Tag Archives: vat-court

VAT: Are freemasons’ aims philosophical, philanthropic, or civic? The United Grand Lodge case

By Marcus Ward 4 October 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) the issue was whether subscriptions paid by members of the freemasons are exempt via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 9, section 31, item 1(e) “Subscriptions to trade unions, professional and other public interest bodies” which exempts membership subscriptions paid to a non-profit making organisation which has objects which are of a political, religious, patriotic, philosophical, philanthropic or civic nature.

Background

So, in this case, for the subscriptions to be exempt, freemasonry’s aims must be philosophical, philanthropic, or civic. UGLE submitted input tax claims on the basis that its subscription income was exempt and HMRC declined to make the repayments.

An organisation which has more than one main aim can still come within the exemption if those aims are all listed and described in the legislation. The fact that the organisation has other aims which are not set out in law does not mean that its services to members are not exempt provided that those other aims are not main aims. If, however, the organisation has a number of aims, all equally important, some of which are covered by the exemption, and some of which are not, then the services supplied by the organisation to its members are wholly outside the exemption.

The contentions

The respondents stated that the aims were not UGLE’s sole main aim or aims, and, even if they were, the aims were not in the public domain.

UGLE claimed that its sole main aim was philosophical in nature; or, in the alternative, the main aims, taken together, were of a philosophical, philanthropic, or civic nature and it did not have any other main aims.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The judge decided that the supplies made by UGLE in return for subscription payments were properly standard rated.

It was common ground that the motives of the members in joining the organisation are irrelevant.

It was accepted that since 2000 freemasonry has become more outward looking and since then has become more involved in charitable work among those, and for the benefit of those, who are not freemasons or their dependants. That said, the judge was not satisfied that the charitable works of individual freemasons, such as volunteering to give time to a local charity, were undertaken by them as freemasons rather than simply as public-spirited members of the community.

It was found that UGLE did have aims of a philosophical, philanthropic and civic nature (the promotion of all aspects of the practice of freemasonry and charity was central to UGLE’s activities). However, it was not accepted that these were UGLE’s main or primary aims. At least 48% of payments made by UGLE were to freemasons and their dependants and in the FTT’s judgment such support remained one of the main aims of freemasonry and thus of UGLE. The importance of providing support for freemasons and their dependants who are in need is a central tenet of freemasonry – The duty to help other freemasons is clearly set out in the objects of the four central masonic charities. The evidence showed that the provision of relief to freemasons and their dependants was the more important than donations to good causes unconnected with freemasonry.

Civic aims

There was nothing in the evidence which indicates any civic aim. UGLE cannot be said to be an organisation that has aims pertaining to the citizen and the state. Indeed, freemasons are prohibited from discussing matters of religion and politics in lodges.

Consequently, as one of UGLE’s main aims could not be described as philosophical, philanthropic, or civic, its membership subscriptions were standard rated. Making payments to freemasons was more akin to self-insurance, rather than philanthropic in nature.

VAT: Farm in business? The Babylon case

By Marcus Ward 21 September 2021

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Babylon Farm Ltd (the farm) the issue was whether the appellant was in business and consequently was able to recover certain input tax.

Background

Yet another case on whether there was any business activity in a company. Please see here, here, here and here for previous cases on this issue. The farm sold hay which it cut from another person’s fields to a connected party. The value of the one-off annual sale was £440 pa. The appellant also contended that it was also undertaking preparatory acts for the new business activities and that it would be able to levy management charges. Another new business activity was the creation of an investment and insurance product.

The farm built a new barn on which it claimed input tax of £19,760.

HMRC considered that no business was being carried on and decided to deregister the farm thus refusing to pay the input tax claim. The farm challenged this decision and contended that taxable supplies were being made, and there was also an intention to make taxable supplies in the future.

Legislation

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 of the VAT Act 1994 requires HMRC to be satisfied that a person is either making taxable supplies or is carrying on a business and intends to make such supplies in the course or furtherance of a business in order to be registered for VAT. There are a number of tests set out in case law (mainly The Lord Fisher case) to establish whether a person is in business:

Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
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?

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The farm was not in business and could not recover input tax on the costs of the new barn.

The judge stated that he could see no legal basis for the farm to be in business. The hay that the farm sold was taken from the customer’s own land and therefore belonged to him already. It was also noted that no invoices were raised, no payment for the hay had been made for a number of years and the single customer was a director of Babylon Farm Limited so the farm was not operating in an open market. The sale of hay had not been conducted on a basis that followed sound and recognised business principles or on a basis that was predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for consideration. As a consequence, the farm was not operating as a business during the relevant period.

On the intention point; neither of the intended activities had yet resulted in any chargeable services being provided and both were to be carried on through companies that had been formed for these purposes (not the farm). Both businesses remained at a formative stage and neither company has generated any revenue. This was insufficient to retain the VAT registration.

Commentary

The decision was hardly a surprise and one wonders how it reached the UT. HMRC were always going to challenge an input tax claim of that quantum with no output tax (and such a low value of sales which may not have been made in any event).

VAT: Report on Tax Tribunal performance published

By Marcus Ward 7 September 2021

A new report reviewing the performance of the Tax Chamber of the First-tier Tribunals (FTT) has been published. It identifies the FTT’s strengths and areas for improvement It has been published by the independent the Tax Law Review Committee (TLRC)

The major causes of dissatisfaction among FTT users include:

delay
lack of communication by the FTT administration
a lack of engagement by some judges during the hearing
the allocation of cases to judges with the appropriate knowledge or skill.

Delay is the overriding concern among tribunal users surveyed: both delay between the hearing and the release of the decision (which sometimes is over one year) and delay caused by the FTT administration. Especially in relation to the FTT administration, the underlying cause of these problem seems to be a lack of funding, as there is a rapid staff-turnover with staff leaving for better renumerated jobs in other parts of the Civil Service.

Area of strength:

how litigants in person are often assisted by judges taking an inquisitorial approach.

The report identifies potential for further improvements to access to justice for litigants in person, including allowing remote video-hearings as an alternative to having cases determined on paper without a hearing, and the possible establishment of a pro-bono advocacy scheme.

VAT: Fraudster ordered to pay £37 million

By Marcus Ward 5 August 2021

Latest from the courts

A high level fraudster who skipped his trial and fled to Dubai has been ordered to pay more than £37 million. Failure to do so will result in ten years in prison. He played a major role in this missing trader fraud (MTIC) which involves the theft of Value Added Tax from HMRC. He was part of a conspiracy to use a network of companies and a huge number of transactions to cover up the theft of VAT.

Adam Umerji, 43, was convicted in his absence of offences of conspiracy to cheat the government’s revenue and conspiracy to transfer criminal property, in a prosecution conducted by the CPS Specialist Fraud Division after a complex criminal investigation by HMRC.

Background

Missing trader fraud (also called missing trader intra-community fraud or MTIC fraud) involves the theft of VAT from a government by fraudsters who exploit VAT rules, most commonly the EU rules which provide that the movement of goods between Member States is VAT free. There are different variations of the fraud but they generally involve a trader charging VAT on the sale of goods and absconding with the VAT (instead of paying the VAT to the government’s taxation authority). The term “missing trader” is used because the fraudster has gone missing with the VAT.

A common form of missing trader fraud is carousel fraud. In carousel fraud, VAT and goods are passed around between companies and jurisdictions.

VAT: Input tax recovery – whether a taxable supply. The Door Specialist case

By Marcus Ward 9 June 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal case of The Door Specialist Limited (TDSL) the issue was whether an HMRC assessment for overclaimed input tax was correct.

Background

The appellant recovered input tax on the import of goods (doors). The company did not sell the doors, but simply gave the goods (no consideration provided) to a separate company called Just Doors (JD). It was JD who made the sales of the doors to third party customers. TDSL and JD were under common ownership but no VAT group in place at the relevant time. TDSL was VAT registered as it made separate, unrelated taxable supplies of property rental

Arguments

HMRC contended that as there was no onward taxable supply of the doors by TDSL, no input tax was recoverable per The VAT Act 1994 section 24 (1). TDSL relied on HMRC’s published guidance (Notices 700 and 700/7) in relation to gifts and proposed that it would be proper to assess for output tax on the “supply” to JD rather than denying the input tax claim.

Issues

The issues may therefore be summarised as whether;

the relevant goods were used for the purpose of any economic activity by TDSL
the doors could be treated as business gifts as contended by the applicant such that the input tax was recoverable.

Further cases on economic activity/business here, here and here

Decision

It was decided that as there was no direct and immediate link between the purchase of the goods and any onward taxable supply in the course of business or economic activity by TDSL (as required by the outcome of the cases of BAA Ltd JDI International Leasing Ltd) the disallowance of the input tax was appropriate. The advancement of the business gifts contention did not assist the taxpayer as this was not an economic activity in itself. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Commentary

A clear example of not considering the VAT implications when carrying out transactions. This tax cost could have easily been avoided if TDSL had sold the doors to JD. As both parties were fully taxable, there would have been no VAT hit. Business gifts and promotional activities are also often a complex area of VAT and as one former colleague once remarked “If you have a marketing department you have a VAT issue”.

VAT: What is open market value? The Jupiter case

By Marcus Ward 11 May 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Jupiter Asset Management Group Ltd the issue was the value of management services to an associated third party VAT group.

Background

The value is important because if HMRC believe that a supply between two connected parties (as defined by The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Section 839) is undervalue and the recipient cannot recover the relevant input tax in full, it is permitted via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 6, PART 2, para 1 (1) to substitute open market value (OMV) by way of a Notice.

This paragraph is specifically intended to counter tax avoidance. If a supply between connected persons is made below open market value for a legitimate reason that the trader can substantiate, and which is unconnected with avoidance HMRC has the discretion not to issue a Notice. In Jupiter, HMRC directed that OMV be used to calculate the charge as it considered that value was too low and issued an assessment for underdeclared output tax.

Decision

In the absence of comparable supplies, OMV was to be determined by reference to:

the full cost of making the supplies;
the full cost included the costs incurred on goods and services used in making the supplies and general overhead costs the input tax in respect of which had been recovered
the remuneration paid to the executive directors to the extent that that remuneration related to activities performed by the executive directors in making the supplies of the management services

Consequently, the appeal against the output tax assessment was dismissed.

Commentary

An expected outcome, but ne which emphasises that care should be taken with transactions between connected parties, management charges and inter-company charges in general. This is even more relevant since the decision in the Norseman Gold plc case

VAT: Car parking provided by a hospital – Exempt? Non-Business? Taxable?

By Marcus Ward 20 April 2021

Latest from the courts

In the Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (The Trust) First Tier (FT) case the issue was whether pay and display car park charges were subject to VAT considering the status and activities of the Trust.

Background

The Trust provided parking for staff and visitors at the 14 sites for which it was responsible. The question was whether output tax was due on the parking charges. The Trust submitted a claim for overpaid VAT considering that either:

there was no economic activity, or, if there was,
there was a “special legal regime” which meant that tax was not due because The Trust was not a taxable person, or
the parking charges were closely related to the Trust’s exempt activity (medical care) such that they themselves were exempt

HMRC rejected the claim on the grounds that car parking is a standard rated supply and The Trust appealed against this decision.

It was agreed that The Trust, in carrying out its statutory activities (NHS medical services) is not in business (no economic activity) and therefore the services were outside the scope of VAT. Some private medical services were also supplied, and it was common ground that these were exempt.

Decision

The court found that:

the Trust made supplies for a consideration for the purposes of obtaining income on a continuing basis so there was economic activity
the Trust did not provide car parking under a “special legal regime” as a public authority; there is no concept of special legal regime in the relevant legislation
the treatment of The Trust as a non-taxable person re; car parking would lead to significant distortion of competition
supplies of car parking were not closely related to medical care. The service must be an indispensable stage and integral in the supply of medical services, ie; the diagnosis, treatment and cure of diseases or health disorders
the supply of car parking was consequently a taxable business activity carried out by a taxable person, was not exempt, so output tax was properly due.

Commentary

We are aware of a number of cases stayed behind this appeal and there will be disappointment, but little surprise (I suspect) at the outcome. Car parking is a significant source of income for hospitals, medical centres and clinics etc, but this case made it clear that there is no difference in VAT terms between hospital parking and other commercial car parks.

Crime doesn’t pay……..VAT? Is there tax on illegal activities?

By Marcus Ward 26 January 2015

A number of people have been surprised to find that crime does pay tax, thank you very much. It seems bad enough that the police should chase and catch you, put you in the dock and send you to prison, without finding that your first visitor is HMRC….

Dodgy perfume?

Goodwin & Unstead were in business selling counterfeit perfume. They were also up-front about what they were doing. Unstead claimed that “Everything I can carry in my vehicle, everything I trade in and sell, is a complete copy of the real thing. I do not sell goods as the real thing. In fact I sell my goods for a quarter of the original price. I am not out to defraud or con the public. I only appeal to the poseurs in life.”

The real manufacturers might have sued these men for passing off the product of their chemistry experiments in trademarked bottles, but it was HMRC who sent them to jail – for failing to register and pay VAT on their sales. The amount they should have collected was estimated at £750,000, which shows that they must have appealed to a great many poseurs.
.
If they had paid the VAT, Customs would have had no problem with them. Their customers must have been reasonably satisfied – if your counterfeit perfume smells something like the real thing, why worry?
They tried to get out of jail with an ingenious argument – if the sale of the perfume was illegal, surely there shouldn’t be VAT on it. It wasn’t legitimate business activity, so it wasn’t something that ought to be taxable. The European Court had no time for this. They pointed out that it would give lawbreakers an advantage over lawful businesses; they wouldn’t have to charge VAT. The judges suggested that maybe people would even deliberately break the law so they could get out of tax; in this case, the only thing that made the trade illegal was treading on someone’s trademark rights, and that was something that might happen at any time in legitimate businesses. The judges said that VAT would apply to any trade which competed in a legal marketplace, even if the particular sales broke the law for some reason. Counterfeit perfume is VATable because real perfume is too. Of course, Customs have traditionally had two main roles – looking for drug smugglers, and dealing with VAT-registered traders. They have generally treated both with much the same suspicion, but the ECJ made it clear in this case that the two sets of customers are completely separate.

“Personal” services?

Customers paid the escort £130, of which £30 was paid to the agency. VAT on £130 or VAT on £30?

The first hearing before the Tribunal went something like this (this may be using artistic licence, but the published summary implies it was so):

HMRC: “We think the VAT should be on £130 because the escorts are acting as agents of the escort business.”
Trader: “No, it’s just £30, the £100 belongs to the escort and is nothing to do with me.”
Tribunal chairman: “All right, tell me a bit about how the business operates.”
Customs: “No.”
Tribunal chairman: “What?”
Customs: “You don’t want to know.”
Tribunal chairman: “How can I decide whether the escorts are acting as agent or principals without knowing how the business operates?”
Customs: “Don’t go there, just give us a decision.”
Tribunal chairman: “Trader, you tell me how the business operates.”
Trader: “I agree with him, you don’t want to know.”
The Tribunal seems to have been a bit baffled by this. They were aware that Customs had a great deal more evidence which had been collected during the course of a thorough investigation, and they asked the parties to go away and decide whether they might let the Tribunal see a bit more of it so they could make a judgement rather than a guess.

What about drugs then?

It’s well-known that you are allowed to smoke dope in some establishments in Amsterdam, although the Dutch authorities are thinking about restricting this to Netherlands’ residents. They may find that such a rule contravenes the European Law on freedom of movement – under the EU treaty, you can’t be meaner to foreigners than you are to your own people just because they are foreign. That’s a nice idea, but individuals and governments keep trying it on. Anyway, the Coffeeshop Siberie rented space to drug dealers who would sell cannabis at tables for people to take advantage of the relaxed atmosphere. Presumably they are preparing to examine passports or local utility bills before making the sale, if only the Dutch are to be allowed to get stoned. Anyway, the Dutch authorities asked the coffee shop’s owners for VAT on the rent paid by the dealers, and the owners appealed to the ECJ. This time, surely, it was sufficiently illegal. Although the consumption of drugs was tolerated, it was still against the law, and it must therefore be not VATable.
The judges pointed out that the coffee shop was not actually selling drugs. They were just providing the space for other people to sell drugs. Although selling drugs was completely illegal, and there was no legitimate market in cannabis, renting space was a normal business activity. Renting space to someone who did something illegal with it was in the same category as the dodgy perfume sales in Goodwin & Unstead: it was a bit illegal, but not illegal enough. The VAT was still due.

Counterfeiting?
In a German case, the ECJ ruled that the importation of counterfeit money was outside the scope of VAT. The Advocate-General observed that a line must be drawn between, on the one hand, transactions that lie so clearly outside the sphere of legitimate economic activity that, instead of being taxed, they can only be the subject of criminal prosecution, and, on the other hand, transactions which though unlawful must nonetheless be taxed, if only for ensuring in the name of fiscal neutrality, that the criminal is not treated more favourably than the legitimate trader’.

So, there you have it, if you are of a criminal disposition, and you want to avoid VAT, funny money is the way to go. Please note, this does not constitute advice…..!