Summary of facts
The Claimant, Hotelbeds UK Limited (“Hotelbeds”) is a business which purchases hotel accommodation from UK VAT registered hotels and sells this to other suppliers of hotel accommodation (self-described as a “bed-bank”) for onward distribution.
Hotelbeds made standard rated supplies of hotel accommodation to its business customers and paid VAT on the purchase of hotel rooms from its suppliers. Under normal VAT principles Hotelbeds could deduct the input tax paid on the purchase of hotel rooms. However, Hotelbeds had difficulties obtaining VAT invoices from its suppliers to support its input tax deductions.
Hotelbeds’ practice (in accordance with the industry norm) was to pay for hotel rooms by means of a virtual credit card when the hotel guest checked in or checked out of the hotel (not following issue of a VAT invoice by its suppliers). Despite the suppliers being legally obliged to issue a VAT invoice, this was rarely done in practice. It was not disputed that Hotelbeds made some efforts to obtain the VAT invoices from its suppliers, but HMRC’s position was that Hotelbeds could have tried harder to obtain the VAT invoices but did not.
Hotelbeds submitted two Error Correction Notices (“ECNs”) to HMRC to recover the input tax, but the ECNs were rejected by HMRC on the basis that Hotelbeds had “systematically failed” to obtain valid VAT invoices. This was despite HMRC making input tax repayments in relation to two ECNs submitted for earlier VAT periods on the same facts.
Under Regulation 29 Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, HMRC has a discretion to allow claims for input tax which are not supported by a valid VAT invoice where the taxpayer holds other evidence of the VAT charge. Hotelbeds relied on three policy documents published by HMRC which deal with the application of HMRC’s discretion: VIT31200; HMRC’s Statement of Practice dated March 2007 (the “SOP”); and VAT Notice 700.
Hotelbeds particularly relied on VIT31200 which stated, “where claims to deduct VAT are not supported by a valid VAT invoice HMRC staff will consider whether or not there is satisfactory alternative evidence of the taxable supply available to support deduction.”
Hotelbeds brought a judicial review claim against HMRC on the basis that HMRC’s refusals to allow the deductions was unlawful because i) HMRC failed to apply their own guidance, ii) alternatively, it had a “legitimate expectation” that it would be entitled to deduct input tax based on statements in HMRC’s guidance; the SOP; and / or because HMRC accepted two earlier ECNs on the same facts, and iii) the HMRC
decision was “irrational” given that there was sufficient evidence of the relevant supplies.
What did the Court decide?
The Court determined that none of the three HMRC policy documents were drafted with a “no invoice” situation in mind. Instead, they each make references to circumstances where a taxpayer has an “invalid invoice” which did not apply in this case. Therefore, given the absence of any directly applicable policy the Court determined that, “the [HMRC] decision maker was required to go back to the scope of the discretion and to judge the request made against the principles of the tax and HMRC’s duty to protect the revenue.”
The Court concluded that:
· HMRC’s guidance was “inconsistent, ambiguous and, in [the Court’s] judgment, difficult for a decision-maker to navigate.”
· In relying upon the written policy contained in VAT Notice 700 HMRC has misconstrued and/or misapplied its own policy.
· The strong driver against recovery without a valid invoice is fraud but there was no real risk of fraud in this case
· The Court did not agree with HMRC that a “systematic” failure to obtain VAT invoices meant simply a “repeated” failure.
· The Court held that HMRC’s decision “erred in law” because it “failed to take the principles of neutrality and the right to deduct properly into account.”
· HMRC’s refusal was inconsistent with the payment of earlier ECNs and was “unfair and unreasonable, and unsustainable in public law terms.”
On that basis Hotelbeds’ application for judicial review was allowed. The Court did not consider it necessary to deal with Hotelbeds’ “legitimate expectation” argument because Hotelbeds succeeded on its main argument.
Comment
Hotelbeds main argument was that HMRC had not followed its own guidance. However, HMRC’s guidance is not law, rather it contains HMRC’s interpretation of the law and how the law should be applied. It is not unknown for HMRC to take a position which is contrary to its own guidance.
Unfortunately the Court did not rule expressly on the legitimate expectation argument, which put on the wider basis obliges HMRC as a matter of public law to exercise a discretion in a manner that is consistent with its “acknowledged duty to act fairly and in accordance with the highest public standards.”- per Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Unilever
(1996) STC 681), albeit it might well have reached the same decision. Whilst acknowledging the centrality of the invoice to the VAT system, this case involved similar claims from the Claimant being accepted in the past, HMRC being in a net positive position as regards the tax it received – contrary to the “adventitious windfall” in Unilever – here there was adequate evidence of the transactions in question, no risk of fraud and no risk of the issue continuing in future periods owing to a change of system. It is difficult to see how an HMRC officer properly instructed as to the true scope of the discretion could have reached the same decision rationally.
