Tag Archives: vat-errors

Transfer of a VAT registration number – form update

By   19 May 2025
0

A business can request transfer of a VAT registration number if it is taking over a company and wishes to use the previous owner’s VAT registration number, or the status of a business is changing, eg; a sole proprietor business incorporates or changes to a partnership. To do this form VAT68 is used.

VAT68

To transfer a VAT registration number because of a change in company ownership, the buying entity must complete both an application for VAT registration and form VAT68. The application may be independent from any existing registration, or it can be an application to join an existing VAT group or form a new one.

A form VAT68 can be submitted via email to HMRC at btc.changeoflegalentity@gov.uk with the VAT registration service (VRS) number included in the email subject line, or sent to the postal address shown on the form.

The update includes the addition of information to confirm an application for VAT registration should be completed.

Care must also be taken when buying or selling a business as the Transfer Of a Going Concern (TOGC) rules can be complex and as with all ‘one-off’ transactions, they are usually out of the ordinary and sometimes high value, giving rise to potential VAT issues. Please see: VAT triggerpoints.

Warning

Unless there is a good reason to transfer a VAT number, we usually advise that this is not done. This is to avoid inheriting the tax history of the previous owner. The buyer of the business can be held responsible for past errors, late payments, ongoing VAT issues etc. These may not be apparent, even after thorough due diligence.

VAT: Whether an online tool an ‘examination service’? The Generic Maths case.

By   12 May 2025
0

Latest from the courts.

In the Generic Maths Limited First Tier Tribunal case the issue was whether the appellant’s product; ‘ConquerMaths’ amounted to examination services so to be exempt via The VATA 1994, Schedule 9, Group 6, Item 3.

Background

Generic Maths provided an online tool which was intended to be of benefit to students or their parents/teachers. The following facts concerning ConquerMaths were found:

  • it does not lead to any qualifications
  • users can drop in and out of the offering (unlike the way they might have to proceed if following a course leading to a qualification)
  • it includes many hundreds of available diagnostic tests that test students’ knowledge of the principles that will be taught on the various subjects
  • several short tutoring videos are included, although the number of videos is small in comparison to the number of diagnostic tests
  • the average user spends 75 minutes on diagnostic tests compared to five minutes on videos
  • the appellant’s witnesses described the product as diagnostic assessments, formative assessments, and summative assessments
  • in addition to the diagnostic tests, the product includes worksheets in an exam format. Pupils are encouraged to complete these offline and then feed the results into the system

The issue

Simply put; was the product predominantly a tool that provides assessments enabling those using the product to determine what level of maths ability the student has reached and identify any gaps in knowledge and therefore an exempt supply since it falls into the category “examination services”? Or, as HMRC contended, was it an online mathematical tutorial tool which was standard rated as it was a composite supply the predominant element of which was education and that the supply was not one of examination services? (There was no argument that these were exempt educational services).

The tests

The FTT considered that the correct test for determining the nature of the appellant’s supplies was an objective test, based on how they would be characterised by the typical consumer. On that basis, ConquerMaths was a teaching product designed to improve maths understanding, not an examination service.

Additionally, if the correct test was rather a functional test, the result would be the similar.

Decision

The Tribunal did not consider that the product was a supply of examination services within Item 3. It found that the assessment had been made using best judgment by HMRC and accordingly that the appeal should be dismissed.

Commentary

This is probably the correct decision, although the examination and education exemptions are open to interpretation. Care should be taken by taxpayers that the exemption is correctly applied. Although the definition of examination services is wider than formal public examinations, it was not wide enough to encompass ConquerMaths.

VAT: HMRC updates tax avoidance schemes guidance – Stop Notices

By   8 May 2025
0

HMRC has updated its guidance on promoters of tax avoidance schemes (guidance on Part 5 and Schedules 34 to 36 of the Finance Act 2014).

The guidance explains the rules that apply to promoters of tax avoidance schemes. These rules aim to deter the development and use of avoidance schemes by influencing the behaviour of promoters, their intermediaries, and clients.

Stop Notices

These Notices are covered by The Finance Act 2021, Schedule 30, part 1, section 236A

  1. An authorised officer may give a person a Notice (a “Stop Notice”) if the authorised officer suspects that the recipient promotes, or has promoted, arrangements of a description specified in the notice or proposals for such arrangements.

 HMRC issues Stop Notices to promotors of tax avoidance schemes, requiring them to stop selling or promoting the scheme.

The main aim of issuing these Notices is to reduce the number of tax avoidance schemes that are being marketed. This makes it more difficult for taxpayers to get involved in them.

When HMRC issues a stop notice to a promoter, it means:

  • the promoter who receives the notice must stop selling the specified scheme
  • the promoter who receives the notice must also pass a copy of it to certain associated persons, who are also subject to the stop notice and must also stop selling the specified scheme
  • all those persons subject to the notice must inform HMRC of all the people they have promoted the scheme to and any they continue to promote it to
  • the persons subject to the stop notice must inform all clients and intermediaries that they are subject to a stop notice, what this means, and provide them with a copy of the stop notice

If a promoter fails to comply with a stop notice they can face penalties of up to £100,000 which can increase to £1million.

Our approach to planning and HMRC

Marcus Ward Consultancy Ltd does not market, advise on, or advocate aggressive schemes. The company provides bespoke solutions to an individual business and does not believe in “one size fits all” mass-marketed schemes.  We will always work within the law and the spirit of the law.  We operate a full disclosure policy and may refuse to work with you if you do not subscribe to this attitude.  We will, on occasion, cross swords with HMRC if we believe we are correct and that HMRC is being unreasonable and we will fight to uphold our clients’ rights against any unfair accusations.

A VAT Did you know?

By   28 April 2025
0

Grass seed is zero-rated, but turf is standard rated.

VAT: Tribunal costs

By   23 April 2025
0

    Latest from the courts

    In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Eurolaser IT Ltd regarding Kittel and Mecsek assessments and penalties:

    • whether an agent knew or should have known of fraud in supply chain – yes
    • whether such knowledge/means of knowledge to be attributed to Appellant – yes
    • whether Mecsek requires HMRC to show reasonable steps not taken by Appellant – yes
    • whether reasonable steps taken – no
    • unsurprisingly, the appeal was refused

    one interesting aspect was the award of costs.

    Generally, in FTT cases the rule is that each party will usually bear its own costs.

    However, it is worth recapping how the award of costs works via The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. In this instant case, the Appellant had not ‘opted out’ of the costs protection regime set out in rule 10(c)(ii) of the Rules. Consequently, the FTT ordered that Eurolaser must pay HMRC’s costs – a sting in the tail. So, what are the rules? (Where relevant here)

    Orders for costs

    “10.—(1) The Tribunal may only make an order in respect of costs (or, in Scotland, expenses)—

    (a) under section 29(4) of the 2007 Act (wasted costs) [and costs incurred in applying for such costs];

    (b) if the Tribunal considers that a party or their representative has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings; 

    (c) if—

    (i) the proceedings have been allocated as a Complex case under rule 23 (allocation of cases to categories); and

    (ii) the taxpayer (or, where more than one party is a taxpayer, one of them) has not sent or delivered a written request to the Tribunal, within 28 days of receiving notice that the case had been allocated as a Complex case, that the proceedings be excluded from potential liability for costs or expenses under this sub-paragraph”

    So, in “Complex” cases, an Appellant must submit a request that the case is excluded from the potential liability of costs being awarded, and HMRC must request repayment of its costs incurred in defending the case.

    What are Complex cases?

    These are complicated cases which:

    • require lengthy or complex evidence
    • require a lengthy hearing
    • involve complex or important principles or issues
    • involve large amounts or tax or penalties

    such cases are allocated to a ‘track’ within the FTT system.

    Other cost awards

    It is also worth remembering that costs can be awarded if the appeal is brought unreasonably. This usually means that it is vexatious or frivolous, so proper advice should be sought when considering an appeal.

    HMRC actions to counter tax avoidance

    By   1 April 2025
    0

    In the Spring Statement 2025 HMG announced a package of measures that will affect VAT and other taxes. The aim is to close the tax gap and raise over £1 billion in additional gross tax revenue per year by 2029‑30.

    Anti-fraud

    HMRC is expanding its counter-fraud capability to increase the number of annual charging decisions for the most harmful fraud by 20%. Additional criminal investigations is intended to deliver a strong deterrent. This will include tackling those who undermine legitimate trade and small business, fraud committed by the wealthy, fraud facilitated by those in large corporations, and by individuals and companies who make it possible for others to hide money offshore.

    Snitching

    There will be a new HMRC reward scheme for informants will be launched later this year. This will target serious non-compliance in large corporates, wealthy individuals, offshore and avoidance schemes. The new scheme will reward informants with compensation linked to a percentage of any tax taken as a result of their actions.

    “Phoenixism”

    HMRC, Companies House, and the Insolvency Service will deliver a joint plan to tackle those who use contrived insolvencies to evade tax and write off debts owed to others. This will include increasing the use of upfront payment demands, making more directors personally liable for company taxes, and increasing the number of enforcement sanctions.

    Compliance

    HMG will invest £87 million over the next five years in HMRC’s existing partnerships with private sector debt collection agencies to collect more unpaid tax debts. It will also invest £114 million over the next five years to recruit an additional 600 HMRC debt management staff. In addition, the Government will invest £100 million over the next five years to recruit an additional 500 HMRC compliance staff.

    The government also published four consultations on:

    • How HMRC can make better use of third‑party data to increase automation and close the tax gap.
    • Proposals to strengthen HMRC’s ability to take action against those tax advisers who facilitate non‑compliance from their clients.
    • A comprehensive package of measures to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance, whose contrived schemes leave their clients with unexpected tax bills.
    • Options to simplify and strengthen HMRC’s inaccuracy and failure to notify penalties.

    VAT: Are hair transplants ‘medical care’? – The Advanced Hair Technology Ltd case

    By   12 March 2025
    0

    Latest from the courts

    In the Advanced Hair Technology Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether hair transplants are exempt supplies of medical care, or were they for ‘cosmetic’ purposes and consequently standard rated?

    Background

    Advanced Hair Technology Ltd (AHT) was a  medical practice trading as The Farjo Hair Institute which specialised in hair restoration surgery. It treated conditions related to hair loss, in particular androgenetic alopecia (AGA). Dr Farjo who carried out the work is qualified is a medical practitioner with the Royal College of Surgeons. The output tax which HMRC deemed due was circa £2,500,000.

    The sole issue was what AHT provided covered by the definition ‘medical care’?

    Legislation

    The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 1 covers services which are for the primary purpose of protecting, restoring, or maintaining health: “medical care”.                                                                 

    Contentions

    AHT argued that it was treating patients for medical conditions, as opposed to providing aesthetic surgery and consequently, its supplies were exempt. The appellant explained that several patients believed that hair loss had affected their self-confidence and so the surgery improved their overall health (which includes a mental health element). Furthermore, the surgery helps to protect the skin from future photodamage, minor trauma and thermal insult.

    HMRC contended that none of the patients had any recorded prior psychiatric conditions, eg; depression or anxiety, nor had any stated that they were looking to benefit from the surgery beyond it improving their appearance and confidence. Additionally,  no recipients of the treatment said that they were seeking any of the above physical protections.

    Therefore, the treatment was a standard rated cosmetic procedure.

    Decision

    The meaning of ‘medical care’ was considered by the Court of Appeal in its decision in Mercy Global [2023] EWCA Civ 1073.

    The court agreed with HMRC that a “principal purpose” test must be applied in all cases.

    The evidence before the FTT was that by the age of 70 at least 80% of caucasian men suffer from hair loss as a result of AGA, and this is part of the normal process of aging. AGA is not considered a medical condition but rather a symptom.

    AHT’s contention that the procedures serve a therapeutic purpose related to psychological issues was dismissed due to a lack of evidence from qualified practitioners. This reinforced the FTT’s view that the treatments were primarily cosmetic, rather than for medical reasons because altering one’s physical appearance was for aesthetic purposes.

    The relevant supplies were therefore outside the exemption.

    The appeal was dismissed.

    Commentary

    The judgment provides some guidance on the interpretation of the definition of medical care for the purposes of the exemption and follows similar recent cases which we covered here:

    Skin Science

    Skin Rich

    X

    The concept of the “provision of medical care” does not include medical interventions carried out for a purpose other than that of diagnosing, treating and in so far as possible, curing diseases or health disorders and it is the purpose of the medical intervention rather than merely the qualifications of the person providing it that is key in determining the VAT liability.

    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 a certain 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 .

    Interestingly, the judge here stated that the medical exemption may apply to some patients whose hair loss was a result of trauma caused by cancer treatment.

    A VAT Did you know?

    By   26 February 2025
    0

    Under one VAT scheme, zero-rated and exempt supplies are subject to VAT – as are those which are “Outside the scope of UK VAT”.

    Which, or course, makes entire sense.

    VAT: Input tax claims – alternative evidence

    By   12 February 2025
    0

    What can be used to make a claim?

    It is well known that in order to claim input tax on expenditure a business is required to have a valid tax invoice to support it. But what if there is no VAT invoice? Can HMRC accept any other evidence to support a claim? Well, the answer is yes… sometimes.

    HMRC has discretion provided by legislation: VAT Regulations 1995/2518 Reg 29(2). Specifically, the wording most relevant here is “…such other documentary evidence of the charge to VAT as the Commissioners may direct.” Broadly, a business must hold the correct evidence before being able to exercise the right to deduct.

    Where claims to deduct VAT are not supported by a valid VAT invoice HMRC staff are required to consider whether there is satisfactory alternative evidence of the taxable supply available to support deduction. HMRC staff should not simply refuse a claim without giving reasonable consideration to such evidence. HMRC has a duty to ensure that taxpayers pay no more tax than is properly due. However, this obligation is balanced against a duty to protect the public revenue.

    Full details of tax invoices here.

    What HMRC consider

    HMRC staff are required to work through the following checklist:

    • Does the business have alternative documentary evidence other than an invoice (for example a supplier statement)?
    • Does the business have evidence of receipt of a taxable supply on which VAT has been charged?
    • Does the business have evidence of payment?
    • Does the business have evidence of how the goods/services have been consumed or evidence regarding their onward supply?
    • How did the business know the supplier existed?
    • How was the business relationship with the supplier established? For example: How was contact made?
    • Does the business know where the supplier operates from (have staff visited?)
    • How did the business contact them?
    • How does the business know the supplier can supply the goods or services?
    • If goods, how does the business know they are not stolen?
    • How does the business return faulty supplies?

    Outcome

    If the responses to the above tests are credible, HMRC staff should exercise their discretion to allow the taxpayer to deduct the input tax. Overall, HMRC is required to be satisfied that sufficient evidence is held by the business which demonstrates that VAT has been paid on a taxable supply of goods or services received by that business and which were used by that business for its taxable activities

    Challenge HMRC’s decision

    A business may only challenge HMRC’s decision not to allow a claim (did not exercise its discretion) if it acted in an unfair or unreasonable way. In these cases, the onus is on the taxpayer to demonstrate that HMRC have been unreasonable in not using the available discretion. This is quite often a difficult thing to do.

    Case law

    Not surprisingly, there is significant case law on this subject. The most relevant and recent being the Upper Tribunal (UT) cases of James Boyce Scandico Ltdv and Wasteaway Shropshire Limited.

    Tips

    If possible, always obtain a proper tax invoice from a supplier, and don’t lose it! The level of evidence required when no invoice is held usually depends on the value of the claim. There would be a difference between persuading an inspector that £20 input tax on stationery is recoverable and the claiming of £200,000 VAT on a property purchase is permissible. As always in VAT, if you get it wrong and claim VAT without the appropriate evidence there is likely to be a penalty to pay.

    If you, or your clients are in dispute with HMRC on input tax claims, please contact us.