VAT basic principles

What is VAT?

The UK value added tax (VAT) system is:

•
derived from the EU Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (the VAT Directive), and
•
mainly set out in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA 1994)

EU Member States also have a system of VAT. The UK ceased to be an EU Member State on 31 January 2020. On this date, the UK entered an implementation period (IP), during which it continued to be treated as a Member State for many purposes, and remained bound by EU law. The IP ended at 11 pm on 31 December 2020. On that date, a body of EU-derived rights and legislation, known as retained EU law (REUL), was converted into domestic UK law. For more on REUL and tax, see Practice Note: Retained EU law and tax.

On 1 January 2024, REUL that remained in force after the end of 2023 was recategorised as ‘assimilated law’. That recategorisation reflects a change in its status and treatment under UK law, in that assimilated law is

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

Upper Tribunal rules on application of purpose tests in the context of Transactions in Securities regime (Osmond and Allen v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Osmond and Allen v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the taxpayers’ appeal, holding that they did not necessarily have a main purpose of obtaining ‘an income tax advantage’ under the Transactions in Securities (TIS) regime simply by virtue of having a main purpose of obtaining the benefit of Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) disposal relief. Obtaining EIS relief from capital gains tax created an ‘income tax advantage’ for the purposes of section 687 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007). The First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) found as a matter of fact that the taxpayers did not have the subjective purpose of obtaining this income tax advantage. Surprisingly, however, the FTT held that because they had a main purpose of obtaining the EIS benefit (notably, a capital gains tax), it followed that they had a main purpose of obtaining an income tax advantage. Concluding that the FTT had erred as a matter of law, the UT held that the taxpayers’ desire to crystallise their EIS disposal relief did not mean that they necessarily had a main purpose of obtaining an income tax advantage. Written by Susanna Breslin, barrister at 11 New Square.

Court of Appeal confirms that loans made under remuneration trust arrangements were taxable as disguised remuneration and related payments were not deductible (Marlborough DP Limited v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Marlborough DP Ltd, the Court of Appeal dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT), confirming that loans made to a director under a remuneration trust (RT) scheme were taxable under the disguised remuneration legislation in Part 7A of the Income Tax Earnings and Pensions Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) as being ‘in connection with’ employment. The court also agreed that the related payments were not deductible for corporation tax purposes, as they were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the company’s trade.

UT holds that VAT exemption did not apply for single composite supply of financial services (JPMorgan Chase Bank NA v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In JPMorgan Chase Bank NA the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the company’s appeal and upheld the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision that the supply of intra-group services was a single composite taxable supply and the VAT exemption for financial services did not apply.

Supreme Court rules that the hire cap under the oil contractor regime applied to restrict deductions (HMRC v Dolphin Drilling Ltd)

Tax analysis: In Dolphin Drilling, the Supreme Court dismissed the company’s appeal, deciding that the ‘hire cap’ under the oil contractor regime applied to restrict the corporation tax deduction available to it for the cost of chartering a tender support vessel (TSV).