Tag Archives: vat-planning

VAT – Treatment of used pre-registration assets

By   9 November 2016
0

New HMRC Publication: Brief 16/2016

HMRC has clarified its position on the claim of input tax relating to assets used by a business prior to VAT registration.  HMRC had previously, in some circumstances, sought to disallow an element of such input tax. They now accept that input tax incurred on fixed assets purchased within four years of the Effective Date of Registration (EDR) is recoverable in full, providing the assets are still in use by the business at the time of EDR. HMRC state that there has been no change of policy on this matter, however, experience insists that that there have been cases where they have sought to limit the amount of VAT claimable prior to registration.  This brings the VAT treatment into line with what many advisers always thought the position to be.

Background

UK legislation permits businesses which have become VAT registered to recover tax incurred on goods and services purchased before their EDR. This is so as long as the purchases are used in taxable activities post EDR. The “simplified” rules are now:

  • Services

Services must have been received less than six months before the EDR for VAT to be deductible. This excludes services that have been supplied onwards pre EDR. There may be a restriction to VAT recovery if a business is partly exempt. A guide to partial exemption here

  • Goods

Input tax incurred on goods which were purchased within four years of EDR and are still on hand at the time of EDR may be recovered in full (subject to any partial exemption restriction). Input tax on goods which were consumed or sold prior to EDR do not qualify for recovery.  This rule also applies to fixed assets.

Please contact us if your business, or that of your clients have been the subject of a disallowance of input tax in these circumstances.

VAT Latest from the courts – exemption for sporting facilities by an eligible body

By   8 November 2016
0

St Andrew’s College, Bradfield

This Upper Tribunal case demonstrates the importance of getting the structure right. Full case here

Overview

Exemption exists for an eligible body making certain supplies of sporting services.

Background

St Andrew’s College is a boarding school and a registered charity.  It is the representative member of a VAT group which also included two subsidiary companies. The companies provided facilities for playing sport and the group intended to treat these as exempt supplies.  HMRC challenged the intended treatment on the basis that the subsidiaries did not qualify as eligible bodies via VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 10 (exemption related to sport, sports competitions and physical education). It was agreed that all of the other criteria were met, so the case turned on the definition of an eligible body.  It was common ground that the College, as an educational charity, was itself an eligible body. Even though, as the representative member of the VAT group, the College was treated as making all supplies actually made by the subsidiaries, that did not mean that the supplies were exempt.

Decision

In order to be regarded as an eligible body the subsidiaries were required to be a non-profit making body.  What was relevant here was whether the subsidiaries (themselves) had specific restrictions on their ability to distribute any profit that they made.  The UT formed the view that there was no specific restriction and that although profits were only covenanted up to the College this was insufficient to meet the test in Group 10 Note (2A).  It was also found that the deeds of covenant did not, of themselves, establish that the subsidiaries could make distributions only to non-profit making bodies.

Consequently, the subsidiaries failed to qualify for exemption and that the First Tier Tribunal correctly found that output tax was due on the income from provision of sporting facilities.

Commentary

This case highlights the importance of putting in place a correct structure and to ensure that it reflects the intention of the supplier.  One may see that in this scenario it would have been relatively simple to arrange matters to accurately reflect the aims of the group.  Care would have been required in drafting documentation etc as matters stood, or rearranging the supply chain.

It should also be noted that there are specific anti-avoidance provisions in place for certain suppliers of sporting services (although not in issue here). Advice should be taken at an early stage in planning to ensure that if exemption is desired, that it is achieved if possible.

VAT Latest from the courts – more on agent or principal

By   2 November 2016
0

Whether a business acts as agent or principal in respect of hotel accommodation

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Hotels4U.com Limited (H4U) further consideration was given to the relationship of parties in travel/accommodation services.  This follows on from the recent Supreme Court case of Secret Hotels 2 Ltd which we considered here

Background

H4U entered into contracts with suppliers of hotel rooms and displayed details of the hotels on its website. Travellers and travel agents are able to book online, pay a deposit and receive a voucher which enabled them to occupy the relevant accommodation when presented to the hotel.

The FTT was required to decide whether H4U was acting as agent or principal in respect of these supplies made to travellers and travel agents.  If acting as principal, output tax would be due via the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS).  If acting as agent, the place of supply (POS) would be outside the UK and no UK VAT would be due.  We are aware that many of our clients are in a similar position so this decision will be important to them.

Decision

H4U contended that that its position was indistinguishable from the Secret Hotels 2 Ltd case such that it should be regarded as an agent.  The FTT upheld this contention for most of the relevant transactions (based on contracts which contained sufficient evidence to enable the Tribunal to reach a decision in UK law) so H4U could be seen as acting as agent.  H4U also argued that HMRC’s intention to seek a reference to the CJEU in respect of the interpretation of the EU Principal VAT Directive Article 306 on the meaning of “acting solely as an intermediary”’ (whether that is different from an agent in English law) was an attempt to re-argue the matter before the CJEU and should be resisted. The FTT stated that it was only considering the position under UK law.

Commentary

We understand that there are a number of similar ongoing appeals and this decision may be of benefit to them.  It also underlines the fact that documentation, and how each party acts, is important in determining the relationship.  No one piece of evidence on its own may be decisive but goes to form part of the overall picture.  As always in agent/principal cases, it is crucial that the documentation accurately represents the actual transaction.  Contracts can play a big part, as can the Terms & Conditions and wording on websites and advertisements.  Broadly, as a starting point, it must be clear to the customer that an agent is acting on behalf of a named principal; without this information, HMRC will likely form the view that there is no agency arrangement and that the “intermediary” party is acting as an undisclosed agent (for all intents and purposes acting as principal).  This means that any supply would be seen to be made to, and by the agent, such that (in this case) output tax would be due using TOMS.

Action

We shall have to wait and see whether HMRC is successful in making a reference on the possible distinction between the meaning of agent in UK and EC law.

In the meantime, any businesses which are involved in agency/principal relationships, not just in the travel field, may benefit from taking advice on whether their arrangements are affected by these two cases and whether there may be value in putting planning in place.

VAT – Cash businesses: Investigations

By   25 October 2016
0

HMRC’s methods of establishing underdeclarations

HMRC have always taken interest in cash businesses as they see them as a revenue risk.  We have heard, anecdotally, that there is an ongoing campaign to target cash businesses which HMRC suspect are under-declaring takings. Such businesses are usually retail and commonly restaurants and take aways (which I shall use as an example in this article).  A retail business is obliged to keep certain records.  For sales, this is a record of daily gross takings (DGT) and this is the area I will focus on as it is where “suppression” of income generally occurs.  In a very crude example, the owner, or a member of staff does not ring up a sale and the payment is pocketed.  There are more sophisticated ways in which suppression occurs, but this is the most common.

Even in this day and age where most payments are made by credit or debit cards, there is still significant scope for declarations to be inaccurate.

The methods

There are a number of ways in which HMRC can determine the accuracy of VAT declarations.  These may be from the usual bank and accounts reconciliations, mark up exercises, to, say, counting take-away containers to build up a picture of the turnover.  The following are also ways in which HMRC test the credibility of declarations:

  • Compliance checks

These usually take place in the evenings when a restaurant is open for business (or soon after it closes). Officers gain entrance, question staff, examine records for that and previous days, and remove certain records. From this information they can build up a picture of trading.  These visits are usually unannounced.

  • Invigilation exercise

HMRC observe how the business operates and check that all sales of food and drinks are rung into the till. This is usually with the agreement of the business.

  • Test meals

HMRC staff will purchase a test meal and at a later time check to see if it has been recorded correctly.  It may be that this method will be repeated at a suspect restaurant by different HMRC staff, perhaps in the same evening.  If any of the sales are not recorded correctly, it may be insufficient in itself to create an assessment, but it will confirm suspicions of suppression and lead to further action.

  • Observation

While posing as customers, HMRC will also count the number of covers, the amount of take aways, the number of staff, how orders are taken and paid for, and how payments are made.

  • Surveillance

Members of HMRC staff park outside a restaurant (usually in an unmarked van) and watch the activities of the restaurant.  They count the number of people dining and the numbers of people exiting with take aways. This observation may also record the number of deliveries and other relevant information that they are able to obtain from what they can see.  This exercise may be carried out over a number of days/nights or even weeks.

  • Purchases

In more complex suppression, the value of purchases may also be suppressed in order to present a more credible picture to an inspector.  This may be more common if the purchases are zero rated food (on which the business would not claim input tax). HMRC may attempt to build up a picture of sales by the volume of actual purchases made.  They often check the restaurant’s suppliers’ records to get a full picture of trade.

Information obtained by one of the above methods may, on its own, be insufficient to raise an assessment, but combined with information obtained in different ways will more often than not result in one (should the exercises demonstrate an under-declaration of course).

Taxpayer’s rights

Attendance

HMRC do not have the right to attend a taxpayer’s premises at any time.  The law says that inspections may be carried out “at any reasonable time”. This means that that if a business owner is busy, or the time is outside normal office hours, or there is not access to all of the relevant information, or the request is unreasonable for any other reason, the business owner (or his adviser) may request that an inspector leaves and makes an appointment at a future reasonable time.  This is sometimes easier to do in theory than in practice, but a taxpayer’s rights are set out in The Finance Act 2009, Schedule 36, part II.

A business has no right to refuse a “regular” inspection but these are arranged for an agreed time in any case.

Records

The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 11 states that the requirement to produce records is limited to being provided at such time as HMRC “may reasonably require”. So, again, if HMRC are making demands that a business feels are unreasonable, it is within its rights to refuse to allow access and to make a mutually agreed and acceptable appointment to allow access to premises and records.  This may lead to a discussion, but HMRC do not have unfettered rights to access premises or records.

Best judgement

Regardless of how HMRC have gathered information, any assessment must be made to the best of their judgement and must be “an honest and genuine attempt to make a reasoned assessment of the VAT payable”.   If the business is able to demonstrate that this was not the case, the assessment must be removed.  Broadly, this will entail demonstrating that things that ought to have been considered were ignored, or that things that have been included should not have been.  Generally, the most common ways to challenge an assessment based on the above exercises are; that the period considered was not representative, or not long enough to be representative, or that the tests carried out were insufficient to demonstrate a consistent pattern of trading. There are usually specific facts in each case that may be used to challenge the validity and quantum of an assessment.

Action

Of course, it is hoped that no business which makes accurate declarations is troubled by such investigations.  However, if a business feels that HMRC is being unreasonable with its demands it should seek professional advice before agreeing to permit HMRC access.

Matters change however, if HMRC have a Search Warrant or a Writ of Assistance in which case HMRC are able to compel a business to allow entry or inspection.

As always, we advise that any assessment is, at the very least, reviewed by a business’ adviser.

Latest from the courts: missing goods subject to VAT

By   13 October 2016
0
In the CJEU case of Maya Marinova the issue was whether goods which could not be located in the Bulgarian appellant’s warehouse were subject to VAT on the grounds they had been disposed of.

Background

The appellant purchased certain goods, and subsequently, at an inspection, was unable to either;

  • produce the goods , or;
  • demonstrate how they were disposed of.

The Bulgarian authorities had confirmed that the goods had been purchased from a supplier, but the purchases did not appear in the business’ purchase records. They assessed for VAT on the missing goods assuming that they had been purchased and sold off record and the output tax had not been accounted for. They employed a mark-up exercise based on similar goods sold in the appellant’s shop.

The case proceeded directly to the court without an AG’s opinion.  The matter was; whether the decision to assess offended the principle of fiscal neutrality if it were supported by national legislation (which it was here).  It was decided that in these circumstances, such action was not precluded and the assessment was basically sound.  It was stated that “… tax authorities may presume that the taxable person subsequently sold those goods to third parties and determine the taxable amount of the sale of those goods according to the factual information at hand …”.  As usual, the case was passed back to the referring court to consider whether the Bulgarian domestic legislation goes further than is necessary to ensure the correct collection of tax and to prevent evasion.

Commentary

Although the issues in this case arose from specific facts, this is not an uncommon scenario for a business.  It was hardly a surprising outcome.  In a similar position in the UK, HMRC is also very likely to form the view that if the goods are no longer on hand, then they must have been disposed of, unless evidence to the contrary is provided by a taxpayer.

Of course, there may be a genuine reason why the goods are no longer in stock, but no output tax has been declared on them.  These reasons are considered in guidance published by HMRC here and the rules mainly consider goods which have been lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed.

There are specific ways of dealing with VAT in these situations, and in fact, whether output tax is due at all.  Failure to comply with this guidance may result in an assessment being issued.   The general point is VAT is only due after a tax point has been created.  A crude example is that if goods are shoplifted from a store, there is no output tax due.  However, if the goods were sold and recorded via a till, and the money which went into the till was stolen, output tax is still due on the supply of those goods (as found in the case of G Benton [1975] VATTR 138).

As always with VAT, it is crucial to keep accurate and up to date records to evidence supplies (as well as recording the movement of stock and any discrepancies in these circumstances).  Although an inspector will need to demonstrate “best judgement” in issuing an assessment in respect of missing goods, it is obviously prudent to be able to demonstrate why the anticipated output tax has not been declared and therefore be prepared for such enquiries.

In this instant case, it was not discovered why the goods were not located in the warehouse.  It could be that there was a miscommunication between parts of the business, a simple underdeclaration of sales, staff theft, or any other hazards of business.  Even for non-tax reasons it is vital that a business’ systems are sufficiently robust to identify such occurrences and procedures are put into place to deal with them.

If you or your clients have received an assessment of this sort, it is usually worthwhile obtaining a review of the position.

VAT – Intended penalty for participating in fraud

By   3 October 2016
0

Consultation

A consultation was proposed in the 2016 Budget on the introduction of a new penalty for businesses that participate in VAT fraud. Now HMRC has announced that views are sought on; whether there is a case for a new penalty, its structure and to whom it should apply.  The intended changes will require amendment to Schedule 24 of the Finance Act 2007.  The main target of these proposed new measures is MTIC (Missing Trader Intra-Community) fraud.

Full details of the consultation paper here

Penalty principles

It may be worth reviewing HMRC’s view on the principles of applying a penalty, which they state are;

  • The penalty regime should be designed from the customer perspective, primarily to encourage compliance and prevent non-compliance. Penalties are not to be applied with the objective of raising revenues.
  • Penalties should be proportionate to the offence and may take into account past behaviour.
  • Penalties must be applied fairly, ensuring that compliant customers are (and are seen to be) in a better position than the non-compliant.
  • Penalties must provide a credible threat. If there is a penalty, we must have the operational capability and capacity to raise it accurately, and if we raise it, we must be able to collect it in a cost-efficient manner.
  • Customers should see a consistent and standardised approach. Variations will be those necessary to take into account customer behaviours and particular taxes.

Consultation Process

It may be an appropriate time to look at what the consultation process is and how it works.  This may helpfully be summarised (by HMRC) as:

There are 5 stages to tax policy development:

  • Stage 1 Setting out objectives and identifying options.
  • Stage 2 Determining the best option and developing a framework for implementation including detailed policy design.
  • Stage 3 Drafting legislation to effect the proposed change.
  • Stage 4 Implementing and monitoring the change.
  • Stage 5 Reviewing and evaluating the change.

The closing date for comments on this consultation is 11 November 2016.

Comment

Putting to one side the minor irritation of taxpayers being called customers (a bête noire of mine I’m afraid) it is difficult to argue with the above principles and any attempt to prevent or deter VAT fraud is to be welcomed, as long as it does not impact on innocent parties and HMRC apply any such penalty in an even-handed manner. As a taxpayer in a personal and business capacity, I welcome any measures that may result in my tax bill being increased to cover revenue lost to fraud!

Action

Of course, please respond to HMRC should you feel that you should make your views known.  The consultation is open to businesses, individuals, legal firms, accountants, and other interested parties.

We occasionally come across situations where innocent parties have been inadvertently been caught up in fraudulent supply chains. Please contact us for advice on planning that may be put in place to avoid this position and how we can assist if HMRC are making enquiries. As always in VAT, it always pays to be proactive to ensure that processes and structures in place are robust and are demonstrably so.

Bad Debt Relief (BDR) – Avoiding the VAT burden

By   20 September 2016
0
VAT Basics

Anything which can relieve the burden of VAT is to be welcomed. BDR is a useful tool if a business is aware of it and understand when it may be claimed.

It is at the very least frustrating when a client does not pay, and in some cases this situation can lead to the end of a business. At least the VAT charged to the client should not become a cost to a supplier.  The BDR mechanism goes some way to protect a business from payment defaulters.

Under the normal rules of VAT, a supplier is required to account for output tax, even if the supply has not been paid for (however, the use of cash accounting or certain retail schemes removes the problem of VAT on bad debts from the supplier).

There is specific relief however:

Conditions for claiming BDR

The supplier must have supplied goods or services for a consideration in money, and must have accounted for and paid VAT on the supply. All or part of the consideration must have been written off as a bad debt by making the appropriate entry in the business’ records (this does not have to be a “formal” procedure). At least six months (but not more than three years and six months) must have elapsed since the later of the date of supply or the due date for payment.

Records required

Various records and evidence must be kept (for four years from the date of claim), in particular to identify:

• The time and nature of the supply, the purchaser, and the consideration
• The amount of VAT chargeable on the supply
• The accounting period when this VAT was accounted for and paid to HMRC
• Any payment received for the supply
• Entries in the refund for bad debts account
• The accounting period in which the claim is made.

Procedure for claiming BDR

The claim is made by including the amount of the refund in Box 4 of the VAT Return for the period in which the debt becomes over six months old.

Repayment of refund

Repayment of VAT refunded is required where payment is subsequently received or where the above conditions have not been complied with.

Refund of input tax to debtor

Businesses are required to monitor the time they take to pay their suppliers, and repay input tax claimed if they have not paid the supplier within six months. Subsequent payment of all or part of the debt will allow a corresponding reclaim of input tax. This is an easy assessment for HMRC to make at inspections, so businesses should make reviewing this matter this a regular exercise.

Finally, there is tax point planning available to defer a tax point until payment is received for providers of continuous supplies of services. Please see here

Egypt introduces VAT

By   9 September 2016
0

New VAT regime in Egypt

From 8 September 2016 Egypt has introduced VAT to replace its existing sales Tax.

The standard rate for the year ending 30 June 2017 is 13% and it is anticipated the rate from 1 July 2017 will be increased to 14%.

Any business carrying out transactions with Egyptian customers, or in Egypt itself, will need to review their operations to ensure compliance with the new regime.

We can assist with such a review which will need to consider; reporting systems, documentation, processes, budgeting, and contracts etc

VAT liability of a dwelling formed from more than one building

By   6 September 2016
0

HMRC has issued a policy paper: Revenue and Customs Brief 13(2016)

This brief explains the change in policy relating to the treatment of dwellings that have been formed from either the construction of new buildings, or from the conversion of non-residential buildings into a dwelling. HMRC now accepts that single dwellings can be formed from more than one building.

Please contact us if this change affects you in relation to current, or past developments.

VAT Latest from the courts – what is an economic activity by a charity?

By   5 September 2016
0

In the VAT case of Longridge on the Thames (Longbridge) here the Court of Appeal considered previous decisions at the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and Upper Tribunal (UT) on whether Longbridge carried on an economic activity. This is an important case as it goes some way in determining the meaning of “business” in light of the term “economic activity” used in EC legislation.  The term “business” is only used in UK legislation, The Principal VAT Directive refers to “economic activity” rather than business, and since UK domestic legislation must conform to the Directive both terms must be seen as having the same meaning.  Since the very first days of VAT there have been disagreements over what constitutes a “business”. I have previously commented on this matter here 

Background

Longbridge is a charity. It uses volunteers to provide boating activities (mainly to young people) on the Thames. The fees charged by Longbridge were often at below cost and the charity relied on donations to continue its operations. It constructed a new building and sought VAT zero rating of these costs on the basis that the building was to be used for non-business purposes. Consequently, it was crucial to the relief claimed that the charity was not carrying out a business in VAT terms.  The FTT and the UT found that the charity’s “predominant concern” was not to make supplies for a consideration and therefore it was not in business. These findings were based on long standing case law, the most salient being; Lord Fisher and Morrison’s Academy Boarding Houses Association. Lord Fisher set out a series of tests which HMRC rely on to determine whether a business exists – considered here and here 

Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed HMRC’s appeal.  It decided that Longridge was carrying on an economic activity and therefore the construction of the new building could not be zero rated.  The decision is worth considering in full, however, the court held that there was a “direct link” between the fees paid and service the recipients received, even if it was subsidised in certain instances and that Longbridge was furthering its charitable objectives.  The requirement for a direct link was clearly demonstrated in The Apple and Pear Development Council case. The establishment of the direct link meant that Longridge was carrying in business (in UK law).

Commentary

The important test for whether an economic activity is being carried on is now; the direct link between payment and service. There is no longer the requirement to consider the test of “predominant concern” and in fact it was stated in the decision by the judges that this test is “unhelpful and may be misleading.” We must now ignore; the motive of the provider of the service, its status as a charity, the amount charged, whether subsidies are received by the charity, and whether volunteers are involved in the relevant activities.

This is a very big change in the analysis of whether a business exists and basically means that previous cases on this matter were wrongly decided.  It brings the UK into line with the EC on the definition of an economic activity and therefore provides clarity on this matter – which has long been an area which has desperately required it.

It means that, unless the decision is reversed at the Supreme Court, we say goodbye to the unloved Lord Fisher tests. However, this may be very bad news for charities and not for profit entities that have relied on these tests to avoid VAT registration and charging VAT on their supplies.  It is likely that many more charities will be dragged into the VAT net.  It remains to be seen whether this case will trigger a renewed targeting effort on charities by HMRC, but what is clear is that charities need to be conscious of this new turn of events and consider their position.  We strongly recommend that any bodies which have had previous discussions with HMRC on this point and any entity which is affected by this decision take professional advice immediately.