Tag Archives: VAT-option-to-tax

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.