Tag Archives: vat-tribunal

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: Farm in business? The Babylon case

By Marcus Ward 21 September 2021

Latest from the courts

In the Upper Tribunal (UT) case of Babylon Farm Ltd (the farm) the issue was whether the appellant was in business and consequently was able to recover certain input tax.

Background

Yet another case on whether there was any business activity in a company. Please see here, here, here and here for previous cases on this issue. The farm sold hay which it cut from another person’s fields to a connected party. The value of the one-off annual sale was £440 pa. The appellant also contended that it was also undertaking preparatory acts for the new business activities and that it would be able to levy management charges. Another new business activity was the creation of an investment and insurance product.

The farm built a new barn on which it claimed input tax of £19,760.

HMRC considered that no business was being carried on and decided to deregister the farm thus refusing to pay the input tax claim. The farm challenged this decision and contended that taxable supplies were being made, and there was also an intention to make taxable supplies in the future.

Legislation

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 of the VAT Act 1994 requires HMRC to be satisfied that a person is either making taxable supplies or is carrying on a business and intends to make such supplies in the course or furtherance of a business in order to be registered for VAT. There are a number of tests set out in case law (mainly The Lord Fisher case) to establish whether a person is in business:

Is the activity a serious undertaking earnestly pursued?
Is the activity an occupation or function, which is actively pursued with reasonable or recognisable continuity?
Does the activity have a certain measure of substance in terms of the quarterly or annual value of taxable supplies made?
Is the activity conducted in a regular manner and on sound and recognised business principles?
Is the activity predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for a consideration?
Are the taxable supplies that are being made of a kind which, subject to differences of detail, are commonly made by those who seek to profit from them?

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The farm was not in business and could not recover input tax on the costs of the new barn.

The judge stated that he could see no legal basis for the farm to be in business. The hay that the farm sold was taken from the customer’s own land and therefore belonged to him already. It was also noted that no invoices were raised, no payment for the hay had been made for a number of years and the single customer was a director of Babylon Farm Limited so the farm was not operating in an open market. The sale of hay had not been conducted on a basis that followed sound and recognised business principles or on a basis that was predominantly concerned with the making of taxable supplies for consideration. As a consequence, the farm was not operating as a business during the relevant period.

On the intention point; neither of the intended activities had yet resulted in any chargeable services being provided and both were to be carried on through companies that had been formed for these purposes (not the farm). Both businesses remained at a formative stage and neither company has generated any revenue. This was insufficient to retain the VAT registration.

Commentary

The decision was hardly a surprise and one wonders how it reached the UT. HMRC were always going to challenge an input tax claim of that quantum with no output tax (and such a low value of sales which may not have been made in any event).

VAT: Report on Tax Tribunal performance published

By Marcus Ward 7 September 2021

A new report reviewing the performance of the Tax Chamber of the First-tier Tribunals (FTT) has been published. It identifies the FTT’s strengths and areas for improvement It has been published by the independent the Tax Law Review Committee (TLRC)

The major causes of dissatisfaction among FTT users include:

delay
lack of communication by the FTT administration
a lack of engagement by some judges during the hearing
the allocation of cases to judges with the appropriate knowledge or skill.

Delay is the overriding concern among tribunal users surveyed: both delay between the hearing and the release of the decision (which sometimes is over one year) and delay caused by the FTT administration. Especially in relation to the FTT administration, the underlying cause of these problem seems to be a lack of funding, as there is a rapid staff-turnover with staff leaving for better renumerated jobs in other parts of the Civil Service.

Area of strength:

how litigants in person are often assisted by judges taking an inquisitorial approach.

The report identifies potential for further improvements to access to justice for litigants in person, including allowing remote video-hearings as an alternative to having cases determined on paper without a hearing, and the possible establishment of a pro-bono advocacy scheme.

VAT: Construction of a dwelling – zero-rated? The CMJ (Aberdeen) case

By Marcus Ward 18 August 2021

Latest from the courts

The First-Tier tribunal (FTT) considered the case of CMJ (Aberdeen) Limited (CMJ) and whether the supply of building services in respect of the construction of a dwelling were correctly zero rated by the appellant. HMRC deemed that the construction services were standard rated on the basis that the works were not carried out in accordance with the terms of the relevant statutory planning consent.

Background

HMRC’s view was that, although planning consent was in place at the time the construction services were supplied by the appellant, that planning consent permitted only the alteration or enlargement of a dwelling and did not allow for the construction of a dwelling. HMRC accept that the property was constructed as a new building, but that this was not permitted by the planning consent and so the construction was not carried out in accordance with it.

CMJ contended that statutory planning consent had been obtained for the construction via a combination of the planning consent and a construction building warrant which it had obtained from the relevant authority, and which allowed for the construction of a new building.

Legislation

The zero rating for the construction of new dwellings is contained in The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5, item 2

“The supply in the course of the construction of

(a) a building designed as a dwelling…”

Note 2 to Group 5 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act include the following:

“(2) A building is designed as a dwelling or a number of dwellings where in relation to each dwelling the following conditions are satisfied…

…(d) statutory planning consent has been granted in respect of that dwelling and its construction or conversion has been carried out in accordance with that consent.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. It was judged that the building warrant did not comprise statutory planning consent for the purposes of note 2 (d) because:

Planning consent and building warrants operate under different statutory regimes.

Breach of planning consent is dealt with separately from a breach of the building warrant legislation, and each is dealt with by the specific statutory regime . If there is a breach of planning consent, it would not affect the validity of the building warrant, and vice versa.

The Building Standards Handbook states that the purpose of the building standards system is setting out the standards to be met when building work takes place. This is different from planning consent which is consent to allow the authority to permit development on a piece of land. They are distinct and separate regimes aimed at distinct and separate issues. While planning permission is about how the house will look, a building warrant is about whether it meets building standards.

Both planning permission and a building warrant is required. One is no substitute for the other.

It is possible to obtain retrospective planning consent, the judge did not believe it is possible to get a retrospective building warrant.

It was not possible to carry out works of construction in accordance with a valid statutory consent, since no such consent had been given for construction at the time that the building works were carried out.

Commentary

The legislation covering building work is complex and there are many traps for the unwary. Even the seemingly straightforward matter of whether a new dwelling is constructed can produce difficulties, as in this case. We always counsel that proper VAT advice is sought in such circumstances.

VAT: Day-care services by private bodies are taxable

By Marcus Ward 22 June 2021

Latest from the courts

Following the Supreme Court decisions in Life Services Ltd and The Learning Centre (Romford) Ltd HMRC have published guidance in Revenue & Customs Brief 9 (2021).

NB: This guidance applies to bodies in England and Wales only – Scotland and Northern Ireland have different rules.

The relevant cases concerned the VAT liability of day-care services provided by private bodies to vulnerable adults in England. They confirmed that HMRC’s interpretation of the legislation is correct; that providers of day-care must be charities, public bodies or regulated by the relevant authority (“approved, licensed, registered or exempted from registration by any Minister or other authority pursuant to a provision of a public general Act”) in order to be able to exempt these services.

The legislation is: The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, group 7, item 9.

It is understood that there were a significant number of claims stood behind the Supreme Court cases and these will now fail.

HMRC state that providers who have not accounted for VAT on supply of these services must do so with immediate effect.

Commentary

This is a further example of the VAT complexity in the provision of health and welfare services. It has always been an area ripe for disputes and such bodies and their advisers would be prudent to review the tax treatment of their supplies. There are usually two discrete areas of potential problems; whether services are business or non-business, and if business – do they fall within the various exemptions found at Schedule 9, group 7, items 1 to 11.

VAT: Input tax recovery – whether a taxable supply. The Door Specialist case

By Marcus Ward 9 June 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal case of The Door Specialist Limited (TDSL) the issue was whether an HMRC assessment for overclaimed input tax was correct.

Background

The appellant recovered input tax on the import of goods (doors). The company did not sell the doors, but simply gave the goods (no consideration provided) to a separate company called Just Doors (JD). It was JD who made the sales of the doors to third party customers. TDSL and JD were under common ownership but no VAT group in place at the relevant time. TDSL was VAT registered as it made separate, unrelated taxable supplies of property rental

Arguments

HMRC contended that as there was no onward taxable supply of the doors by TDSL, no input tax was recoverable per The VAT Act 1994 section 24 (1). TDSL relied on HMRC’s published guidance (Notices 700 and 700/7) in relation to gifts and proposed that it would be proper to assess for output tax on the “supply” to JD rather than denying the input tax claim.

Issues

The issues may therefore be summarised as whether;

the relevant goods were used for the purpose of any economic activity by TDSL
the doors could be treated as business gifts as contended by the applicant such that the input tax was recoverable.

Further cases on economic activity/business here, here and here

Decision

It was decided that as there was no direct and immediate link between the purchase of the goods and any onward taxable supply in the course of business or economic activity by TDSL (as required by the outcome of the cases of BAA Ltd JDI International Leasing Ltd) the disallowance of the input tax was appropriate. The advancement of the business gifts contention did not assist the taxpayer as this was not an economic activity in itself. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Commentary

A clear example of not considering the VAT implications when carrying out transactions. This tax cost could have easily been avoided if TDSL had sold the doors to JD. As both parties were fully taxable, there would have been no VAT hit. Business gifts and promotional activities are also often a complex area of VAT and as one former colleague once remarked “If you have a marketing department you have a VAT issue”.

VAT: What is open market value? The Jupiter case

By Marcus Ward 11 May 2021

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier tribunal (FTT) case of Jupiter Asset Management Group Ltd the issue was the value of management services to an associated third party VAT group.

Background

The value is important because if HMRC believe that a supply between two connected parties (as defined by The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Section 839) is undervalue and the recipient cannot recover the relevant input tax in full, it is permitted via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 6, PART 2, para 1 (1) to substitute open market value (OMV) by way of a Notice.

This paragraph is specifically intended to counter tax avoidance. If a supply between connected persons is made below open market value for a legitimate reason that the trader can substantiate, and which is unconnected with avoidance HMRC has the discretion not to issue a Notice. In Jupiter, HMRC directed that OMV be used to calculate the charge as it considered that value was too low and issued an assessment for underdeclared output tax.

Decision

In the absence of comparable supplies, OMV was to be determined by reference to:

the full cost of making the supplies;
the full cost included the costs incurred on goods and services used in making the supplies and general overhead costs the input tax in respect of which had been recovered
the remuneration paid to the executive directors to the extent that that remuneration related to activities performed by the executive directors in making the supplies of the management services

Consequently, the appeal against the output tax assessment was dismissed.

Commentary

An expected outcome, but ne which emphasises that care should be taken with transactions between connected parties, management charges and inter-company charges in general. This is even more relevant since the decision in the Norseman Gold plc case

VAT: Education and catering – University Of Southampton Students’ Union case

By Marcus Ward 6 November 2020

Latest from the courts

In the University Of Southampton Students’ Union (USSU) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was the VAT treatment of supplies of hot food and coffee; whether the appellant was an eligible institution making principal supplies of education or vocational training and/or whether supplies of hot food and coffee closely related to such principal supplies.

Background

USSU argued that both the supply of hot food and coffee by the USSU shop are exempt via The VAT Act 1994 Schedule 9, group 6, Item 4(a) and note 1(e) as supplies made by an eligible body which makes principal supplies of vocational training, and which are closely related to the (exempt) principal supply of education by the University of Southampton or vocational training by USSU. In the alternative, exemption applies for matters closely related to supplies of education by a third party via a published HMRC concession (and its supplies were within HMRC’s conditions for such a concession).

HMRC disagreed and claimed that these supplies were not closely related to education and that USSU was not an eligible body (no ring fencing of the profits such that they were not necessarily reinvested in its own supplies of education). Therefore, the supplies were properly taxable, and they declined to pay the appellant’s claim of overpaid output tax. The respondent also cited the Loughborough Students’ UnionUpper Tribunal (UT) case.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed for the following reasons:

USSU did not satisfy the definition of vocational training
the supplies of hot food and coffee were not closely related to a supply of education or vocational training
USSU did not satisfy the definition of an “eligible body”

Commentary

Superficially, the claim seemed good. Para 5.5 of PN 709/1 states: “If you’re a student union and you’re supplying catering (including hot takeaway food) to students both on behalf, and with the agreement, of the parent institution, as a concession you can treat your supplies in the same way as the parent institution itself. This means that you can treat your supplies as exempt when made by unions at universities.. This means that most supplies of food and drink made by the union, where the food is sold for consumption in the course of catering will be exempt… For example, food and drink sold from canteens, refectories and other catering outlets (excluding bars), plus food and drink sold from vending machines situated in canteens and similar areas.”

However, the Notice then goes on to add “But it does not cover food and drink sold from campus shops, bars, tuck shops, other similar outlets and certain vending machines…”

This appeal looks a close-run thing, but it demonstrates that small differences in detail can produce different VAT outcomes. We urge all Student Unions and other entities “attached” to education providers to review their position.

VAT – Latest on the coronavirus position

By Marcus Ward 23 March 2020

Update

Clearly VAT is not high on people’s agendas at the moment, but it may be a concern if a business is struggling to pay it in these difficult times.

The government has announced that, along with other measures to reassure and assist business, an easement for paying VAT due. Taxpayers may now defer VAT payments.

Measures

The details:

the next quarter’s VAT has been deferred to the end of the tax year
no business will pay any from now until the end of June
all UK businesses are eligible
the deferral does not cover payments due under the VAT MOSS scheme
no penalties or interest will be due on the tax deferred under these measures
this represents a circa £30 billion cash boost for business
unlike some other countries, the deadline to submit returns has not been deferred – which is unfortunate given the virus’ effect on staff and administrative processes
additional resources have been allocated to deal with time to pay (TTP) applications
the regular inspection of businesses has been suspended until further notice
there has been no announcement on the temporary reduction of VAT rates – but this may happen in the near future
all proceedings in UK First Tier Tribunal (FTT) are stayed for 28 days

Access to the scheme

This is an automatic offer with no applications required. Businesses will not need to make a VAT payment during this period. Taxpayers will be given until the end of the 2020 to 2021 tax year to pay any liabilities that have accumulated during the deferral period. VAT refunds and reclaims will be paid by HMRC as normal.

Businesses who normally pay by direct debit should cancel their direct debit with their bank if they are unable to pay. This must be done in sufficient time so that HMRC do not attempt to automatically collect on receipt of a submitted VAT return.

Commentary

These are very welcome easements for business and the speed and clarity of the statements are very welcomed and should be commended.

VAT: What’s a TOGC (and what’s not)? – The General Distribution Storage case

By Marcus Ward 7 October 2019

Latest from the courts

A Transfer of a Going Concern (TOGC) is an area of VAT which produces a lot of issues and is a subject which is returned to on a regular basis in the courts. The General Distribution Storage Ltd (GDSL) First Tier Tribunal (FTT) TC 07352 [2019] case provides a warning that getting it wrong can be costly.

Background

The appellant owned the freehold of a commercial property. This property was rented to a third party. Subsequently, the property was sold with the benefit of the existing lease, to Hartlone Scaffolding Ltd (HSL). Output tax was charged and paid on the value of the sale as the property was subject to an option to tax. HSL also opted to tax before the date of completion. On the same day, HSL sold on the property to Foundry Investments Ltd (FIL) and again, VAT was charged and paid.

FIL made a claim for the input tax charged which caused a pre-credibility enquiry from HMRC. During the inspection, HMRC noted that, although GDSL had charged VAT, it had neither declared, nor paid the VAT to HMRC. An assessment was issued to recover this output tax.

The appellant claimed that no VAT was due because the sale of the tenanted building qualified as a VAT free TOGC, ie; it was not a taxable sale of an opted commercial property, but rather, it was the sale of a property letting business which was a going concern.

Technical

TOGC provisions

Normally the sale of the assets of a VAT registered business will be subject to VAT at the appropriate rate. A TOGC, however is the sale of a business including assets which must be treated as a matter of law, as “neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services” by virtue of meeting certain conditions (summarised below). It is always the seller who is responsible for applying the correct VAT treatment. Transfer Of a Going Concern treatment is not optional. A sale is either a TOGC or it isn’t. It is a rare situation in that the VAT treatment depends on; what the purchaser’s intentions are, what the seller is told, and what the purchaser actually does. All this being outside the seller’s control. Full details of TOGCs here.

TOGC Conditions

The conditions for VAT free treatment of a TOGC:

The assets must be sold as a business, or part of a business, as a going concern
The assets must be used by the transferee in carrying on the same kind of business, whether or not as part of any existing business, as that carried on by the transferor in relation to that part (HMRC guidance uses the words “intend to use…” which, in some cases may provide additional comfort)
There must be no break in trading
Where the seller is a taxable person (VAT registered) the purchaser must be a taxable person already or immediately become, as a result of the transfer, a taxable person
Where only part of a business is sold it must be capable of separate operation
There must not be a series of immediately consecutive transfers

Where the transfer includes property which is standard-rated, either because the seller has opted to tax it or because it is a ‘new’ or uncompleted commercial building the purchaser must opt to tax the property and notify this to HMRC no later than the date of the supply.

Please note that the above list has been compiled for this article from; the legislation, HMRC guidance and case law. Specific advice must be sought.

Decision

It was decided that TOGC could not apply in these circumstances. The buyer, HSL, at the time of the sale, could not have intended to carry on the property letting business as it immediately sold on the freehold (at a profit) on the same day. As above, TOGC treatment does not apply if there is a “series of immediately consecutive transfers”. The appeal was consequently dismissed, and output tax was therefore properly due.

Commentary

This appears to have been the only available conclusion. It illustrates the importance of considering VAT whenever a supply of property is made. It is unclear why VAT was initially charged and why this was not declared to HMRC (and it if was thought a TOGC, why the VAT position was not subsequently corrected by the issue of a VAT only credit note). This is a complex area of the tax and an easy issue to miss when there are a considerable number of other factors to consider when a business (or property) is sold. Extensive case law (example here and changes to HMRC policy here ) insists that there is often a dichotomy between a commercial interpretation of a going concern and HMRC’s view.

Contracts are important in most TOGC cases, so it really pays to review them from a VAT perspective.

I very strongly advise that specialist advice is obtained in cases where a business, or property is sold. Yes, I know I would say that!