU is created to commit taxpayers/agents to the requirements of the ADR process
  • The average time for all completed ADR cases is 61 days. This figure is from application to resolution.  The average elapsed time for VAT it is 53 days
  • The average age of VAT disputes is eight months
  • An ADR Panel has been created to accept or reject applications for ADR. It screens all applications and not just those where ADR was thought to be inappropriate.
  • Customer / Agent Questionnaire Summary – Findings from customers and agents included:
    • An appreciation of the personal interaction that the ADR process allowed
    • Facilitators were even handed and impartial in all cases and kept the taxpayer well informed
    • ADR was particularly well suited to resolution of long standing disputes.

Is Tribunal preferable?

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

 A true alternative?

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

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

Results so far

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

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

Outcome

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

Of the fully resolved facilitations

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

Conclusion

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

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

Commentary

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

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

Tax Tribunal backlog continues to increase

By   26 April 2018
0

Both the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) which both hear VAT cases, report an increase in the number of cases waiting to be heard.  In the case of the FTT the increase is 507 last year which means 28,521 cases are outstanding. The increase of UT cases outstanding is around 40%.

These are not all VAT cases and it is likely that the backlog is predominantly caused by

  • HMRC’s increased willingness to attack what they see as tax avoidance and evasion (see here)
  • More businesses being prepared to go to court
  • HMRC’s determination to “win on every point” rather than, perhaps, seeking a negotiated settlement, and
  • The increasing complexity of cases heard.

This backlog works in HMRCs favour as in the majority of cases the disputed tax must be paid before a hearing can take place. Delays may also cause anxiety and the burden of devoting resources to appeals which may cause the applicant to withdraw.  It is not usually an inexpensive process to go to court and some cases can take a number of years to resolve.

In the current climate, it is more important than ever to challenge HMRC’s decisions. We have found that in the majority of cases we have been able to reduce HMRC assessments, in many cases, to zero. We always work on the basis that it is very important to try to resolve matters with HMRC before going to Tribunal. This is an increasingly difficult task given the political pressure on HMRC to reduce the tax gap (the difference between the amount of tax that should, in theory, be collected by HMRC, against what is actually collected) and the seemingly common tactic of HMRC becoming “entrenched” and being unprepared to shift their position.

Please contact us if you have a dispute with HMRC or are being challenged on any technical points. It is better to deal with these as soon as possible to avoid going to court.

VAT: Longer prison sentences for tax fraud

By   16 April 2018
0

The latest figures from the Ministry of Justice show that for fraud offences including; VAT, Excise Duty, and Custom Duty the average length of custodial sentences has increased by around 25%. The average sentence is now four years one month, up from three years three months as the government clamps down on tax evasion.

Why longer in jail?

It is thought that the reasons for this are that:

  • HMRC is demanding longer sentences
  • HMRC is pursuing an increasing number of suspected fraudsters
  • HMRC is devoting more resources to carrying out investigations
  • CPS has been pushing for tax frauds to be considered as a more serious offence (which, obviously, carry longer sentences).

Criminal prosecution has also increased enormously as a result of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office being incorporated with the CPS. HMRC is no longer just interested in getting the VAT, it wants prosecutions, the convictions….and the tax. A person criminally prosecuted for evasion does not escape paying the tax and they will be chased for it. A fraudster may be prosecuted under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Money Laundering Act 2007.

More resources

The news comes as companies including Amazon and eBay have agreed to give their data to HMRC in an effort to crack down on VAT evasion by overseas retailers. The deal will mean the companies will provide merchant’s data to tax officials so that fraudulent trends can be spotted.

HMRC have also been using increasingly technical procedures on data which was previously unavailable to them – details here

Naming and shaming

In addition, HMRC also publish details of people who deliberately “get their tax affairs wrong”. The current list is here 

What is evasion, and what is the difference between that and avoidance?

I am often asked about the distinction between avoidance and evasion. Broadly, the difference between avoidance and evasion is legality. Tax avoidance is legally exploiting the tax system to reduce current or future tax liabilities by means not intended by Parliament. It often involves artificial transactions that are contrived to produce a tax advantage.  Tax avoidance is not the same as tax planning or mitigation.

Tax evasion is to escape paying taxes illegally. This is usually when a person misrepresents or conceals the true state of their affairs to tax authorities, for example dishonest tax reporting.

Technical

The relevant legislation covering the offences of fraudulent evasion of VAT is under section 72(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, furnishing false information under section 72(3) and committing evasion over a period under section 72(8). Section 72(8)(b) sets out that the offence is subject to”…imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years…”.

Summary

The message is clear; after being criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for not have a clear strategy for dealing with tax fraud and not pursuing criminal prosecution in enough cases HMRC has demonstrated that it is prepared to go after more businesses and individuals and put more resources into detecting and prosecuting fraudulent activities.

Sleep tight

We always recommend full disclosure to HMRC, it is preferable to sleep at night (rather than trying to sleep in a prison cell).  Of course, the very best course of action is not to commit tax fraud…

VAT – What is Reasonable Care?

By   12 April 2018
0

What is reasonable care and why is it so important for VAT?

HMRC state that “Everyone has a responsibility to take reasonable care over their tax affairs. This means doing everything you can to make sure the tax returns and other documents you send to HMRC are accurate.”

If a taxpayer does not take reasonable care HMRC will charge penalties for inaccuracies.

Penalties for inaccuracies 

HMRC will charge a penalty if a business submits a return or other document with an inaccuracy that was either as a result of not taking reasonable care, or deliberate, and it results in one of the following:

  • an understatement of a person’s liability to VAT
  • a false or inflated claim to repayment of VAT

The penalty amount will depend on the reasons for the inaccuracy and the amount of tax due (or repayable) as a result of correcting the inaccuracy.

How HMRC determine what reasonable care is

HMRC will take a taxpayer’s individual circumstances into account when considering whether they have taken reasonable care. Therefore, there is a difference between what is expected from a small sole trader and a multi-national company with an in-house tax team.

The law defines ‘careless’ as a failure to take reasonable care. The Courts are agreed that reasonable care can best be defined as the behaviour which is that of a prudent and reasonable person in the position of the person in question.

There is no issue of whether or not a business knew about the inaccuracy when the return was submitted. If it did, that would be deliberate and a different penalty regime would apply, see here  It is a question of HMRC examining what the business did, or failed to do, and asking whether a prudent and reasonable person would have done that or failed to do that in those circumstances.

Repeated inaccuracies

HMRC consider that repeated inaccuracies may form part of a pattern of behaviour which suggests a lack of care by a business in developing adequate systems for the recording of transactions or preparing VAT returns.

How to make sure you take reasonable care

HMRC expects a business to keep VAT records that allow you to submit accurate VAT returns and other documents to them. Details of record keeping here

They also expect a business to ask HMRC or a tax adviser if it isn’t sure about anything. If a business took reasonable care to get things right but its return was still inaccurate, HMRC should not charge you a penalty. However, If a business did take reasonable care, it will need to demonstrate to HMRC how it did this when they talk to you about penalties.

Reasonable care if you use tax avoidance arrangements*

If a business has used tax avoidance arrangements that HMRC later defeat, they will presume that the business has not taken reasonable care for any inaccuracy in its VAT return or other documents that relate to the use of those arrangements. If the business used a tax adviser with the appropriate expertise, HMRC would normally consider this as having taken reasonable care (unless it’s classed as disqualified advice)

Where a return is sent to HMRC containing an inaccuracy arising from the use of avoidance arrangements the behaviour will always be presumed to be careless unless:

  • The inaccuracy was deliberate on the person’s part, or
  • The person satisfies HMRC or a Tribunal that they took reasonable care to avoid the inaccuracy

* Meaning of avoidance arrangements

Arrangements include any agreement, understanding, scheme, transaction or series of transactions (whether or not legally enforceable). So, whilst an arrangement could contain any combination of these things, a single agreement could also amount to an arrangement.  Arrangements are `avoidance arrangements’ if, having regard to all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to conclude that the obtaining of a tax advantage was the main purpose, or one of the main purposes of the arrangements.

NB: We at Marcus Ward Consultancy do not promote or advise on tax avoidance arrangements and we will not work with any business which seeks such advice.

Using a tax adviser

If a business uses a tax adviser, it remains that business’ responsibility to make sure it gives the adviser accurate and complete information. If it does not, and it sends HMRC a return that is inaccurate, it could be charged penalties and interest.

None of us are perfect

Finally, it is worth repeating a comment found in HMRC’s internal guidance “People do make mistakes. We do not expect perfection. We are simply seeking to establish whether the person has taken the care and attention that could be expected from a reasonable person taking reasonable care in similar circumstances…” 

VAT: Latest from the courts – option to tax, TOGC and deposits

By   26 March 2018
0

Timing is everything

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Clark Hill Ltd (CHL) illustrates the detailed VAT considerations required when selling property. Not only are certain actions important, but so is timing.  If a business is one day late taking certain actions, a VAT free sale may turn into one that costs 20% more than anticipated. That is a large amount to fund and will obviously negatively affect cashflow and increase SDLT for the buyer, and may result in penalties for the seller.

The case considered three notoriously difficult areas of VAT, namely: the option to tax, transfers of going concerns and deposits.

Background

CHL owned four commercial properties which had opted to tax. CHL sold the freehold of these properties with the benefit of the existing leases. As a starting point VAT would be due on the sale because of the option.  However, the point at issue here was whether the conditions in Article 5 of the Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 were met so that the sale could be treated as a transfer of a business as a going concern (TOGC) and could therefore be treated as neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services for VAT purposes, ie; VAT free. The point applied to two of the four sales. The vendor initially charged VAT, but the purchasers considered that the TOGC provisions applied. CHL must have agreed and consequently did not charge VAT. HMRC disagreed with this approach and raised an assessment for output tax on the value of the sale.

TOGC

In order that a sale may qualify as a TOGC one of the conditions is that; the assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part. It is accepted that in a property business transfer, if the vendor has opted to tax, the purchaser must also have opted by the “relevant date”.  If there is no option in place at that time HMRC do not regard it as “the same kind of business” and TOGC treatment does not apply.

Relevant date

If the purchaser opts to tax, but, say, one day after the relevant date, there can be no TOGC. The relevant date in these circumstances is the tax point. Details of tax points here

Basically put, a deposit can, in some circumstances, create a tax point. In this case, the purchaser had paid a deposit and, at some point before completion of the transfer of the property, the deposit had been received by the seller or the seller’s agent. The seller notified HMRC of the option to tax after a deposit had been received (in two of the relevant sales). The issue here then was whether a deposit created a tax point, or “relevant date” for the purposes of establishing whether the purchaser’s option to tax was in place by that date.

Decision

The judge decided that in respect of the two properties where the option to tax was not notified until after a deposit had been paid there could not be a TOGC (for completeness, for various other reasons, the other two sales could be treated as TOGCs) and VAT was due on the sale values. It was decided that the receipt of deposits in these cases created a relevant date.

Commentary

There is a distinction between opting to tax and notifying that option to HMRC which does not appear to have been argued here (there may be reasons for that). However, this case is a timely reminder that VAT must be considered on property transactions AND at the appropriate time. TOGC is an unique situation whereby the seller is reliant on the purchaser’s actions in order to apply the correct VAT treatment. This must be covered off in contracts, but even if it is, it could create significant complications and difficulties in obtaining the extra payment. It is also a reminder that VAT issues can arise when deposits are paid (in general) and/or in advance of an invoice being issued.

We recommend that VAT advice is always taken on property transactions ad at an early stage. Not only can situations similar to those in this case arise, but late consideration of VAT can often delay sales and can even cause such transactions to be aborted.