Cross-border VAT

A supply of goods or services from one country to another will have a number of value added tax (VAT) implications.

Place of supply

The place where a supply takes place for VAT purposes is important because only supplies taking place in the UK are within the scope of UK VAT. Taxable supplies taking place outside the UK may be subject to VAT in another EU country, or outside the scope of VAT altogether.

For services, the general place of supply rule (where no exceptions apply) is:

•
if the recipient is a business that is, or should be, registered for VAT (known as business to business or B2B supplies), the country in which the recipient belongs, and
•
for other recipients (known as business to consumer or B2C supplies), the country in which the supplier belongs

For goods, the general rule is that if the supply does not involve their removal from or to the UK, then the place of supply will be:

•
the UK if the goods are in the UK, or
•
outside the UK if the goods are not in the UK

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Tax News

Tax weekly highlights—19 March 2026

This week's edition of Tax weekly highlights includes: (1) the enactment of Finance Act 2026 on 18 March 2026, (2) News Analysis on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP that amortisation debits were correctly disallowed by HMRC, (3) News Analysis on the UT’s decision in Putney Power Limited on the issue of whether the appellants had begun to trade by the relevant date for EIS relief purposes, (4) new HMRC guidance on multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax reporting software, and (5) News Analysis on the FTT’s decision in Countrywide Partners Limited to uphold a penalty for failure to comply with a stop notice issued under the promoters of tax avoidance schemes (POTAS) rules.

Upper Tribunal denies EIS relief as trade not commenced (Putney Power and Piston Heating v HMRC)

Tax analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) has held that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (the FTT) made a material error of law in its approach to determining when a trade has ‘begun to be carried on’ by a company for the purposes of qualifying for Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) relief under section 179(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007). The FTT had identified a set of principles by reference to factors which were of relevance in previous cases and applied those ‘legal’ principles to determine that neither Putney Power Limited (‘Putney’) nor Piston Hearing Services Ltd (‘Piston’) had begun to carry on a trade by the relevant date of 4 April 2018. The UT set aside the FTT’s decision on the basis that the FTT had sought to apply a principles-based test which did not exist as a matter of law. The proper approach requires a multi-factorial evaluation of all of the circumstances in the case at hand. The UT re-made the decision but ultimately reached the same conclusion as the FTT, dismissing the appeals of both Putney and Piston and holding that neither company had commenced trading by the relevant date. The decision is significant because it clarifies that there is no strict legal test for when a trade commences: the question remains highly fact sensitive and will be determined by reference to the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Written by Kate Ison (partner at Macfarlanes LLP) and Victoria Braid (associate at macfarlanes LLP).

FTT upholds £1m penalty for stop notice breach (Countrywide Partners Ltd v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Countrywide Partners Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) upheld HMRC’s £1m penalty on the taxpayer for breach of a stop notice under section 236A of the Finance Act 2014 (FA 2014), holding that the appellant continued to promote the arrangements by organising and managing them (including issuing payslips and making payments) for existing users.

Court of Appeal upholds UT decision disallowing amortisation debits (Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP and others v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP and others, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants’ appeals against the Upper Tribunal (UT)’s decision that amortisation debits were correctly disallowed by HMRC.