Tag Archives: output-tax

VAT Latest from the courts – more on agent or principal

By   2 November 2016
0

Whether a business acts as agent or principal in respect of hotel accommodation

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Hotels4U.com Limited (H4U) further consideration was given to the relationship of parties in travel/accommodation services.  This follows on from the recent Supreme Court case of Secret Hotels 2 Ltd which we considered here

Background

H4U entered into contracts with suppliers of hotel rooms and displayed details of the hotels on its website. Travellers and travel agents are able to book online, pay a deposit and receive a voucher which enabled them to occupy the relevant accommodation when presented to the hotel.

The FTT was required to decide whether H4U was acting as agent or principal in respect of these supplies made to travellers and travel agents.  If acting as principal, output tax would be due via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS).  If acting as agent, the place of supply (POS) would be outside the UK and no UK VAT would be due.  We are aware that many of our clients are in a similar position so this decision will be important to them.

Decision

H4U contended that that its position was indistinguishable from the Secret Hotels 2 Ltd case such that it should be regarded as an agent.  The FTT upheld this contention for most of the relevant transactions (based on contracts which contained sufficient evidence to enable the Tribunal to reach a decision in UK law) so H4U could be seen as acting as agent.  H4U also argued that HMRC’s intention to seek a reference to the CJEU in respect of the interpretation of the EU Principal VAT Directive Article 306 on the meaning of “acting solely as an intermediary”’ (whether that is different from an agent in English law) was an attempt to re-argue the matter before the CJEU and should be resisted. The FTT stated that it was only considering the position under UK law.

Commentary

We understand that there are a number of similar ongoing appeals and this decision may be of benefit to them.  It also underlines the fact that documentation, and how each party acts, is important in determining the relationship.  No one piece of evidence on its own may be decisive but goes to form part of the overall picture.  As always in agent/principal cases, it is crucial that the documentation accurately represents the actual transaction.  Contracts can play a big part, as can the Terms & Conditions and wording on websites and advertisements.  Broadly, as a starting point, it must be clear to the customer that an agent is acting on behalf of a named principal; without this information, HMRC will likely form the view that there is no agency arrangement and that the “intermediary” party is acting as an undisclosed agent (for all intents and purposes acting as principal).  This means that any supply would be seen to be made to, and by the agent, such that (in this case) output tax would be due using TOMS.

Action

We shall have to wait and see whether HMRC is successful in making a reference on the possible distinction between the meaning of agent in UK and EC law.

In the meantime, any businesses which are involved in agency/principal relationships, not just in the travel field, may benefit from taking advice on whether their arrangements are affected by these two cases and whether there may be value in putting planning in place.

VAT – Cash businesses: Investigations

By   25 October 2016
0

HMRC’s methods of establishing underdeclarations

HMRC have always taken interest in cash businesses as they see them as a revenue risk.  We have heard, anecdotally, that there is an ongoing campaign to target cash businesses which HMRC suspect are under-declaring takings. Such businesses are usually retail and commonly restaurants and take aways (which I shall use as an example in this article).  A retail business is obliged to keep certain records.  For sales, this is a record of daily gross takings (DGT) and this is the area I will focus on as it is where “suppression” of income generally occurs.  In a very crude example, the owner, or a member of staff does not ring up a sale and the payment is pocketed.  There are more sophisticated ways in which suppression occurs, but this is the most common.

Even in this day and age where most payments are made by credit or debit cards, there is still significant scope for declarations to be inaccurate.

The methods

There are a number of ways in which HMRC can determine the accuracy of VAT declarations.  These may be from the usual bank and accounts reconciliations, mark up exercises, to, say, counting take-away containers to build up a picture of the turnover.  The following are also ways in which HMRC test the credibility of declarations:

  • Compliance checks

These usually take place in the evenings when a restaurant is open for business (or soon after it closes). Officers gain entrance, question staff, examine records for that and previous days, and remove certain records. From this information they can build up a picture of trading.  These visits are usually unannounced.

  • Invigilation exercise

HMRC observe how the business operates and check that all sales of food and drinks are rung into the till. This is usually with the agreement of the business.

  • Test meals

HMRC staff will purchase a test meal and at a later time check to see if it has been recorded correctly.  It may be that this method will be repeated at a suspect restaurant by different HMRC staff, perhaps in the same evening.  If any of the sales are not recorded correctly, it may be insufficient in itself to create an assessment, but it will confirm suspicions of suppression and lead to further action.

  • Observation

While posing as customers, HMRC will also count the number of covers, the amount of take aways, the number of staff, how orders are taken and paid for, and how payments are made.

  • Surveillance

Members of HMRC staff park outside a restaurant (usually in an unmarked van) and watch the activities of the restaurant.  They count the number of people dining and the numbers of people exiting with take aways. This observation may also record the number of deliveries and other relevant information that they are able to obtain from what they can see.  This exercise may be carried out over a number of days/nights or even weeks.

  • Purchases

In more complex suppression, the value of purchases may also be suppressed in order to present a more credible picture to an inspector.  This may be more common if the purchases are zero rated food (on which the business would not claim input tax). HMRC may attempt to build up a picture of sales by the volume of actual purchases made.  They often check the restaurant’s suppliers’ records to get a full picture of trade.

Information obtained by one of the above methods may, on its own, be insufficient to raise an assessment, but combined with information obtained in different ways will more often than not result in one (should the exercises demonstrate an under-declaration of course).

Taxpayer’s rights

Attendance

HMRC do not have the right to attend a taxpayer’s premises at any time.  The law says that inspections may be carried out “at any reasonable time”. This means that that if a business owner is busy, or the time is outside normal office hours, or there is not access to all of the relevant information, or the request is unreasonable for any other reason, the business owner (or his adviser) may request that an inspector leaves and makes an appointment at a future reasonable time.  This is sometimes easier to do in theory than in practice, but a taxpayer’s rights are set out in The Finance Act 2009, Schedule 36, part II.

A business has no right to refuse a “regular” inspection but these are arranged for an agreed time in any case.

Records

The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 11 states that the requirement to produce records is limited to being provided at such time as HMRC “may reasonably require”. So, again, if HMRC are making demands that a business feels are unreasonable, it is within its rights to refuse to allow access and to make a mutually agreed and acceptable appointment to allow access to premises and records.  This may lead to a discussion, but HMRC do not have unfettered rights to access premises or records.

Best judgement

Regardless of how HMRC have gathered information, any assessment must be made to the best of their judgement and must be “an honest and genuine attempt to make a reasoned assessment of the VAT payable”.   If the business is able to demonstrate that this was not the case, the assessment must be removed.  Broadly, this will entail demonstrating that things that ought to have been considered were ignored, or that things that have been included should not have been.  Generally, the most common ways to challenge an assessment based on the above exercises are; that the period considered was not representative, or not long enough to be representative, or that the tests carried out were insufficient to demonstrate a consistent pattern of trading. There are usually specific facts in each case that may be used to challenge the validity and quantum of an assessment.

Action

Of course, it is hoped that no business which makes accurate declarations is troubled by such investigations.  However, if a business feels that HMRC is being unreasonable with its demands it should seek professional advice before agreeing to permit HMRC access.

Matters change however, if HMRC have a Search Warrant or a Writ of Assistance in which case HMRC are able to compel a business to allow entry or inspection.

As always, we advise that any assessment is, at the very least, reviewed by a business’ adviser.

VAT – Latest from the courts: Craft fair pitches standard rated

By   17 October 2016
0

The Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Zombory-Moldovan (trading as Craft Carnival)

Background

In the past, the rent of stall at craft fairs have generally been treated as an exempt right over land. In fact, in this instant case, the First Tier Tribunal agreed with the appellant that supplies made to stallholders to sell their goods were the equivalent to a right to occupy land and therefore exempt from VAT.

However, in this decision, the UT overturned this analysis and found that the supply was standard rated.

Decision

The reasons given were that what Craft Carnival supplied went beyond the mere use of a plot of land for a specific period and amounted to the use of a pitch at an event in order to “offer certain goods for sale”.  The test in the previous “Temco” case on this point stated that an exempt supply amounts to a “relatively passive activity linked simply to the passage of time and not generating any significant added value”.  Craft Carnivals had “very real and significant responsibilities beyond the bare provision of an appropriately-sized plot”. This, being a single supply (it was decided) meant that the entire charge was subject to VAT at the standard rate.

The appellant’s website stated that “In addition to the erection of marquees, which are hired for the duration of a fair, Mrs Zombory-Moldovan arranges for the provision 45 of other necessary temporary facilities including portable toilets, electrical generators and security fencing. She also employs between five and seven members of staff to act as ticket sellers and car park 3 marshals. Before the fair takes place Mrs Zombory-Moldovan would have issued a press release and advertised the event in local newspapers and on Craft Carnival’s website and booked a children’s entertainer, such as a magician, to encourage families to attend.”

Impact

Any business or charity which provides similar supplies must review their VAT responsibilities in light of this decision immediately. This case is likely have far-reaching implications for both organisers and those businesses which sell goods in fairs and similar events.  This may encompass; trade fairs, exhibitions and even, possibly, high end car-boot sales type events. We await HMRC’s response to their victory in this case and how wide-ranging they consider the decision to be.

Please contact us if this decision affects your or your client’s businesses.

Latest from the courts: missing goods subject to VAT

By   13 October 2016
0
In the CJEU case of Maya Marinova the issue was whether goods which could not be located in the Bulgarian appellant’s warehouse were subject to VAT on the grounds they had been disposed of.

Background

The appellant purchased certain goods, and subsequently, at an inspection, was unable to either;

  • produce the goods , or;
  • demonstrate how they were disposed of.

The Bulgarian authorities had confirmed that the goods had been purchased from a supplier, but the purchases did not appear in the business’ purchase records. They assessed for VAT on the missing goods assuming that they had been purchased and sold off record and the output tax had not been accounted for. They employed a mark-up exercise based on similar goods sold in the appellant’s shop.

The case proceeded directly to the court without an AG’s opinion.  The matter was; whether the decision to assess offended the principle of fiscal neutrality if it were supported by national legislation (which it was here).  It was decided that in these circumstances, such action was not precluded and the assessment was basically sound.  It was stated that “… tax authorities may presume that the taxable person subsequently sold those goods to third parties and determine the taxable amount of the sale of those goods according to the factual information at hand …”.  As usual, the case was passed back to the referring court to consider whether the Bulgarian domestic legislation goes further than is necessary to ensure the correct collection of tax and to prevent evasion.

Commentary

Although the issues in this case arose from specific facts, this is not an uncommon scenario for a business.  It was hardly a surprising outcome.  In a similar position in the UK, HMRC is also very likely to form the view that if the goods are no longer on hand, then they must have been disposed of, unless evidence to the contrary is provided by a taxpayer.

Of course, there may be a genuine reason why the goods are no longer in stock, but no output tax has been declared on them.  These reasons are considered in guidance published by HMRC here and the rules mainly consider goods which have been lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed.

There are specific ways of dealing with VAT in these situations, and in fact, whether output tax is due at all.  Failure to comply with this guidance may result in an assessment being issued.   The general point is VAT is only due after a tax point has been created.  A crude example is that if goods are shoplifted from a store, there is no output tax due.  However, if the goods were sold and recorded via a till, and the money which went into the till was stolen, output tax is still due on the supply of those goods (as found in the case of G Benton [1975] VATTR 138).

As always with VAT, it is crucial to keep accurate and up to date records to evidence supplies (as well as recording the movement of stock and any discrepancies in these circumstances).  Although an inspector will need to demonstrate “best judgement” in issuing an assessment in respect of missing goods, it is obviously prudent to be able to demonstrate why the anticipated output tax has not been declared and therefore be prepared for such enquiries.

In this instant case, it was not discovered why the goods were not located in the warehouse.  It could be that there was a miscommunication between parts of the business, a simple underdeclaration of sales, staff theft, or any other hazards of business.  Even for non-tax reasons it is vital that a business’ systems are sufficiently robust to identify such occurrences and procedures are put into place to deal with them.

If you or your clients have received an assessment of this sort, it is usually worthwhile obtaining a review of the position.

Bad Debt Relief (BDR) – Avoiding the VAT burden

By   20 September 2016
0
VAT Basics

Anything which can relieve the burden of VAT is to be welcomed. BDR is a useful tool if a business is aware of it and understand when it may be claimed.

It is at the very least frustrating when a client does not pay, and in some cases this situation can lead to the end of a business. At least the VAT charged to the client should not become a cost to a supplier.  The BDR mechanism goes some way to protect a business from payment defaulters.

Under the normal rules of VAT, a supplier is required to account for output tax, even if the supply has not been paid for (however, the use of cash accounting or certain retail schemes removes the problem of VAT on bad debts from the supplier).

There is specific relief however:

Conditions for claiming BDR

The supplier must have supplied goods or services for a consideration in money, and must have accounted for and paid VAT on the supply. All or part of the consideration must have been written off as a bad debt by making the appropriate entry in the business’ records (this does not have to be a “formal” procedure). At least six months (but not more than three years and six months) must have elapsed since the later of the date of supply or the due date for payment.

Records required

Various records and evidence must be kept (for four years from the date of claim), in particular to identify:

• The time and nature of the supply, the purchaser, and the consideration
• The amount of VAT chargeable on the supply
• The accounting period when this VAT was accounted for and paid to HMRC
• Any payment received for the supply
• Entries in the refund for bad debts account
• The accounting period in which the claim is made.

Procedure for claiming BDR

The claim is made by including the amount of the refund in Box 4 of the VAT Return for the period in which the debt becomes over six months old.

Repayment of refund

Repayment of VAT refunded is required where payment is subsequently received or where the above conditions have not been complied with.

Refund of input tax to debtor

Businesses are required to monitor the time they take to pay their suppliers, and repay input tax claimed if they have not paid the supplier within six months. Subsequent payment of all or part of the debt will allow a corresponding reclaim of input tax. This is an easy assessment for HMRC to make at inspections, so businesses should make reviewing this matter this a regular exercise.

Finally, there is tax point planning available to defer a tax point until payment is received for providers of continuous supplies of services. Please see here

VAT – Latest from the courts: treatment of web-based introductions

By   14 September 2016
0

First Tier Tribunal (FTT) – What intermediary services may be exempted?

Background

The provision of intermediary services (putting those who require a financial product in touch with those who provide them) is exempt from VAT if certain conditions apply.  Broadly, the requirement is mainly the need to provide something more than just the introduction, eg; negotiation of credit. If a business acts as a mere conduit or in an advertising capacity its supplies will be standard rated.

The case

In the FTT case of Dollar Financial UK Limited TC05334 (Dollar) the applicant received web-based services from overseas The Reverse Charge was applied to these supplies (details of the Reverse Charge here). Dollar provides “payday loans” which are themselves exempt from VAT.  As Dollar was unable to recover all of the VAT on the Reverse Charge it represented a VAT cost to the business.  However, if the supplies were exempt there would be no need to apply the Reverse Charge and so the loss would be avoided.

The FTT was required to consider what precisely the suppliers (so called lead generators) provided to Dollar in return for a commission based on the value of the loan.  The lead generators operated websites which are mainly comparison sites and which referred potential borrowers to loan providers such as Dollar. HMRC formed the view that these services did not amount to intermediary services and hence were subject to the Reverse Charge.

The FTT ruled that there were differences between the two examples of services received by Dollar.  In one example it was decided that despite;

  • there being no legal relationship between the lead generator and the potential borrower
  • that the leads were sold to the lender offering the best commission
  • that the assessment for loan suitability was quick, only involved only a few basic checks, and did not require any judgment or discretion, and
  • that only 1% of the introductions resulted in offers of loans to borrowers,

the appellant was acting as more than a mere conduit or in an advertising capacity, and was providing exempt introductory services. Consequently, there was no need to apply the Reverse Charge.

In the other example, the Tribunal considered that a single supply of online chat assistance was more akin to an outsourced, principally back-office function which did not amount to intermediary services and was therefore standard rated such that Dollar must apply the Reverse Charge.

Commentary

This case demonstrates the need to identify precisely what is being provided by a business’ suppliers and to review contracts intently.  A small change in the circumstances between one supply and another may result in different VAT treatment. This is a comprehensive judgement and it is worth reading in its entirety if a business is involved in these type of transactions.  We recommend that advice is sought by those businesses which could be affected by this case; either as supplier or recipient.

VAT Latest from the courts – more on composite or separate supplies

By   1 August 2016
0

The case of: General Healthcare Group Limited (GHG)

Those that have read my articles in the past will recognise the topic of composite or separate supplies rears its ugly head on many occasions. It is a matter that has occupied businesses, advisers and HMRC since VAT’s inception, and shows no signs of disappearing any time soon.  To put it into the Tribunal chairman’s words:  This is another appeal on the subject of whether a transaction which comprises several different elements should be regarded as a single supply or several distinct and independent supplies.

In the latest episode, a ruling was handed down by the Upper Tribunal (UTT) in the case of GHG.

Background

GHG challenged the decision in the First tier Tribunal (FTT) that it made a single supply of prostheses and operating services via its consultants. Consultants fit prostheses in certain procedures, eg; hip replacements when they operate in GHG hospitals. The prostheses are supplied by GHG which also provide the hospital facilities to enable the independent, self-employed consultants to supply healthcare which includes the fitting of prostheses, to its patients. The FTT (in the lead case of Nuffield Hospital with GHG) decided that there was a single supply of exempt healthcare to the patient in these circumstances. GHG appealed against this decision, contending that there is one supply of exempt healthcare, and a separate zero rated supply of the prosthetics prescribed and fitted by the consultants who performed the operations.

VAT Impact

Treating the prosthetics as zero rated rather than exempt would have no impact on output tax (no VAT would be due in either analysis) but zero rating would enable GHG to recover input tax on the prosthetics in question and an increased amount of VAT incurred on general overheads. It is likely that such a claim, across the board would run into many multi-millions.

Decision

The UT dismissed GHG’s appeal, stating that “… from the point of view of the typical patient who requires a prosthesis, GHG makes a single supply of hospital and medical care which includes providing the prosthesis to be fitted by the consultant …”.

Commentary

The decision appears logical and in line with both EC and UK legislation and past case law and was not really a surprise. In these type of cases it is important to consider what the recipient of the supply thinks (s)he is receiving.  In this case, and having been on the receiving end of a similar procedure (although I hope that I am a few years off a hip replacement) I think it is absolutely accurate to say that the patient would consider that (s)he is receiving a single supply of medical care.  However, I have no doubt that the patient who has just received a new hip would be very unlikely to be thinking of the VAT treatment of their….errr treatment in the slightest…..

The UTT chairman stated that it declined to make any reference to the CJEU.

As always, this is a tricky area, if you have received any questionable rulings from HMRC on single/multiple supplies, or wonder whether there is a different way of analysing your supplies, please contact us as explained above, the matter continues to throw up interesting results.

Full case here 

VAT – Latest from the courts: impact of outside the scope income

By   25 July 2016
0

Outside the scope (of VAT)  income leads to loss of input tax: Upper Tribunal (UT) decision

In the recent UT case of VCS it was decided that input tax relating to outside the scope activities of the appellant was not recoverable.

Background

VCS is a car park operator, which manages and operates car parking for its clients on private land. Inter alia, providing parking control services, including the issue of parking permits and enforcement action (solely at the discretion of VCS).

In practice, most of VCS’s revenue is derived not from providing parking permits, but from parking charge notices (“PCNs”) which it issues to motorists who are in breach of the rules for parking in the car parks. In the period considered, approximately 92% of VCS’s income came from PCNs, and just 8% from parking permits. In March 2013 the Court of Appeal (CoA) decided that the PCN revenue was not subject to VAT. This was because VAT is chargeable only in respect of revenue from the supply of goods or services. The CoA held that the PCN revenue was not earned in respect of supplies of services liable to VAT. Rather, the PCN revenue represented damages for breach of contracts between VCS and the motorists and/or damages for trespass by the motorists.

Decision

The UT agreed with the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that that VCS was not entitled to recover input tax that related to outside the scope (PCN) income and that it was reasonable to assume that since 92% of the income generated by VCS was outside the scope of VAT, only 8% of the input tax incurred on its costs should be deductible.

Commentary

It is clear that there is a direct link between the general overheads of the business in respect of which VCS incurred input VAT and both VCS’s taxable supplies of parking permits and the PCN income.  The appellant’s contention that a taxable person (such as VCS) is entitled to deduct all the input tax if the goods or services are used to any extent for the purposes of taxed transactions was doomed to failure and the chairman stated that “…we accept HMRC’s interpretation of Article 168 PVD. Accordingly, where purchased goods or services are used by a taxable person both for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible (ie; taxable supplies) and for transactions in respect of which VAT is not deductible (ie; where the transactions do not constitute economic activity or do not constitute taxable supplies (even though they may be transactions undertaken in the course of a taxable person’s business) or where the supplies are exempt), VAT may only be deducted in so far as (that is, to the extent that) it is attributable to taxable supplies.”.

There are no surprises in this decision, but it serves as a timely reminder that not only is “VAT free” income not always a beneficial treatment, but any income that does not relate to a business’s’ taxable supplies can create costs and complexities, whether it be outside the scope, non-business, or exempt.

Outside the scope income can be received by any business in certain circumstances, and it must be recognised in its VAT reporting as this case demonstrates that not all input tax may be recovered and there is no de minimis for input tax attributed to outside the scope and non-business, it is simply not input tax.

Full case Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS)

VAT – The “business” of shooting; a tale

By   15 July 2016
0

Sometimes one is involved in a dispute which goes to the core of the tax.  This is a case which highlights basic VAT principles, HMRC’s approach to an issue and the lengths to which a taxpayer has to go to defend his position.

Are you sitting comfortably?

A day out in the countryside; striding across beautiful landscape, amongst friends, enjoying each other’s’ company and a bit of sport – can this really be the subject of such intense debate with HMRC? Well, unfortunately this seems to be the case when it comes to the operation of a day’s shooting. In the eyes of the taxman, whether or not a profit or a surplus is achieved, shooting, conducted in the course of furtherance of a business is subject to VAT.

This is not usually an issue which shooting syndicates find themselves having to address; they are not concerned with the ins and outs of what constitutes a business for the purposes of the VAT legislation. However, HMRC was pursuing this issue in earnest and they have a team devoted solely to attacking shoots.

Who is HMRC targeting?

HMRC seem to be focusing on syndicate run shoots which are not registered for VAT but who HMRC believe are operating on business principles. If an organisation is operating as a business then it may be liable to register for VAT if certain income thresholds are exceeded. The shoot will then have to charge output VAT on the supplies it makes.  In my case there would have been a significant assessment plus penalties and interest which could double the past VAT bill.

How is HMRC attacking the issue?

HMRC is looking closely at the specific activities of syndicate shoots in order to build an argument demonstrating that the organisation of the shoot is run on “sound business principles”.  The reason that there is room for debate on this matter is that what constitutes a business is not explicitly defined anywhere in the VAT legislation either in UK or EC law. Rather, the issue has been defined in case law.

The defining case was Lord Fisher, which co-incidentally also concerned a shoot. This case is relied upon throughout the VAT world to give guidance on what constitutes a business – and not just in respect of shoots but for all types of activity.

Anyway, back to this syndicate…

I was involved in a battle lasting four years which concerned a local shoot run for over five decades by a group of friends and which was provided only for the benefit of the syndicate members. The shoot was not open to the common commercial market place or members of the public and the shoot did not advertise. HMRC spent a great deal of time trying to understand the finer details of the running of this shoot and concluded that it was a business

We advised The Shoot to appeal to the VAT Tribunal against HMRC’s decision to levy VAT on its activities.

They key to the syndicate’s defence was to demonstrate that no true business would operate commercially in the way that The Shoot does.  If it did, it would be completely unprofitable and would soon be out of business. To demonstrate this effectively, every aspect of the shoot was examined in detail and compared and contrasted with the way a commercial shoot operates. This involved everything from the lunch arrangements, CVs of the gamekeepers and how beautiful the land is, right through to whether chicks or poults are purchased and whether local deer were sold to the highest bidder. However, the most important factor was the demonstration that the syndicate does not have a profit built in to the cost structure and the amounts that the syndicate members contribute. The syndicate is run on a cost sharing basis and is not “an activity likely to be carried out by a private undertaking on a market, organised within a professional framework and generally performed in the interest of generating a profit.”

It all sounds so simple to those familiar with the industry but unfortunately from a VAT ‘business’ perspective it has been a long, stressful and costly argument for the appellant to make.  A few days before the case was to be heard at the Tribunal, HMRC withdrew their assessment and conceded the case.

HMRC had seen the many witness statements filed by the members of the syndicate waxing lyrical about how this was an age-old hobby run by a few friends and in no way could it be considered a commercial business. They had seen the expert witness report written by a specialist in the field. The distinctions made between commercial and syndicate shooting were made very clear. They had also seen the powerful argument which concluded that the shoot “cannot seriously be suggested to amount to a ‘business’ for the purpose of the VAT code”.

What this means?

Of course this victory over HMRC was a fantastic result for the members of the The Shoot, but from a practical point of view quite frustrating in that the case was not heard; denying other entities the benefit of the predicted victory.  Alas, it was one case that HMRC could not afford to lose.

It is therefore likely that HMRC will continue to target other shoots where they think they can ‘win’ or at least not be challenged.

Have you been affected? – What should you do next?

If this makes for frighteningly familiar reading and you or your local syndicate shoot are, or have been, under HMRC investigation then it is vital that you should take professional advice.  As we orchestrated the defence for The Shoot we are the leading advisers in such matters.

 For completeness, the six tests derived from the Lord Fisher case (and others) are: 
  1. Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
  2. Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
  3. Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
  4. Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
  5. Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
  6. Are the taxable supplies that are being made of a kind which, subject to differences of detail, are commonly made by those who seek to profit from them?
 The recent case of Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft is also helpful in looking at what a business is details here

VAT Distance Selling Q & As

By   11 July 2016
0

VAT Distance Selling: What is it and how will it affect my business?

Q – My internet business is expanding and I am now selling goods all over the EC. Does this create any VAT issues?

A – It could do; if you are selling to individuals (or any other non-business entity) then you should be charging UK VAT regardless of where your customer belongs in the EC. However, when these type of sales reach a certain limit, you will be required to VAT register in each Member State in which the threshold is breached. These are called the Distance Selling rules and apply in situations where the seller is responsible where the supplier is responsible for the delivery of goods B2C; typically mail-order and increasingly goods purchased online (so called “delivered goods”).

Q – What are those limits?

A – Each Members state sets its own limit. However these may be broken down into two categories:

€ 35,000 (or near equivalent in domestic currency) Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Italy.

€ 100,000 (or near equivalent in domestic currency) Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, UK.

Q – What are the practical implications?

A – Each Member State has different rules for VAT registration and filing of returns. All dealings, save for a few Member States, are undertaken in the language of that country, so broadly, there could be 27 sets of rules and many languages to master in order to comply with the Distance Selling rules! Additionally, we find that some business are unaware of these rules, or discover the impact of them after the limits have been reached. This creates penalties for late registration and filing in nearly all Member States. However, mitigation (along the lines of “reasonable excuse” in the UK) in varying degrees is available in some countries. We have found that it is possible, via negotiation to have penalties reduced or removed after making full disclosure of past turnover. As one may expect, the approach varies from country to country.

Q – Do I have any choices?

A – Yes, although it is not necessary to register until the thresholds set out above are breached; it is possible to VAT register there on a voluntary basis rather than accounting for UK VAT. The considerations are usually; the VAT rate in the Member State concerned (compared to the UK) and; administrative simplification, ie; not having to change over from UK VAT to another Member State’s VAT regime when the limit is reached.

Q – But what if I have accounted for UK VAT on these sales already, what can be done about that? I don’t want to have to pay VAT twice to different authorities.

A – In our experience, HMRC do repay UK VAT overpaid if overseas output tax is due, but this sometimes becomes a struggle and HMRC require full explanation and precise evidence to support a repayment.

Q- Do these rules affect sales made to customers outside the EC?

A- No, these are usually zero rated as exports.

Q So I need to identify the location of all of my customers and monitor sales to ensure I comply with the rules and to identify whether to charge VAT, at what rate, and to which authority?

A – Yes, I am afraid so!

Please contact if you would like us to deal with overseas authorities on your behalf, or you would like assistance with technical issues or with language matters