Dodgy till receipt? Any VAT experts here?

[anonymous-user]

This was just posted by someone local to me on Facebook.

It is till receipt from a local newsagents, one that I used to frequent myself on an almost daily basis.

Simple question: can anyone explain what is going on with the VAT here?

[V8OW]

NinjaPower said:

This was just posted by someone local to me on Facebook.

It is till receipt from a local newsagents, one that I used to frequent myself on an almost daily basis.

Simple question: can anyone explain what is going on with the VAT here?

Not an expert, but I would say:

Food is zero rated, so doesn't attract vat.

The drink is standard rated, and the 0.80 is something else standard rated (presumably just keyed in to the till).

The 0.38 is the vat on those two items.

[ooo000ooo]

Whatever the 4th item was didn't scan properly so was put through the till as miscellaneous and vat due on it. Presumably they have a code for miscellaneous and vat exempt as well?

[defblade]

V8OW said:

Not an expert, but I would say:

Food is zero rated, so doesn't attract vat.

The drink is standard rated, and the 0.80 is something else standard rated (presumably just keyed in to the till).

The 0.38 is the vat on those two items.

You'd be right.

[anonymous-user]

ooo000ooo said:

Whatever the 4th item was didn't scan properly so was put through the till as miscellaneous and vat due on it. Presumably they have a code for miscellaneous and vat exempt as well?

There was definitely only 3 items purchased.

[V8OW]

Well they were charged 80p for something they didn't buy!

[General Madness]

The shop keeper will have direct control over the Epos system and which VAT code a product is linked with. This misc vat is probably them getting a bit more cash, they should have done non vat though

[anonymous-user]

V8OW said:

Well they were charged 80p for something they didn't buy!

That was the suspicion.

But I thought I would run it past the experts!

[paulrockliffe]

All those item have VAT on them. None of the permutations give 38p VAT due either.

[V8OW]

paulrockliffe said:

All those item have VAT on them. None of the permutations give 38p VAT due either.

The food items wouldn't.

38p is the vat on the 1.50 and the 80p.

[Eric Mc]

V8OW said:

The food items wouldn't.

38p is the vat on the 1.50 and the 80p.

Which items on that are "food"?

Chewits are confectionery
Hoola Hoops are potato based snacks.
Lucozade is an energy drink.

All of this are Standard rated for VAT purposes.

[Alpinestars]

paulrockliffe said:

All those item have VAT on them. None of the permutations give 38p VAT due either.

Agreed re VAT rating, but the 1.50 and 0.80 are VAT inclusive , so 38p VAT. But it does look like VAT is being under declared.

[anonymous-user]

So, to sum up... The shop is fiddling both the customer and HMRC?

[Mandat]

NinjaPower said:

So, to sum up... The shop is fiddling both the customer and HMRC?

No, just the customer, if they are charging for 4 items, when only 3 are being bought.

If anything, HMRC are getting VAT on the 4th item, which wasn't actually sold.

[Alpinestars]

Mandat said:

No, just the customer, if they are charging for 4 items, when only 3 are being bought.

If anything, HMRC are getting VAT on the 4th item, which wasn't actually sold.

In which case both the customer and HMRC are being defrauded. The customer is being charged for items not bought (if that is the case) and HMRC are losing VAT (items sold which should attract VAT exceed the 80p overcharge).

[Mandat]

Alpinestars said:

Mandat said:

No, just the customer, if they are charging for 4 items, when only 3 are being bought.

If anything, HMRC are getting VAT on the 4th item, which wasn't actually sold.

In which case both the customer and HMRC are being defrauded. The customer is being charged for items not bought (if that is the case) and HMRC are losing VAT (items sold which should attract VAT exceed the 80p overcharge).

Er, surely HMRC are getting £0.13 more in VAT than is actually due, if the shop are charging VAT on the 4th item, which wasn't actually sold.

[Lauryn]

Mandat said:

Er, surely HMRC are getting £0.13 more in VAT than is actually due, if the shop are charging VAT on the 4th item, which wasn't actually sold.

The point Eric made earlier is that the three items actually purchased are standard rated and so there were purchases of £2.65 subject to VAT at 20%, ie VAT of £0.53 should have been charged compared with the £0.38 actually charged, therefore HMRC are losing £0.15 of VAT on this transaction.

As also stated earlier, VAT on the drink and miscellaneous item at 20% wouldn't add up to £0.38 either, so there's clearly an issue.

Edited by Lauryn on Sunday 26th June 10:04

[Alpinestars]

Mandat said:

Er, surely HMRC are getting £0.13 more in VAT than is actually due, if the shop are charging VAT on the 4th item, which wasn't actually sold.

Customer should have been charged 2.65. Got charged 3.45. 80p out of pocket.

HMRC should above got VAT on 2.65 (vat inclusive price) , ie 44p. HMRC got VAT of 38p. HMRC out of pocket by 6p.

Shopkeeper is 86p better off.

[Alpinestars]

Lauryn said:

The point Eric made earlier is that the three items actually purchased are standard rated and so there were purchases of £2.65 subject to VAT at 20%, ie VAT of £0.53 should have been charged compared with the £0.38 actually charged, therefore HMRC are losing £0.15 of VAT on this transaction.

As also stated earlier, VAT on the drink and miscellaneous item at 20% wouldn't add up to £0.38 either, so there's clearly an issue.

Edited by Lauryn on Sunday 26th June 10:04

Not quite. See above.

[wack]

The big ripoff here is £1.50 for a bottle of lucozade