News – 19.12.24
Buzzacott advises Rose Street Partners on its investment in Kenwood Damp Proofing PLC
Discover how Buzzacott supported Rose Street Partners on its investment in Kenwood Damp Proofing PLC … Read more
Insight – 18.12.24
Start-up guide: Everything you need to know about Tronc schemes to set your new hospitality business up for success
One challenge for new hospitality businesses is the management of tips and service charges. … Read more
Upcoming event – 16.01.25
VAT on Private School fees training
This in-depth, interactive training seminar is designed to provide school administrators, bursars, finance officers, accountants, and trustees with tailored support and expert insights on the practical implementation of VAT. … Read more
Find us quickly
130 Wood Street, London, EC2V 6DL
enquiries@buzzacott.co.uk T +44 (0)20 7556 1200
Alongside the direct impact on charities that have substantial investment portfolios, there may also be a wider impact on the ability to reclaim VAT on fundraising costs generally.
The University of Cambridge made a claim in 2009 for VAT incurred between 1973 and 1997 and from 2006 to 2009 on the fees for managing an investment fund made up of donations to the University and endowments.
The University had argued that VAT incurred on its investment management fees should be partly recoverable on the basis that the income generated from the funds is used to finance the whole of its activities, which were a mix of taxable and exempt supplies. HMRC argued that the investment management costs were directly referable to the non-business investment activity alone, and also that the costs were not a ‘cost component’ of the downstream business supplies. HMRC challenged the University of Cambridge over the issue in the UK courts before the case was referred to the CJEU in April last year.
The CJEU decided to back HMRC’s interpretation of the issue.
The case will have a significant direct impact on charities that are registered for VAT which have large investment portfolios, and have been deducting VAT on investment management costs. HMRC can be expected to assess charities that have made claims for a proportion of the VAT on such fees and to enforce any protective assessments that may have already been issued. If no communication is received from HMRC, it may be necessary to consider making a disclosure to correct past claims.
There may also be a wider impact on fundraising costs generally.
Since the UK decision in Church of England Children’s Society, it has been assumed that VAT on such costs is an overhead of the general activities of the charity, as long as the funds raised are used to support the making of taxable supplies. In such circumstances, HMRC allowed charities to treat costs incurred on fundraising activities as overheads of their whole activities. This means that the VAT on costs was partly recoverable. The Cambridge case implies that the case for deducting VAT on the costs of raising funds such as seeking donations, grants, and bequests to support charitable supplies, is now weaker.
We will need to wait for HMRC’s views on this wider aspect of the decision. It is hoped that they will not seek retrospective adjustments given their previous guidance, but clearly some clarity is needed following this decision and an early announcement setting out HMRC’s policy together with guidance on any adjustments required would be welcomed.
In the meantime, please contact us if this decision affects your organisation or if you would like to discuss its implications.
Alongside the direct impact on charities that have substantial investment portfolios, there may also be a wider impact on the ability to reclaim VAT on fundraising costs generally.
The University of Cambridge made a claim in 2009 for VAT incurred between 1973 and 1997 and from 2006 to 2009 on the fees for managing an investment fund made up of donations to the University and endowments.
The University had argued that VAT incurred on its investment management fees should be partly recoverable on the basis that the income generated from the funds is used to finance the whole of its activities, which were a mix of taxable and exempt supplies. HMRC argued that the investment management costs were directly referable to the non-business investment activity alone, and also that the costs were not a ‘cost component’ of the downstream business supplies. HMRC challenged the University of Cambridge over the issue in the UK courts before the case was referred to the CJEU in April last year.
The CJEU decided to back HMRC’s interpretation of the issue.
The case will have a significant direct impact on charities that are registered for VAT which have large investment portfolios, and have been deducting VAT on investment management costs. HMRC can be expected to assess charities that have made claims for a proportion of the VAT on such fees and to enforce any protective assessments that may have already been issued. If no communication is received from HMRC, it may be necessary to consider making a disclosure to correct past claims.
There may also be a wider impact on fundraising costs generally.
Since the UK decision in Church of England Children’s Society, it has been assumed that VAT on such costs is an overhead of the general activities of the charity, as long as the funds raised are used to support the making of taxable supplies. In such circumstances, HMRC allowed charities to treat costs incurred on fundraising activities as overheads of their whole activities. This means that the VAT on costs was partly recoverable. The Cambridge case implies that the case for deducting VAT on the costs of raising funds such as seeking donations, grants, and bequests to support charitable supplies, is now weaker.
We will need to wait for HMRC’s views on this wider aspect of the decision. It is hoped that they will not seek retrospective adjustments given their previous guidance, but clearly some clarity is needed following this decision and an early announcement setting out HMRC’s policy together with guidance on any adjustments required would be welcomed.
In the meantime, please contact us if this decision affects your organisation or if you would like to discuss its implications.
We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We’d also like to set optional analytics and marketing cookies. We won't set these cookies unless you choose to turn these cookies on. Using this tool will also set a cookie on your device to remember your preferences.
For more information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page.
Please be aware:
— If you delete all your cookies you will have to update your preferences with us again.
— If you use a different device or browser you will have to tell us your preferences again.
Necessary cookies help make a website usable by enabling basic functions like page navigation and access to secure areas of the website. The website cannot function properly without these cookies.
Analytics cookies help us to understand how visitors interact with our website by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.