Tag Archives: vat-evidence

VAT: B2B and B2C – The distinction and importance

By   1 August 2023
0

A key feature of the place of supply rules is the distinction between B2B (business to business) and B2C (business to consumer) supplies. The distinction is important because it determines, inter alia, whether GB VAT is applicable to a supply made by a GB supplier.

Status of the customer:

  • B2C: A supply is B2C when the customer is a private individual, an organisation with only non-business activities or the supply is wholly for private use (eg for the private use of a business owner)
  • B2B: A supply is B2B when the customer has any level of business activity (though if a supply is wholly for private use it remains B2C). It does not matter if the supply is for a non-business activity of the customer or if the customer is not VAT registered. All that matters is the customer has some level of business activity – this includes VAT exempt activity and taxable activity below the VAT registration threshold VAT place of supply.

To apply the B2B treatment a GB supplier must obtain evidence that the customer has business activities. If the supplier cannot obtain any evidence, they should apply B2C treatment.

  • If the customer is VAT registered, the customer’s VAT number is evidence of status and it is good practice to quote this on the supplier’s invoice. A GB supplier should check the customer’s VAT registration number is in the correct format for the country concerned. This can be done via the EC Vies website. for EU customers. NB: Special evidence rules apply to electronically supplied services.
  • If the customer is not VAT registered, a GB supplier should obtain and retain evidence that the customer has business activities. HMRC state “If your customer is unable to provide a VAT number, you can accept alternative evidence.This includes certificates from fiscal authorities, business letterheads or other commercial documents indicating the nature of the customer’s activities”.

A supplier needs to identify where his customer belongs in order to establish the place of supply.

VERY broadly, depending on the nature of the supply, the rule of thumb is that a B2B service is GB VAT free (it is subject to a reverse charge by the recipient as it is deemed to be “supplied where received”) but a B2C service is generally subject to GB VAT, regardless of the place of belonging of the recipient. There are exceptions to these rules however, such as the use and enjoyment provisions, land related services, hire of transport and admission to events.

VAT: Evidence for retrospective claims – new guidance

By   14 March 2023
1
HMRC has updated its Manual VRM9300 on historic VAT claims.
These types of claims are often called “Fleming” claims and refer to those made before the introduction of the four (once three) year time cap. Such claims extend beyond the period that businesses were required to keep business records and so these were less likely to have remained available.

Standard of Proof where records are unavailable

Where detailed records are unavailable it does not mean there is a lower standard of proof for a claim. The civil standard of proof (on a balance of probabilities) remains.

However, taxpayers’ estimates, assumptions and extrapolations must be sufficiently robust to support a claim. HMRC and the Tribunals must have regard to the evidence that is available, and each claim must be considered on its individual merits.
HMRC state that it “…is not obliged to accept a figure simply because some input tax is due or because it is the claimant’s ‘best guess’ based on the material available”. The claimant must first establish that its method of valuing the claim is reasonable and provide an identifiable repayable amount.
The guidance considers the judgement in the NHS Lothian [2022] UKSC 28 case and its impact on claims where full evidence is unavailable.
Alternative evidence
It is also worth noting that HMRC have the discretion to accept alternative evidence.

VAT: Intention is crucial – The Sonaecom case

By   18 May 2020
0

We cannot control the future…

The Sonaecom case

In the opinion* of the CJEU AG (C-42/19) the importance of a taxpayer’s intention was of utmost importance, regardless of whether that intention was achieved.

Background

Sonaecom intended to acquire a telecoms provider company. As is usual in such cases, input tax was incurred on consultancy received, from, amongst others; accountants and legal service providers. The intention post acquisition was for Sonaecom to make certain charges to the acquired co. These would have been taxable supplies.

Unfortunately, the intended purchase was aborted.

 The issue

The issue before the AG was; as no taxable supplies took place as the deal fell through – to what should the input tax incurred on advice be attributed?

Opinion

In the AG’s view the fact that the acquisition was aborted was no reason for the claim for input tax to denied. This was based on the fact that:

  • Sonaecom was not a “pure holding company”
  • There was a genuine intention to make taxable supplies (to the acquired co)
  • There was a direct and immediate link between the costs and the intended supplies
  • Although the acquisition costs would exceed the proposed management charges, this was not a reason to invalidate the claim
  • The above analysis was not affected by the fact that the transaction did not take place

Commentary

There are often issues in relation to intentions of a taxpayer. It is clear, and was emphasised in this case, that intention is all important. Of course, intentions can change over a period of time and commercial and political events may thwart or cause intentions to be re-evaluated. There is often an issue about evidencing an intention. HMRC usually require comprehensive documentary evidence to demonstrate an objective. Such evidence is sometime not available for various reasons. Consequently, it is prudent for businesses to record (board meeting minutes etc at the very least) the commercial reasons for taking a certain course of action. This issue quite often arises in transactions in land and property – which can create additional technical issues.

There is legislation in place to cover situations when intentions, or actual events change and which affect the original input tax position: The Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Regs 108 and 109.

Other areas of VAT which often to raise issues are management charges and holding companies. HMRC apparently continue to be eager to attack taxpayers in these areas and I have looked at the role of holding companies and the VAT treatment here, here and here.

I think it is useful to bear in mind a question which, in itself does not evidence an intention, but provides commercial coherence – Why were the costs incurred if there was no intention to make the acquisition? This does leave aside the future management charges position but goes some way to provide business logic.

It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds, but I would find it very surprising if the court diverges from this AG opinion.

*  AG’s Opinion

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) consists of one judge from each Member State, assisted by eleven Advocates General whose role is to consider the written and oral submissions to the court in every case that raises a new point of law, and deliver an impartial opinion to the court on the legal solution.

VAT: Retrospective claims – standard of proof. NHS Lothian case

By   24 April 2020
0

Latest from the courts

An interesting and helpful comment was made by the judge in the NHS Lothian Health Board Court of Session (the Scottish equivalent of the Court of Appeal) case.

Background

The case involved a claim for overpaid VAT going back to 1974. The primary issue was not the existence of the taxpayer’s claim to recover overpaid VAT, but the quantification of that claim, and in particular whether the claim can be quantified with sufficient accuracy to permit an order for repayment of tax to be made. In the previous case it was held that the onus of proving that an amount of tax had been paid and not recovered rested upon the taxpayer and that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities and Lord Drummond Young agreed with that proposition here.

Judgement

The specific comments which will be of assistance with businesses with similar clams were:

“The fundamental problem in such cases is that primary evidence does not exist owing to the lapse of time. The absence of such evidence, at least in cases such as the present, is not the fault of the taxpayer, and the lack of evidence should not be held against the taxpayer,”

Outcome

The court urged Tax Tribunals (First Tier Tribunal – FTT and Upper Tribunal – UT) to apply a flexible approach to the burden and standard of proof when making decisions in similar cases; of which there is a considerable number. This approach should apply to so called “Fleming” claims and others in respect of overpaid output tax. We understand that 700 such claims were made by NHS authorities in Great Britain alone, and circa 200 of these remain unresolved.

Commentary

In most cases, a taxpayer is only required to retain records for six years. So the comments made in this case should bolster the chances of success for claims made by other businesses, whether they be for overpaid output tax or underclaimed input tax. There are many and varied reasons why sufficiently detailed could be unavailable; we are looking at a potential 46-year time span. In 1974 record keeping was a different world and physical/manual records were usually the only option. It seems only reasonable that HMRC should make the allowances suggested in this case when it is agreed that a claim is valid in all other respects.

Action

If you, or your client, have had a claim rejected on the basis of insufficient supporting primary evidence, it may be worthwhile revisiting it on the basis of this decision. It sets out helpful and clear guidance and provides businesses with effective, appropriate tax relief where applicable.

VAT: Evidence to claim input tax

By   9 July 2019
0

Latest from the courts

Hot on the heels of my recent article here, a First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case has considered what evidence may be accepted for a claim for input tax.

The Wasteaway case contemplated whether HMRC’s disallowance of the appellant’s claim, (via The VAT Act 1994, section 73) for input tax was correct, or whether they should have allowed the claim based on alternative evidence of receiving the relevant supplies in lieu of missing tax invoices.

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, or should HMRC accept any other evidence to support a claim?

Background 

It was stated that the invoices were lost during a time when the business was evicted from its premises. The judge formed the view that the appellant’s approach to record keeping was “slapdash”. Which isn’t a good starting point. HMRC issued an assessment because it was decided that the appellant had “not provided satisfactory evidence of the taxable supply to the business and its direct link to your onward taxable supply for discretion to be considered under Article 182 of the Principal VAT Directive. If no invoice, a pro forma invoice or a document stating ‘this is not a VAT invoice’ has been provided…” along with an offer to provide alternative evidence.

It was also discovered, during the inspection, that not only had output tax been underdeclared, but the appellant had a history of poor record keeping.

Decision

Despite the business providing; records of payments, in some cases weighbridge tickets, detailed bank statements, spreadsheets and Sage accounts information – which it was contended amounted to alternative documentary evidence, it was ruled that this was insufficient, so the assessment stood.

The lack of care in obtaining and retaining documents, poor accounting procedures such that output tax was understated and the past behaviour and history of the taxpayer meant that HMRC was not obliged to accept the proffered alternative evidence, The general unreliability of the records counted against the business and that HMRC acted in best judgement.

It was stated that HMRC were perfectly justified in requiring more detailed and convincing documentary evidence to replace the missing VAT invoices than the appellant provided. And the inspector could not be criticised for refusing to accept the extremely thin evidence supplied as an alternative to the missing VAT invoices.

Commentary

It is clear that every business must keep proper records and retain all documents, especially invoices. It was hardly surprising that failure to do that ensured that this appeal was dismissed. It also didn’t help that the appellant had a poor track record of accounting.

HMRC do have the discretion to accept alternative evidence, however, this is more likely if the relevant invoices have been genuinely misplaced, destroyed or not received. There is also the opportunity to go to the supplier and request a replacement invoice.

So, basically: Keep records properly or it will cost you!