HM Revenue and Customs Brief 15/13
Submit Articles Back to Articles
Issued 10 July 2013
Judgments of the High Court in Investment Trust Companies (in
liquidation) -v- CRC  EWHC 458 (Ch);  STC 1150;  All
ER (D) 84 (Mar) &  EWHC 665 (Ch);  WLR (D) 125 (ITC)
Claims under section 80 of the VAT Act 1994 (section 80) (the
VAT Act) – Claims by persons to whom VAT has been wrongly charged –
Common law claims against HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) by third
parties – Whether HMRC is liable – Who can claim
Purpose of this brief
This Revenue & Customs Brief sets out, in the wake of
the judgments of the High Court in ITC, HMRC’s view of the situation
- a person (the Supplier) has charged an amount as VAT to
their customers (the Customers) which ought not to have been charged
- they have passed the ultimate economic burden of that VAT
charge on to those Customers so that the VAT has not been a cost to
them and has not suffered any loss or damage to their business as a
- owing to exceptional circumstances, the Customers are
unable to get the amounts wrongly charged to them back from the
This Revenue & Customs Brief is aimed primarily at
professional tax advisors and lawyers although it may be of interest to
This Revenue & Customs Brief is for information only.
HMRC does not require any action to be taken.
Background – section 80 claims
A person who makes taxable supplies (a Supplier) is required
to register for VAT and to charge VAT (their output tax) on the
supplies of goods and services that they make to their customers.
Because they are making taxable supplies, they are entitled to deduct
from the output tax for which they are liable the VAT that is charged
to them (their input tax) by their suppliers.
If a person has accounted for output tax on goods or services
they have supplied on the assumption that those supplies are properly
taxable and later discover they are, in fact, exempt, they can make a
clam under section 80 to recover the wrongly declared output tax. That
claim is subject to statutory time limits (four years) and must be
reduced by any input tax that was wrongly deducted.
Section 80 provides that only the person who accounted for
the output tax is entitled to make a claim – Please note that it is
possible to legally assign the right to make it to someone else under,
for example, section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (England
& Wales), section 87(1) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland)
Act 1978 or by an assignation in Scotland.
HMRC will reject a section 80 claim if they believe that the
claimant would be unjustly enriched by the payment. Payment will
unjustly enrich a claimant if:
- they passed the economic burden of the VAT charge on to
their customers in the price charged to them, and
- they suffered no loss or damage to their business (for
example, by loss of customers or of profits) as a result of having done
Background – Claims by Customers
Where a Customer believes that a Supplier has wrongly charged
them VAT, their remedy is to bring a claim against their Supplier. This
is a commercial matter and the right to claim against the Supplier will
depend upon the terms of the contract under which the goods or services
were supplied. In simple terms, the Customer has simply been
overcharged by the Supplier.
Such claims are not statutory claims. They are not provided
for in any of the tax legislation and will normally be subject to the
time limits provided for in the relevant statute of limitations – see
There is no statutory provision which would enable the
Customer to make a claim against HMRC.
Background – ITC
In June 2007, the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(ECJ) delivered its judgment in JP Morgan Fleming Claverhouse
Investment Trust Plc & Anor –v– CRC  STC 1180 ruling that
supplies of fund management services were not liable to VAT at the
standard rate but were exempt.
In the wake of that judgment, HMRC received, and paid, claims
made under section 80 by fund managers (the Suppliers) for output tax
overdeclared on supplies of fund management services made to investment
trust companies (the Customers).
The Suppliers accepted, when they made their claims, that
they had passed the economic burden of the wrongly charged VAT on to
their Customers, that they had suffered no loss or damage to their
business as a result and that, consequently, they would be unjustly
enriched if they were allowed to keep any payments made to them by
They undertook to reimburse to their Customers anything paid
to them by HMRC.
However, as explained above, the Suppliers were not repaid by
HMRC the total amount wrongly charged as VAT to their Customers. By way
of example, assuming the output tax wrongly charged by the Supplier was
£100 and the input tax wrongly deducted by them was £25, the latter was
set against the former and the Supplier was repaid the net amount of
£75 which they passed on to their Customers.
As a result, the amount wrongly charged to the Customers as
VAT by their Suppliers exceeded the amount reimbursed to them.
Nine investment trust companies made common law claims in
restitution against HMRC for the difference.
The High Court’s judgment in ITC
On 2 March 2012 and 26 March 2013, the High Court handed down
Mr Justice Henderson held that:
- section 80 prevents any claim being made against HMRC by
anyone other than the Supplier (in this case the fund managers)
- HMRC have been enriched at the expense of the investment
trust companies to the extent of the full amount charged by the fund
managers to the investment trust companies (that is, the £100 in the
example given above)
- that enrichment had been unjust
- the investment trust companies could be said to have a
common law claim in restitution against HMRC notwithstanding the fact
that they had made no direct payment to HMRC.
He went on to hold that:
- the investment trust companies’ primary remedy was to make
a claim against the fund managers
- any such claim that they might make would, on the facts in
this case, be excessively difficult or impossible in practice to enforce
- the investment trust companies have a directly effective
EU law right to recover the balance of wrongly charged VAT from HMRC,
- to that end they were entitled to make a mistake-based
claim in restitution against HMRC.
It was accepted by all parties that the fund managers had
passed the ultimate economic burden of the wrongly charged VAT on to
the investment trust companies and had not suffered any loss or damage
to their business as a result.
The effects of the judgment
Both parties have been given
leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of the High
Customers who believe that they
are entitled to bring claims on the basis of the judgment may do so.
However, Mr Justice Henderson held that claims such as those made by
the investment trust companies were claims of last resort. In any
event, a Customer may only be entitled to
make a claim direct against HMRC where they can show that:
- the tax was wrongly levied in breach of EU
- the Supplier passed the wrongly charged tax on to them so
that they ultimately bore the economic burden of it, and
- it is, for reasons unrelated to the merits
of the claim, excessively difficult or impossible in
practice for them to make a claim against their Supplier.
Claims must be brought in the
relevant courts and must be
These judgments have no application
in relation to duties, taxes and levies which have been collected by
HMRC in breach of UK legislation but not in breach of EU law.
These are not statutory claims for recovery of tax wrongly
accounted for. They are not claims made under section 80 and are
outside the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal.
In England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, these claims
are mistake-based claims in restitution and must be brought in the High
Court. Claims for less than £30,000 should be brought in the County
In Scotland they are actions of repetition to recover an
overpaid sum of money and can be brought in the Court of Session or the
Sheriff Court. Claims for £5,000 or less must be brought in the Sheriff
HMRC will normally agree to have claims founded on directly
effective EU law rights, and falling within the scope of this Revenue
& Customs Brief, stayed or sisted behind the litigation in ITC,
but all claims must be particularised.
'Claims' submitted by writing to HMRC will be neither
effective nor valid. HRMC is unable to do anything with them to
validate them and they will not stop the clock for the purposes of the
relevant time limits.
Because these claims are not statutory claims and are not made
under any provision of the VAT legislation, they are not subject to the
time limits prescribed in the VAT Act but are subject to the time
limits provided for in the various statutes of limitation in the three
jurisdictions of the United Kingdom.
Those time limits are as follows:
- England & Wales –
six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued or six
years from the date on which the mistake giving rise to the cause of
action was discovered or could have been discovered with reasonable
diligence – sections 2 and 32(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980
- Northern Ireland – six years
from the date on which the cause of action accrued or six years from
the date on which the mistake giving rise to the cause of action was
discovered our could have been discovered with reasonable diligence –
Articles 6 and 71 of the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, and
- Scotland – five years from
the date on which the obligation arose (the date on which the payment
was made by the Supplier to HMRC) unless the claimant can show that he
was induced to refrain from making a claim by the words or actions of
HMRC – section 6 of the Limitation and Prescription (Scotland) Act
In the circumstances with which this Revenue &
Customs Brief is concerned, a cause of action normally accrues when a
person pays an amount to another person which they ought not to have
been required to pay.
It is important to note that the High Court held that the
investment trust companies (the Customers) were only entitled to
repayment of the VAT wrongly charged to them in the prescribed
accounting periods for which the fund managers (their Suppliers) had
themselves made claims which were in time under the statutory section
80 time limits.
They were not entitled to claim for amounts wrongly charged
to them in prescribed accounting periods which were out-of-time when
the fund managers made their claims.
In cases where a Supplier has accounted for VAT
in breach of EU law but has not made a valid section 80
claim, it will not be possible for a Customer to make a claim against
HMRC in respect of any period which is, at that point, outside the time
limits for a section 80 claim.
The High Court said that the Customer can have no better
claim, and no more advantageous time limits, than the Supplier had or
would have had.
Claims of the type discussed in this Revenue & Customs
Brief are outside the scope of HMRC’s legislation and guidance manuals
so that the National Advice Service and the Written Enquiries Teams are
unable to advise potential claimants.
If you believe you may be entitled to make a claim, you should
seek professional advice.
Guidance on reclaiming overpaid tax for taxpayers who have
paid VAT to HMRC - including on time limits and unjust enrichment – can
be found in 'Notice 700/45 How to correct VAT errors and make
adjustments or claims' and the 'VAT Refunds Manual'.
About the Author
© Crown Copyright 2013.
A licence is needed to reproduce this article and has been republished
for educational / informational purposes only. Article reproduced by
permission of HM Revenue & Customs.
Follow us @Scopulus_News
Article Published/Sorted/Amended on Scopulus 2013-07-14 14:19:28 in Tax Articles