If you are an intermediary (employment agency or umbrella company) supplying clients who can’t get their VAT back, how about not charging it in the first place? These clients might be public sector bodies (central and local government and the NHS), any other healthcare providers, charities, schools, banks and insurance companies.
Until 2009 HMRC operated what was known as the Staff Hire Concession, whereby under certain conditions intermediaries only had to charge VAT on their mark-up. This was withdrawn as it was thought to be contrary to European law (or so they said).
The method for agencies
That was until ReedEmployment took them to the tribunal. Reed have form here – they won one of the major VAT cases in the 1990’s, which was how the Staff Hire Concession came about. This time HMRC were after £143 million, and they lost again: when one sees the amounts of money involved it is slightly surprising
that they have decided not to appeal. They say (somewhat disingenuously in our view) that the judgment only applies to the facts of the case and has no wider implications – see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/briefs/vat/brief3211.htm.
Reed’s defence was that there were in fact two supplies: one by Reed of introductory services and the other by the temps themselves of whatever work they did. VAT would only be payable on the ‘introductory services’ (i.e. Reed’s mark-up), because the temps themselves would be below the VAT threshold.
For a copy of the judgment go to http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2011/TC01069.html.
This is a model that is likely to interest companies whose clients cannot get their VAT back. However, great care is needed in drawing up the contracts, as HMRC are known to scrutinise things carefully when staffing companies are concerned, and we recommend that specialist advice be taken.
The method for umbrella companies
The Reed model, above, is unlikely to work for umbrella companies who have contracts of employment with their staff. However, there is another way of doing this which avoids VAT on the entire supply. This involves making an exempt supply of a service, rather than a standard-rated supply of staff. The distinction is a subtle one and hinges around who takes responsibility if things go wrong. Again we recommend that specialist advice be taken.
For further information and specialist advice on either of these possibilities please contact David Kirk on -845 519 5041, or e-mail him at dk@david-kirk.co.uk.
read moreIn the landmark case of Autoclenz Ltd v. Belcher, the Supreme Court has endorsed the approach of lower courts in looking behind the written contract in employment cases to see what was actually going on. Autoclenz said that its car valeters were self-employed, although they had never worked for anyone else for years and years. They were found in fact to be employees: the court said that the ‘contract for services’ which they had signed did not reflect reality – see the judgment at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/41.html.
Courts have always been able to take this approach where they have suspected a sham: however what arenew here are the endorsement of the Supreme Court and the justification given for it, which goes somewhat wider than before. The lead judgment says that ‘the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed, and the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part’.
Reading the earlier judgments in this case, one is tempted to ask why Autoclenz bothered to appeal: the stance that their contract documents promoted had been contradicted by their own chief witness. The result, though, is likely to be that courts will start looking into all ‘the circumstances of the case’ in instances that are much less clear cut, with many more findings for a status of employment.
Moral: always make sure that your contracts reflect the facts on the ground.
For further information and advice on employment status, please contact David Kirk on 0845 519 5041, or e-mail him at dk@david-kirk.co.uk.
read more