Tag Archives: VAT-contract

Incoterms: What are they, and how can they be of use for VAT?

By Marcus Ward 12 September 2022

VAT – Cross border sales of goods

Incoterms stands for International Commercial Terms.

These are published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and describe agreed commercial terms. These rules set out the responsibilities of buyers and sellers for the supply of goods under a contract. They are very commonly used in cross-border commercial transactions in order that both sides in a transaction are aware of the contractual position. They help businesses avoid costly misunderstandings by clarifying the tasks, costs and risks involved in the delivery of goods from sellers to buyers. The latest terms were published in 2010 and came into effect in 2011.

The use of Incoterms for assistance for VAT purposes

One of the most difficult areas of providing VAT advice is obtaining sufficient detailed information to advise accurately and comprehensively. Quite often advisers are given what a client believes to be the arrangements for a transaction. This may differ from the actual facts, or the understanding of the other party in the transaction.

Pragmatically, this uncertainty about the details may be increased if; a number of different people within an organisation are involved, it is a new or one-off type of transaction, there are language difficulties, or communication and documentation is less than ideal. In such cases, incoterms will provide invaluable information which gives clarity and certainty and usually give a sound basis on which to advise. This enables the adviser to establish the place of supply (POS) and therefore what VAT treatment needs to be applied.

So what is this set of pre-defined international contract terms?

They are 11 pre-defined terms which are subdivided into two categories:

Group 1 – Incoterms that apply to any mode of transport are:

EXW – Ex Works (named place)

The seller makes the goods available at their premises. This term places the maximum obligation on the buyer and minimum obligations on the seller. EXW means that a buyer incurs the risks for bringing the goods to their final destination. The buyer arranges the pickup of the freight from the supplier’s designated ship site, owns the in-transit freight, and is responsible for clearing the goods through Customs. The buyer is also responsible for completing all the export documentation.

Most jurisdictions require companies to provide proof of export for VAT purposes. In an EXW shipment, the buyer is under no obligation to provide such proof, or indeed to even export the goods. It is therefore of utmost importance that these matters are discussed with the buyer before the contract is agreed.

FCA – Free Carrier (named place of delivery)

The seller delivers the goods, cleared for export, at a named place. This can be to a carrier nominated by the buyer, or to another party nominated by the buyer.

It should be noted that the chosen place of delivery has an impact on the obligations of loading and unloading the goods at that place. If delivery occurs at the seller’s premises, the seller is responsible for loading the goods on to the buyer’s carrier. However, if delivery occurs at any other place, the seller is deemed to have delivered the goods once their transport has arrived at the named place; the buyer is responsible for both unloading the goods and loading them onto their own carrier.

CPT – Carriage Paid To (named place of destination)

The seller pays for the carriage of the goods up to the named place of destination. Risk transfers to buyer upon handing goods over to the first carrier at the place of shipment in the country of Export. The Shipper is responsible for origin costs including export clearance and freight costs for carriage to named place (usually a destination port or airport). The shipper is not responsible for delivery to the final destination (generally the buyer’s facilities), or for buying insurance. If the buyer does require the seller to obtain insurance, the Incoterm CIP should be considered.

CIP – Carriage and Insurance Paid to (named place of destination)

This term is broadly similar to the above CPT term, with the exception that the seller is required to obtain insurance for the goods while in transit. CIP requires the seller to insure the goods for 110% of their value.

DAT – Delivered At Terminal (named terminal at port or place of destination)

This term means that the seller covers all the costs of transport (export fees, carriage, unloading from main carrier at destination port and destination port charges) and assumes all risk until destination port or terminal. The terminal can be a Port, Airport, or inland freight interchange. Import duty/VAT/customs costs are to be borne by the buyer.

DAP – Delivered At Place (named place of destination)

The seller is responsible for arranging carriage and for delivering the goods, ready for unloading from the arriving conveyance, at the named place. Duties are not paid by the seller under this term. The seller bears all risks involved in bringing the goods to the named place.

DDP – Delivered Duty Paid (named place of destination)

The seller is responsible for delivering the goods to the named place in the country of the buyer, and pays all costs in bringing the goods to the destination including import duties and VAT. The seller is not responsible for unloading. This term places the maximum obligations on the seller and minimum obligations on the buyer. With the delivery at the named place of destination all the risks and responsibilities are transferred to the buyer and it is considered that the seller has completed his obligations.

Group 2 – Incoterms that apply to sea and inland waterway transport only:

FAS – Free Alongside Ship (named port of shipment)

The seller delivers when the goods are placed alongside the buyer’s vessel at the named port of shipment. This means that the buyer has to bear all costs and risks of loss of or damage to the goods from that moment. The FAS term requires the seller to clear the goods for export. However, if the parties wish the buyer to clear the goods for export, this should be made clear by adding explicit wording to this effect in the contract of sale. This term can be used only for sea or inland waterway transport.

FOB – Free On Board (named port of shipment)

FOB means that the seller pays for delivery of goods to the vessel including loading. The seller must also arrange for export clearance. The buyer pays cost of marine freight transport, insurance, unloading and transport cost from the arrival port to destination. The buyer arranges for the vessel, and the shipper must load the goods onto the named vessel at the named port of shipment. Risk passes from the seller to the buyer when the goods are loaded aboard the vessel.

CFR – Cost and Freight (named port of destination)

The seller pays for the carriage of the goods up to the named port of destination. Risk transfers to buyer when the goods have been loaded on board the ship in the country of export. The shipper is responsible for origin costs including export clearance and freight costs for carriage to named port. The shipper is not responsible for delivery to the final destination from the port (generally the buyer’s facilities), or for buying insurance. CFR should only be used for non-containerised sea freight, for all other modes of transport it should be replaced with CPT.

CIF – Cost, Insurance and Freight (named port of destination)

This term is broadly similar to the above CFR term, with the exception that the seller is required to obtain insurance for the goods while in transit to the named port of destination. CIF requires the seller to insure the goods for 110% of their. CIF should only be used for non-containerised sea freight; for all other modes of transport it should be replaced with CIP.

Allocations of costs to buyer/seller via incoterms

Once the Incoterm has been established, the VAT treatment is usually immediately apparent.

Summary Chart

VAT: Uber Supreme Court case

By Marcus Ward 23 February 2021

Latest from the courts

As many would have heard, the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals driving taxis are “workers” rather than third party contractors. Although not a VAT case, it has This decision has highlighted a number of VAT issues.

Agent versus principal

The main matter in VAT terms is; which party is making the supply? This is often a point of dispute with HMRC, especially with taxi businesses, driving schools, the operation of online platforms, travel and accommodation, and many other types of businesses. It is one of the most common areas of disagreement as many cases have demonstrated, eg; here, here, here, and here.

The difference

VAT legislation does not define agency for the purposes of the tax.

As is often the case in these types of arrangements, there are some matters that point towards a business acting as agent, and others indicating that the proper VAT treatment is that of principal. The important difference, of course, being whether output tax is due on the “commission” received by an agent (20% in Uber’s case), or on the full payment made to it by the end user.

Uber contended that the drivers were independent contractors who work under contracts made directly with the customers and are not employees. Thus, they (Uber) acted as agent. One main argument advanced by them was that the drivers were free to work for other businesses (although in reality this was very unlikely due to the market share held by Uber).

Contract

It also demonstrates both the importance of a contract (or lack of one in Uber’s case), and how all parties act in relation to it. There have been many VAT cases on how much weight should be given to a written agreement versus what the relevant parties actually agree, how they act, how the services are performed and what the customer thinks is the position (who [s]he thinks is providing the service).

Decision

Finding that the drivers work for, and under contracts with, Uber, the following aspects supported its decision – Uber sets the fare, the terms are set by Uber and drivers have no input, Uber restricts communications between driver and passenger, and Uber exercises significant control over the way in which the services are delivered.

Update

A similar decision has been made in the Dutch courts in the Deliveroo case.

Next steps

Commentary

We wait to hear how HMRC will proceed as a result of this case. There is a chance that it may attack taxi firms which they have previously accepted as agent on the grounds that they are principals – providing the service via their ‘employees/workers” and so assessing output tax on the full value of the fare paid.

VAT: Unjust enrichment. The Deluxe case

By Marcus Ward 13 January 2021

Latest from the courts

In the Deluxe Property Holdings Limited High Court case (Deluxe) the issue was whether a VAT claim needed to be passed back to the supplier after a correction – whether the unjust enrichment applied.

Background

Deluxe employed SCL Construction Limited (SCL) to carry out building works. SCL raised invoices in respect of the construction of student accommodation at 20%. It was, however, common ground that the works were in fact zero-rated. SCL recovered the overcharged VAT from HMRC via a VAT Act 1994 Section 80 claim. SCL undertook to repay the amount of VAT to Deluxe via section 10 of VAT Notice 700/45. Without such written reimbursement undertaking, HMRC would have been entitled to refuse the claim. SCL did not make the payment to Deluxe.

Issue

The issue between the parties was whether:

SCL holds the accounting credit obtained from HMRC on trust for Deluxe, or;
the claim is only in debt, in which case SCL sought to set-off such the claim against other monies that it alleges are owed by Deluxe

Decision

The court ruled that SCL had undertaken to reimburse its customer all of the amount credited by HMRC without any deduction, for whatever purpose. Further, SCL had undertaken that it could not use the credit for any other purpose. It was a payment made by HMRC for the sole and express purpose of allowing SCL to reimburse the mistakenly charged VAT to Deluxe and was clearly intended to restrict SCL’s freedom of disposal so that the credit was to be exclusively used for the stated purpose without set-off.

Although SCL gave its undertaking to HMRC rather than to Deluxe to pass on the money, it held the repayment on trust for Deluxe and gave rise to a Quistclose Trust*

Additionally, a constructive trust arose because it would be unacceptable for SCL to derive a benefit of the VAT repayment.

The court found that SCL has acted in breach of trust and is liable as trustee to restore the trust fund and transfer to Deluxe the balance of the trust property without offsetting it against amounts that it claimed it was owed by Deluxe.

Commentary

This is a logical and expected decision and the reasoning is helpful for similar disputes.

* A trust may arise where one person, A, advances money to another, B, on the understanding that B is not to have the free disposal of the money and that it may only be applied for the purpose stated by A. The effect of the trust is to reserve in A the beneficial interest in the money, so providing him with some proprietary security for his advance.