Tag Archives: non-business

VAT: Wakefield College – Court of Appeal case

By Marcus Ward 1 June 2018

Latest from the courts

Further to my article on the Wakefield College case here the Court of Appeal (CA) has dismissed the college’s appeal that certain of its activities were non-business.

Background

The detailed background was set out in the above linked article, but to recap: In order for certain building works supplied to the appellant to be zero rated the resultant building has to be used for a “relevant charitable purpose” – that is; not for business purposes. This is the case even if there is a small amount of business activity in the building (as long as these can be shown to be insignificant; which is taken to be less than 5% of the activities in the whole building).

The issue

The issue here was whether the education provided by the college could be deemed non-business because, although the majority was grant funded, students were also required to make a contribution to their education. This is dependent upon whether the provision of courses by the college to students paying subsidised fees was, an economic activity carried on by it for the purposes of article 9 of the VAT Directive and consequently, a “business” within Note (6) of Group 5 in Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994.

The 1994 Act provides, at group 5 of schedule 8, for the zero-rating of various supplies made in the course of construction of certain buildings including:

“The supply in the course of construction of

(a) a building … intended solely for use for … a relevant charitable purpose…

of any services related to the construction other than the services of an architect, surveyor or any person acting as a consultant or in a supervisory capacity”.

Note (6) to group 5 provides:

“Use for a relevant charitable purpose means use by a charity… –

(a) otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a business.”

Decision

The CA found that the fact that the students paid for education (an exempt supply) meant that it was a business activity as consideration flowed in both directions. The proportion of the costs paid by the student amounted to between 25% and 30% of the total cost and could therefore not be deemed insignificant.

Commentary

It is worth reconsidering comments made by the judge in his summing up in the Upper Tribunal hearing.

“We cannot leave this appeal without expressing some disquiet that it should have reached us at all. It is common ground that the College is a charity, and that the bulk of its income is derived from public funds. Because that public funding does not cover all of its costs it is compelled to seek income from other sources; but its doing so does not alter the fact that it remains a charity providing education for young people. If, by careful management or good fortune, it can earn its further income in one way rather than another, or can keep the extent of the income earned in particular ways below an arbitrary threshold, it can escape a tax burden on the construction of a building intended for its charitable purpose, but if it is unable to do so, even to a trivial extent, it is compelled to suffer not some but all of that tax burden. We think it unlikely that Parliament intended such a capricious system. We consider it unlikely, too, that Parliament would consider it a sensible use of public money for the parties to litigate this dispute twice before the FTT and now twice before this tribunal. We do not blame the parties; the College is obliged to maximise the resources available to it for the pursuit of its charitable activities, just as HMRC are obliged to collect tax which is due. Rather, we think the legislation should be reconsidered. It cannot be impossible to relieve 16 charities of an unintended tax burden while at the same time protecting commercial organisations from unfair competition and preventing abuse”.

So, although the result may be seen as “unfair” on the college, the strict letter of the VAT legislation does not provide the courts with any alternative but to impose a VAT charge on the construction works – a charge which the college will have to bear as it is unable to recover it as input tax due to the partial exemption rules.

This illustrates the complexity with both the concept of business/non-business and property and construction issues. When the two technical areas collide, as in this case, matters can get very complicated and proper advice is vital. This is especially important with charities as they benefit from very few VAT reliefs and it is important to ensure that those available are correctly taken advantage of.

VAT: Doctors and healthcare professionals

By Marcus Ward 29 January 2018

VAT and Doctors

I have noticed that I am receiving more and more queries in this area and HMRC does appear to be taking an increased interest in healthcare entities. This is hardly surprising as it can be complex and there are some big numbers involved.

(This article refers to doctors, but applies equally to most healthcare professional entities.)

The majority of the services provided by doctors’ practices are VAT free. Good news one would think; no need to charge VAT and no need to deal with VAT records, returns and inspections.

However, there is one often repeated question from practices; “How can we reclaim the VAT we are charged?”

The first point to make is that if a practice only makes exempt supplies (of medical services) it is not permitted to register for VAT and consequently cannot recover any input tax. Therefore we must look at the types of supplies that a practice may make that are taxable (at the standard or zero rate). If any of these supplies are made it is possible to VAT register regardless of the value of them. Of course, if taxable supplies are made, the value of which exceeds the current turnover limit of £85,000 in a rolling 12-month period, registration is mandatory.

Examples of services and goods which may be taxable are:

Drugs, medicines or appliances that are dispensed by doctors to patients for self-administration
Dispensing drugs against an NHS prescription (zero-rated)
Drugs dispensed against private prescriptions (standard-rated)
Medico legal services that are predominately legal rather than medical – for example negotiating on behalf of a client or appearing in court in the capacity of an advocate
Clinical trials or market research services for drug companies that do not involve the care or assessment of a patient
Paternity testing
Certain rental of rooms/spaces
Car parking
Signing passport applications
Providing professional witness evidence
Any services which are not in respect of; the protection, maintenance or restoration of health of a patient.

So what does VAT registration mean?

Once you join the “VAT Club” you will be required to file a VAT return on a monthly of quarterly basis. You may have to issue certain documentation to patients/organisations to whom you make VATable supplies. You may need to charge VAT at 20% on some services. You will be able to reclaim VAT charged to you on purchases and other expenditure subject to partial exemption rules (see below). You will have to keep records in a certain way and your accounting system needs to be able to process specific information.

Because doctors usually provide services which attract varying VAT treatment, a practice will be required to attribute VAT incurred on expenditure (input tax) to each of these categories. Generally speaking, only VAT incurred in respect of zero-rated and standard-rated services may be recovered. In addition, there will always be input tax which is not attributable to any specific service and is “overhead” eg; property costs, professional fees, telephones etc. There is a set way in which the recoverable portion of this VAT is calculated. VAT registered entities which make both taxable and exempt supplies are deemed “partly exempt” and must carry out calculations on every VAT return.

Partial Exemption

Once the calculations described above have been carried out, the resultant amount of input tax which relates to exempt supplies is compared to the de-minimis limits (broadly; £625 per month VAT and not more than 50% of all input tax). If the figure is below these limits, all VAT incurred is recoverable regardless of what activities the practice is involved in.

VAT registration in summary

Benefits

Recovery of input tax; the cost of which is not claimable in any other way
Potentially, recovery of VAT on items such as property, refurbishment and other expenditure that would have been unavailable prior to VAT registration
Only a small amount of VAT is likely to be chargeable by a practice
May provide opportunities for pre-registration VAT claims

Drawbacks

Increased administration, paperwork and staff time
Exposure to VAT penalties and interest
May require VAT to be added to some services provided which were hitherto VAT free
Likely that only an element of input tax is recoverable as a result of partial exemption
Uncertainty on the VAT position of certain services due to current EU cases
Potential increased costs to the practice in respect of professional fees.

Please contact us if any of the above affects you or your clients.

VAT – A Christmas Tale

By Marcus Ward 12 December 2017

Well, it is Christmas…. and at Christmas tradition dictates that you repeat the same nonsense every year….

Dear Marcus

My business, if that is what it is, has become large enough for me to fear that HMRC might take an interest in my activities. May I explain what I do and then you can write to me with your advice? If you think a face to face meeting would be better I can be found in most decent sized department stores from mid September to 24 December.

First of all I am based in Greenland but I do bring a stock of goods, mainly toys, to the UK and I distribute them. Am I making supplies in the UK?

If I do this for philanthropic reasons, am I a charity, and if so, does that mean I do not pay VAT?

The toys are of course mainly for children and I wonder if zero rating might apply? I have heard that small T shirts are zero rated so what about a train set – it is small and intended for children. Does it matter if adults play with it?

My friend Rudolph has told me that there is a peculiar rule about gifts. He says that if I give them away regularly and they cost more than £150 I might have to account for VAT. Is that right?

My next question concerns barter transactions. Dads often leave me a food item such as a mince pie and a drink and there is an unwritten rule that I should then leave something in return. If I’m given Tesco’s own brand sherry I will leave polyester underpants but if I’m left a glass of Glenfiddich I will be more generous and leave best woollen socks. Have I made a supply and what is the value please? My feeling is that the food items are not solicited so VAT might not be due and, in any event; isn’t food zero-rated, or is it catering? Oh, and what if the food is hot?

Transport is a big worry for me. Lots of children ask me for a ride on my airborne transport. I suppose I could manage to fit 12 passengers in. Does that mean my services are zero-rated? If I do this free of charge will I need to charge air passenger duty? Does it matter if I stay within the UK, or the EU? My transport is the equivalent of six horse power and if I refuel with fodder in the UK will I be liable for fuel scale charges? After dropping the passengers off I suppose I will be accused of using fuel for the private journey back home. Somebody has told me that if I buy hay labelled as animal food I can avoid VAT but if I buy the much cheaper bedding hay I will need to pay VAT. Please comment.

Can I also ask about VAT registration? I know the limit is £85,000 per annum but do blips count? If I do make supplies at all, I do nothing for 364 days and then, in one day (well night really) I blast through the limit and then drop back to nil turnover. May I be excused from registration? If I do need to register should I use AnNOEL Accounting? At least I can get only one penalty per annum if I get the sums wrong.

I would like to make a claim for input tax on clothing. I feel that my red clothing not only protects me from the extreme cold but it is akin to a uniform and should be allowable. These are not clothes that I would choose to wear except for my fairly unusual job. If lady barristers can claim for black skirts I think I should be able to claim for red dress. And what about my annual haircut? That costs a fortune. I only let my hair grow that long because it is expected of me.

Insurance worries me too. You know that I carry some very expensive goods on my transport. Play Stations, Mountain Bikes, i-pads and Accrington Stanley replica shirts for example. My parent company in Greenland takes out insurance there and they make a charge to me. If I am required to register for VAT in England will I need to apply the reverse charge? This seems to be a daft idea if I understand it correctly. Does it mean I have to charge myself VAT on something that is not VATable and then claim it back again?

Next you’ll be telling me that Father Christmas isn’t real……….

HAPPY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!

VAT – Work on farm buildings

By Marcus Ward 14 November 2017

I am quite often asked if there are any VAT reliefs for farming businesses carrying out work to farm buildings.

Indeed, there are some areas of the VAT rules which may be of assistance to owners of farms and farm buildings. Clearly, the best position is to avoid VAT being charged in the first place. If this is not possible, then we need to consider if the VAT may be recovered.

Repairs and Renovations of Farmhouses

The following guidelines apply to businesses VAT registered as sole proprietors or partnerships. Where the occupant of the farmhouse is a director of a limited company (or a person connected with the director of the company) it is unlikely that any VAT incurred on the farmhouse may be recovered. The following notes are provided by HMRC after consultations with the NFU:

Where VAT is incurred on repairs, maintenance and renovations, 70% of that VAT may be recovered as input tax provided the farm is a normal working farm and the VAT-registered person is actively engaged full-time in running it. Where farming is not a full-time business for the VAT-registered person, input tax claimable is likely to be between 10%–30% on the grounds that the dominant purpose is a personal one.
Where the building work is more associated with an alteration (eg; building an extension) the amount that may be recovered will depend on the purpose for the construction. If the dominant purpose is a business one then 70% may be claimed. If the dominant purpose is a personal one HMRC would expect the claim to be 40% or less, and in some cases, depending on the facts, none of the VAT incurred would be recoverable.

Other farm buildings

As a general rule, when VAT is incurred on non-residential buildings, then, as long as they are used for business purposes, it would be expected that 100% of the VAT is recoverable. Care should be taken if any buildings are let and it may be that planning is necessary in order to achieve full recovery.

It should be noted that if any work to a building which is not residential results in the building becoming residential, eg; a barn conversion, then the applicable VAT rate should be 5%. If the resulting dwelling is sold then generally the 5% VAT is recoverable. If the dwelling is to be lived in by the person converting it; the VAT incurred may be recovered, but the mechanism is outside the usual VAT return and a separate claim can be made. In these circumstances it is not necessary for the “converter” to be VAT registered.

As may be seen, in many cases it will be necessary to negotiate a percentage of recovery with HMRC. We can assist with this, as well as advising on VAT structures and planning to ensure as much input tax as possible is either not chargeable to you, or is recoverable.

VAT: Don’t forget to make EC 13th Directive claims

By Marcus Ward 6 November 2017

The deadline for a business to make a 13th Directive claim is fast approaching – don’t miss out!

What is a 13th Directive claim?

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

Who can claim?

The scheme is available for any businesses that are not VAT registered anywhere in the EU, have no place of business or other residence in the EU and do not make any supplies in the UK.

What cannot be claimed?

The usual rules that apply to UK business claiming input tax also apply to 13th Directive claims. Consequently, the likes of; business entertainment, car purchase, non-business use and supplies used for exempt activities are usually barred.

Process

The business must obtain a “certificate of business status” from its local tax or government department to accompany a claim. Claims must via hard copy submission to HMRC as online filing is not yet available. The application form is a VAT65A and is available here Original invoices which show the VAT charged must be submitted with the claim form and business certificate. Applications without a certificate, or certificates and claim forms received after the deadline are not accepted by HMRC. It is possible for a business to appoint an agent to register to enable them to make refund applications on behalf of that business.

Deadline

Claim periods run annually up to 30 June and must be submitted by 31 December of the same year. Consequently, any UK VAT incurred in the twelve months to 30 June 2017 must be submitted by 31 December 2017.

With the usual Christmas rush and distractions it may be easy to overlook this deadline and some claims may be significant. Unfortunately, this is not a rapid process and even if claims are accurate and the supporting documents are in all in order the claim often takes some time to be repaid.

Note

Please note; there is a similar scheme for businesses incurring VAT in the UK which are based in other EU Member States. However, the process and deadlines are different. Additionally, if you are a UK business incurring VAT (or its equivalent) overseas, there are mechanisms for its recovery. Please contact us if you would like further information.

VAT: Extent of zero rating for a construction by a charity

By Marcus Ward 9 October 2017

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of The Trustees of Litton & Thorner Community Hall the issue was whether certain construction works were a completion of an initial build or whether they were an extension or an annex to a pre-existing building. And if an annex, whether it was capable of functioning independently from the existing building and whether there is a main access to the annex.

Background

The appellant began construction of a hall in 2008. It was intended that the hall would be available for a school to use and also for it to be available at for village use and other activities, such as by local youth clubs and a scout group. There was no dispute that the original construction was zero rated via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5, item 2 (The supply in the course of the construction of a building designed for a relevant charitable purpose).

A decision was made to install ground source heat pumps to feed the heating system. However the space occupied to accommodate the system meant that there was insufficient storage space in the hall. So at the time of construction, but before planning permission was obtained, it was decided with the builder that a steel joist should be incorporated within the east wall of the hall in order to facilitate the necessary support and access when the envisaged storage facility was added. The additional planning permission was granted in November 2011, three years after building work commenced. The facility was eventually able to be used when work was completed in 2014. The delay was caused (not surprisingly) by funding issues. It was the VAT treatment of work relating to the addition of the storage area which was the subject of the appeal, with HMRC considering that it was either standard rated work to the building or was a standard rated extension to it.

Technical background

The provisions relevant to the appeal are VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5, Notes 16 and 17. It is worthwhile taking a moment to consider these in their entirety:

Note 16

For the purpose of this Group, the construction of a building does not include

(a ) the conversion, reconstruction or alteration of an existing building; or

(b) any enlargement of, or extension to, an existing building except to the extent the enlargement or extension creates an additional dwelling or dwellings; or

(c) subject to Note (17) below, the construction of an annexe to an existing building.

Note 17

Note 16(c) above shall not apply where the whole or a part of an annexe is intended for use solely for a relevant charitable purpose and;

(a) the annexe is capable of functioning independently from the existing building; and

(b) the only access or where there is more than one means of access, the main access to:

(i) the annexe is not via the existing building; and

(ii) the existing building is not via the annexe.

The Appeal

The Trustees appealed on two separate and distinct bases:

(1) That the additional building was the completion of the original building and neither an extension nor an annex to it. It was their case that the temporal disconnect between the two building processes must be seen in the factual context, with particular reference to the decision to put in a lintel to allow the building to be completed when additional monies and planning permission were available. Additionally, alongside this fact was that the appellant was a non-commercial organisation and so things could not progress as expeditiously as they might have done if those things were being undertaken by a commercial organisation.

(2) The second basis is that, in any event, the additional building is zero rated by reference to paragraphs 16(c) and 17 of Group 5 to Schedule 8. It was the appellant’s case that the additional building is an annex intended for use solely for relevant charitable purposes and it meets the conditions set out in paragraph 17(a) & (b).

Decision

The FTT decided that the work was subject to zero rating. Not only was it part of the original construction (albeit that there was a significant time period between the building original work and the work on the storage area) but also, even if the storage area is considered as being separate, it was ruled that, on the facts, it was an annex rather than an extension, so it also qualified for zero rating on this basis.

Commentary

The date a building is “completed” is often an issue which creates significant disputes with HMRC, not only for charities, but for “regular” housebuilders. I have also encountered the distinction between an annex and an extension representing a very real topic, especially with academy schools. Even small changes in circumstances can create differing VAT outcomes. My advice is to seek assistance form a VAT consultant at the earliest stage possible. It may be that with a slight amendment to plans, zero rating may be obtained in order to avoid an extra 20% on building costs which charities, more often than not, are unable to reclaim.

Links to what we can offer to schools here, and charities here

Additionally, our offering to the construction industry here

VAT: Latest from the courts – extent of education exemption

By Marcus Ward 7 August 2017

In the case of SAE Education Ltd (SAE) at the Court of Appeal, the court was required to decide on whether the exemption for education services extended to a “Special Associate College”.

Background

At the relevant time here was relationship between SAE and Middlesex University which has existed since 1998 when the first Memorandum of Co-operation was signed. This was a contractual document which provided for certain BA courses to be taught by SAE at specified campuses as “validated collaborative programs” of the university. Subsequently the university and SAE entered into further Memoranda of Co-operation which replaced the earlier agreement and provided for the validation of additional courses. Tuition was provided by SAE subject to quality assurance safeguards. SAE provided library, computer and other facilities but SAE students would not normally be entitled to access or use of the university’s Learning and Resource Services unless negotiated at extra cost. Nor were they to be entitled to access university’s accommodation and other social welfare services or to apply for financial support from the University’s Access to Learning Fund. They were however, entitled to access the university’s Disability Support Services but again at an additional cost.

In 2010 a decision by the university to grant SAE accredited status was made. This meant that SAE was accredited to validate, monitor and review courses of study leading to university undergraduate awards in certain subjects. This gave SAE the ability to validate the specified programmes itself (although Middlesex University staff continued to be involved in the assessment of the programmes).

The issue

SAE claimed that its supplies were exempt on the basis that it was a college of Middlesex University and therefore an “eligible body” (see below) and that the services supplied were educational as the university outsourced certain courses to it.

HMRC disagreed and assessed for output tax on the appellant’s services on the basis that exemption did not apply and the supplies were standard rated.

Legislation

The relevant legislation: VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, item 1 insists that in order for exemption to apply the provision of education (inter alia) must be by an “eligible body”. The matter to be considered therefore was; is SAE Education Ltd an eligible body. An “Eligible body” is defined in Note (1). It includes a long list of different types of school and higher education establishments but the appeal concerned paragraph (b): “a United Kingdom university, and any college, institution, school or hall of such a university;”

Decision

So was the appellant a UK university, college, instruction, school or hall of such a university? The judges concluded that it was not.

It was decided that although Middlesex University outsourced certain courses to it, and that SAE was appointed as a Special Associate College, this fell short of making it a college in a constitutional or structural sense. In their view a college means entities which are a constituent part of an university. The example given was of Cambridge and Oxford colleges which have been organised for centuries on a federal system under which the colleges and private halls, although legally independent and self-governing, have provided the students of the university and have assumed the primary responsibility for their tuition. The universities themselves are corporations and are regulated by statute with their own separate legal identity and status. “The colleges and private halls are therefore an integral part of the structure of the university and their members make up the university’s teaching staff and students.”

Commentary

It would appear that as a result of the approach in this case, the exemption for education may be more restrictive than previously understood. It is vital that providers of education review their VAT status as soon as possible. I would advise that a VAT consultant is used because this is an area where small details may affect the VAT treatment of the services. The ruling in this case is not helpful.

VAT – Latest from the courts: Fleming claims

By Marcus Ward 26 July 2017

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of NHS Lothian Health Board “the Board” the judge was asked to consider whether the Board had a valid Fleming claim* in respect of certain laboratory services performed from 1974 to 1997. The relevant services were, inter alia; Nequas work, food-testing, water-testing, non-medical testing of samples, especially for public health, and research and development.

Decision

The appeal was rejected. Although the Tribunal accepted the considerable evidence and testimony from members of staff working for the Board during the relevant years, and had decided that the relevant supplies were subject to VAT (they were not exempt of non-business) unfortunately, there was insufficient documentary evidence to actually quantify the amount of input tax claimed. Of course, in order to recover input tax, it had to relate to taxable (business) supplies made by the appellant. The Tribunal was required to consider whether the business income of the laboratories could be calculated. The FTT considered that whilst the evidence was helpful in determining that taxable supplies were made, that evidence fell short of facilitating its quantification. While the business income was almost certainly significant, the Tribunal did not consider that it has been quantified satisfactorily for the whole period.

The appellant contended that a set percentage representing business income could be projected backwards to earlier VAT periods. The Tribunal did not consider such an approach “reasonable or acceptable” and that the timescale involved also undermined the likely accuracy of the process of extrapolation. (The Tribunal suggested that there is a need to have a verifiable percentage, calculated by reference to prime records at regular intervals. For example, it might well be acceptable in a 25 year period to have verifiable figures every five years, and if there is not significant variation, to use extrapolated figures for the intervening years). There was also uncertainty about the Board’s partial exemption position and how, historically, apportionment was carried out.

Commentary

This case demonstrates the difficulty of making retrospective claims that go back to the early 1970s, that’s over 40 years ago! It is to be expected that certain records may be absent and HMRC has previously agreed that the required information may be established by other methods, however, a claim has to be made on the basis of “something more concrete” than a backwards projection of a percentage figure calculated from more contemporary records. The judge gave an example of evidence that may be acceptable in these circumstances.

The outcome does seem somewhat unfair given the fact that all parties agree that VAT was overpaid due to an error made by HMRC, but the level of evidence required to support a Fleming claim has to be of a certain standard to be accepted.

As always in VAT – record keeping is of the utmost importance.

* Background to Fleming claims

Fleming claims’ are claims for underdeclared or overpaid VAT, potentially going back as far as the inception of VAT in 1973. They followed the House of Lords judgements in January 2008 in the cases of Fleming and Conde Nast (Fleming) which concerned the way that the three year time limit on making claims had been introduced. In Revenue and Customs Brief 07/08, published on 20 February 2008, claims were invited in respect of overpaid output tax for accounting periods ending before 1 May 1997. Subsequent legislation in the 2008 Finance Act limited the scope for making claims for these accounting periods by introducing a new transitional period ending 1 April 2009, before which any such claims had to be made.

VAT: Latest from the courts – are services by a CIC business?

By Marcus Ward 19 May 2017

This case considers the perpetual difficulty of deciding whether activities represent a business… or not.

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Healthwatch Hampshire CIC (HH) here the issue was whether HH made taxable supplies by way of business to a Local Authority – Hampshire County Council (HCC)

Background

Under certain prescribed new arrangements, local authorities, including HCC, were required to enter into contractual arrangements with a body corporate, which was required to be a social enterprise and a Community Interest Company (CIC) for the provision of various services.

These services comprised, inter alia:

Promoting, and supporting, the involvement of local people in the commissioning, provision and scrutiny of local care services
Information, signposting and advice
Advocacy services

HH is a company limited by guarantee but is not a charity. It is however non-profit making in its objectives, and any profits which do arise can only be spent for the benefit of the local community. HH was formed by a consortium comprising; three organisations all of which are charities. These charities effectively carried out the work via a sub-contract arrangement and charged HH with the addition of VAT. The issue is the VAT treatment of HH’s charge to HCC. Was this a business activity on which VAT is charged? Or, as HMRC contended, was the money paid to HH was outside the scope of VAT because it represented something which was not consideration for taxable supplies and thus non-business.

This was important as if the services provided by the CIC are deemed to be non-business, the VAT charged to HH by the three consortium members would represent an absolute VAT cost as it could not be VAT registered and therefore not able to recover the input tax.

Technical Note

Because of the special VAT rules which apply to local authorities, input tax incurred by them may be recovered if it relates to their non-business activities (their statutory activities). This is via VAT Act 1994, s33 and this legislation turns “normal” VAT rules on their head. In this particular case, if HH charged HCC VAT, HCC would be in a position to recover it meaning that VAT would be neutral for all parties.

Decision

The matter of whether HH’s activities amounted to a business was considered with significant references to the Longridge On The Thames. Case commentary here

As a starting point, the judge commented on previous CJEU cases that it “…would seem to be a clear demonstration that simply because an activity is normally carried on by the state does not automatically mean that, per se, it cannot be economic activity”. It was also decided that “we have come to the conclusion that HH is not a body governed by public law.” So this strand of HMRC’s argument did not lead anywhere.

The court decided in the taxpayer’s favour; which appears to be common sense all round. The supplies were by way of business despite the arrangements having features which may not necessarily be found in a more commercial environment (including the fact that LAs were legally required to outsource certain of its functions) . Ultimately, consideration was flowing in both directions; HCC paid for supplies which it required and those were supplied by a third party such that VAT was properly chargeable. The fact that HCC met its statutory obligations in structuring transactions in this way did not preclude them being an economic activity.

Action

This case (and Longbridge) demonstrates that where charities, LAs, CICs, NFP entities and similar bodies are concerned, it is crucial to review all agreements from a VAT perspective. It is insufficient to assume the correct VAT treatment is how it is desired and slight differences in arrangements can, and do, produce different VAT outcomes. After Longbridge HMRC are looking more closely at similar arrangements (not limited to LAs) and we expect more of these types of cases to be heard in the future.

For more on the EC aspect of business/non-business please see here

VAT: Latest from the courts – Brockenhurst College

By Marcus Ward 19 May 2017

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has released its decision in Brockenhurst College here

Unusually, it has gone against the Advocate General (AG) Kokott’s opinion (here) and concurs with previous decisions reached by the UK courts. This is good news for the taxpayer and other providers of educational services. The decision has been referred back to the Court of Appeal (CoA) for it to consider points such as the distortion of competition and the fulfilment of a separate function, however, it is likely that this will not affect the decision by the CJEU and HMRC’s appeal will be dismissed.

Background

The case considered two types of supply made by Brockenhurst College:

The supplies made from its restaurant, used for training chefs, restaurant managers and hospitality students. The claim was made on the basis that these were exempt supplies of education and not standard rated supplies of catering
Tickets for concerts and other live performances put on by students as part of their educational courses. These were similarly claimed to be exempt.

Students were enrolled in performing arts and catering and hospitality courses. As part of their course of study they were required to run a restaurant and stage live performances. Persons not enrolled on the relevant courses would pay for and attend these events. The services were usually supplied to a limited public including; parents, siblings, friends etc, and were supplied at a reduced cost as part of the practical element of the students’ education. The appellant argued that the experience was invaluable to their studies and should be regarded as ‘closely related’ to the principal supply of education. HMRC considered that the services in question were supplied to third parties in return for payment. Consequently, the services, whilst of benefit and practical experience to the students were separate VATable supplies made to third parties and the supplies cannot, therefore, be closely related to the supply of education to the student.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) concluded that the supplies in question were exempt as being closely linked to education because:

the College was an eligible body and so its principal supplies were exempt supplies of education
the supplies were integral and essential to those principal exempt supplies
the supplies were made at less than their cost
the supplies were not advertised to the general public. Instead, there was a database of local groups and individuals who might wish to attend the restaurant or performances
the supplies were not intended to create an additional source of income for the College

HMRC disagreed with the conclusion on the basis that the supplies were outside the education exemption because the students were not the beneficiaries of the supplies in question, but only benefitted from making them. HMRC appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT).

The UT rejected HMRC’s argument and agreed with the FTT. It held that the supplies were closely related to the exempt supplies of education because they enabled the students to enjoy better education. The requirement in the domestic law for the supplies to be for the direct use of the student was met because they were of direct benefit to him.

HMRC subsequently appealed to the CoA which referred it to the CJEU.

The AG’s opinion was that closely related transactions are to be regarded as independent supplies to the principal supply, but do not include the supply of restaurant or training services supplied to third parties who are not themselves receiving the principal supply of training. The third parties pay for their own consumption (of either the catering or performance) and do not pay for the provision of education. It is very rare that the CJEU makes a decision that goes against the AG’s opinion.

CJEU Decision

The CJEU ruled that activities consisting of students of a higher education establishment supplying, for consideration and as part of their education, restaurant and entertainment services to third parties, may be regarded as supplies closely related to the principal supply of education and accordingly be exempt from VAT – provided that those services are essential to the students’ education and that their basic purpose is not to obtain additional income for that establishment by carrying out transactions which are in direct competition with those of commercial enterprises liable for VAT, which it is for the national court to determine.

Action

We understand that there are a number of cases stood behind Brockenhurst. Any other colleges, FE, universities or other eligible bodies carrying out similar activities to Brockenhurst need to consider their tax position. It is possible that retrospective claims may be made, depending on specific circumstances. Treating such supplies as exempt may also impact on a body’s partial exemption position and could create business/non-business implications. This may also impact on activities like hairdressing, motor maintenance and beauty treatments which colleges provide on a similar basis to the activities in this instant case.

We are happy to discuss the implications of this case with you.