Tag Archives: VAT-input-tax

VAT: Input tax attribution to business and non-business activities

By Marcus Ward 15 September 2022

HMRC has issued new guidance on the amount of input tax claimable when an element is attributable to non-business (NB) activities.

If an entity is involved in both business and NB activities, eg; a charity which provides free advice and also has a shop which sells donated goods, it is unable to recover all of the VAT it incurs. VAT attributable to NB activities is not input tax and cannot be reclaimed. Therefore it is necessary to calculate the quantum of VAT attributable to business and NB activities. That VAT which cannot be attributed is called overhead VAT and must be apportioned between business and NB activities. There are many varied ways of doing this as the VAT legislation does not specify any particular method. Therefore it is important to consider all of the available alternatives. Examples of these are; income, expenditure, time, floorspace, transaction count etc (similar to those methods available for partial exemption calculations).

The new guidance is mainly as a result of the Sveda ECJ case.

The definition of business and NB here.

Legislation: The VAT Act 1994 Section 24(5).

Further reading

The following articles consider case law and other relevant business/NB issues:

Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft

Healthwatch Hampshire CIC

Pertempts Limited

Northumbria Healthcare

VAT: Which entity receives a supply? The Star Services case

By Marcus Ward 8 September 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Star Services Oxford Limited (Star) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was the identity of the entity receiving the supply, whether it held a valid tax invoice, and whether input tax could be claimed.

Background

The appellant claimed input tax incurred on rental payments to Oxford City Council. This was disallowed by HMRC on the grounds that the rental agreement was with Mr Latifi (a sole proprietor in a property rental business) and not the company which was VAT registered.

After the rental agreement was signed the business was incorporated and carried on a bed and breakfast activities from the premises, along with two separate sub-lets to third parties. One party paid rent to Star and one directly to Mr Latifi.

Contentions

HMRC argued that:

Mr Latifi and the Appellant are separate legal entities, both of whom are required to register for VAT separately if carrying on taxable business activities
the assessment was correct as the company was not entitled to an input tax credit as it was not the person who had incurred the liability
the Appellant did not hold a valid VAT invoice, which entitles it to deduct the input tax

Star contended:

there was a technical error in the lease agreement
the assessment was excessive
subsequent to the assessment, the lease was registered to the Appellant
the lease was acquired in Mr Latifi’s name because the Appellant did not exist at the time that the lease agreement was entered into. At the relevant time there was an innocent omission to transfer the lease from Mr Latifi’s name to the Appellant’s name, and the delay was caused by forgetfulness
a company may, under The VAT Act 1994 s. 24(6)(c) and if permitted by Regulations, claim input tax on the pre-incorporation supplies received for its business
the Appellant has accounted for the VAT (therefore there was no loss of tax)
the fact that Mr Latifi is beneficial owner of both “the company” (by virtue of controlling shares and directorship) and “the property” must have an impact on the decision to assess

Decision

The appeal was dismissed.

The Appellant was not entitled to claim input tax on the invoices and HMRC were correct to disallow input tax. It did not receive the supply and it did not hold a VAT invoice.

It was decided that the legal relationship was between Oxford City Council and Mr Latifi. This is because the lease agreement was between these parties and not the Appellant.

It was found that the rent from one sub-tenant was paid to Mr Latifi directly and is not accounted for by the Appellant and that the reassigned lease has no bearing on the property rental activities undertaken by Mr Latifi prior to the reassignment.

The rules on pre-incorporation supplies* do not apply in this case because Mr Latifi, as sole proprietor, and the Appellant, are separate legal entities, requiring separate VAT registration.

Interestingly, a recent case was relied on: In Tower Bridge GP Ltd the Court of Appeal ruled that absent a valid VAT invoice showing the supplier’s VAT number and the customer’s name, the right to deduct input tax on that invoice could not be exercised.

Summary

An unfortunate oversight was sufficient for HMRC to refuse the input tax claim. This case does have a whiff of unfairness about it, but by applying the letter of the law the outcome is unarguable. The contentions here are similar to those in the Aitmatov Academy case.

Another case of taking care with claims.

* A business may, generally, claim the VAT incurred on services it has purchased for its taxable business purposes during the six months prior to VAT registration .
The VAT Act 1994, s 24(6) (c) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Reg 111.

VAT: Business or non-business? The Towards Zero Foundation case

By Marcus Ward 16 August 2022

Latest from the courts

In the The Towards Zero Foundation First Tier Tribunal case the issue was whether part of the appellant’s activities could be “stripped out”, classified as non-business, and therefore result in a loss of input tax.

This case follows a long succession of recent cases on the distinction between business (economic activity) and non-business. I have considered these in other articles:

Northumbria Healthcare

Wakefield College (referred to at this Tribunal)

Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. and Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft

Healthwatch Hampshire CIC

Pertempts Limited

and new HMRC guidance on the subject.

VAT attributable to non-business activities is not input tax and cannot be reclaimed. However, if the non-business activity is part of wider business activities then it may be recovered as input tax.

Background

The Appellant is a charity. Its primary objective is to achieve zero road traffic fatalities principally through the operation of New Car Assessment Programmes (NCAP) – testing car safety.

When it received money as consideration for carrying out the testing, it was agreed by all parties that that this represented economic activity.

As part of this activity, the charity purchased new cars (so called “mystery shopping” exercises) and carried out tests at its own expense. In this start-up phase for an NCAP it is necessary to test vehicles without manufacturer support as the independence of the testing programme is critical in order to establish consumer credibility.

The results of the tests (usually giving rise to substandard or unsatisfactory outcomes) are published and the Appellant generates publicity of the results through social media, news coverage, trade press etc. These results inform and influence customer buying behaviour which in turn drives manufacturers to improve the safety features.

As the market sophistication increases the NCAP star ratings for vehicles are used by the manufacturers in promotion of its vehicles.

The aim of the Appellant is for each jurisdictional NCAP to ultimately become self-funding through manufacturer testing fees.

Contentions

HMRC argued that when the appellant carried out tests on purchased vehicles this should be recognised as a specific activity which could not be a business as it generated no income – the tests should be considered in isolation. Consequently, the input tax which was recovered was blocked and an assessment was issued to disallow the claim.

The Foundation contended that it published the results of those tests, and this resulted in the commercial need for manufacturers to improve safety standards by way of commissions for further research. This research was funded by the car makers and was therefore economic activity. The “free” testing needed to be undertaken so as to create a market for manufacturer funded testing – the initial testing was just one element of the overall taxable supply. Consequently, all residual input tax incurred is attributed to its taxable business activities and fully recoverable.

Decision

The FTT found that it was clear that manufacturers would not proactively seek to have vehicles tested without an initial unfavourable baseline assessment. If the free testing had been a genuinely independent activity HMRC would be correct, but the evidence did not support this analysis. It found that the provision of free testing was an inherent and integral part of the appellant’s business activity.

This being the case there was no reason to attribute any VAT to non-business activities, and the input tax weas fully claimable.

Commentary

Another reminder, if one were needed, of the importance of correctly establishing whether the activities of a body (usually charities, but not exclusively) are business or non-business. The consequences will affect both the quantum of output tax and claiming VAT on expenditure. More on the topic here.

The decision was as anticipated, but this case illustrates HMRC’s willingness to challenge (often unsuccessfully) VAT treatment in similar situations.

VAT: No invoice – no claim. The Tower Bridge GP Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 9 August 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal (CoA) case of Tower Bridge GP Ltd the issue was whether the appellant could claim input tax in a situation where it did not (and does not) hold a valid tax invoice.

Background

Tower Bridge was the representative member of a VAT group which contained Cantor Fitzgerald Europe Ltd (CFE). CFE traded in carbon credits. These carbon credit transactions were connected to VAT fraud.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that CFE neither knew, nor should have known, that the transactions it entered into before 15 June 2009 were connected to VAT fraud but that it should have known that its transactions were connected to fraud from 15 June 2009. The appeal relates only to transactions entered into before that date.

CFE purchased carbon credits from Stratex Alliance Limited (“Stratex”) The carbon credits supplied to CFE were to be used by the business for the purpose of its own onward taxable transactions (in carbon credits). The total of VAT involved was £5,605,119.74.

The Stratex invoices were not valid VAT invoices. They did not show a VAT registration number for Stratex, nor did they name CFE as the customer. Although Stratex was a taxable person, it transpired that Stratex was not registered for VAT (and therefore could not include a valid VAT number on its invoices) and that it fraudulently defaulted on its obligation to account to HMRC for the sums charged as output tax on these invoices.

Subsequent investigations by HMRC resulted in Stratex not being able to be traced.

Contentions

The appellant contended that it is entitled to make the deduction either as of right, or because HMRC unlawfully refused to use its discretion to allow the claim by accepting alternative evidence.

HMRC denied Tower Bridge the recovery of the input tax on the Stratex invoices on the basis that the invoices did not meet the formal legal requirements to be valid VAT invoices. HMRC also refused to exercise their discretion to allow recovery of the input tax on the basis that:

Stratex was not registered for VAT
the transactions were connected to fraud
CFE failed to conduct reasonable due diligence in relation to the transactions

Decision

Dismissing this appeal, the CoA ruled that where an invoice does not contain the information required by legislation (The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 No 2518 Part III, Regulation 14), or contains an error in that information, which is incapable of correction, the right to deduct cannot be exercised. The appellant did not have the ability to make a claim as of right.

The Court then considered whether HMRC ought to have permitted Tower Bridge to make a claim using alternative evidence. It found that the attack on HMRC’s exercise of discretion fails for the reasons contended by HMRC (above). These were perfectly legitimate matters for HMRC to take into account in deciding whether to exercise the first discretion in the taxable person’s favour.

CFE had failed to carry out “the most basic of checks on Stratex”.

So, the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

This was hardly a surprising outcome considering that if an exception were to be made, there would be a loss to the public purse consisting of the input tax, with no corresponding gain to the public purse from the output tax that Stratex ought to have paid, but fraudulently did not.

This case demonstrates the importance of obtaining a proper tax invoice and to carry out checks on its validity. Additionally, there is a need to conduct accurate due diligence on the supply chain. I have summarised the importance of Care with input tax claims which includes a helpful list of checks which must be carried out.

VAT – Business Entertainment. What input tax may I recover?

By Marcus Ward 4 August 2022

VAT – Recovery of input tax incurred on entertainment – Flowchart

One of the most common questions asked on “day-to-day” VAT is whether input tax incurred on entertainment is claimable. The answer to this seemingly straightforward question has become increasingly complex as a result of; HMRC policy, EU involvement and case law.

Different rules apply to entertaining; clients, contacts, staff, partners and directors depending on the circumstances. It seems reasonable to treat entertaining costs as a valid business expense. After all, a business, amongst other things, aims to increase sales and reduce costs as a result of these meetings. However, HMRC sees things differently and there is a general block on business entertainment. It seems like HMRC does not like watching people enjoying themselves at the government’s expense!

If, like me, you think in pictures, then a flowchart may be useful for deciding whether to claim entertainment VAT. It covers all scenarios, but if you have a unique set of circumstances or require assistance with some of the definitions, please contact me.

VAT -Business Entertainment Flowchart

Download here: VAT Business Entertainment Input tax recovery flowchart

VAT: Disclosed and undisclosed agents

By Marcus Ward 20 July 2022

There has been substantial case law on whether a business acts as agent or principal, the most recent being:

In this brief article I consider the distinction between disclosed and undisclosed agents and the VAT position of each.

Agent

An agent is a person who has been legally empowered to act on behalf of another entity (a principal). An agent may be employed to represent a client in negotiations and other dealings with third parties under his direction. The agent may be given decision-making authority. The relationship between a principal and agent can be disclosed or undisclosed to a third party. A disclosed agent acts in the name of the principal, whereas an undisclosed agent acts in his own name.

VAT Treatment

Disclosed Agents

A disclosed agent acts in the name of the principal and the client is aware that they are dealing with an agent of the principal. The relevant supply is made by the principal to the client. The agent does not make the supply to the client, but rather, to (usually) the principal in respect of commission for its services of acting as the “middle-man” in the transaction.

Output tax is due on the full selling price of the goods or services supplied by the principal. The value is not reduced by any amount paid to the agent. The agent will invoice the principal for his services and in most cases the principal will recover this as input tax (subject to the usual rules).

Undisclosed Agents

The buyer of goods or services will not (usually) know the name of the principal and will deal with the agent in the agent’s own name. The legislation states that ‘where a taxable person acting in his own name but on behalf of another person takes part in a supply of services, he shall be deemed to have received and supplied those services himself’.

This means that the supply of goods or services by an undisclosed agent is treated as a simultaneous supply to, and by, the agent. The agent is treated as both the purchaser (from the principal) and seller (to the client/customer).

The agent treats the goods as its own purchase – incurring VAT charged by the principal and then declares output tax on the onward sale to the client. The input tax charged by the principal is usually recoverable by the undisclosed agent. In some circumstances, the purchase and sale will have different VAT liabilities, eg; the sale of goods may be a VATable UK supply, but the onward sale could be a zero rated export. Generally, the principal is not put in a less advantageous position by operating through an agent.

Summary

It is sometimes difficult to establish whether an entity acts as agent or principal, and if agent, whether it is in a disclosed or undisclosed capacity. Not only is the VAT treatment different, but the distinction effects where goods or services are deemed to be supplied for VAT purposes. The place of supply rules dictates such matters as VAT registration (UK and overseas) whether (and where) VAT is chargeable and the compliance obligations of the principal and agent.

It is important to analyse the terms of the relevant contracts/agreements between the agent and principal to establish the nature of the relationship. However, it also necessary to consider the commercial reality of transactions between the parties as this may differ from the contract.

VAT: Global Accounting simplification

By Marcus Ward 10 May 2022

VAT: Second Hand Scheme – Global Accounting simplification

Overview

The problem with the VAT Second-Hand Goods Scheme is that details of each individual item purchased, and then later sold, has to be recorded. This requirement can lead to a lot of paperwork and an awful lot of administration which, obviously, many businesses are not too keen to comply with.

Global Accounting is an optional, simplified variation of the Second Hand Margin Scheme (MS).

It differs from the standard MS because rather than accounting for the margin achieved on the sale of individual items VAT is calculated on the margin achieved between the total purchases and total sales in a particular accounting period without the requirement to establish the mark up on each individual item. It is beneficial if a business buys and sells bulk volume, low value eligible goods, and is unable to maintain the detailed records required of businesses who use the standard MS.

There two significant differences in respect of Global Accounting compared to the standard MS. The first difference is that losses on an item are automatically offset against profits on items. Thus losses and profits are offset together in the period. In the standard MS no VAT is due if a loss is made on an item, but that loss cannot be offset against any other profit. There is also a timing advantage with Global Accounting because all purchases made in the period are included, even if those goods are not actually sold in the same period.

Goods which may be included in Global Accounting

Global Accounting can be used for all items which are eligible under the standard MS. However, the following goods cannot be included in Global Accounting:

individual items costing more than £500 (although these can be accounted for via the standard MS)
aircraft, boats and outboard motors,
caravans and motor caravans,
horses and ponies, and
motor vehicles, including motorcycles; except those broken up for scrap.

Starting to use the scheme

When a business starts using Global Accounting, it may find that it already has eligible stock on hand. It may include the value of this stock when it calculates the total purchases at the end of the first period. If a business does not take its stock on hand into account, it will have to pay VAT on the full price, rather than on the margin achieved, when it is sold.

Note: any goods bought on an invoice which shows a separate VAT figure are not eligible for resale under the scheme.

The calculation

VAT is calculated at the end of each tax period. Because you can take account of opening stock in your scheme calculations, you may find that you produce a negative margin at the end of several periods. In other words, your total purchases may exceed your total sales. In such cases, no VAT is due. But you must carry the negative margin forward to the next period as in the following example:

Period One

a) Total purchase value of stock on hand 10,000
b) Total purchases 2,000
c) Total sales 8,000

Margin = c – (a+b) = (4,000)

Because this is a negative margin there is no VAT to pay. However, negative margin must be carried forward into the next period as follows:

Period Two

a) Negative margin from previous period 4,000
b) Total purchases 1,000
c) Total sales 7,000
d) Margin = c – (a + b), sales minus (purchases plus negative margin), £7,000 – (£1,000 + £4,000) 2,000
e) VAT due = margin (£2,000) × VAT fraction (1/6) 333.33

There is no negative margin to carry forward this time. Therefore, in the third period, the margin is calculated solely by reference to sales less purchases.

The negative margin may only be offset against the next Global Accounting margin. It cannot be offset against any other figure or record.

Global Accounting Records and Accounts

A business does not need to keep all the detailed records which are required under the normal MS – for instance, you do not have to maintain a detailed stock book.

Global Accounting records do not have to be kept in any set way but they must be complete, up to date and clearly distinguishable from any other records. A business must keep records of purchases and sales as set out below, together with the workings used to calculate the VAT due.

If HMRC cannot check the margins declared from the records, VAT will be due on the full selling price of the goods sold, even if they were otherwise eligible for the scheme.

Buying goods under Global Accounting

When a business buys goods which it intends to sell under Global Accounting it must:

check that the goods are eligible for Global Accounting
obtain a purchase invoice. If a business buys from a private individual or an unregistered entity, the purchaser should make out the invoice at the time the goods are purchased. If purchased from another VAT-registered dealer, the dealer must make out the invoice at the time of sale, and
enter the purchase details of the goods in your Global Accounting purchase records. The purchase price must be the price on the invoice which has been agreed between you and the seller.

You cannot use the scheme if VAT is shown separately on the invoice.

If you are buying from a private individual or an unregistered business, you must make out the purchase invoice yourself.

When selling goods under Global Accounting

If the purchase conditions above apply, Global Accounting may be used when the goods are sold by:

recording the sale in the usual way
issuing a sales invoice for sales to other VAT-registered dealers and keeping a copy of the invoice, and
transferring totals of copy invoices to the Global Accounting sales record or summary
you must be able to distinguish at the point of sale between sales made under Global Accounting and other types of transaction

Leaving the scheme

If a business stops using Global Accounting for any reason, it must make a closing adjustment to take account of purchases for which it has taken credit, but which have not been sold (closing stock on hand). The adjustment required does not apply if the total VAT due on stock on hand is £1,000 or less. In the final period for which the business uses the scheme, it must add the purchase value of its closing stock to the sales figure for that period. In this way VAT will be paid (at cost price) on the stock for which the business previously had credit under the scheme.

Items sold outside the scheme

If goods are sold which had been included in a business’ Global Accounting purchase (for example, they are exported), a business must adjust its records accordingly. This is done by subtracting the purchase value of the goods sold outside the scheme from the total purchases at the end of the period.

Stolen or destroyed goods

If a business loses any goods through breakage, theft or destruction, it must subtract their purchase price from your Global Accounting purchase record.

Repairs and restoration costs

A business may reclaim the VAT it is charged on any business overheads, repairs, restoration costs, etc. But it must not add any of these costs to the purchase price of the goods sold under the scheme.

For further advice on any global accounting, used goods schemes, or any other special VAT schemes please contact me.

VAT Inspections …and how to survive them

By Marcus Ward 5 January 2022

VAT Inspections

The first point to make is that inspections are usually quite standard and routine and generally there is nothing to worry about. They are hardly enjoyable occasions, but with planning they can be made to go as smoothly as possible. As an inspector in my previous life, I am in a good position to look at the process from “both sides”. If you are concerned that the inspection is not routine (for any reason) please contact us immediately.

Background

Typically, the initial meeting will begin with an interview with the business owner (and/or adviser) to go through the basic facts. The inspector will seek to understand the business and how it operates and will usually assess the answers with specific tests (further tests will be applied to the records). After the interview the inspector(s) will examine the records and will usually have further queries on these. More often than not they will carry out; bank reconciliations, cash reconciliations, mark-up exercises, and often “references” which are the testing of transactions using information obtained from suppliers and customers. There are many other exercises that may be carried out depending on the type of business. Larger businesses have more regular inspections where one part of the business is looked at each meeting. The largest businesses have more or less perpetual inspections (as one would expect). The length of the inspection usually depends on:

Size of the business
Complexity of the business
Type of business (HMRC often target; cash businesses, the construction industry, property investment, partially exempt businesses, charities and NFP entities, cross-border transactions and financial services providers amongst others)
Compliance history
Associated/past businesses
Intelligence received
Errors found
Credibility of the business owner and records

The above measurements will also dictate how often a business is inspected.

More details on certain inspections/investigations here

The initial inspection may be followed by subsequent meetings if required, although HMRC state that they aim is to conclude matters at the time of the first meeting.

The inspection – how to prepare

Ensure that both the person who completes the VAT returns and the person who signs the VAT returns will be available for all of the day(s) selected
Arrange with your adviser, to be available to you and the inspector on the days of the inspection
Thoroughly review your VAT declarations and have ready, if relevant, any disclosures or other declarations you consider you need to make to HMRC at the start of the inspection (this should avoid penalties)
Have available all VAT returns and working papers for the last four years or the period since you were registered for VAT including:
- Annual accounts
- The VAT account and all related working papers
- All books and accounts, cashbook, petty cashbook, sales and purchases day books
- Sales and purchase invoices
- All supporting documentation, eg; contracts, correspondence, etc.
- Bank statements
- VAT certificate and certificate of registration
- Any other documentation relating to “taxable supplies”
Have available the full VAT correspondence files ensuring that they are fully up-to-date
Ensure you have full information on any; one-off, unusual or particularly high value transactions

The inspection – during the visit

Ask the inspector(s) to identify themselves by name on arrival (they carry identity cards)
Be polite, friendly and hospitable as far as possible
Make a desk or space available for them to work near to you – in this way you can oversee/overlook what they do
Only allow access to the files that form part of your “VAT Records”
Enable the VAT inspector, if they ask, to inspect your business premises (and have someone accompany them)
Be cautious with your answers to seemingly “innocent” questions and comments. If in doubt ask for time to check, or that the question be put in writing (never guess or provide an answer which you think HMRC want)
If something inconsistent is found (or suggested) ask for full details and take note of all of the documentation to which the query relates – this will enable you to provide necessary information to your adviser

The inspection – at the end of the visit

The inspector should:

Explain the main work they have done. For example which VAT accounting periods they reviewed
Explain any areas of concern they have, discuss them and seek to agree any future action that needs to be taken; and
Illustrate as fully as possible the size and reason for any adjustment to the VAT payable, and describe how the adjustment will be made

You should:

Obtain a summary of the inspection from HMRC (not always an easy task)
Ask the inspector to put all of HMRC’s concerns about your business to you in writing
Confirm with the inspector all time limits for providing additional information to HMRC

After the inspection

HMRC will write to you confirming:

Any issues identified
Further information required
Improvements required to record keeping
Any corrections required
Whether VAT has been over or under paid
Any penalties and interest which will be levied
Deadlines for payment.

On a final point: Never simply assume that the inspector is correct in his/her decision. It always pays to seek advice and challenge the decision where possible. Even if it is clear that an error has been made, mitigation may be possible.

We can provide a pre-inspection review as well as attending inspections if required. It is quite often the case that many HMRC enquiries may be nipped in the bud at the time of the inspection rather than becoming long drawn out sagas. We can also act as negotiator with HMRC and handle disputes on your behalf.

VAT: DIY housebuilders can make more than one claim – The Ellis case

By Marcus Ward 18 October 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Andrew Ellis and Jane Bromley [2021] TC08277, the issue was whether a person constructing their own house can make more than one claim for VAT incurred.

Background

The DIY Housebuilder’s Scheme enables a DIY housebuilder to recover VAT incurred on the construction of a house in which the constructor will live. Details here.

In this case, the specific issue was whether, despite the HMRC guidance notes on the scheme claim form explicitly stating that only one claim can be made, whether two claims may be submitted and paid by the respondent.

The appellant constructed a house over a period of five years (he was a jobbing builder and the work was generally only undertaken at weekends and holidays). To aid cash flow, an initial claim was made, followed by a second two years later.

The relevant legislation is The VAT Act 1994 section 35.

Decision

The appeal was allowed. The FTT found that HMRC’s rule that only one claim could be made under the DIY housebuilder’s scheme was ultra vires and that multiple claims should be permitted.

The judge stated that “…there is no express indication that only one claim may be made. Like many provisions, section 35 VATA is drafted in the singular. Drafting in the singular is an established technique to assist in clarity and to enable the proposal to be dealt with succinctly. As there is no express indication to the contrary in section 35 VATA, section 6 Interpretation Act 1978 applies to confirm that the reference to “a claim” in section 35 VATA must be read as including “claims”.

Commentary

This is good news for claimants who often must wait a number of years for a house to be built and therefore carry the VAT cost until the end of the project.

This case presumably means that it is possible to make claims as the project progresses and there is no need to wait until completion.

We await comment on this case from HMRC, but it is hoped that clarification will be forthcoming on whether the result of this case will be accepted.

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.