Tag Archives: VAT-option-to-tax

VAT: Revoke an option to tax after 20 years have passed – update

By   6 November 2023
0

HMRC’s Form VAT1614J has been updated. This form is used to revoke an option to tax (OTT) land or buildings for VAT purposes after 20 years have passed. There is a new address to which the form and supporting documents are sent:

BT VAT

HM Revenue and Customs

BX9 1WR

Scanned copies of the form can be emailed to: optiontotaxnationalunit@hmrc.gov.uk

 

Background: Revoking an option where more than 20 years have elapsed since it first had effect.

A business may revoke an OTT without prior permission from HMRC where more than 20 years have elapsed since the option first had effect. This is done by submitting the Form VAT1614J.

When the OTT first has effect: An OTT first had effect on the day it was exercised, or any later day that was specified when opting to tax.

Who can revoke: The relevant guidance VAT Notice 742A – which has the force of law here states that the ‘Taxpayer’ can revoke the OTT. The taxpayer is defined as the person who exercised the option to tax or is treated as making that option by virtue of a real estate election.

When the revocation will take effect: The revocation will take effect from the day that the taxpayer specifies when HMRC is notified, but this cannot be any earlier than the day on which the taxpayer notifies HMRC.

Outcomes of revoking an Option To Tax

  • any income (rent or sale) relating to the property becomes exempt
  • any input tax relating to the property is not recoverable (subject to the de minimis rules)
  • if no other taxable supplies are made a business must deregister

Revocation of option: The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10, 25(1)(a).

VAT: Was an option to tax valid? The Rolldeen Estates Ltd case

By   18 April 2023
1

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Rolldeen Estates Ltd there were a number of issues, inter alia; whether the appellant’s option to tax (OTT) was valid, if not, whether HMRC had the power to deem it valid, whether HMRC acted unreasonably and whether appellant estopped from relying on earlier meeting with an HMRC officer.

Background

The letting of property is an exempt supply, however, a landlord the owner can OTT the property and charge VAT on that supply.  If the OTT is exercised, the supplier is able to reclaim input VAT on costs such as repairs and maintenance, but charges output VAT on its supplies.  The OTT provisions are set out at The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 10.

The appellant in this case had previously submitted an OTT form VAT1614A and charged VAT on the rent to its tenant. Subsequently, the property was sold without charging VAT. HMRC issued an assessment for output tax on the sale value.

Schedule 10

A taxpayer does not need HMRC’s permission to OTT, unless that person has already made exempt supplies in relation to that property – in particular, if the property has already been let without VAT having been charged.  In that scenario, the person must apply to HMRC for permission to exercise the OTT, and permission will only be given if HMRC are satisfied that the input tax is fairly attributed as between the exempt period and the taxable period. When OTT the company stated that no previous exempt supplies of the relevant property had been made and this was also confirmed in subsequent correspondence with HMRC.

Appellant’s contentions

The company informed HMRC that the OTT was invalid so that no VAT was due on the sale. Evidence was provided which demonstrated that Rolldeen had made exempt supplies before the date of the OTT so that HMRC’s permission had therefore been required before it could be opted. No permission had been given and therefore there was no valid OTT in place even though the appellant had purported to exercise that option. Also, the appellant submitted that it was unreasonable of HMRC to have exercised the discretion to deem the OTT to have effect, because they had failed to take into account the fact that during an inspection, HMRC had known that Rolldeen had made exempt supplies before OTT.

HMRC’s view

VATA, Schedule 10, para 30 allows HMRC retrospectively to dispense with the requirement for prior permission, and to treat a “purported option as if it had instead been validly exercised”.  HMRC issued a decision stating that it was exercising its discretion under Schedule 10, para 30 to treat the relevant property as opted with effect from the date of the VAT1614A and that VAT was due on the sale and the assessment was appropriate.

Decision

The FTT found that:

  • after an inspection by HMRC it knew that prior exempt supplies had been made
  • although HMRC knew exempt supplies had already been made Rolldeen was estopped* from relying on that fact, because both parties had shared a “common assumption” that the OTT had been valid
  • para 30 could be used to retrospectively validate the OTT (albeit only in relation to supplies made after 1 June 2008).  In this case that was sufficient as the sale of the property occurred on in March 2015
  • HMRC had not acted unreasonably because they had not taken into account their own failure to carry out a compliance check
  • this is exactly the sort of situation for which para 30 was designed
  • it was entirely reasonable and appropriate of HMRC to deem the purported option to have been validly exercised

The appeal was rejected and the assessment was valid.

Commentary

Again, proof, if proof is needed, that OTT can be a complex and costly area of the tax and care must always be taken. Advice should always be sought, as once an OTT is made, there is usually no going back.

An interesting point in this case was that no case law was cited on this issue and the FTT was unable to identify any.

* The principle of “estoppel” means that a person may be prevented from relying on a particular fact or argument in certain circumstances.

VAT: Changes to the Option To Tax of land and buildings

By   11 October 2022
0

Changes to the notification process

The Option To Tax (OTT) procedure generally turns an exempt supply of land and/or property into a taxable one. More details here.

HMRC have announced, following a recent trial, that its processing of OTTs has been amended to speed up the process.

Previously, when a business submitted an OTT (Form VAT1614A) HMRC would undertake certain checks to the notification before sending an acknowledgement. Now, HMRC will simply issue a receipt confirming that the OTT notification has been received without checking it.

It was, and remains, the taxpayer’s responsibility to ensure that the OTT is valid. The change removes the deemed uncertainty where taxpayers may have believed HMRC’s acceptance of the OTT confirmed that it was valid. Of course, it also reduces HMRC’s resources in processing the notifications and should result in quicker turnarounds. It is hoped that now HMRC will process notifications within 30 working days.

Changes to OTT forms

In addition to the changes to the process of notifying an OTT, HMRC has also removed the ‘print and post’ versions of the following forms:

VAT1614B: Stop being a relevant associate to an option to tax

VAT1614E: Notification of a real estate election

These can now only be completed online. Please note the online form can still be posted but it must be completed in full before it can be printed. The form can also be emailed to optiontotaxnationalunit@hmrc.gov.uk.

VAT: New tool to check HMRC’s performance and service levels

By   21 July 2022
0

Via this service dashboard you can check current processing times and service levels for post and online requests.

The guidance sets current performance and service levels, processing dates and the date HMRC aims to return to normal service levels where there is a delay.

It currently advises:

VAT registration

Normal Service – HMRC aim to reply within 30 working days from the date the request was sent.

VAT deregistration

Normal service – HMRC aim to reply within 30 working days from the date the request was sent.

VAT – group registration application

Delayed Service

HMRC aim to return to normal service of 30 working days by the end of August 2022.

This date is an estimate and may change. HMRC say that it is sorry for the delay.

HMRC is currently processing requests received on 17 March 2022.

If you sent your request after 24 June 2022, please do not contact HMRC as it has not been processed yet.

VAT – option to tax

Delayed Service

HMRC aim to return to normal service of 30 working days by the end of August 2022.

This date is an estimate and may change. Again, HMRC say that it is sorry for the delay.

HMRC is currently processing requests received on 9 December 2021.

If you sent your request after 9 December 2021, please do not contact HMRC as it has not been processed yet.

Further, you can Check when you can expect a reply from HMRC

Is room hire subject to VAT? – The Errol Willy Salons case

By   24 January 2022
0

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Errol Willy Salons Ltd (2022) TC 08370 the issue was whether the rent of two rooms were an exempt right over land, or the standard rated supply of facilities.

Background

Room hire is usually exempt from VAT unless it is subject to an option to tax. However, it can be subsumed into a different rated another supply if something more than a “bare” room is provided. In such cases, it would follow the VAT treatment of the composite supply.

The Issue

In the Errol Willy Salons case, HMRC formed the view that what was being supplied was facilities (the room occupation being a minor part of the supply) and therefore subject to VAT. In its opinion the economic and social reality was that the beauticians were provided with a licence to trade from the premises. The appellant occupied the ground floor – operating a hairdressing business. The rooms over the saloon were rented to third party beauticians. The occupants furnished the rooms themselves, provided their own equipment, set their own pricing and opening hours. They did have use of certain services and facilities; a receptionist and toilets, but it was understood that the services were rarely used. Unsurprisingly, the appellant disagreed and contended that the other services were incidental or subsidiary to the exempt supply of the room rental.

The decision

The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the assessment. It found that “non-rent” services provided to the beauticians were limited in nature and not essential to the beauticians’ businesses Consequently, the arrangements amounted to a supply of property (a licence to occupy the rooms) rather than a supply of taxable facilities and was therefore exempt.

Commentary

This is the latest in a long line of issues on composite/separate supplies and room hire/facilities disputes, especially in relation to weddings. It is important to establish precisely what is being provided to establish the correct VAT treatment and advice should be ought if there is any doubt about the VAT liability.

The CIOT has long advocated that it is not the case that every package of supplies involving room hire and other things must be a composite supply of something other than an exempt letting of land.

NB: This case is different to hairdresser chair rentals which remain standard rated.

Oops! – Top Ten VAT howlers

By   2 November 2021
0

I am often asked what the most frequent VAT errors made by a business are. I usually reply along the lines of “a general poor understanding of VAT, considering the tax too late or just plain missing a VAT issue”.  While this is unquestionably true, a little further thought results in this top ten list of VAT horrors:

  1. Not considering that HMRC may be wrong. There is a general assumption that HMRC know what they are doing. While this is true in most cases, the complexity and fast moving nature of the tax can often catch an inspector out. Added to this is the fact that in most cases inspectors refer to HMRC guidance (which is HMRC’s interpretation of the law) rather to the legislation itself. Reference to the legislation isn’t always straightforward either, as often EC rather than UK domestic legislation is cited to support an analysis. The moral to the story is that tax is complicated for the regulator as well, and no business should feel fearful or reticent about challenging a HMRC decision.
  2. Missing a VAT issue altogether. A lot of errors are as a result of VAT not being considered at all. This is usually in relation to unusual or one-off transactions (particularly land and property or sales of businesses). Not recognising a VAT triggerpoint can result in an unexpected VAT bill, penalties and interest, plus a possible reduction of income of 20% or an added 20% in costs. Of course, one of the basic howlers is not registering at the correct time. Beware the late registration penalty, plus even more stringent penalties if HMRC consider that not registering has been done deliberately.
  3.  Not considering alternative structures. If VAT is looked at early enough, there is very often ways to avoid VAT representing a cost. Even if this is not possible, there may be ways of mitigating a VAT hit.
  4.  Assuming that all transactions with overseas customers are VAT free. There is no “one size fits all” treatment for cross border transactions. There are different rules for goods and services and a vast array of different rules for different services. The increase in trading via the internet has only added to the complexity in this area, and with new technology only likely to increase the rate of new types of supply it is crucial to consider the implications of tax; in the UK and elsewhere.
  5.  Leaving VAT planning to the last minute. VAT is time sensitive and it is not usually possible to plan retrospectively. Once an event has occurred it is normally too late to amend any transactions or structures. VAT shouldn’t wag the commercial dog, but failure to deal with it at the right time may be either a deal-breaker or a costly mistake.
  6.  Getting the option to tax wrong. Opting to tax is one area of VAT where a taxpayer has a choice. This affords the possibility of making the wrong choice, for whatever reasons. Not opting to tax when beneficial, or opting when it is detrimental can hugely impact on the profitability of a project. Not many businesses can carry the cost of, say, not being able to recover VAT on the purchase of a property, or not being able to recover input tax on a big refurbishment. Additionally, seeing expected income being reduced by 20% will usually wipe out any profit in a transaction.
  7.  Not realising a business is partly exempt. For a business, exemption is a VAT cost, not a relief. Apart from the complexity of partial exemption, a partly exempt business will not be permitted to reclaim all of the input tax it incurs and this represents an actual cost. In fact, a business which only makes exempt supplies will not be able to VAT register, so all input tax will be lost. There is a lot of planning that may be employed for partly exempt businesses and not taking advantage of this often creates additional VAT costs.
  8.  Relying on the partial exemption standard method to the business’ disadvantage. A partly exempt business has the opportunity to consider many methods to calculate irrecoverable input tax. The default method, the “standard method” often provides an unfair and costly result. I recommend that any partly exempt business obtains a review of its activities from a specialist. I have been able to save significant amounts for clients simply by agreeing an alternative partial exemption method with HMRC.
  9.  Not taking advantage of the available reliefs. There are a range of reliefs available, if one knows where to look. From Bad Debt Relief, Zero Rating (VAT nirvana!) and certain de minimis limits to charity reliefs and the Flat Rate Scheme, there are a number of easements and simplifications which could save a business money and reduce administrative and time costs.
  10.  Forgetting the impact of the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS). The range of costs covered by this scheme has been expanded recently. Broadly, VAT incurred on certain expenditure is required to be adjusted over a five or ten year period. Failure to recognise this could either result in assessments and penalties, or a position whereby input tax has been under-claimed. The CGS also “passes on” when a TOGC occurs, so extra caution is necessary in these cases.

So, you may ask: “How do I make sure that I avoid these VAT pitfalls?” – And you would be right to ask.

Of course, I would recommend that you engage a VAT specialist to help reduce the exposure to VAT costs!

VAT: Land and property – “simplification” ahead?

By   19 July 2021
0

HMRC has issued a call for evidence in respect of land exemption. HMRC acknowledges the complexity of the existing VAT rules on land and property and would like to hear views from businesses on the application of the current rules, and whether these rules could be simplified.

The application of VAT on land and property transactions is complicated. A range of different rates and exemptions can apply depending on the facts and circumstances of individual situations and the precise treatment of a transaction or project is often open to interpretation.

Complexity

The paper identifies a number of reasons why this area is extremely complicated:

  • over the years the amount of legislation has increased, and the land VAT exemption now contains fifteen exceptions and twenty-six sets of notes
  • some businesses can be required to make several separate decisions before the VAT liability of their supply can be established. Eg; once a business has established that it is supplying land (not always straightforward) it then has to consider whether that supply falls within one of the exceptions to the exemption. If it does fall within one of the exceptions, it then has to consider a number of conditions to establish whether it is excluded from that exception
  • businesses may spend a disproportionate amount of time and money to establish the correct liability of their land supplies. This can also cause additional burdens for HMRC to assure compliance of these businesses
  • the development of new markets and services that did not exist when VAT was introduced
  • the impact of precedent case law (both UK and EU)
  • the uncertainty of establishing when an exempt supply of land becomes a taxable supply of facilities

The Option to Tax

The option to tax legislation enables a business to tax some supplies of land that would otherwise be treated as exempt from VAT. The usual rationale behind making such a choice is to be able to recover the VAT incurred on costs and overheads of a business, or to meet the conditions of a Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC).

Suggestions

The document then suggests some ideas for simplification:

  • removing the ability to opt and making all relevant transactions exempt
  • removing the option to tax and making all land and property taxable at a reduced rate
  • making all commercial land and property taxable at the standard rate with an option to exempt

The first suggestion would result in many businesses incurring irrecoverable input tax which would be a direct cost, so this appears very unattractive.

The second seems a better option, but would bring new housing into the VAT net and I doubt that this would play out very well with the public.

The final suggestion would certainly simplify matters but would add VAT costs to entities which cannot recover any/all input tax, eg; charities, financial service providers, insurance companies, education bodies, health and welfare organisations and cultural services.

The document states that “The Government wants UK businesses to operate in the best possible environment and remain both productive and competitive”.

It remains to be seen whether the suggestions above (or other proposals put forward) will achieve this, but removing choices for a business (regardless of whether simplification is actually realised) is rarely a good idea and I wonder if simplification could be reached in other ways. If you have an interest in this area, please respond to this call as input is valuable for all parties.

Responses should be sent by 3 August 2021 by email to landsimplification@hmrc.gov.uk.

VAT: Is a car wash a car park? The RK Fuels Ltd case

By   26 April 2021
0

Latest from the courts

More on car parking.

In the RK Fuels Ltd First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether the lease of an area of the supplier’s petrol station to a business operating a car wash was an exempt right over land or whether it was excluded from the exemption because it was a car park (the ‘grant of facilities for parking a vehicle’ VAT Act Schedule 9, Grp. 1, Item [1] [h]) and was therefore standard rated.

Background

Although the tenant operated a car wash (and not a car park) and this was a permitted use under the commercial use agreement, the car wash was located on land used as a car park.

The appellant contended that the car park was rented to carry out the business of car washing, and this is clearly stated in the lease agreement. It is not rented as a car park to park cars. Furthermore, a VAT inspection was carried out by HMRC and the point about the rental income being exempt was raised and accepted by HMRC.

HMRC relied on, inter alia, the fact that the relevant part of the lease stated that “the landlord agrees to rent to the tenant the car park. The car park will be used for only the following permitted use (the Permitted use): as a car wash business. Neither the car park nor any part of the premises will be used at any time during the terms of this lease by the tenant for any purpose other than the permitted use.” And the fact that the appellant was permitted an alternative use of the car park to run a car wash does not cause the area to cease to be a car park, nor does it mean that it cannot be used as a car park. There is a need for cars to be parked on the land whilst waiting to be washed, dried, and cleaned. Without the ability to park a car on the land, the permitted use could not occur.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The judge found that a grant of facilities for parking vehicles was made, either expressly or by necessary implication and so was standard rated. Further, the occupation of the car park under the terms of the lease agreement is a means to enable the car wash facility to operate. The site for parking is any place where a motor vehicle may be parked. It was also found that the fact that a person may not leave a vehicle does not render a vehicle any less parked.

The fact that the land was referred to as a “car park” consistently throughout the lease agreement was always going to be a problem for the appellant.

The court went on to consider whether a licence over land had been granted. It is a long-standing principle that a central characteristic of a licence over land is the right to exclude others. As the tenant had no right to exclude others from the relevant land (because, as an example given; customers of the petrol station could park there to visit the shop) there was no exempt supply of the right over land.

Commentary

There were other subsidiary issues, namely on whether an option to tax had been made but this was redundant considering the court’s decision on the substantive point. The decision was unsurprising even considering the guidance set out in VAT Notice 742 para 4.3:

 “When a supply is of land rather than parking facilities 

If you grant an interest in, or right over or licence to occupy land in the following circumstances, your supply will be exempted, unless you have opted to tax… 

·         letting of land or buildings where any reference to parking a vehicle is incidental to the main use..”

Even if the argument could be made that the parking was incidental, as the decision was that there was not an interest in, or right over or licence to occupy land the ancillary use point fell away.

Another nail in the coffin of the appeal was that the court found that the decision in the Fareham Borough Council [2014] TC04129 (which found that the right to operate was not an exempt right over land) applied in this case.

Care should be taken when analysing the VAT treatment of a lease. It is tempting to consider that if there is a lease, and it is of land, it is sufficient to merit exemption, but this case demonstrates that further consideration must always be given.