Tag Archives: Upper-Tribunal

VAT Latest from the courts – Employment businesses

By   21 March 2017
0

The Adecco case

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Adecco the judge considered the tripartite situation between certain self-employed workers, employment businesses (Adecco) and the actual clients. Specifically, whether Adecco provides self-employed temporary workers to clients for the total consideration paid by client or only introductory services for commission retained by the employment business.  Broadly, whether temporary workers supply their services to Adecco or to the clients.

Background

Based on the Reed Employment Ltd v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 200 (TC) “Reed” case.  Reed also concerned the VAT treatment of supplies by an employment bureau in relation to the services of non-employed temps. The FTT in Reed concluded that the employment bureau was making supplies of introductory services to clients in respect of the placement of non-employed temps. The value of the introductory services was the commission charged to clients for the introduction of the temps and the employment bureau was only required to charge and account for VAT on its commission and not on the non-employed temps’ remuneration. Following Reed, Adecco made claims for repayment of the VAT which it had charged and accounted for in respect of payments representing the non-employed temps’ remuneration. HMRC rejected the claims. One of the reasons given for the rejection was that Adecco did not merely supply a service of introducing the non-employed temps to the clients but also supplied the non-employed temps’ services.

Decision

The UT found in favour of HMRC. It found that output tax is due on the full amount paid by the clients rather than the commission retained.  The full amount included earnings paid to the temporary workers.  The decision was based on the contracts in place in this instant case and it is possible that a different outcome would have occurred if a wider view was taken and/or if the relationship between contracts and economic reality had been considered.

Consequences

It is unlikely that this will be the definitive word on the matter and it is expected that further challenges to HMRC’s stance will be made given the two different outcomes in Reed and Adecco.  As always in these types of cases, it demonstrates the importance of contracts and careful consideration of the relationships between the parties.

For more on agent/principal relationships please see my articles on latest relevant court cases here and here

Please contact us if this case impacts on your business or that of your clients.

VAT Latest from the courts – White Goods claims by housebuilders

By   27 February 2017
0

Recovery of input tax on goods included in the sale of a new house.

The recent Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Taylor Wimpey plc considered whether builders of new dwellings are able to recover input tax incurred on certain expenditure on goods supplied with the sale of a new house. We are aware that there are many cases stood behind this hearing and it is understood that the appellant’s claim amounts to circa £60 million alone. Unfortunately, the UT ruled against the appellant.

The rules

Before considering the impact of the case, I thought it worthwhile to look at the rules on this matter.

There is in place a Blocking Order (“Builders’ Block”) which prohibits recovery of input tax on goods which are not “building materials”. In most cases it is simple to determine what building materials are; bricks, mortar, timber etc, but the difficulty comes with items such as white goods (ovens, hobs, washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators etc) carpets, and similar.  So what are the rules?

These are set out in HMRC’s VAT Notice 708 para 13.2

There are five criteria:

  • The articles are incorporated into the buildings (or its site)
  • the articles are “ordinarily” incorporated by builders into that type of building
  • other than kitchen furniture, the articles are not finished or prefabricated furniture, or materials for the construction of fitted furniture
  • with certain exceptions, the articles are not gas or electrical appliances
  • the articles are not carpets or carpeting material

To qualify as building materials, goods have to meet all of these criteria

Examples of specific goods are given at VAT Notice 708 para 13.8 

The case

Generally, Taylor Wimpey’s argument was that under the VAT law in force at the time of the claim it was entitled to recover the VAT paid on these items and the Builders’ Block did not prevent it from recovering input tax on these goods. The VAT was properly recoverable as it was attributable to the zero rated sale of the house when complete. Taylor Wimpey further contended that if the Builder’s Block did apply, it was unlawful under EU law and should therefore be disapplied.  Additionally, there was a challenge on the meaning of “incorporates … in any part of the building or its site” and the meaning of “ordinarily installed by builders as fixtures”.

The Builders’ Block which prevents housebuilders from reclaiming VAT on such goods was challenged on the basis that the UK was not allowed to extend input tax blocks, as it had done in 1984 (white goods) and 1987 (carpets).

The decision

The UT ruled that the block could be extended in relation to supplies which were zero-rated and that the block properly applied to most of appellants’ claim.  The UT held that only goods “ordinarily installed” in a house were excepted from the block, but that exception does not cover white goods and fitted carpets supplied since the appropriate rule changes.

Commentary

This ruling was not really a surprise and, unless Taylor Wimpey pursues this further it provides clarity.  It demonstrates that technology and the requirements of a modern house purchaser have moved on significantly since the 1970s and 1980s.  I doubt many houses built in the 1970s had dishwashers or extractor hoods.  The ruling does bear reading from a technical viewpoint as my summary does not go into the full reasons for the decision.  If you, or your client have a claim stood behind this case it is obviously not good news as claims for white goods are extremely limited.  If you have mistakenly claimed for white or similar goods, it would be prudent to review the position in light of this case.  The decision also affects claims via the DIY Housebuilder’s Scheme.  Details of this scheme here

Latest from the courts: Excise Duty – against which party may an assessment be raised?

By   19 October 2016
0

A little “light” relief from VAT.  Indirect taxes extend to Customs and Excise Duties (as well as IPT and various other “lower profile” taxes) and we are able to assist with all of these.

In an interesting Excise Duty case; B & M Retail Limited (B & M) the Upper Tribunal were asked whether an assessment for Customs Duty due on wine and beer could be issued to an entity “down the chain” to an entity which was holding goods at a given time.

Background

HMRC detained the relevant the goods under The Customs & Excise Management Act 1979 (“CEMA”) Section 139 on the grounds that, in their judgment, on the balance of probabilities, Excise Duty had not been paid on the goods. Under B & M’s terms and conditions of business its suppliers were required to warrant that the sale of alcohol to B & M was on a “Excise Duty paid” basis.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decided that despite an HMRC investigation resulting in the fact that they were not satisfied that duty had been paid on the goods, B & M was not responsible for the duty (and subsequent penalties) as the goods had passed through other various entities before they reached the appellant.  The decision was based on the fact that the duty point must have arisen before the goods reached B & M and consequently, the duty was payable by someone further up the supply chain and not simply by the entity which was holding the Excise Duty goods at the Excise Duty point.

Decision

However, the Upper Tribunal disagreed with the FTT and overturned the verdict.  The Upper Tribunal stated that “… the recognition by HMRC that one or more other Excise Duty points must, in principle, have been triggered before B & M received the relevant goods did not preclude HMRC from assessing B & M for excise duty …”.  The Upper Tribunal did, however, remit the case to the First Tier Tribunal to review the evidence to ensure that the assessment is in time and that, as a matter of fact, the Excise Duty due on the beer and wine remains unpaid.

Conclusion

It would appear that this decision currently gives HMRC the right to raise an assessment for duty and penalties anywhere along the supply chain when an entity is holding the goods, even though a “previous” entity may have been responsible for the payment. This is not * * polite cough * * small beer as the amount in question was £5,875,143 of duty and a penalty of £1,175,028.  This is helpful to HMRC as, in this instant case, it would appear that entities further up the supply chain were either not registered, or became deregistered, making it more difficult for HMRC to recover the Duty due.

It is important for every importer to be clear about the Excise Duty position and to carry out detailed due diligence on the relevant shipment.  It is now not possible to escape an assessment by demonstrating that a third party is responsible for the payment of the duty.

VAT – Latest from the courts: Royal Mail claims (Zipvit)

By   4 July 2016
0

The Upper Tribunal (UTT) decided that VAT incurred on the receipt of certain postal services is not recoverable.

 Brief background

It is estimated that businesses could have recovered more than £220 million of credit for input tax on RM’s postal services had the decision gone in their favour.

It has previously been decided that certain supplies made by Royal Mail (RM), including Parcelforce, to its customers were taxable. This was on the basis of the TNT CJEU case. RM had treated them as exempt. HMRC was out of time to collect output tax, but claims made by recipients of RM’s services were able to make retrospective claims. These claims were predicated on the basis that the amount paid to RM included VAT at the appropriate rate (it was embedded in the charge) and that UK VAT legislation stipulates that the “taxable amount” for any supply, is the amount paid by the customer including any VAT included in the price.

Decision

The UTT has agreed with the verdict in the FTT hearing that the appellant: Zipvit Limited (along with many other taxpayers) was unable to recover input tax claimed to be embedded the value of the supply by RM.  Regardless of the arguments on the embedded input tax point (and interesting comments on the absence of a correspondingly equal amount declared as output tax by RM) the UTT agreed with the overall finding by the FTT.  Although a This is a highly technical issue, the deciding point was the simple fact that as the claimant did not have valid tax invoices to support the claim it was invalid.  Additionally, it was decided that although HMRC may consider alternative evidence, in these circumstances they were not obliged to accept other documentation and that Zipvit’s claim therefore failed.

Action

We are aware of many appeals being stood behind Zipvit. This case clearly is unhelpful for claims, but it may not be the end of the process.  We will advise on any further progress of the appeal when that information is available.

Please contact us if you have any queries on this case.

Full case here Zipvit Limited

VAT- Is the Upper Tribunal bound by High Court decisions?

By   6 May 2015
0

Upper Tribunal versus High Court

In the recent case of Meena Seddon Settlement which involved Inheritance Tax, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) was required to decide whether the Upper Tribunal is bound by decisions made in the High Court. The FTT decision will doubtless affect VAT cases in the future.

It decided to follow a precedent set by the Upper Tribunal over an earlier decision by the High Court.

The taxpayer contended that the matter should be decided on the basis of a previous High Court decision. HMRC argued on the basis of a later Upper Tribunal decision. In normal circumstances, a later decision should take precedence over the earlier if both decisions have the same authority and have fully considered the previous judgments. However, if the taxpayer was correct to say that the Upper Tribunal was bound by precedents set by the High Court, the later decision could be disregarded as being wrong in law.

The FTT decided that it was the intention of Parliament that the Upper Tribunal was not bound to follow High Court precedents. This was notwithstanding the fact that a High Court could have a supervisory role over the Upper Tribunal in cases of judicial review. Therefore, it determined the case on the authority of the later Upper Tribunal decision in favour of HMRC.