Tag Archives: VAT-composite-supplies

VAT: Removal of linked goods concession

By   20 January 2026
0

HMRC has published Revenue and Customs Brief 1 (2026): Removal of the linked goods concession

This brief confirms that the Extra Statutory Concession (ESC) described in paragraph 3.7 of Notice 48 is no longer required. HMRC considers that the supplies previously eligible to be treated as single supplies under the concession should be treated as single supplies under the legislation, as confirmed by existing case law.

Examples of such cases: here, here here here and here. 

Businesses should now refer to HMRC’s policy as described in VATSC11113 – Supply: Single and multiple supplies: HMRC’s approach: The general approach.

Note

A VAT ESC is a formal relaxation by HMRC permitting a tax treatment not strictly permitted by law, to resolve minor anomalies, prevent hardship, or simplify administration. These provide businesses relief they would not otherwise get, but it has no legal force and isn’t for tax avoidance.

Common VAT mistakes

By   2 October 2025
0

VAT basics

None of us are perfect, and any business can make mistakes with VAT despite all intentions to take reasonable care. So what are the most common errors? Here’s a list of pitfalls to avoid:

Wrong rate of output tax charged

Land and property transactions

  • Misunderstanding the correct VAT treatment of a land and property transactions
  • Not recognising VAT issues
  • Issues with the Option To Tax
  • TOGC issues
  • A guide to triggerpoints here

Cross-border issues

  • Failing to meet the requirements to zero-rate exports
  • Incorrect import procedures
  • Ignoring the reverse charge

Inter-company charges

Partial exemption

Business entertainment

  • Different rules apply to the recovery of input tax on entertaining depending on the type of recipient, eg: clients, contacts, staff, partners and directors depending on the circumstances

Registration

VAT groups

  • Failing to VAT group when beneficial or failing to disband
  • Recovery of input tax
  • Timing of transactions
  • Partial exemption issues

Tax points (Time Of Supply)

  • Failing to recognise a tax point for output tax
  • Incorrect treatment of deposits
  • Incorrect treatment of forfeit deposits
  • Recovery of input tax at incorrect time

Bad Debt Relief issues

  • Failing to claim Bad Debt Relief
  • Failing to repay a claim to HMRC when payment from customer is received
  • Failing to repay input tax when a supplier is not paid (after six months)

Overseas issues

Claiming input tax without the correct documentation

  • A guide to alternative evidence here

Recovering irreclaimable input tax

  • A guide to what VAT is not claimable here

Return errors

  • A box-by-box guide here

Business promotion schemes

Composite or separate supplies

Changes to a business

  • Selling new products, acquisitions, share sales, disposals, re-structuring, and ceasing to trade can all have a VAT impact and this can be missed

Fuel and motoring costs

Special schemes

One-off transactions

  • Failing to recognise VAT issues of unusual or one-off transactions

Non-business (NB) and charitable activities

  • Failure to recognise NB activities
  • Failure to restrict input tax in connection with NB activities

Errors can lead to draconian penalties, and ignorance is not a defence.

A guide to VAT triggerpoints here .

VAT: The United Carpets case – single of multiple supplies?

By   5 August 2025
0

Latest from the courts

Yet more on composite or separate supplies. As a background to the issue please see previous relevant cases here here here and here. This is the latest the seemingly endless and conflicting series of cases on whether certain supplies are multiple or single. 

In the First-Tier Tribunal case (FTT) of United Carpets (Franchisor) Limited (UC) the issue was whether the appellant made a single supply of flooring and fitting or whether there were two separate supplies

Background

UC is a retailer of flooring (including carpets, underlay, vinyl and wood flooring), as well as beds. A customer who purchased flooring from the appellant was given the option to have an independent, self-employed, fitter to carry out the fitting of the purchased flooring. Each store has a pool of fitters who take on fitting work referred to them by the appellant. If the customer chooses, the fitter will attend the customer’s home to fit the flooring, as directed by the customer. The fitter is then paid by the customer for that work, with the money being received and retained, in full, by the fitter.

The fitters are self-employed and they use their own tools, and drive their own vehicles. They also have their own public liability insurance and are not covered by any of the appellant’s insurance policies. They are not paid by the UC and are not on the UC’s payroll. Since they are self-employed, the fitters have no ongoing obligations to the appellant (or vice versa) and can take on referrals as they please. The appellant does not hold any formal records for the fitters and is not aware of how much the fitters earn by way of the referrals. The rates charged by the fitters are determined by the fitters themselves.

The appellant’s Terms and Conditions of Sale included the following statements:

“The carpet fitting and delivery services provided by the Installer are supplied under a separate contract from the supply of goods to the Customer by the Company (UC). The Company is not responsible for the delivery or fitting of the Goods to the Customer.

“Full payment for the fitting services is due upon fitting payable by cash or cheque directly to the Installer. As detailed on the invoice, payment for the carpet fitting is made directly to the Installer under a separate contractual agreement between the Customer and the Installer…”

The issue

Whether the supplies of fitting services made to customers following the referral to the fitter by UC were supplies made by the self-employed carpet fitters who performed the services, or by UC as a single supply of flooring and fitting such that output tax was due from UC on both the retail sales and the fitting fees.

Contentions

HMRC determined that the appellant had incorrectly treated the supply of carpet fitting and contended that it supplied fitting services via sub-contractors and assessed the appellant for output tax on the fitting fees. HMRC further contend that the appellant made those supplies as part of a single supply, comprising both the flooring and the fitting services. Assessments were raised to recover the deemed underdeclared output tax.

UC’s position is that the self-employed fitters were completely independent, and that the fitting services do not form a single supply. Consequently, VAT was only due on the retail sales and not the fitting income.

Decision

The FTT concluded that there were two separate supplies:

  • the supply of goods by UC to the customer, and
  • the supply of services by the fitter to the customer.

After a review of the contractual documentation and the economic and commercial reality, the court was satisfied that there were three agreements:

  • between UC and the customer
  • between UC and the fitter
  • between the fitter and the customer

The fitter provided services to the end consumer who was liable to pay the fitter.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the assessments were set aside.

A significant amount of case law was cited (a list too long to reproduce here) but included were the cases of: Secret Hotels 2 Limited v HMRC; All Answers Ltd v HMRC and Tolsma v Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting Leeuwarden which were considered and applied.

Commentary

Yet another case on the perennial composite/single supply issue. This case was more straightforward than many on this subject and the outcome was no surprise. It is essential that businesses that potentially deal with agent/principal matters or make supplies at different VAT rates consider their position. Both contracts, other documentation and the commercial reality need to be considered. We recommend that in such circumstances a review is carried out specifically to establish the proper VAT position .

VAT: More on separate and single supplies. The KFC dip pot case

By   10 June 2024
0

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier tribunal case of Queenscourt Limited the issue was whether dip pots supplied as part of a takeaway meal deal are a separate zero-rated supply (of cold food) or whether they are part of a single VATable supply of hot food.

Background

The appellant had originally accounted for output tax on the basis that dip pots formed part of a single standard rated supply with other food. However, following advice, it then formed the view that zero-rating applied to these pots and submitted a claim for overpaid output tax. HMRC agreed to repay the VAT claimed.

Subsequently, a further claim as made on a similar basis for a later period. This was considered by a different officer who refused to make the repayment on the basis that there was no separate supply of the dip pots. This called into question whether the payment of the initial claim was correct. The officer considered the previous repayment to have been incorrect and issued assessments in order to recover the amount which had been repaid.

Queenscourt now appealed both against the decision to refuse the repayment claimed in the second error correction notice and also against the recovery assessment relating to the first error correction notice.  Moreover, the recovery assessments are invalid as there has been no change in circumstances and no new facts have come to light since HMRC agreed to repay the tax. Alternatively, it argues that HMRC are prevented from recovering the tax, either on the basis of legitimate expectation or estoppel by convention, in each case arising as a result of HMRC’s original agreement that that tax should be repaid.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed.

  • On the dip point issue, the FTT stated that it was unlikely the dip would be eaten on its own, or as an end in itself, unlike the coleslaw or cookie elements – It is a means of better enjoying the hot food. Consequently, it is an element of a standard rated single composite supply of hot takeaway food.
  • Legitimate expectation – Whilst the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to consider arguments based on legitimate expectation in the context of an appeal against a recovery assessment, it is not in this case sufficiently unfair for HMRC to resile from their initial acceptance of the claim made in the first error correction notice and to apply the correct tax treatment.
  • Estoppel – HMRC is not estopped from making or relying on their recovery assessments as there has been no detrimental reliance on the original position taken by HMRC in connection with any subsequent mutual dealings.

Commentary

It is difficult to see the end of single/multiple supply cases, as my previous articles consider:

Here, here, here, here, and how to categorise a supply here.