Uber and VAT

[anonymous-user]

Looks to me like the fund raising is into the home straight

A mystery donor pledging to match the next £20k and a big article in the wail should see it done in short order

https://twitter.com/goodlawproject/status/84696069...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4358770/Do...

[Alpinestars]

JPJPJP said:

Looks to me like the fund raising is into the home straight

A mystery donor pledging to match the next £20k and a big article in the wail should see it done in short order

https://twitter.com/goodlawproject/status/84696069...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4358770/Do...

Whilst I appreciate people seem to be working on this at vastly reduced rates, perhaps even pro bono, 75 or 100k is peanuts to bring a High Court case. And an even bigger hurdle might be if the case goes against HMRC and is then appealed.

Seems to me that's it's taken a long time to raise this money, so they may never be in a position to fight it or appeal it. Probably the best they can hope to achieve is raise awareness and let HMRC (and other tax authorities) make its (their) enquiries in due course.

[Murph7355]

JPJPJP said:

Looks to me like the fund raising is into the home straight

A mystery donor pledging to match the next £20k and a big article in the wail should see it done in short order

https://twitter.com/goodlawproject/status/84696069...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4358770/Do...

PHammond on the list?

[anonymous-user]

I don't know about Hammond, but if there has been a pay day for MPs since 21 March, then Wes Streeting MP (member of the Treasury Select Committee) is.

[anonymous-user]

Alpinestars said:

Whilst I appreciate people seem to be working on this at vastly reduced rates, perhaps even pro bono, 75 or 100k is peanuts to bring a High Court case. And an even bigger hurdle might be if the case goes against HMRC and is then appealed.

Seems to me that's it's taken a long time to raise this money, so they may never be in a position to fight it or appeal it. Probably the best they can hope to achieve is raise awareness and let HMRC (and other tax authorities) make its (their) enquiries in due course.

You are right, the £75k will only just about get them into the High Court.

I expect that much will be made of the fact that the case has been crowdfunded, with small donations, as a way of attempting to show that the case has the support of the public.

What happens then depends on the way the case unfolds and any judgment handed down.

I am really looking forward to it!

[Murph7355]

JPJPJP said:

You are right, the £75k will only just about get them into the High Court.

I expect that much will be made of the fact that the case has been crowdfunded, with small donations, as a way of attempting to show that the case has the support of the public.

What happens then depends on the way the case unfolds and any judgment handed down.

I am really looking forward to it!

I still remain unconvinced this is a good precedent to set.

Mob justice via Twitter is not something to be encouraged. It's bad enough doing it via the Daily Mail, but a different quality of cretin exists in the TwitterSphere. The Donald for example

[Alpinestars]

Murph7355 said:

I still remain unconvinced this is a good precedent to set.

Mob justice via Twitter is not something to be encouraged. It's bad enough doing it via the Daily Mail, but a different quality of cretin exists in the TwitterSphere. The Donald for example

I don't see any mob justice. It's a funding platform to bring a case via our legal system, on a point of law which could go either way. The legalities will be decided by the Courts or HMRC applying the relevant tax laws.

[Murph7355]

Alpinestars said:

I don't see any mob justice. It's a funding platform to bring a case via our legal system, on a point of law which could go either way. The legalities will be decided by the Courts or HMRC applying the relevant tax laws.

It's HMRC's job to set the rules with the govt of the day and to police them. If there's a case to be brought, they should be bringing it.

If any Tom, Dick or Harry can look at someone else's business model and say "I don't like that and don't think you pay enough tax, I'm going to take you to court over it"... Well I don't see that ending well.

This one is just a lawyer seeking publicity/business. Insidious enough. But the precedent is not a good one.

One hopes Mr Maugham's affairs are squeaky clean.

I wonder what his ultimate objective is, if indeed there is one over publicity. It's a bit like Gina Miller. What material change are they hoping to effect. If Maugham gets a court to agree that they think Uber should pay VAT, what is the expectation then on HMRC over and above what they are doing already?

[johnfm]

The Moose said:

johnfm said:

Do receipts from black cab drivers separate out the VAT? I cannot recall getting a VAT receipt the last time I used one.

That's not necessarily a fair (see what I did there ) comparison as generally they are hailed not booked.

I would agree that I have never been given a VAT receipt from a minicab I've booked however.

What has hailing or booking got to do with it?

If it is a service and is liable to VAT, a black cab and a private hire receipt should include VAT.


Of course I doubt any sole trading black cab or minicab driver would ever declare enough earnings to hit the VAT threshold anyway, but one would think minicab firms with a fleet of cars would.

[Alpinestars]

Murph7355 said:

Alpinestars said:

I don't see any mob justice. It's a funding platform to bring a case via our legal system, on a point of law which could go either way. The legalities will be decided by the Courts or HMRC applying the relevant tax laws.

It's HMRC's job to set the rules with the govt of the day and to police them. If there's a case to be brought, they should be bringing it.

If any Tom, Dick or Harry can look at someone else's business model and say "I don't like that and don't think you pay enough tax, I'm going to take you to court over it"... Well I don't see that ending well.

This one is just a lawyer seeking publicity/business. Insidious enough. But the precedent is not a good one.

One hopes Mr Maugham's affairs are squeaky clean.

I wonder what his ultimate objective is, if indeed there is one over publicity. It's a bit like Gina Miller. What material change are they hoping to effect. If Maugham gets a court to agree that they think Uber should pay VAT, what is the expectation then on HMRC over and above what they are doing already?

HMRC may well be looking at this, or might not yet have the bandwidth to look at it, or when they looked at it, the business model was different to now. HMRC is not a perfectly oiled machine that picks up all issues, They are very resource restrained, and asa policy might only focus on certain areas at any point in time. This sort of stuff might raise the profile of the case, and may bring to light facts that they are not yet aware of. So long as the outcome is decided within the rules of our laws, I don't care how that comes about. But it's certainly not mob law in my view.

If a Court decides VAT should be charged, HMRC has a responsibility to collect VAT.

[Centurion07]

And if they decide there isn't?

If any Tom, Dick or Harry can take a private company to court over what should be a matter between that company and HMRC then I'm with the poster above, it sets a very worrying precedent.

Imagine you owned your own company and then one day a bigger competitor decides to haul you into court in a similar fashion, meaning you spend thousands of pounds defending yourself on a matter that HMRC either haven't looked at or don't care enough about to do it themselves...

[Alpinestars]

Centurion07 said:

And if they decide there isn't?

If any Tom, Dick or Harry can take a private company to court over what should be a matter between that company and HMRC then I'm with the poster above, it sets a very worrying precedent.

Imagine you owned your own company and then one day a bigger competitor decides to haul you into court in a similar fashion, meaning you spend thousands of pounds defending yourself on a matter that HMRC either haven't looked at or don't care enough about to do it themselves...

People don't spend money on a whim. It's not difficult to see a case where HMRC or the Courts successfully challenge Uber on VAT.

As far as I understand, the people bringing the case have an opinion from a Tax QC which suggests the business could be VATable, and therefore should have issued a VAT invoice. . If it's a flippant claim, I doubt Uber would bother spending much on it. And if it goes against them, because they didn't bother putting a strong enough case forward, they could always appeal the decision.

I also imagine there is a hurdle which needs to be jumped before you or I could take a company to Court. Maybe one of the lawyers (JohnFM) could clarify.

[anonymous-user]

Alpinestars said:

People don't spend money on a whim. It's not difficult to see a case where HMRC or the Courts successfully challenge Uber on VAT.

As far as I understand, the people bringing the case have an opinion from a Tax QC which suggests the business could be VATable, and therefore should have issued a VAT invoice. . If it's a flippant claim, I doubt Uber would bother spending much on it. And if it goes against them, because they didn't bother putting a strong enough case forward, they could always appeal the decision.

I also imagine there is a hurdle which needs to be jumped before you or I could take a company to Court. Maybe one of the lawyers (JohnFM) could clarify.

The case is specific. It seeks for the high court to order uber to issue a vat receipt to a rider, in order that the vat may be reclaimed as a legitimate expense.

That will, it seems to be expected, lead to the court needing to rule if uber should be registered for vat or not.

The case is being brought by a tax QC supported by the opinion of another tax QC and a junior and represented by a law firm

AIUI a letter before action has already been issued to uber

I wonder if uber has an easy way out, just by refunding the fare?

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 29th March 20:33

[Alpinestars]

JPJPJP said:

The case is specific. It seeks for the high court to order uber to issue a vat receipt to a rider, in order that the vat may be reclaimed as a legitimate expense.

That will, it seems to be expected, lead to the court needing to rule if uber should be registered for vat or not.

The case is being brought by a tax QC supported by the opinion of another tax QC and a junior and represented by a law firm

AIUI a letter before action has already been issued to uber

I wonder if uber has an easy way out, just by refunding the fare?

Edited by JPJPJP on Wednesday 29th March 20:33

Thanks. I was aware of most of that. No idea on what a refund would do re the case, but they never issue receipts so every ride would "reset" the clock.

Do you mind me asking if you are a Black Cab driver?

[anonymous-user]

Alpinestars said:

Thanks. I was aware of most of that. No idea on what a refund would do re the case, but they never issue receipts so every ride would "reset" the clock.

Do you mind me asking if you are a Black Cab driver?

I'm not a black cab driver. In fact I am nothing at all to do with any part of the cab / mini cab / taxi business at all in any way

Just an interested observer of the case

[anonymous-user]

Initial target of £75k has been reached

https://www.crowdjustice.org/case/uber/

[Murph7355]

Alpinestars said:

People don't spend money on a whim. It's not difficult to see a case where HMRC or the Courts successfully challenge Uber on VAT.
...

I can envisage a situation where it wouldn't be on a whim though. Even the threat of legal action can cause serious issues for firms.

In this case it's hard to feel sorry for Uber. They're not exactly small and should be big enough to defend themselves without issue. But the principle is there.

Your question about black cabs was interesting in this vein. I wonder how much of the 75k came from the black cab industry.

I can't fully put my finger on it, but that just doesn't seem to be what the court system is for. If a "rival" feels they are being unfairly treated (e.g. they are paying VAT but the other party isn't)...they should be taking HMRC to court and not the rival firm. But that would strike me as a potentially far riskier and more costly route.

Is this the first time this sort of thing has happened?

(Also an interested observer btw. Not a cabbie ).

[Alpinestars]

Murph7355 said:

I can envisage a situation where it wouldn't be on a whim though. Even the threat of legal action can cause serious issues for firms.

In this case it's hard to feel sorry for Uber. They're not exactly small and should be big enough to defend themselves without issue. But the principle is there.

Your question about black cabs was interesting in this vein. I wonder how much of the 75k came from the black cab industry.

I can't fully put my finger on it, but that just doesn't seem to be what the court system is for. If a "rival" feels they are being unfairly treated (e.g. they are paying VAT but the other party isn't)...they should be taking HMRC to court and not the rival firm. But that would strike me as a potentially far riskier and more costly route.

Is this the first time this sort of thing has happened?

(Also an interested observer btw. Not a cabbie ).

I think you are missing a subtle point. A person is taking Uber to court because he is challenging the fact that he was not issued a VAT invoice. That seems perfectly reasonable, becaus if VAT is recoverable for that person, and someone incorrectly doesn't issue a VAT invoice, it's a cost to that person. Why should he suffer thay cost?

Clearly the purpose of the challenge is different.

One of my best mates is a Black Cabbie, and Uber has decimated his business.

[Murph7355]

Alpinestars said:

I think you are missing a subtle point. A person is taking Uber to court because he is challenging the fact that he was not issued a VAT invoice. That seems perfectly reasonable, becaus if VAT is recoverable for that person, and someone incorrectly doesn't issue a VAT invoice, it's a cost to that person. Why should he suffer thay cost?

Clearly the purpose of the challenge is different.

One of my best mates is a Black Cabbie, and Uber has decimated his business.

There's not a person on this planet who would genuinely take Uber to court for not being given a receipt The cost/benefit ratio would not pay off for any sane individual. You'd just stop using them and tell all your mates to do the same.

As you note, the purpose is very, very different.

I appreciate your mate and others may be impacted. But as I noted, surely the "right" way to deal with that would be to take HMRC to court? Or persuade Mr Maugham to do so.

Presumably your mate is VAT registered and believes this to be the root of his decimation?

[Alpinestars]

Murph7355 said:

There's not a person on this planet who would genuinely take Uber to court for not being given a receipt The cost/benefit ratio would not pay off for any sane individual. You'd just stop using them and tell all your mates to do the same.

As you note, the purpose is very, very different.

I appreciate your mate and others may be impacted. But as I noted, surely the "right" way to deal with that would be to take HMRC to court? Or persuade Mr Maugham to do so.

Presumably your mate is VAT registered and believes this to be the root of his decimation?

This is not personal, so don't make it personal.

Can you set out clearly, on what basis the plaintiff would take HMRC to court on this?