Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: VAT apportionment formula

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    pringle bay
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    VAT apportionment formula

    Does anyone know details of the apportionment method to be used to calulate input VAT if an entity does Vatable and exempt supplies. It seems the input VAT claimable is to be calculated in proportion to the incomes of Vatable supply divided by total income. But which turnover figures do you use - last retunrs', current return, year to date , last year ?

  2. #2
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Vanderbijlpark
    Posts
    886
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 381 Times in 298 Posts
    Hi Alanc, this should help
    From SAICA:

    Value-added Tax
    1912. VAT apportionment
    January 2011 - Issue 137




    General

    The VAT rules require a vendor who makes both taxable supplies and supplies other than taxable supplies (such as loans earning interest) to claim input tax only to the extent that the goods or services concerned are acquired for consumption in making taxable supplies.

    Put differently, only a portion of the input tax incurred in respect of goods and services acquired for the purposes of making mixed supplies, such as general overhead expenditures in the case of a bank, may be claimed.


    Calculating the ratio

    To calculate the input tax that is recoverable on expenses consumed in the making of both taxable and exempt and non-supplies, the taxpayer must, in the absence of a specific SARS approval, apply the standard turnover-based method.

    The ratio is calculated as follows:

    Taxable % =


    Total value of consideration for taxable supplies
    ________________________________________

    Total value of consideration for all supplies


    In terms of section 17 of the VAT Act, if the intended taxable use of the goods and services exceeds 95%, the goods and services concerned are regarded as having been acquired wholly for the purpose of making taxable supplies and the input VAT is then recoverable in full.

    The “VAT 404 Guide for Vendors” specifies that the denominator (total value of all supplies) “should include any other amounts ‘received or accrued’ in the period (whether in respect of supplies or not)”. The terms “received and accrued” are not defined in the VAT or Income Tax Acts but the High Court ruled many years ago in Geldenhuys v CIR [1947] (14 SATC 149) case that “received” means “beneficially received” (i.e. on the recipients own behalf) and in CIR v People Stores (Walvis Bay) (Pty) Ltd [1990] (52 SATC 9) , that “accrued” means “unconditional entitlement”.

    According to SARS, this means that vendors must include in the denominator (for example):

    · realised gains on foreign exchange transactions

    · dividend and interest income

    · proceeds of a debtor’s book securitisation (for working capital purposes).

    The vendor’s guide is also clear that consideration for non-supplies (an unusual category of transaction that we will not discuss here) must also be included and the taxpayer must obtain prior approval to exclude them should it result in an unfair or distorted apportionment ratio.

    In our view, dividends received and foreign currency gains are generally not the result of any ongoing effort by a vendor and should properly be excluded on the basis that no inputs are acquired ‘for’ earning them. Unfortunately, discussions with SARS aimed at removing these amounts from the formula in appropriate instances have been consistently unsuccessful.


    “Tainted” expenses

    The next step is to determine the expenses/input VAT that requires apportioning.

    SARS’ focus has recently moved from the calculation of the denominator to challenging the expenses in the “pot” that require apportioning.

    SARS’ view is that even if an input is used minimally in making supplies other than taxable supplies, the related expense is “tainted” and the input VAT paid should be apportioned in accordance with the ratio calculated above. In other words, SARS applies the 95% only after all mixed inputs are in the pot, and does not apply it to determine whether an input should go into the pot in the first place. Again, in our view this is a blatant distortion of the clearly worded requirements of the legislation, but attempts to argue against it continue to fall on deaf ears.


    What you can expect

    Since withdrawing all rulings at the end of June 2007, SARS has not reconfirmed the apportionment rulings previously issued to vendors for the use of anything other than the standard turnover based method, so vendors using any other methodology are at risk.



    SARS clearly views apportionment of input tax as a primary generator of revenue and vendors across all sectors can expect a knock on the door and to be challenged on input VAT claimed in full. Those vendors making non-vatable supplies in excess of 5% of their total receipts and accruals may therefore find themselves liable to apportion any VAT on inputs not wholly attributable to the making of taxable supplies, on the basis of the formula discussed above. Although the technical validity of this approach is, we believe, faulty, experience suggests that unless a vendor is prepared to take matters to court (and resist the temptation to settle), they might as well decide on the amount they are prepared to pay SARS to go away, and aim for a settlement on that basis.



    Ernst & Young



    VAT Act:S 17

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    pringle bay
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Thanks Clive

    Quote Originally Posted by CLIVE-TRIANGLE View Post
    Hi Alanc, this should help
    From SAICA:

    Value-added Tax
    1912. VAT apportionment
    January 2011 - Issue 137




    General

    The VAT rules require a vendor who makes both taxable supplies and supplies other than taxable supplies (such as loans earning interest) to claim input tax only to the extent that the goods or services concerned are acquired for consumption in making taxable supplies.

    Put differently, only a portion of the input tax incurred in respect of goods and services acquired for the purposes of making mixed supplies, such as general overhead expenditures in the case of a bank, may be claimed.


    Calculating the ratio

    To calculate the input tax that is recoverable on expenses consumed in the making of both taxable and exempt and non-supplies, the taxpayer must, in the absence of a specific SARS approval, apply the standard turnover-based method.

    The ratio is calculated as follows:

    Taxable % =


    Total value of consideration for taxable supplies
    ________________________________________

    Total value of consideration for all supplies


    In terms of section 17 of the VAT Act, if the intended taxable use of the goods and services exceeds 95%, the goods and services concerned are regarded as having been acquired wholly for the purpose of making taxable supplies and the input VAT is then recoverable in full.

    The “VAT 404 Guide for Vendors” specifies that the denominator (total value of all supplies) “should include any other amounts ‘received or accrued’ in the period (whether in respect of supplies or not)”. The terms “received and accrued” are not defined in the VAT or Income Tax Acts but the High Court ruled many years ago in Geldenhuys v CIR [1947] (14 SATC 149) case that “received” means “beneficially received” (i.e. on the recipients own behalf) and in CIR v People Stores (Walvis Bay) (Pty) Ltd [1990] (52 SATC 9) , that “accrued” means “unconditional entitlement”.

    According to SARS, this means that vendors must include in the denominator (for example):

    · realised gains on foreign exchange transactions

    · dividend and interest income

    · proceeds of a debtor’s book securitisation (for working capital purposes).

    The vendor’s guide is also clear that consideration for non-supplies (an unusual category of transaction that we will not discuss here) must also be included and the taxpayer must obtain prior approval to exclude them should it result in an unfair or distorted apportionment ratio.

    In our view, dividends received and foreign currency gains are generally not the result of any ongoing effort by a vendor and should properly be excluded on the basis that no inputs are acquired ‘for’ earning them. Unfortunately, discussions with SARS aimed at removing these amounts from the formula in appropriate instances have been consistently unsuccessful.


    “Tainted” expenses

    The next step is to determine the expenses/input VAT that requires apportioning.

    SARS’ focus has recently moved from the calculation of the denominator to challenging the expenses in the “pot” that require apportioning.

    SARS’ view is that even if an input is used minimally in making supplies other than taxable supplies, the related expense is “tainted” and the input VAT paid should be apportioned in accordance with the ratio calculated above. In other words, SARS applies the 95% only after all mixed inputs are in the pot, and does not apply it to determine whether an input should go into the pot in the first place. Again, in our view this is a blatant distortion of the clearly worded requirements of the legislation, but attempts to argue against it continue to fall on deaf ears.


    What you can expect

    Since withdrawing all rulings at the end of June 2007, SARS has not reconfirmed the apportionment rulings previously issued to vendors for the use of anything other than the standard turnover based method, so vendors using any other methodology are at risk.



    SARS clearly views apportionment of input tax as a primary generator of revenue and vendors across all sectors can expect a knock on the door and to be challenged on input VAT claimed in full. Those vendors making non-vatable supplies in excess of 5% of their total receipts and accruals may therefore find themselves liable to apportion any VAT on inputs not wholly attributable to the making of taxable supplies, on the basis of the formula discussed above. Although the technical validity of this approach is, we believe, faulty, experience suggests that unless a vendor is prepared to take matters to court (and resist the temptation to settle), they might as well decide on the amount they are prepared to pay SARS to go away, and aim for a settlement on that basis.



    Ernst & Young



    VAT Act:S 17

Similar Threads

  1. the get rich quick formula
    By murdock in forum General Business Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 14-Apr-10, 07:32 AM
  2. formula for adding amp values
    By foxfire in forum Electrical Contracting Industry Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 29-Jun-09, 04:38 PM
  3. Formula 1 2008 - How close was that!
    By Dave A in forum General Chat Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-Nov-08, 10:12 PM

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •