1 GENERAL NEWS
1.1 Potential changes to CGT for non-UK residents
The rumour mill has started working at full tilt ahead of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement on 5 December. One rumour concerns the possible widening of the scope of capital gains tax (CGT) to cover gains made by non-UK residents on the disposal of property in UK.
The current rules
As the rules stand at present, gains made by non-resident individuals are normally exempt from CGT, unless they are away from the UK for less than five tax years and dispose of an asset which they owned before they left or the property is used in a business which they own. In addition there is extensive anti-avoidance legislation which applies to offshore trusts and companies.
Changes which took effect from April 2013 meant that non-resident companies became liable to CGT on gains on the disposal of residential property valued at more than £2 million.
Potential changes
The Deputy Prime Minister has been reported as saying that plans are afoot to charge CGT on British property sold by all non-residents. It is not clear at this stage whether the potential changes would apply only to residential property or whether they would include commercial premises. It is also not clear whether the proposed changes will apply to all non-residents, including all companies.
When the changes covering high value properties owned by non-resident companies were introduced last April a rebasing facility was included so that existing capital gains were excluded from charge. It remains to be seen whether a similar rebasing would apply to a more general widening of the charge.
The CGT rules include an important relief for properties which are used as the individual's main residence throughout the period of ownership; where an individual owns more than one residence it is possible to elect which is to be regarded as the main residence although the election must be made within strict time limits. We will have to wait and see whether non-residents will be allowed to claim this relief and if so whether the strict time limits for making the election are relaxed.
Normally, changes to tax rules take effect from the April following their announcement. However, there have been examples where changes have become effective from the date of an announcement, or forestalling rules have taken effect immediately.
This potential change seems to be motivated largely by political drivers rather than tax raising alone and so it is conceivable that any change could apply from December. Many other countries already charge tax on the disposal of properties situated in that country and so the Chancellor would no doubt argue that he was merely bringing the UK into line.
1.2 HMRC organisation chart
An organisation chart for HMRC as at November 2013 has been published.
2 PRIVATE CLIENT
2.1 Tribunal cases on statutory residence
Two recent cases on residence status (with the rules applying before the statutory residence test in FA13) have been heard at First-tier Tribunal:
- Mr & Mrs Rumbelow (TC03022) (involving disputed tax totalling approximately £0.59m between 2001/02 and 2004/05);
- James Glyn (TC03029) (involving disputed tax of £5.5m for the 2005/06 tax year).
Both cases involved close families and a continuing use of their home base in the UK. Mr & Mrs Rumbelow were found not to have demonstrated sufficient loosening of ties with the UK to be regarded as not resident, while James Glyn demonstrated a sufficient loosening of ties and overseas residence for the Tribunal to conclude his case succeeded. In both cases there is a detailed discussion of the facts, and the Tribunal took notice of the meticulous records of movements kept by Mr Glyn, while they noted the absence of records and inconsistencies in the case of Mr & Mrs Rumbelow.
The Rumbelows' case concerned income and gains made in the tax years 2001/02 to 2004/05. They had three children, the youngest of whom was 15 at the time they purportedly left the UK (4 April 2001) and was about to sit GCSE exams. However the arrangement was that she would stay with one of her sisters. Some of the Rumbelows' business interests were passed on to one of their daughters and her partner (later husband), but there appeared to be continuing involvement of Mrs Rumbelow in the business in the UK after the date she claimed to be non-UK resident. Both Mr & Mrs Rumbelow had purportedly moved to Belgium initially with the intention of living in Portugal once a property they commissioned had been built. Their motive for moving abroad was to have a break from their busy UK life and also for Mrs Rumbelow's health reasons. However on the evidence submitted the Tribunal were not convinced the claimed periods of non-residence satisfied the requirements for non-residency.
The case of Mr & Mrs Glyn was similar in some respects in that there was a desire for a distinct break from involvement in UK business activity. The intention in leaving the UK on 5 April 2005 was to spend a period abroad and eventually return to the UK, the UK family house being retained to cater for that eventuality. Mrs Glyn accompanied Mr Glyn in their relocation to Monaco, but non-UK residency was only being claimed for Mr Glyn. There were visits back to the UK connected with finalising Mr Glyn's involvement with his business and also for certain family occasions, but a strict diary was kept indicating Mr Glyn was present in the UK. In contrast to the Rumbelows' move to Belgium there had been more preparation for the move and the Glyns had acquired an apartment in Monaco which they moved to. When in the UK the Glyns (in keeping with their Jewish background) would have Friday night family meals at their UK property, but the Tribunal concluded that the frequency and intention of such visits were of an insufficiently settled nature to establish UK residency. The Tribunal considered on the balance of evidence that the Glyns did make a habitual home in Monaco and had effected a substantial loosening of ties so that Mr Glyn had established non-UK residency for the years 2005/06 to 2009/10. A detailed analysis of the Glyn case follows.
www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2013/TC03029.html
www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2013/TC03022.html
2.2 James Glyn case
The First-tier Tribunal has considered the case of James Glyn where the point at issue was whether Mr Glyn was resident in UK in 2005/06. This case pre-dates the new statutory residence test, but the decision will still be of interest for years up to 5 April 2013.
In 2005/06 Mr Glyn received a large dividend in respect of the shares in his family company, and the tax at stake in relation to that dividend was approximately £5.5 million. It was accepted that if the Appellant succeeded in establishing non-residence in the year 2005/2006, it was likely that the same status would apply for the next four years until Mr Glyn returned to live in UK.
At the beginning of 2005, Mr Glyn was 56 years old. He described himself as a secular Jew who honoured most of the Jewish traditions and festivals though was not religious and very rarely attended the synagogue.
Mr and Mrs Glyn had lived at Circus Road, in St. John's Wood. It was located close to the Mr Glyn's elderly mother, close to their children, and close also to their considerable circle of close friends.
Mr Glyn's father died when Mr Glyn was only 21, and he found himself having to run the family business, and effectively take over the responsibility of providing for numerous relatives. Some years later, Mr Glyn and his elder brother Stuart bought out the other members of the family via a company called Milverton Group Limited ("MGL") of which Mr Glyn owned 50%.
Mr Glyn dealt with the complex administration of at least 300 tenants, with rent reviews, late payments, damage claims, surrenders and the grants of new leases etc.
By 2005 MGL was worth £60 million. However Mr Glyn described his daily life as drudgery, doing a job that he had never wanted to undertake, and he wished to retire. Mr Glyn and Stuart also agreed that it would be preferable for their two families to split their assets and invest separately.
Around late 2003 a new holding company was superimposed on top of the existing group in an attempt to utilise capital losses.
Mr Glyn decided to emigrate before 6 April 2005 and remain outside UK for at least five years. This decision was influenced by the fact that that would enable a subsequent dividend to be paid without additional UK tax. The plan was to modify the share rights in the holding company so that once the Mr Glyn had received that dividend, the remaining rights attaching to his shares would be near worthless.
Mr Glyn did not dispute that avoiding tax on the dividend was a significant influence on his going non-resident. He claimed, however, that additional reasons for going non- resident were that he would find himself drawn back into the property business if he did not make a total break, and that he wanted a totally different lifestyle from the one that for many years he had found to be drudgery. He planned to follow the guidance in IR20 and keep his day count of return visits to the UK well below the suggested average figure of 90 days a year.
Mr and Mrs Glyn acquired a substantial apartment in Monaco, taking up Monegasque residence and Mr Glyn left UK on 5 April 2005 to live in Monaco.
Two years later they acquired a more attractive apartment, with swimming pool and gym for all the residents. Both apartments were furnished and decorated to a very high standard, and both had three double bedrooms, all with ensuite bathrooms and balconies.
During the whole of the 5-year period in which Mr Glyn lived in Monaco, he spent at least 200 days a year there. Mrs Glyn was with him for the great majority of that time. They also enjoyed numerous foreign holidays.
In the first year of claimed non-residence, Mr Glyn calculated that if he followed IR20 and ignored days of arrival into and departure from the UK, he spent only 44 days in the UK in 2005/06, and roughly the same number in the four later years. The Tribunal calculated that on a fair method of calculation he spent no more than 65 days in the UK in 2005/06, and again roughly that number in the later four years.
Usually when Mr Glyn came back to the UK, he stayed at Circus Road. He made 22 visits to the UK in the year 2005/2006 for various purposes. Some might have been to celebrate his own birthday, and the children's birthdays at Circus Road. Three or four were to celebrate key Jewish festivals with the family. On 15 Fridays during the relevant year, Mr and Mrs Glyn enjoyed the traditional Friday night dinners with their children that in earlier years had been virtually a fixture on every Friday, unless they were on holiday or the children were away. They also saw something, though substantially less than formerly, of their wide circle of close friends.
HMRC contended that whether or not Mr Glyn fell to be regarded, on UK principles, as a resident of Monaco, he nevertheless remained dual resident. Circus Road remained a home and a habitual abode and he had sought to preserve family and social ties by returning to Circus Road on 22 occasions. HMRC also contended that Mr Glyn had continued to participate in his old business (but the Tribunal dismissed this point altogether). HMRC argued that Mr Glyn had not shown a distinct break or a substantial loosening of family and social ties, and as a dual resident, he remained UK resident.
Mr Glyn claimed to have embarked on a completely new way of life. He admitted that he had made 22 visits to Circus Road in 2005/06, having been lulled by the guidance of IR20 into thinking that he could make a limited number of return visits to the UK and that use of 50 Circus Road would not prejudice his claim to be non-resident. However the visits were for varied, non-essential purposes, and on average the visits lasted only roughly two full days. A number of meetings were to accommodate meetings with the accountants who advised on the company tax loss scheme.
He stressed that not only had there been a complete break from his former business life but that his emigration had been designed to ensure that this was so, and also to give him and his wife the opportunity to have a relaxed lifestyle in Monaco.
The Tribunal decided that Circus Road was not retained principally for the purpose of its use by Mr Glyn when he was making a visit to the UK. It was not his "habitual abode", or one of such "abodes", and the visits to it were not made for a settled purpose. The visits were made for a number of purposes, generally two or more being combined.
"Our decision is that the Appellant did effect a distinct break; he did significantly loosen his family and social ties; he severed and abandoned his former business life almost completely, and he had no "habitual abode", or "abode for a settled purpose" in the UK. Accordingly he was non-UK resident in the tax year 2005/2006 and this Appeal is allowed."
www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2013/TC03029.html
2.3 Whether disposal of part of the grounds of a residence qualified for private residence relief
Ann Dickinson is the owner of land and property at Holly Lodge, High Street, Swineshead, Lincolnshire. Holly Lodge is the home of the Appellant and her husband, Mr Dickinson. It has a large garden and grounds, including a tennis court. On 27 July 2007 she sold part of the tennis court, comprising 0.16 hectares, to Ilex Developments Limited, a company of which she was a director, for the sum of £300,000. The land was sold for the development of four dwelling houses, payment of the consideration being deferred and payable by four equal instalments of £75,000 on completion of the sale of each dwelling house. There had been an earlier exchange of contracts but these were in draft form while access to a public road was resolved, and prior to the final date of exchange, Ilex Developments had commenced building works.
The disposal was not declared on the 2007/08 tax return and HMRC disputed that private residence relief was due on the following grounds:
- The land disposed was not part of the garden or grounds as it was not available to Mrs Dickenson at the date of sale;
- As the land was under development at the date of sale it was not available for use as garden or grounds.
The First-tier Tribunal determined that private residence relief was available as there had not been a permanent disposal prior to the date of exchange and concluded as follows:
The expression "garden or grounds" in s 222(1)(b) must be given its ordinary everyday meaning. The words "garden and grounds" can include land not given over to gardens or other common domestic usage and may change from time to time. However for land to lose its character as "garden or grounds", the change must be permanent or regarded as permanent. The change cannot be transient or conditional.
Ilex was allowed onto the land disposed of to start foundation work on an informal basis. There was no agreement allowing Ilex access onto the land to carry out the works. There was no licence to occupy, nor any provision in the (draft) contract affording such rights. At any stage prior to formal exchange of contracts, if for example the access problem had proven to be insurmountable, either party was at liberty to "walk away" from the transaction.
If the transaction had not progressed to completion it could not be suggested that the land had temporarily ceased to be "garden or grounds", only to have reverted to its original status on the transaction becoming abortive.
The conclusion is that Ilex entering onto the land and starting the works did not constitute a disposal of the land. The land therefore retained its character as "garden or grounds" within the meaning of s 222(1)(b) until the time of its disposal on 27 July 2007 when contracts were exchanged.
www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2013/TC03037.html
3 IHT AND TRUSTS
3.1 'Fit and proper' test for charity trustees
For a charity to satisfy the management condition its managers must be 'fit and proper persons'. There is no definition in the legislation of a 'fit and proper person', but HMRC has issued guidance explaining how it applies this test to people who have the general control and management of the administration of the charity.
4 PAYE AND EMPLOYMENT MATTERS
4.1 NIC liability of entertainers from 6 April 2014 onwards
HMRC has issued Brief 35/15 giving their view of the NIC position of entertainers, subject to draft regulations being approved by Parliament. Extracts from the Brief include:
The current NICs position for entertainers until 5 April 2014
The Regulations as articulated in the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal decision and judgement in the case of ITV Services Ltd v HMRC continue to apply up to and including 5 April 2014.
The Regulations are applied to entertainers on an engagement by engagement basis. This means each contract of engagement they enter into is looked at separately for the purposes of deciding whether the Regulations should apply to the payments to be made under its terms.
Where the Regulations currently apply to a particular contract of an entertainer, the earnings derived from that contract are presently subject to primary and secondary Class 1 NICs as defined in Section 6 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 ('SSCBA 1992'). This includes any additional payments that derive from that engagement such as royalties or residuals payments that may continue to be paid to an entertainer for some time after their original performance/ engagement has ended.
Under the current Regulations the primary Class 1 NICs contributor is the entertainer, and the secondary contributor is the producer of the entertainment from which the entertainer's earnings are derived. The secondary contributor (that is, the producer of the entertainment) is liable to deduct and account for the primary Class 1 NICs from the entertainer at time of payment and to pay both these and the secondary Class 1 NICs due to HMRC......
The future NICs position for entertainers from 6 April 2014
Subject to the proposed changes being approved by Parliament, from 6 April 2014, entertainers will no longer be included in the provisions of the Regulations. This in turn means that entertainers' earnings will no longer be brought within the ambit of Section 6 of SSCBA 1992 (which places a Class 1 NICs charge on them) from this date.
Where there is no Class 1 NICs charge under SSCBA 1992, the earnings will be self- employed earnings and subject to Class 2 NICs (subject to the existing Class 2 Small Earnings Exemption rules) and Class 4 NICs (subject to the existing the Class 4 Upper and Lower Earnings Limit rules).
As the point at which Class 1 NICs is charged is the time of payment (as opposed to the time of the engagement or the contract of engagement being entered into), the practical effect of repealing the Regulations for entertainers will be that from 6 April 2014 payments to entertainers paid under a contract for services (that, is self-employment) will be liable to Class 2 and Class 4 NICs under section 11 (Class 2) and sections 15 to 18 (Class 4) of SSCBA 1992 and subject to the existing Class 2 and Class 4 NICs rules.
The Regulations will not therefore apply to any payments made to entertainers after 6 April 2014.
These payments will not attract a Class 1 NICs liability from this date and will instead attract a Class 2 and (where applicable) Class 4 NICs liability as detailed above. This includes payments made to entertainers after 6 April 2014 but which derive from a contract for services entered into before this date......
Retrospective recovery of Class 1 NICs
Revenue and Customs Brief 29/13 explains HMRC's position in respect of Class 1 NICs that are due for entertainers in respect of all periods up to 5 April 2014.
HMRC now expects voluntary compliance with the Regulations as detailed in Revenue and Customs brief 29/13 and therefore it does not intend to undertake concerted compliance activity in the media sector in respect of entertainers. It will, however, continue to apply its normal risk-based approach to identifying individual cases which represent a high risk and reserves the right to investigate such cases. HMRC will also continue to inspect those cases currently the subject of investigation.
Where HMRC is undertaking or undertakes an investigation into an entertainer or media company, it will apply the law in terms of the Regulations as they currently stand, applying the decision and judgement of the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal in the case of ITV Services Ltd v HMRC for any relevant periods up to and including 5 April 2014.
Separate further guidance is to be published for entertainers who may have been affected by the Court of Appeal decision in ITV Services Ltd ([2013] EWCA Civ 867) for periods up to 5 April 2014.
www.hmrc.gov.uk/briefs/national-insurance/brief3513.htm
4.2 NIC Bill, draft regulations and arrangements
HMRC has issued notes on arrangements setting out how persons should notify them of their intention to claim the Employment Allowance by providing details of the PAYE scheme from which they want to deduct the Employment Allowance. In addition, they specify how a person may change their notice for a second or subsequent tax year. They also set out what a person must do if having claimed the Employment Allowance they discover in the tax year that they do not qualify for an Employment Allowance.
They have also published draft regulations dealing with the NIC aspects of their proposals for dealing with offshore employment intermediaries and who in the supply chain will have the obligation to account for NIC under the PAYE system. It also deals with the certification scheme for oil and gas workers in offshore installations on the UK continental shelf.
5 BUSINESS TAX
5.1 Guidance: Employee ownership & share buy backs
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has issued guidance on employee ownership and share buy-backs explaining the changes to the share buy backs regulations within the Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 18) Regulations 2013 and how the changes should be interpreted.
The Regulations implement recommendation V from the Nuttall Review of employee ownership on improving the operation of internal share markets to support companies using direct share ownership, including holding private company shares in treasury and facilitating share buy backs.
The introduction is copied below:
- "Companies using direct share ownership – where the shares are owned directly by the employees – will often seek to buy back shares from employees who are leaving or who have left the company in order to re-distribute them to new employees or new joiners to the share scheme. This is to avoid the risk that over time shares earmarked for allocation to employees become predominately owned by former employees or others outside the company.
- Buy back arrangements may be discretionary and will depend on the departing shareholder (the seller) and the company (the buyer) mutually agreeing a price and/or arrangement, or the buyback might be compulsory under the terms of the employees' share scheme. Once a buy back is contemplated, companies must comply with a number of Company Law provisions that regulate the process.
- The Nuttall Review concluded that some of these provisions are overly burdensome, and recommended that Government simplify them in order to remove barriers and disincentives to direct employee ownership.
- The regulations implement that recommendation and are designed to make direct employee ownership more attractive and less burdensome to administer.
- These deregulatory changes make it easier for companies that wish to pursue direct employee ownership to buy back shares from employees that leave the company, and so avoid the dilution of share ownership outside the company.
- The provisions in the regulations are voluntary and impose no costs on business.
- Since the law was enacted the Government has become aware of concerns about operation of the de minimis exemption. This guidance aims to provide greater clarity as to the Government's intentions and our interpretation of the legislation as enacted.
- As a result of this feedback the Government is considering additional legislative changes to Part 18 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) to further improve the operation of the regulations."
5.2 The Nuttall review of employee ownership: one year on
The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) has published an update on progress against each of the 28 'Nuttall Review' recommendations, measured against the commitments that the government made in the 'Government Response to the Nuttall Review' published on 30 October 2012.
The Foreword by Graeme Nuttall is copied below:
"Much has been accomplished since the publication of "Sharing Success: The Nuttall Review of Employee Ownership" (the Nuttall Review). The Nuttall Review identified the fundamental obstacles to making employee ownership a mainstream business model. These obstacles are agreed and work has started to dismantle them. There are encouraging signs that this could be the decade in which employee ownership becomes a major part of the UK economy.
In December 2011, I discussed with the UK Employee Ownership Association what could possibly be done to build on the Government's support for public service mutualisations and extend it to promoting employee ownership across the whole private sector. At that time there was little indication this aim could be realised. There was support from the All Party Parliamentary Group on Employee Ownership but achieving this broader aim seemed ambitious. In less than a year, with the Government's publication of its response to the Nuttall Review on 30 October 2012 this broader aim of promoting private sector employee ownership had firmly established itself as Government policy, with an agenda for change set by the Nuttall Review. One year on from that response the employee ownership sector is in a much better place, benefiting as it has from the support of Westminster and Whitehall:
- there is greater awareness of the concept of employee ownership;
- there are additional resources available to support those adopting employee ownership; and
- there is less concern about the actual or perceived complexities of employee ownership.
The focus is now on implementation, rather than, as it was in December 2011, attracting the attention of the Government. I am obviously keen that the momentum is maintained and that all those involved in promoting employee ownership keep an active check on the progress they are making. The Nuttall Review can also help with this.
There are key questions asked by the Nuttall Review, the answers to which provide a health check for the state of employee ownership.
These questions are set out below, and I would encourage all those promoting employee ownership, whether in Government or not, to use this health check to monitor their progress towards making employee ownership a mainstream part of the UK economy.
An employee ownership health check: How well can these questions be answered?
- Is the meaning of employee ownership sufficiently clear?
- Does the expertise and experience exist among professional advisers and more generally across the business community to support employee ownership?
- Are the benefits of employee ownership understood and are they demonstrated by success stories, backed up by research?
- Are there practical tool kits in use to implement every form of employee ownership?
- Is there Government support for employee ownership backed up by incentives and a commitment to remove obstacles?
- Do we have the necessary champions of employee ownership?
- Is there an ambitious target against which we are measuring success?"
5.3 Country by country reporting for institutions within the scope of the Capital Requirements Directive 4
HM Treasury has published draft guidance and draft legislation concerning country by country reporting for institutions subject to the EU Capital Reporting Directive 4. A response document has also been published on the 20 September consultation on this issue.
The regulations (for which the intention is that they are made in December 2013) require each institution to publicly disclose annually on a consolidated basis, by country where they have an establishment. Broadly speaking, they impose reporting obligations on institutions in the United Kingdom within scope of CRD4.
- their name, nature of activities and geographic location;
- number of employees;
- their turnover;
- pre-tax profit or loss;
- corporation tax paid; and
- any public subsidies received.
This information must first be published on 1 July 2014, however institutions only need to publicly report items (a) to (c) of the above list. Institutions which are Global Systemically Important Institutions (G-SIIs) are required by 1 July 2014 to report to the European Commission and HMRC on a confidential basis regarding items (d) to (f) of the above list. Following this, the Commission will conduct an assessment of the potential negative economic consequences of the public disclosure of such information, and report to the European Council and Parliament by 31 December 2014. As a result of this assessment the Commission may choose to bring forward a legislative proposal to alter the disclosure obligations under Article 89 of CRD4. If that were to occur the Regulations will be amended accordingly.
The guidance has the following comment with respect to reporting corporation tax paid:
The Governments expects institutions to disclose corporation tax on the basis of the cash amount of corporation tax paid and therefore uses the term "corporation tax paid". Regulation (2) defines corporation tax as the tax charged on profits by section 2(1) of the Corporation Tax Act 2009. Furthermore, the Government would expect institutions to use a similar tax charged on profits in jurisdictions outside of the United Kingdom. Institutions may choose to voluntarily report additional information such as current tax and deferred tax as well as other taxes paid beyond corporation tax in order to help clarify their tax position.
The information will have to be audited.
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259730/PU1599_final__web_.pdf
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259661/CBCR_Regs_Draft_181113.doc
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259729/PU1598_final__web_.pdf
5.4 Employee Financed Retirement Benefit Schemes (EFRBS)
HMRC is writing to taxpayers giving them an opportunity to settle open enquiries into the use of EFRBS arrangements by agreement and without needing to engage in litigation. This offer is intended to minimise costs for all parties.
Taxpayers have until 31 December 2013 to consider the proposals made in the letter and to indicate whether they wish to take advantage of the options offered.
If they do, any settlement between them and HMRC will be concluded by 30 June 2014.
In conjunction with the opportunity HMRC has provided a range of frequently asked questions (FAQs) designed to help customers understand how the terms of the opportunities apply in practice to the arrangements customers have entered into.
www.hmrc.gov.uk/specialist/efrbs-faqs.pdf
www.hmrc.gov.uk/specialist/use-of-efrbs.pdf
www.hmrc.gov.uk/specialist/efrbs-interest.pdf
6 VAT
6.1 Extension of the EU derogation for the UK to apply 50% input tax block on a car hire or lease where the use is not wholly for business purposes
The EU has granted an extension to the UK to 31 December 2016 for its 50% input tax block on care hire or lease costs where the car is not used wholly for business purposes.
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st15/st15132.en13.pdf
6.2 Whether the fraudulent use of a credit card to purchase goods resulted in a transfer of goods and consideration requiring VAT to be accounted for
The CJEU has concluded that where a retailer (Dixons in this case) has transferred goods to a customer where those goods have been paid for by the fraudulent use of a credit card by that customer, and where the credit card company has not exercised a chargeback to recover the fraudulently used funds, then for VAT purposes there has been a supply of goods and the amount received by the retailer does amount to consideration.
We have taken care to ensure the accuracy of this publication, which is based on material in the public domain at the time of issue. However, the publication is written in general terms for information purposes only and in no way constitutes specific advice. You are strongly recommended to seek specific advice before taking any action in relation to the matters referred to in this publication. No responsibility can be taken for any errors contained in the publication or for any loss arising from action taken or refrained from on the basis of this publication or its contents. © Smith & Williamson Holdings Limited 2013
