HMRC has published updated partial exemption guidance in Manual PE21500.
The main changes are in respect of updated case law, including the Royal Opera House Court of Appeal case dealing with the attribution of input tax.
In that case the CoA considered: the test of direct and immediate link, economic necessity, business/non-business, and chains of transactions.
We know that burying a deceased person is exempt, but exhumation is standard rated and we now know, thanks to the UK Funerals On-line Ltd FTT case, that the service of the repatriation of the body of a deceased person can be viewed as either an exempt supply of funeral services or a zero-rated supply of transport services.
This being the case, zero rating trumps exemption via of The VAT Act 1994, section 30(1).
Latest from the courts
In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Spani v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 00727 (TC) the issue was whether a claim under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme (the scheme) was valid.
Mr Spani appealed against HMRC’s decision to refuse a claim. It was rejected as the respondents concluded that the property was to be used for business purposes because Planning Permission was for a holiday let rather than residential own use. To claim under the scheme, the relevant the property must be used “otherwise than in the course of furtherance of business” – VAT Act 1994, section 35)
Background
The cottage was constructed in Seaford – within the Souths Down National Park and, in order to obtain planning consent, it was required to be made available for letting on a commercial basis for 140 days a year. The appellant contended that it was his primary residence in the UK and any letting (which was interrupted by covid in any case) was/would be incidental to this primary purpose.
The property was listed on Air BnB in order to satisfy the requirements of the planning consent, but the property had not been actively marketed and no lettings had taken place.
Mr Spani contended that the use of the cottage “falls far short of the HMRC’s position that it was the appellant’s intention to use the property for a wholly commercial purpose”. It was simply the appellant’s home in the UK and that an identical property built outside the National Park would not have the Planning Permission holiday let requirement.
Further, if it was a commercial enterprise, Mr Spani could have could have used another reclaim route, viz: registering for VAT and recovering an element of the input tax incurred.
Decision
The appeal was dismissed – The judge opined that “none of these events subsequent to the grant of the Planning Permission and completion certificate detract from the fact that the property was built to be a holiday let (as stipulated by the planning consent) and was therefore constructed in furtherance of a FHL* business”.
Additionally, the FTT stated that: it is plain that the appellant’s plan to live in the property within the FHL regulations does not (and cannot) alter the property into a dwelling… when there is the express prohibition placed on the property to be a dwelling.
The conclusion was that the property was built in furtherance of a business which prohibited a claim.
Commentary
Yet another case highlighting precise requirements of a claim under the scheme and HMRC’s strict application of the rules. Care must always be taken in such cases and we advise professional advice is sought prior to a submission of a claim.
More on similar cases here and here and Top Ten Tips for the scheme.
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
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
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.
Latest from the courts
In the Impact Contracting Solutions Limited (ICS) Upper Tribunal (UT) case the issue was whether HMRC had the power to cancel the VAT registration where that person has facilitated the VAT fraud of another ie; the scope of the “Ablessio” principle. It also illustrates the impact of EU cases on UK courts.
Background
ICS’s customers were temporary work agencies, and its suppliers were approximately 3,000 mini-umbrella companies (“MUCs”) which supplied labour. HMRC decided to cancel ICS’s VAT registration number with reliance on the principle in the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Valsts ienemumu dienests v Ablessio SIA (C-527/11) (“Ablessio”). HMRC considered that ICS was registered for VAT principally or solely to abuse the VAT system by facilitating VAT fraud, and that, in such circumstances, they were empowered by the principle in Ablessio to cancel the registration. In particular, HMRC considered that the arrangements between ICSL and the MUCs were contrived, with the effect that the MUCs failed properly to account for VAT on their supplies to ICS.
ICS appealed against HMRC’s decision to cancel its registration.
The Issues
Does the principle in Ablessio apply only to a party that has itself fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations, or does it similarly apply to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party?
If the Ablessio principle does apply to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party, is simple facilitation sufficient, or must it additionally be proved that:
(a) the facilitating party was itself dishonest, or
(b) the facilitating party knew that it was facilitating the fraud, and/or
(c) the facilitating party should have known that it was facilitating the fraud?
The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decided that Ablessio applies both to a party that has fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations and to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party. Further that simple facilitation by a party of the VAT fraud of another is not sufficient to apply the Ablessio principle. However, it is not necessary to prove that the facilitating party was itself dishonest. It must, however, be proved that the facilitating party knew or should have known that it was facilitating the VAT fraud of another party.
Decision
The appeal was rejected an the FTT’s decision was upheld. HMRC powers are not contrary to UK VAT legislation.
The application by HMRC of Ablessio is not contra legem or otherwise prohibited by the VAT legislation where it is applied to deregister a taxpayer who has either fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations or facilitated the VAT fraud of another party and at the relevant time has also made taxable supplies unconnected with such fraud or facilitation of fraud and which would result in a liability to be registered.
Ablessio applies to the deregistration by HMRC of a person as well as to a refusal by HMRC to register a person. It also provides for the deregistration of a person who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another, where the person to be deregistered knew or should have known that it was facilitating the VAT fraud of another.
Commentary
This decision was released this month and illustrates the ongoing influence of EU legislation and cases, “despite” Brexit
EU legislation does not, by itself, fall within the scope of retained EU law (see below). However, domestic legislation implementing EU rules forms part of EU-derived domestic legislation and is preserved in domestic law.
The VAT Act 1994 is not affected by Brexit because it is an Act of Parliament and, therefore, remains effective unless it is changed by Parliament.
Overview of the impact of EU legislation
Post-Brexit, the UK could have decided that UK courts should not be bound by EU case law. However, this would have resulted in a situation where the UK courts effectively had to begin with a blank piece of paper in deciding how a piece of retained EU law should be interpreted or applied. This approach would have resulted in considerable uncertainty for business over how retained EU law would operate. In order avoid this, section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provides that:
Going forward
Helpful guidance is provided in the e-Accounting Solutions vs Global Infosys case (not a VAT case).
The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 means that the principle of EU-law conforming construction is a corollary of the supremacy of EU law (which is abolished under Section 3 of the Act) and will therefore no longer apply from 2024.
The principles of statutory construction under English Law require a purposive interpretation of legislation, whether or not EU law principles are engaged. This involves considering the context in which the legislation was made. Depending on the legislation concerned, this process may be guided by “external aids”. External aids referred to in the judgment include Explanatory Notes and Government White Papers, and could also presumably include references to Hansard where seen as appropriate by the courts. To the extent that domestic enactments were made for the purpose of implementing EU law, the EU law position is such an “external aid” and the UK law should be construed accordingly.
Where Parliament used the same language as the Directive, one may assume that it intended to mean the same – accordingly, the CJEU interpretation of Directive-terms informs the interpretation of the UK statute.
However, the statutory language remains paramount – “external aids”, to which EU law instruments are effectively downgraded in UK law from 2024, cannot displace unambiguous statutory language in UK enactments that is inconsistent with EU law.
Latest from the courts
In the Illuminate Skin Clinics Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether cosmetic procedures qualified as exempt medical treatment.
Background
The Appellant runs a private, ie; non-NHS clinic offering a range of aesthetic, skincare and wellness treatments advertised as: fat freezing, thread lifts, chemical peels, fillers, facials, intravenous drips and boosters. The Appellant’s sole director and shareholder, Dr Shotter, complies with Item 1 (below) in terms of qualifications, ie; she is enrolled on the register of medical professionals.
The list of treatments included:
HMRC contended that these supplies were standard rated because there is no medical purpose behind the treatments, and they are carried out for purely cosmetic purposes. An assessment was raised for output tax on this income.
The Appellant argued that what it provided was exempt medical care via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 1 – “The supply of services consisting in the provision of medical care by a person registered or enrolled in any of the following:
And its contention was that the primary purpose of the treatments was “the protection, maintenance or restoration of the health of the person concerned”
In the Mainpay case it was established that “medical” care means “diagnosing, treating and, in so far as possible, curing diseases or health disorders”
Decision
Although there may have been a beneficial psychological impact on undergoing such treatments and this may have been the reason for a patient to proceed (and they may be recommended by qualified medical professionals) this, in itself, was insufficient to persuade the judge that the services were exempt. Consequety, the appeal was rejected and the assessment was upheld.
The FTT found that there was very little evidence of diagnosis. This was important to the overall analysis because diagnosis is the starting point of medical care. Without diagnosis, “treatment”, in the sense of the exemption, is not something which is being done responsively to a disease or a health disorder.
The fact that people go to the clinic feeling unhappy with some aspect of their appearance, and (at least sometimes) are happier when something is done at the clinic about that aspect of their appearance, does not mean that the treatment is medical, or has a therapeutic aim.
It was telling that the differentiation, in Dr Shotter’s own words, between what the clinic does from what “a GP or other health professional” does is; diagnosis. It also highlighted the general trend or purpose of the clinic’s activity – helping people to feel better about their appearance, in contexts where their appearance is not itself a health condition, or threatening to their health in a way which mandates treatment of their appearance by a GP or another health professional.
Helping someone to achieve goals in relation to their appearance, which is what this clinic did, is not treating someone’s mental health status, but is going to their self-esteem and self-confidence. It is a misuse of language to say that this is healthcare in the sense that it would fall within Item 1 of Group 7.
Commentary
There has been an ongoing debate as to what constitutes medical care. Over 20 years ago I was advising a large London clinic on this very point and much turned on whether patients’ mental health was improved by undergoing what many would regard as cosmetic procedures. We were somewhat handicapped in our arguments by the fact that many of the patients were lap dancers undergoing breast augmentation on the direction of the owner of the club…
It is worth remembering that not all services provided by a medically registered practitioner are exempt. The question of whether the medical care exemption is engaged in any given case will turn on the particular facts.
Further recent cases on medical exemption here and here.
Latest from the courts
Business or non-business?
In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of 3D Crowd CIC (3D) the issue was whether a donation of goods, with a subsequent intention to sell similar goods constituted a business activity such that input tax incurred in relation to it was recoverable.
Background
3D was formed at the beginning of the Covid 19 pandemic to produce face protection via the process of 3D printing. Such protection was in high demand, but there was a shortage of suitable products for healthcare workers. The appellant produced 130,000 face shields in the first six weeks of production; which was an admirable feat. However, it was not possible to sell this equipment without the appropriate accreditation. Consequently, to alleviate demand, 3D donated the PPE to the NHS.
By the time accreditation was given the demand for PPE had reduced so it was not possible to sell the 3D printed face coverings as initially intended.
Technical
The issue of business versus non-business has been a contentious issue in the VAT world from day one. This classification is important for two reasons. If an activity is a business (an economic activity) it could be subject to VAT and, as in this case, if an activity is non-business there is usually a restriction of input tax.
Contentions
3D said that input tax could be recovered on costs which involved no direct onward supply of goods or services, but which laid the groundwork for them. That is, the input tax could be attributed to an intended taxable supply, even though that intention was not fulfilled by circumstances outside its control.
HMRC argued that per Longbridge the correct test for determining whether an activity is a business activity is whether there is a direct link between the services or goods supplied and a payment received by the supplier. In this case, there was not so no input tax was reclaimable. HMRC also referred to the decision in Wakefield College, supporting the proposition that an activity is only a business activity if it results in the supply of goods or services for a consideration.
Decision
The FTT found that the VAT incurred on supplies made to 3D, constituted elements:
Input tax incurred on the costs of accreditation is recoverable because these were incurred in order to sell PPE in the future and for no other purpose. The fact that these costs are not linked to a particular supply (and is in the nature of preparing the ground for future supplies) was irrelevant per The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 1, para 10.
The VAT incurred on the general overhead costs and on the costs of producing the PPE was incurred in part for business purposes and party for non-business (donations) and should be apportioned using a method agreed between 3D and HMRC.
Commentary
Another case highlighting the difficulty in identifying the distinction between business and non-business and the complexity of input tax attribution. The altruistic efforts of the CIC is to be admired, but such charitable (in the broad sense) activities do not always get their just reward in VAT terms.
In the age-old matter of whether a supply is separate/composite/compound for VAT purposes which and what is the nature of that supply, the Court of Appeal case of Gray & Farrar International LLP has provided very helpful guidance. A background to facts of the initial hearing here (although this decision was overturned by both the UT and the CoA).
I have previously considered these types of supply here, here, here, here, and here. Although not specifically concerning composite/separate supplies, the case sets out a hierarchy of tests to be applied in characterising a single supply for VAT purposes which now sets the standard. These test are:
Comments
The Mesto Test
CJEU Mesto Zamberk Financini (Case C-18/12)
The primary test to be applied when characterising a single supply for VAT purposes is to determine the predominant element from the point of view of the typical consumer with regard to the qualitative and not merely the quantitative importance of the constituent elements.
Principal/ancillary
If a distinct supply represents 50% or more of the overall cost, it can not be considered ancillary to the principal supply. In such cases an apportionment will usually be required.
Overarching
A generic description of the supply which is distinct from the individual elements. In many cases the tax treatment of that overarching single supply according to that description will be self-evident.
CPP
One must also have regard to the Card Protection Plan Ltd case. This has become a landmark case in determining the VAT treatment for single and multiple supplies. In this case the ECJ ruled that standard rated handling charges were not distinct from the supply of exempt insurance. It was noted that ‘a supply that comprises a single service from an economic point of view should not be artificially split’. Notably many subsequent court decisions have since followed this outcome thereby suggesting a general lean towards viewing cases as single supplies where there are reasonable grounds to do so.
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:
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:
* 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.
Evidence
Before any question of reasonable excuse comes into play, it is important to remember that the initial burden lies on HMRC to establish that events have occurred as a result of which a penalty is, prima facie, due. A mere assertion of the occurrence of the relevant events in a statement of case is not sufficient. Evidence is required and unless sufficient evidence is provided to prove the relevant facts on a balance of probabilities, the penalty must be cancelled without any question of reasonable excuse becoming relevant.
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…”
The sale of ducks is zero rated, but racing pigeons are standard rated.