Member Since: 31st Jul 2008
23rd Oct 2020
As others have stated it's extremely unlikely that the Council would have an issue with an additional VAT charge. If they've agreed, as per an above example, a charge of £100 per pupil, then they won't care if they're charged £100 gross or £100 plus VAT.
S33 of the VAT Act 1994 gives Local Authorities the ability to recover any VAT they're charged that they incur in the course of their non-business activities. That largely covers all statutory and public activities such as provision of care or free education. If registered for VAT (which as a County or Unitary they will be) then they can also recover VAT on their taxable business activities.
So the only way they'd have a problem was if they were buying this in to make an onwards exempt supply, and even then the preferential partial exemption position they hold would probably render that moot.
17th Aug 2020
How is 7 (5) Relevant?:
(a)the supply involves the removal of the goods, by or under the directions of the person who supplies them, to another member State; [true in this case]
(b) the person who makes the supply is taxable in another member State; [Not true] and
(c) provisions of the law of that member State corresponding, in relation to that member State, to the provisions made by subsection (4) above make that person liable to VAT on the supply; [not true as the UK recipient isn't paying tax in another member state]
So it looks to me that the conditions in 7 (5) aren't met.
14th Aug 2020
I though the place of supply was where goods were despatched from not delivered as per S7, 7 (a) VAT Act 1994. And as per HMRC's Place of Supply guidance(https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-place-of-supply-goods/vatpo...) which says: Under section 7(7)(a) a supply involving the removal of goods from the UK to another EC Member State takes place in the UK.
So this would be within the Scope of UK VAT. Which presumably means the Zero Rating provision in question would be 30 (8) which says ZR applies "in cases where:...the supply in question involves both...the removal of the goods from the United Kingdom; and their acquisition in another member State by a person who is liable for VAT on the acquisition in accordance with provisions of the law of that member State"
but as this is the acquisition in France is by a UK company I'm not convinced that under French law the UK company is liable for VAT on that acquisition?
So to me this is a UK supply, to a UK company, and the fact that the goods are sent elsewhere in the EU seems irrelevant to the suppliers position. If the supply was to the French subsidiary then I'd say that ZR could apply, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
24th Apr 2020
I think Les is replying generally rather than to your specific question:
Architects fees are not goods, they are in a service industry even though you may get a bit of paper at the end of it that particular 'good' is not what you've paid for you've paid for their services.
It matters not whether it's been capitalised, whether you've expensed it, or whether you've given it as perm and called it Eric, they are services and will need to have a tax point within 6 months of your date of registration to be recoverable.
A supply of goods is the transfer of tangible property and the right to dispose of that tangible property as owner (Primary VAT directive Article 14 (1) / VAT Act 1994, Sch 4, 1). Architects work is intellectual property rather than tangible property - the paper you have is not worth x thousand pounds it's the idea's and specifications on it that are worth the money.
2nd Apr 2020
Exempt income is within the scope of VAT as it still relates to supplies made by a taxable person in the course or furtherance of business. Thus it falls under 'relevant supplies' for the Flat Rate legislation [S26B VAT Act 1994 - S3 further defines supply as well].
A grant is not consideration for any supply - you don't provide something in order to receive a grant (or at least nothing substantive maybe a report or two to prove you deserved it) if you provide something then it's a contract for work or of sale.
So Covid 19 grants are outside the scope of VAT, there's no supply and hence no application of the flat rate.
20th Mar 2020
Agree with doubletrouble the dereg limit is prospective if there are reasonable grounds for thinking you'll be below then you can deregister as soon as that fact is demonstrable.
16th Mar 2020
If it's from your insurer then I'd say no (depending on the terms of your policy though and whether this is actually insurance).
There's no supply between the insurer and you to be taxable in it's own right and in terms of the bad debt, presumably the debt itself remains unchanged - this isn't your insurer satisfying someone else's debt they are covering your loss but the original debt remains with you and is unsatisfied. If that's the case then you've still got a bad debt and if they paid you in the future presumably you'd have to pay the money back to your insurer.
Of course if this is actually a factoring arrangement rather than insurance then Bad Debt Relief isn't available so you'd have to pay it back or a suitable proportion of it depending on how much is recovered.
25th Feb 2020
I'm sorry I know from this forum that you're well versed enough to know that logic and VAT don't mix (unlike Nesquik and milk) so I have no idea why you'd even attempt to get some logic out of it.
For those looking for Alice style logic try: Cocoa is a product used as a food but in this form is not in itself confectionary so doesn't fall under the exclusion (or is it exception) for confectionary.
It could of course be excepted (or is it excluded) as a product for making a beverage, which is taxable (hence the Strawberry and Banana issue). However the fine coating that settles on the kitchen when my son bakes gives the lie to it being 'just' used for beverages, and so it is generally food.
Of course you could just add the milk and then sell the result, being a zero rated 'preparation of milk' rather than a 'beverage'.
Unless of course you sell it to drink in, in which case it's catering and excluded from being excepted, or something.
So all in all a most versatile ingredient, or food, or beverage, or milk product, or Uncle Tom Cobley and all.
See all very simple - I don't know how people possibly get confused over such things.
21st Feb 2020
"Operating company A generally recharges legal fees to its customers and bills them as disbursements, so the VAT is outside the scope but claims the VAT back."
I can't see the treatment being the same, I'd suggest that B adopt a correct treatment rather than the current one.
If they're billing as a disbursement (i.e. claiming that there is no supply to them and the supply is instead to the end customer) then where are they seeing a supply upon which they're entitled to recover VAT?
18th Feb 2020
If the work you're doing is Zero rated then Zero rate it if it's standard rated standard rate it. Whether you're part of any group, other than a VAT group, is irrelevant to the VAT charge.
Unfortunately you haven't given enough detail to say whether anything should be zero or standard, as all you've told us is there's some land and some building works, some being new build (of something but we don't know what: homes, hospital, speedway track, giant sculpture of an incontinent hedgehog), and some being refurb (again we don't know what (I'm keeping fingers crossed for the hedgehog)).
Depending on those factors depends on what you actually need to charge in terms of VAT.
I assume it's a very hush hush project since you've chosen to be anonymous when mentioning it, so it might be best to discuss it with your accountant who will presumably have all the details)