Frozen foods are zero-rated, but ice cream, frozen yoghurt, ice lollies and sorbets are subject to standard rate VAT (although they are frozen).
Frozen foods are zero-rated, but ice cream, frozen yoghurt, ice lollies and sorbets are subject to standard rate VAT (although they are frozen).
Latest from the courts
In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Mr Mufwankolo the dispute was whether the appellant was able to recover VAT charged by the landlord of the property from which he ran his business – a licenced retail outlet on Tottenham High Road.
Background
The landlord had opted to tax the commercial property and charged VAT on the rent. The appellant was a sole proprietor; however, the lease was in the name of Mr Mufwankolo’s wife, and the rent demands showed her name and not that of the sole proprietor. It was contended by the appellant, but not evidenced, that the lease had originally been in both his and his wife’s names, despite his wife being the sole signatory.
The issues
Could the appellant recover input tax?
It was clear that the business operated from the relevant property and consequently, in normal circumstances, the rent would be a genuine cost component of the business.
The Decision
The FTT found that there was no entitlement to an input tax claim and the appeal was dismissed. The lease was solely in the wife’s name and the business was the applicant as a sole proprietor. (There was an obvious potential for a partnership and an argument that a partnership was originally intended was advanced. The status of registration was challenged in 2003, but, crucially, not pursued).
It was possible for the property to be sub-let by the wife to the husband, however, this did not affect the VAT treatment as matters stood. Additionally, there was no evidence that the appellant actually paid any of the rent, as this was done by the tenant. There were no VAT invoices addressed to the sole proprietor.
Given the facts, there was no supply to the appellant, so there was no input tax to claim, and the issue of acceptable evidence fell away.
It was a certainty that the appeal could not succeed.
Commentary
There were a number of ways that this VAT cost could have easily been avoided had a little thought been given to the VAT arrangements. An oversight that created an avoidable tax hit.
A helpful guide to input tax considerations here: Care with input tax claims.
Legislation
The VAT Act 1994 Section 3 – Taxable person
The VAT Act 1994 Section 4 – Taxable supply
The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (1) – Input tax
The VAT Act 1994 Section 24 (6) – Input tax claim evidence
HMRC will stop issuing payable orders to overseas non-established taxpayers (NETP – taxpayers who are registered for UK VAT but do not have a business address here). The system automatically issued a payable order if a NETP was due a repayment.
Background
HMRC has received notifications and complaints from taxpayers advising that they can no longer cash their payable orders in their country or their bank. The impact of Brexit and COVID19 has seen an increase in banks/countries no longer accepting payable orders. Consequently, HMRC were sending repayments to NETPs with the knowledge they may not be able to cash them.
New Gform
To address this issue HMRC has created a Gform that will enable NETPs to send their bank account information in order that the issue of a payable order can be avoided and a Clearing House Automated Payment System (CHAPS) payment made instead.
Access
HMRC systems do not currently have CHAPS functionality or the ability to store overseas bank information. However, once a NETP has completed the form, which is accessed via the Government Gateway HMRC will set a lock on the taxpayer’s record to prevent the payable order being automatically issued. NETPs will then receive their repayments directly into their bank account without the need to visit their bank to cash a payable order.
Information required
Information requested on the Gform will include:
NB: Not all countries listed are part of the European Union (EU).
| Country | VAT rates |
| Albania | 20% |
| Andorra | 4.5% |
| Austria | 20% Reduced rates 19%, 10%, 13% |
| Belarus | 20% |
| Belgium | 21% Reduced rates of 12%, 6% |
| Bosnia & Herzegovina | 17% |
| Bulgaria | 25% Reduced rates 13%, 5% |
| Croatia | 25% Reduced rates 13%, 5% |
| Cyprus | 19% Reduced rates 9%, 5% |
| Czech Republic | 21% Reduced rates 15%, 10% |
| Denmark | 25% Reduced rate 0% |
| Estonia | 20% Reduced rate 9% |
| Finland | 24% Reduced rates 14%, 10% |
| France | 20% Reduced rates 10%, 5.5% |
| Germany | 19% Reduced rate 7% |
| Georgia | 18% |
| Greece | 24% Reduced rates 13%, 6% |
| Hungary | 27% Reduced rates 18%, 5% |
| Iceland | 24% Reduced rate 12% |
| Ireland | 23% Reduced rates 13.5%, 9% |
| Italy | 22% Reduced rates 10%, 5% |
| Latvia | 21% Reduced rates 12%, 5% |
| Liechtenstein | 7.7% Reduced rate 2.5% |
| Lithuania | 21% Reduced rates 9%, 5% |
| Luxembourg | 17% Reduced rates 14%, 8% |
| North Macedonia | 18% |
| Malta | 18% Reduced rates 7%, 5% |
| Monaco | 20% Reduced rates 10%, 5.5%, 2.1% |
| Montenegro | 21% |
| Netherlands | 21% Reduced rates 9% |
| Norway | 25% Reduced rates 12%, 6% |
| Poland | 23% Reduced rates of 8%, 5% |
| Portugal | 23% Reduced rates 13%, 6% |
| Romania | 19% Reduced rates of 9%, 5% |
| Russia | 20% |
| Serbia | 20% Reduced rate 10% |
| Slovakia | 20% Reduced rate 10% |
| Slovenia | 22% Reduced rates 9.5%, 5% |
| Spain | 21% Reduced rates 10% |
| Sweden | 25% Reduced rates 12%, 6% |
| Switzerland | 7.7% Reduced rates 3.7%, 2.5% |
| Ukraine | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 20% Reduced rates 12.5%, 5% 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:
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!
Orange squash, petrol, ice cream, and poodle food are rated as “luxuries”, while caviar, top shelf magazines, and labrador food are not.
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.
Further to the background to Freeports here I consider the latest developments.
What are Freeports?
Freeports are a specific port where normal tax and customs rules do not apply. Imports can enter with simplified customs documentation and without paying tariffs. Businesses operating inside designated areas in and around the port can manufacture goods using the imports, before exporting again without paying the tariff on the original imported goods (however, a tariff may be payable on the finished product when it reaches its final destination).
Freeports are similar to Free zones, or “Enterprise Zones” which are designated areas subject to a broad array of special regulatory requirements, tax breaks and Government support. The difference is that a Freeport is designed to specifically encourage businesses that import, process and then re-export goods, rather than more general business support.
Use
Goods brought into a Freeport are not subject to duties until they leave the port and enter the UK market. Additionally, if the goods are re-exported no duty is payable at all.
If raw materials are brought into a Freeport and processed into final goods before entering the UK market, duties will be paid on the final goods.
Background
If a business chooses to use a Freeport to import or export goods, it will be able to:
If goods are purchased in the UK, a business will continue to pay duties and import taxes using the normal UK rates.
Where are they?
The eight new Freeports are located at East Midlands Airport, Felixstowe and Harwich, the Humber region, Liverpool City Region, Plymouth, the Solent, the Thames, and Teesside.
Authorisation needed to use a Freeport
A business can apply to use the Freeport customs special procedure (a single authorisation combined with easier declaration requirements) to import goods for:
Declaring goods entering the UK Freeport
A form C21 is used to declare goods entering the UK. This can be done before the goods arrive in the UK or when the goods have arrived in the UK.
Declaring goods exported
A business will normally need to submit an exit summary declaration when goods are exported from the UK. When an exit summary declaration is not needed, a business will need to give an onward export notification to HMRC.
Disposing of goods which have been processed or repaired
When a business has finished processing or repairing goods, it must leave the Freeport and dispose of the goods by either:
VAT on supplies in the Freeport
A business will be able to zero rate supplies within a Freeport of:
When a zero rated VAT invoice is issued, it must include the reference “Free zone”.
Zero rating of goods applies if:
Benefits
The Government says that Freeports and free zones are intended to stimulate economic activity in their designated areas. Government backed economic studies have found the main advantage of Freeports is that they encourage imports by lowering duty and paperwork costs. Manufacturing businesses that are inside the Freeport can benefit from cheaper imported inputs in comparison to those outside the area. However, some commentators such as the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) suggest that whilst some form of free zones could help with shaping export-oriented and place-based regional development programmes, it is important to ensure that trade is not simply diverted from elsewhere and that wider incentives are needed.
Evasion
Considering that the European Parliament has called for Freeports to be scrapped across the EU because of tax evasion and money laundering and that they are where trade can be conducted untaxed, and ownership can be concealed it is likely that there will be a certain degree of evasion. This a result of the lack of scrutiny on imports and means that high-value items, eg; art, can be bought and easily stored in Freeports without the kind of checks and controls they would normally face.
Summary
Any business that regularly imports and/or exports goods should consider if a Freeport will benefit their business model. This is particularly relevant if work is carried out on imported goods.
HMRC has issued two new documents which provide practical guidance for users of the One Stop Shop (OSS).
They cover how to pay the VAT due on an OSS return and how to use the service to submit an OSS VAT return if a business is registered for the OSS Union Scheme. A link has been added to allow a business to submit a OSS return directly.
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.