Home > Publications > Selected cases— Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations: April 2001 to September 2001 > Case No. C.545/01
Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations
PCA 6th Report – Session 2001-2002
Chapter 1
HM Customes and Excise
Refusal to refund in full VAT overpaid on private dancing tuition Mr X, the proprietor of a dancing school, contacted his local VAT office in November 1999 about cancelling his VAT registration, as he said that he understood that his supplies of dancing tuition should have been exempt from VAT for some time. An officer had visited him in October 1996, but had not told him that the law had changed.
The VAT exemption relating to private tuition was broadened from 1 August 1994 to include instruction in sport and recreational activities as long as it was supplied by an individual teacher acting independently of an employer. Following a decision made by the VAT and Duties Tribunal in October 1997, Customs extended the definition of “individual teacher” to include persons in partnership; but exemption was still unavailable if instructors were employed or engaged to provide tuition on behalf of the VAT registered trader.
In May 2000 Customs agreed to refund Mr X’s VAT payments retrospectively to June 1996, when his business had changed from a partnership to a sole proprietorship. They also paid him sums to reimburse his accountancy fees and additional income tax.
Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, Customs agreed to pay Mr X statutory interest of £1,939.81 on the VAT they had already refunded. However they provided conflicting information to the Ombudsman in response to his initial enquiries, so delaying matters further.
Back to top
The Ombudsman found that Customs had changed their interpretation of the law in June 1998 in deciding to allow traders to apportion their supplies between exempt (own tuition) and taxable (employees’ tuition) elements. The officer who visited Mr X in October 1996 could not have anticipated that; but Customs should have publicised their change of policy when they made it, as it should have benefited Mr X. However the change was not made public until the new version of VAT Notice 701/30 was published in June 2000.
Customs agreed to refund to Mr X a further year’s VAT (plus interest) for 1995 to 1996. They also offered him a consolatory payment of £500 in recognition of the worry and distress he had been caused by Customs’ errors and delays.
Full text
1.1 Mr X complained that HM Customs and Excise (Customs) had refused to refund in full VAT that he had overpaid as a result of an error made by one of their officers. Mr X contended that he was entitled to a refund of all the VAT that he had declared since 1 August 1994, plus interest. His business had suffered financial difficulties as a result of Customs’ errors, and he had been caused worry and distress by Customs’ delays in dealing with his complaint.
1.2 The investigation began in March 2001 once the Ombudsman had obtained comments from the Chairman of Customs following the referral of Mr X’s complaint by the Member. I have not included in this report every detail investigated by the Ombudsman’s staff, but I am satisfied that no matter of significance has been overlooked.
Back to top
Statutory and administrative background
1.3 Before August 1994 the VAT law pertaining to the provision of education was contained in the Value Added Tax Act 1983, Schedule 6, Group 6. Item 3 of that group exempted from VAT private tuition in subjects normally taught in a school or university except those of a recreational or sporting nature. To qualify for the exemption the tuition also had to be provided on a one-to-one basis and independently of any organisation.
1.4 With effect from 1 August 1994 the VAT exemption for private tuition was broadened to include instruction in sporting and recreational activities under item 2 of Group 6, Schedule 9 of the VAT Act 1994 (as amended by the VAT (Education) (No 2) Order 1994). The criteria that the tuition had to be provided on a one-to-one basis and independently of any organisation were dropped, but the private tuition had to be supplied by an individual teacher acting independently of an employer. VAT Notice 701/30/95 “Education”, which was published on 1 August 1995, explained the terms of the exemption, saying:
“However, your supply is not one of private tuition if you are either the employee of another person or yourself employ or engage others to carry out the instruction, or if you are in partnership with others. Under these circumstances, you are not providing the education as an individual teacher, and the supply is standard-rated unless you qualify as an eligible body.”
1.5 On 30 October 1997 the decision of the VAT and Duties Tribunal in the Clarke case (LON/96/1446 and 1447) was issued. The Tribunal Chairman found that the individual partners in the two appellant partnerships were acting independently of any employer because they were all principals teaching as such; therefore he concluded that the supplies of dance tuition by both partnerships were exempt from VAT.
1.6 In their Business Brief 01/98, dated 7 January 1998, Customs announced that, with immediate effect, any supplies of education or vocational training made by partnerships might qualify for exemption as private tuition under the 1994 provisions. That followed the decision of the Tribunal in the Clarke case. However, Customs added that the supply was not one of private tuition if one or more of the partners took no part in giving instruction or if the partnership employed or engaged anyone else to provide tuition on its behalf. Customs’ Business Briefs are issued primarily to relevant trade bodies and are made available to other interested parties on request.
1.7 In June 2000 Customs published a new version of VAT Notice 701/30 “Education and vocational training” which said that private tuition qualified for exemption where it was supplied by an individual teacher working in a personal capacity or as a member of a partnership. In paragraph 4.2 of the Notice Customs added that the exemption did not extend to instruction delivered by an employee, but that a VAT registered trader might opt to apportion his or her supplies between exempt and taxable elements, using any fair and reasonable method of apportionment.
Back to top
1.8 Customs’ internal guidance for staff on the liability of private tuition says:
“In principle, private tuition is exempt when supplied by either a sole proprietor or a partnership or any member of a partnership. In line with the Tribunal decision in Clarke (see above) all of these qualify as an “individual teacher acting independently of an employer”. But the exemption does not extend to instruction delivered by anyone employed or engaged to help. In these circumstances, the sole proprietor or partnership may opt to apportion their supplies between exempt and taxable elements, using any fair or reasonable method of apportionment.”
1.9 With effect from 18 July 1996, Customs are not liable to repay any amount paid to them more than three years before the making of the claim, under section 47(1) and (2) of the Finance Act 1997, which amended section 80 of the VAT Act 1994. This is known as the three-year capping rule.
Back to top
Sequence of events
1.10 1996 On 30 October 1996 an officer (whom I call officer A) from the local VAT office visited Mr X to inspect his VAT records. Officer A’s report of her visit recorded Mr X’s exempt outputs as “none” and his standard-rated outputs as “entrance fees, bar takings, sale of shoes and costumes”. She also recorded that employees were “2 dancing instructors plus several on s/e [self-employed] basis; 2 bar staff”.
1.11 1999 On 15 November 1999 Mr X wrote to Customs’ VAT deregistration unit in Salford about cancelling the registration of his dance school. He said that he had spoken to the VAT office and had read Notice 701/31 (I assume he meant 701/30). He added that the VAT office had told him that he was exempt from VAT, should never have been allowed to register, and was entitled to three years’ refund. Customs accordingly cancelled his registration from 18 November 1999.
1.12 On 26 November Mr X wrote again to Customs saying that he had run his dancing school for the last thirteen years and had only just discovered that he need not have been registered for VAT. He had struggled to pay his bills because of the need to meet his VAT payments every quarter. He asked for justice to be done and all his payments to be refunded.
1.13 2000 On 4 January 2000 an officer (whom I call officer B) visited Mr X. Officer B recorded in her report that she had discussed Mr X’s business activities with him and was satisfied that his own tuition fees were exempt from VAT. However, income from the children’s tap and ballet classes, which were taught by a self-employed tutor, were still subject to VAT, as were other receipts from bar sales, room hire, and sales of goods such as dance shoes. She also noted that any claim for refund of VAT would be limited to three years’ retrospection. Officer B agreed with Mr X that he should calculate the amount of the repayment due to him and that she would return to check his calculations.
Back to top
1.14 Officer B re-visited Mr X on 17 January and agreed that he was due a repayment of £15,546 VAT. She noted that he was still very unhappy on three counts:
(a) Officer A should have told him in October 1996 that much of his income was exempt. He would then have reclaimed the overpaid VAT and deregistered.
(b) The three-year limit on his claim was unfair, particularly in view of (a).
(c) Although he accepted that the VAT law did not allow him to claim a refund of VAT declared on the ballet/tap tutor’s takings, that too was unfair because once his own exempt income was deducted, the residual turnover was below the VAT registration limits and so he should have been allowed to back-date his deregistration.
Officer B said that she would forward Mr X’s letter to the appropriate person to be treated as a complaint.
1.15 Mr X wrote to the Member on 20 January asking him to take up his case. On 27 January the Member wrote to the Paymaster General asking her to look into Mr X’s complaint.
1.16 On 2 February Customs repaid Mr X a sum of £13,722, which was the £15,546 VAT he had overpaid less a debit balance on his VAT account due to two returns being outstanding.
Back to top
1.17 On 22 February the Deputy Collector of the Customs region wrote to Mr X saying that refunds of VAT were subject to capping by a three-year rule, and so Customs were prevented from backdating the refund to Mr X beyond November 1996. He added that the change in the legislation in 1994 had extended VAT exemption to tuition provided by individuals. Mr X had been trading as a partnership at that time and so he would not have benefited from the exemption until June 1996 when he became a sole proprietor. However, the Deputy Collector acknowledged that if the error had been identified on the routine VAT visit in October 1996 then Mr X might have been entitled to refund of VAT overpaid back to June 1996. Customs were looking at that aspect afresh and would let him know the outcome as soon as they could.
1.18 On 26 February Mr X wrote to the Deputy Collector protesting that the refund he had received was only part of the VAT he had paid over the last three years, as Customs had deducted the VAT he had paid on bar takings and the ballet teacher’s earnings. That was unreasonable, as the sum of those takings would not have exceeded the VAT threshold, and so Mr X would have been entitled to deregister (and so would have paid no VAT at all) had he known in 1996 that his own supplies were exempt. He added that he had received no interest on the overpayment, nor any compensation for additional accountants’ fees incurred. He also said that he had been informed that partnerships were classed as individuals for VAT purposes, and so his refund should be backdated to three years before the officer’s visit in 1996.
1.19 Mr X referred the same points to the Member on 28 February and on the same day the Member passed on to Mr X the Paymaster General’s reply to his original enquiry. Her letter covered the same points as the Deputy Collector’s had done. On 8 March the Member wrote to Mr X confirming that he would take up the matter again with the Treasury.
1.20 On 21 March officer B visited Mr X again to examine his records for the period 20 June 1996 to 31 October 1996. Mr X confirmed to officer B that at that time he had personally conducted all dance classes except the children’s tap and ballet on Saturday mornings. She therefore totalled class takings for all days except Saturdays and calculated the VAT overpaid thereon. She proposed that this sum be paid to Mr X as compensation and, in addition, that Customs release the residual tax he had declared between November 1996 and November 1999. That would restore Mr X to the position he would have been in had he deregistered following officer A’s visit. Officer B recorded that she had picked up the two outstanding returns for periods ended 30 October 1999 and 18 November 1999 and once they had been processed the debit balance on Mr X’s account would be cleared and the shortfall in the original refund paid to him.
Back to top
1.21 On 31 March Customs’ Audit Centre wrote to Mr X referring to his letter of 26 February and saying that they could consider paying out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of official error. They asked him to provide details of such expenses.
1.22 On 2 May an officer at the Audit Centre (officer C) spoke to Mr X on the telephone and told him that Customs proposed to make further refunds to him. Mr X asked officer C to explain the three-year capping rule and how it affected his case. The officer undertook to write to Mr X and he did so on 11 May. He said that the three-year capping rule had been introduced on 18 July 1996 and meant that any errors notified after that time were limited to three years’ retrospection. As the first opportunity that Customs had had to notify Mr X of the error was in October 1996, officer C said that a refund of six years’ overpayment had never been a possibility.
1.23 On 17 May officer C wrote to Mr X saying that he had arranged to refund a further £5,218 so as to put Mr X in the position he would have been in had he deregistered from the end of October 1996. In addition Customs would make an ex gratia payment of £2,328.92 in order to refund the VAT Mr X had declared on exempt takings for the periods ended 31 July 1996 and 30 October 1996.
1.24 On 22 May Mr X wrote to Customs enclosing evidence of out-of-pocket expenses that he had incurred. He added that he had also incurred an extra income tax charge of £340 as a result of receiving the VAT refund.
1.25 On 27 June the Paymaster General wrote to the Member saying that Mr X’s case had now been resolved. First, she explained that the three year capping rule had taken effect on 18 July 1996 and so, even if the visiting officer had notified Mr X of his error in October 1996, a refund of six years’ overpayments was not a possibility. Secondly, she said that in addition to the amounts already notified, Customs were arranging to pay Mr X £550 for accountants’ fees and £340 to cover his additional income tax. The Paymaster General then referred to the Clarke Tribunal decision about partnerships, saying that it only applied to businesses registered at that time (October 1997) and as Mr X was now regarded as having been deregistered since October 1996 it did not apply to his case.
Back to top
Subsequent developments
1.26 In response to an enquiry by the Ombudsman’s staff, on 29 September 2000 Customs agreed to pay statutory interest to Mr X in the sum of £1,939.81. A payable order was issued on or shortly after 17 October; but Mr X returned it to Customs as it was incorrectly made out. A new payable order was issued to Mr X on 15 November.
1.27 Also in response to the Ombudsman’s enquiry, Customs told the Ombudsman’s staff that following the VAT Tribunal decision in the Clarke case (paragraph 1.6 above) Customs had decided that the exemption that applied to the provision of private tuition by individuals (i.e. sole proprietors) should be widened to include supplies by partnerships. Customs said that they had announced the change in treatment in Business Brief 01/98 dated 7 January 1998, and that it was intended to take immediate effect. They told the Ombudsman’s staff that Business Briefs were issued to all VAT registered traders with their VAT returns, and that responsibility lay with the VAT registered person to read them and act accordingly.
1.28 Customs said that Business Brief 01/98 allowed partnerships to reclaim VAT on certain tuition fees subject to the normal capping rules. Therefore, had Mr X taken action in January 1998 he might have reclaimed the VAT that he had overdeclared over the previous three years, that is from January 1995. However Mr X had not notified Customs of the error in his case until November 1999, which entitled him to refund only as far back as November 1996. Customs had made an additional refund back to the date when Mr X became a sole proprietor in recognition of the fact that he had been misdirected by omission. They maintained that, at the time of the officer’s visit in October 1996, the Tribunal decision had not been made and exemption did not apply to tuition supplied by partnerships. Therefore had the officer alerted Mr X to the change in the law he would have been entitled only to refund of VAT on his sole proprietorship supplies from June 1996. Customs said that they had refunded the VAT declared by Mr X from that date and so had remedied the situation by restoring Mr X as far as possible to the position he would have been in had the misdirection not occurred.
1.29 However, once Mr X had been given Customs’ explanations he told the Ombudsman’s staff that he had never received Business Brief 01/98 and that he had been unaware of the Tribunal decision that Customs were relying on to refuse him further refund of VAT.
Back to top
1.30 The Ombudsman’s staff asked Customs to look at the matter again and in January 2001 Customs provided a different explanation of the matters pertinent to Mr X’s case. Customs acknowledged that Business Briefs were not issued to all traders but were, rather, provided primarily to interested trade bodies and were made available on request only. Furthermore, Customs now said that Business Brief 01/98 was largely irrelevant to Mr X’s case.
1.31 Customs said that it had been established by the officer who visited Mr X in October 1996 that he was employing two dance instructors. He was therefore still not entitled to exempt any of his supplies at that stage. The Clarke Tribunal decision in October 1997 had “levelled the playing field” between partnerships and sole proprietors in that it extended the exemption of supplies of private tuition to partnerships. However, it retained the condition that the exemption applied only if there were no employees or other helpers, so it was not relevant to Mr X’s case.
1.32 Customs went on to say that, following the Clarke Tribunal decision, they had received a number of appeals from traders providing private tuition who requested that they be allowed to apply apportionment, exempting their own supplies and charging VAT on the supplies made by their employees. In response to those representations, Customs had changed their policy later in 1998 to allow such apportionment (and the traders’ appeals had then been withdrawn). The new policy had been formally announced in the revised Notice 701/30 that Customs published in June 2000.
1.33 Customs added that the policy change was not retrospective and so Mr X had not been eligible to deregister until 1998, assuming the taxable portion of his takings fell below the VAT registration threshold then in force. The local office’s decision to back-date Mr X’s VAT refund to 20 June 1996 was therefore now deemed to be wrong, but Customs said that they did not propose to revisit the matter.
1.34 In view of the conflicting information provided by Customs, the Ombudsman decided to launch a statutory investigation into Mr X’s complaint.
Back to top
The Chairman’s comments
1.35 Customs’ Chairman gave the Ombudsman his comments on the case in March 2001. He said that, before 1994, sporting and recreational activities had been excluded from the general exemption of private tuition in subjects ordinarily taught by a school or university. Therefore when Mr X registered for VAT on 17 November 1986, all his supplies of private dance tuition were liable to VAT at the standard rate.
1.36 On 1 August 1994 the VAT law had changed (see paragraph 1.4 above) to allow sole proprietors to exempt their supplies from VAT on condition that they did not employ others to teach. On 20 June 1996 Mr X had changed the legal entity of his business from a partnership to a sole proprietorship but continued to employ two dance instructors. For that reason he had not been entitled to exempt any of his supplies at that stage.
1.37 The Chairman repeated that the employee exclusion had been retained by the Clarke Tribunal decision, and said that it was only following numerous further appeals that Customs had changed their policy in June 1998 to allow apportionment between the trader’s own income (exempt) and that of their employees (standard-rated). The Chairman added that he accepted that the policy change had not been promulgated until June 2000, with the issue of the new Notice 701/30.
1.38 Notwithstanding the capping rules, all VAT payments had been reimbursed going back to the date Mr X had registered as a sole proprietor in June 1996. The Chairman concluded by saying that he was unable to agree that Customs had misdirected Mr X in October 1996, as the visiting officer could not have known then that Customs would change their policy in 1998.
Back to top
Officers’ evidence
1.39 Officer A told the Ombudsman’s staff that, on her visit of 30 October 1996, it had not occurred to her that VAT exemption might be applicable to Mr X’s business. She could not remember whether she had known then about the change in the law at 1 August 1994 relating to supplies of private tuition.
1.40 Officer B told the Ombudsman’s staff that when she visited Mr X in March 2000 he had been very upset by the circumstances of his claim, and she had tried her best to help him and to be as fair as possible to him. She had consulted Customs’ internal guidance on the liability of private tuition (paragraph 1.8 above) and had also read the Business Brief that dealt with the change in policy following the Clarke Tribunal case. As she understood it, Mr X’s own tuition income was exempt but his employees’ supplies were standard-rated. Officer B added that she had been completely unaware that apportionment between standard-rated (employees’) and exempt (proprietor’s) outputs applied only from June 1998, and she pointed out that there had been no mention of that date in the internal guidance.
1.41 At a meeting with the Ombudsman’s staff in June 2001, members of Customs’ headquarters policy directorate (Government and Education branch) explained the changes in the law and their interpretation of it from 1 August 1994 to mid-1998. The unit leader, whom I call officer D, told the Ombudsman’s staff that once Customs had decided on their final policy change (allowing apportionment between exempt and standard-rated supplies of private tuition) in June 1998, they should have put out an update to Notice 701/30. However that had not been done and, in the event, the changes had not been publicised until a rewrite of the Notice was issued in June 2000. Mr X had not, therefore, had the information necessary for him to lodge his claim in June 1998. Officer D also agreed that the wording of Notice 701/30/95 was open to different interpretations and that Customs’ internal guidance was not as clear as it might have been. Therefore the local officers had not had the information they needed to make an accurate liability decision; they had done their best, but there had been gaps in communication between headquarters and the local offices.
Back to top
1.42 Officer D said that Mr X had been entitled to rely on both changes in Customs’ interpretation of the law. He proposed to allow Mr X to apply the exemption retrospectively from June 1998. That was subject to the three-year capping regulations, and so refund of VAT could be backdated to June 1995 (that is, a year earlier than had so far been allowed). Mr X would need to submit his own claim for the period from June 1995 to June 1996 as Customs were not in a position to say what portion of his tuition income was self-generated and what was generated by employees. However, if Mr X could satisfy Customs that the income from employee tuition in 1995/96 was below the VAT threshold that applied then, he would be entitled to deregister from June 1995. In that case an ex gratia payment would be made to him in the sum of the total VAT he had paid for 1995/96. Officer D agreed that interest on the additional refund would be payable to Mr X.
1.43 Referring to the letters that Customs had sent in response to the Ombudsman’s initial enquiries, officer D confirmed that in each case the responsible officer had consulted his unit before drafting their reply, but that unfortunately the draft letters had not been checked by him or his staff. The first letter was inaccurate in relying on the Business Brief; and the letter sent in January was confused in that it said Mr X could not benefit from retrospection. Officer D said that, once Customs had decided that their previous interpretation of the law was not right, taxpayers were entitled to rely on the revised interpretation and, if it was to their benefit, to make a claim for refund of VAT going back three years.
Findings
1.44 Officer A, who visited Mr X in October 1996, seems not to have been aware that the exemption applying to private tuition had been broadened on 1 August 1994; at any rate, she did not consider the exemption as being possibly relevant to Mr X’s business. However, officer A’s omission caused no injustice to Mr X because he employed two dance instructors at the time and so was excluded from the terms of the exemption. As the Chairman of Customs has pointed out, officer A could not have anticipated the changes to Customs’ policy that took place in 1998.
1.45 I am satisfied that officer B dealt with Mr X’s claim in a proper manner on the basis of the information and guidance that was available to her. However, Customs’ policy staff have acknowledged that the internal guidance they have issued to assist local officers is not as helpful as it should be. I am concerned about that, particularly as it seems to me that it led to a lack of clarity in Customs’ replies to Mr X’s complaint.
1.46 The final change in Customs’ interpretation of the law that should have benefited Mr X occurred in June 1998 but was not publicised until two years later by means of the new Notice 701/30 (paragraph 1.41 above). I criticise Customs for that delay. Had they acted promptly and issued an update to the Notice covering their change of policy, there would have been an opportunity for Mr X to learn of the change and he might have made a claim then for refund of three years’ VAT payments. Mr X has already received VAT refunds backdated to June 1996. In order to restore him to the position he would have been in had he known of the change in Customs’ policy in June 1998, I asked the Chairman of Customs whether he would offer to refund the VAT (plus interest) that Mr X paid between June 1995 and June 1996. In reply the Chairman said that he accepted in the circumstances of the case that Mr X should be refunded VAT between June 1995 and June 1996. However, since only his personal tuition would have been exempt at that time, and not that of his employees, the Chairman said that Customs would require Mr X to calculate the amount of his VAT claim to enable interest to be calculated and added to the refund.
Back to top
1.47 I was also concerned that my initial enquiries of Customs about Mr X’s complaint were met with inaccurate responses. Customs were wrong to say:
(a) in their reply of 29 September 2000, that Business Brief 01/98 was relevant to Mr X’s circumstances and that he would have received the Business Brief in January 1998;
(b) in their reply of 18 January 2001, that Customs’ change of policy in June 1998 could not be applied retrospectively.
Those mistaken replies amounted to mis-handling of Mr X’s complaint, and I criticise Customs for that. They added to Mr X’s anxiety and frustration and they seriously delayed the final resolution of the matter. I therefore asked the Chairman whether he would offer Mr X a consolatory payment in recognition of that. In reply the Chairman said that he accepted that there had been confusion in the case, although he was pleased that it was now resolved. In view of this and the delays experienced by Mr X, the Chairman proposed to offer him a consolatory payment of £500.
Conclusion
1.48 Customs failed to properly publicise their change of policy in June 1998 and that resulted in Mr X not having the information to enable him to claim a refund then. Customs compounded their error by providing inaccurate information in their initial replies to the Ombudsman’s enquiries. I regard the Chairman’s offer of a refund of VAT plus interest, together with a consolatory payment of £500, to be a suitable outcome to a justified complaint.
Previous < Contents > Next Back to top
|
