Independent VAT Consultant
Columnist
Share this content
Planting trees
iStock_Mixetto

VAT may be due on charity donations

by

Neil Warren explains a recent VAT problem relating to a donation, and gives tips on when charitable donations may be subject to VAT.

1st Jun 2018
Independent VAT Consultant
Columnist
Share this content

I recently became involved with a situation where HMRC demanded output tax on donations received by a charity. This is strange, as donations are generally outside the scope of VAT because the money received does not relate to the supply of goods or services. The reason HMRC gave for demanding VAT was that the payment directly related to a service being performed by the charity.

Here’s an example:

Example 1

Better Soil is an environmental charity which is aiming to plant 50,000 trees in Scotland. It has asked supporters to fund its £500,000 plant a tree campaign, whereby the charity will plant one tree on common land for every £10 donation it receives. So if a donor gives £100 to the charity, this will fund the planting of 10 trees.

Register for free to continue reading

It’s 100% free and provides unlimited access to the latest accounting news, advice and insight every day. As well as access to this exclusive article, you can:


Content lock down, tick icon


View all AccountingWEB content

Content lock down, tick icon


Comment on articles

Content lock down, tick icon


Watch our digital shows and more

Access content now

Already have an account?
Tags:

Replies (6)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By The VAT Doctor
02nd Jun 2018 20:16

The tree example is indeed nonsense. The infamous Fiscal Themepark is alive and well in the HMRC parallel universe!

Thanks (0)
By Duggimon
04th Jun 2018 09:53

Does that mean you would have to identify the particular trees tied to each donation in order to be sure the donor isn't receiving any benefit from them? Improving the view on their commute or at the caravan park they spend two weeks in every other July would still be a benefit after all.

Furthermore, we need more trees to improve the air quality in our atmosphere so we all receive a benefit wherever the trees are planted.

I'm not so sure Neil's assessment of the example holds much water, there is a direct link between the payment and an (albeit small) benefit, regardless of where the trees go. It's the £10 per tree that provides the direct link, the location of the tree isn't relevant.

They would have been better served looking for donations to fund their tree planting with a suggested donation of £10 as the cost to them of one tree, a promise to plant one tree for every £10 makes it a supply.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By andyscotland
04th Jun 2018 10:57

What nonsense.

If you follow that line then you could just as easily argue that a "sponsor a child in a developing country" campaign is a supply of services since we all get a benefit from developing countries being stable, educated and healthy. Or "sponsor a polar bear" because the donor enjoys watching Blue Planet.

Every charitable donation should probably be a standard-rated supply of warm fuzzy feelings to the donor. And exempt from Gift Aid since the fuzzy feelings are proportional to how the donor feels about the amount they gave, so market value must be 100% of the gift.

Even if a few trees do happen to end up near a donor, the only logical approach is to say that's purely incidental unless the charity committed at the time of donation to put them in a specific, probably private, location in such a way as to form a contractual obligation between charity and donor.

If the charity is entitled to plant trees wherever it likes then even if it had advertised a few potential locations in advance the donor has no right to a refund if they later choose to plant them somewhere else.

I can see that a campaign to plant a specific single woodland for example on or beside a caravan park might be more arguable. Less so for an occasional user giving £10, more so if a timeshare / static caravan leaseholder gave £5,000.

But a national campaign is very clearly in the ballpark of "generic shared benefit as common with all charitable giving" rather than "direct supply of services".

Thanks (2)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By andyscotland
04th Jun 2018 10:57

What nonsense.

If you follow that line then you could just as easily argue that a "sponsor a child in a developing country" campaign is a supply of services since we all get a benefit from developing countries being stable, educated and healthy. Or "sponsor a polar bear" because the donor enjoys watching Blue Planet.

Every charitable donation should probably be a standard-rated supply of warm fuzzy feelings to the donor. And exempt from Gift Aid since the fuzzy feelings are proportional to how the donor feels about the amount they gave, so market value must be 100% of the gift.

Even if a few trees do happen to end up near a donor, the only logical approach is to say that's purely incidental unless the charity committed at the time of donation to put them in a specific, probably private, location in such a way as to form a contractual obligation between charity and donor.

If the charity is entitled to plant trees wherever it likes then even if it had advertised a few potential locations in advance the donor has no right to a refund if they later choose to plant them somewhere else.

I can see that a campaign to plant a specific single woodland for example on or beside a caravan park might be more arguable. Less so for an occasional user giving £10, more so if a timeshare / static caravan leaseholder gave £5,000.

But a national campaign is very clearly in the ballpark of "generic shared benefit as common with all charitable giving" rather than "direct supply of services".

Thanks (0)
avatar
By geoffmw1
04th Jun 2018 12:36

This is complete nonsense. The charity should even be able to reclaim any VAT it is charge for planting trees if it is VAT registered. The charity is not selling trees to the donors who are simply responding to a request for funds which has perhaps been explained unhappily.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By robertleach1
28th Jun 2018 21:22

I can find no record of a charity called Better Soil, yet the article is written as if it exists. If the name is made up, that should be stated.

Thanks (0)