Uber and VAT

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Tuesday 26th June 2018
quotequote all
Lots of people upset at how Uber operates, how much tax they pay, what sort of contracts their employees have, and suchlike.

Very little of which is of any concern whatsoever to the man in the street, who just wants to get from A to B in as convenient and 'modern' fashion as possible.

Even if you hate Uber, you should be thankful for them as they have given Black Cabs and private hire the absolutely massive kick up the arse they desperately needed for years, and that's got to be good for everyone.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Saturday 30th June 2018
quotequote all
The All Parliamentary Group on Responsible Tax recently released a report "Building a fairer system: Tax and the UK's gig economy"

https://www.appgresponsibletax.org.uk/wp-content/u...

As well as giving a very basic overview of some of the ways in which it claims the UK is missing out on some tax revenues, it does specifically mention Uber & VAT



As mentioned in the report Maugham (the QC so vigorously pursuing Uber re VAT), was a member of the panel giving evidence to the Group in the session on which this report is partly based

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Saturday 30th June 2018
quotequote all
Yes, but the beginning of the end of the 'speculation' phase is drawing near now

The initial encounter of Maugham's case with the FTT (Tax) is on 11 July...

I think it will be possible to judge from that if this is a dead horse, or one that might do something exciting with just the gentlest flogging

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
The expected day at the Tribunal (today) is cancelled

As Maugham tweets in a series of tweets this morning

https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/10169143...



The Zipvit case Court of Appeal Judgment is here (https://www.pumptax.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Zipvit-v-HMRC-final-approved-29-6-18.pdf)

Para 1. shows why the case is relelvant



I am no expert in such matters, but I simply see this as a way of further delaying the point in time at which a court (now looking to be the HC) considers the question: Should Uber fares have been subject to VAT?

To have that question answered is Maugham's intent.

IMO Uber is clearly (and rightly from it's perspective) working hard to delay / avoid that question being considered. The use of a case such as Zipvit to achieve that is no surprise

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 11th July 08:03

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Tuesday 30th October 2018
quotequote all
Uber is in court today appealing the employment tribunal finding that drivers should be treated as workers

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46018104

Ewan McGaughery is tweeting (his bias is obvious, but that aside) as it unfolds

https://twitter.com/ewanmcg/status/105722574728114...

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Wednesday 19th December 2018
quotequote all
Uber loses appeal against a ruling that its drivers should be treated as workers rather than self employed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46617584

Judgment here https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/1...

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Wednesday 19th December 2018
quotequote all
Quite right too. This is pretty close to existential for Uber: it should fight as hard as it can, for as long as it can.

All the while building out its network to strengthen its position in the market & damage its competition

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Friday 18th January 2019
quotequote all
There is a hearing scheduled for early Feb

It seems it will mostly focus on the matter of a protective costs order for Maugham / GLP

https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/108482084...

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Wednesday 6th February 2019
quotequote all
Good Law Project's application for a protective costs order against Uber is being heard this very morning

Uber is, as one would expect, resisting

Links to skeleton arguments of both sides included in the tweet below

https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/10930879...

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Wednesday 20th February 2019
quotequote all
Vat will be collected from Uber!

In Egypt

http://www.egypttoday.com/Article/3/64881/Egypt-to...

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Monday 25th February 2019
quotequote all
The application for a protective costs order has been dismissed

Good law project has to pay Uber > £100k in costs

An appeal is mentioned and potential new proceedings against HMRC

https://goodlawproject.org/uber-protective-costs-a...

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Wednesday 6th March 2019
quotequote all
The next step in GLP's Uber VAT mission

https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/11033466...



This bit looks as though it might be interesting

https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/11033488...


anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Sunday 19th May 2019
quotequote all
Yes, there has been a disappointing delay / absence of news. But here is another update

A piece in the Sunday times suggesting HMRC has been looking and that the good law project is about to sue HMRC for ‘failing to act in relation to uber’s Tax dodging’

|https://thumbsnap.com/rwHfMCXk[/url]

https://twitter.com/goodlawproject/status/11300309...

[url]

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 19th May 14:43

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Wednesday 29th May 2019
quotequote all
Later than it was signposted to be, but proceedings have been issued today apparently

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/113376773...



The documents are here

https://goodlawproject.org/good-law-project-sues-h...

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Thursday 27th June 2019
quotequote all
HMRC has applied for a “swingeing” confidentiality order to protect basic details of the judicial review from disclosure

https://twitter.com/goodlawproject/status/11441262...

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Thursday 10th October 2019
quotequote all
A bit of movement

A hearing on issues associated with the case on 6 Nov but there is this little section in the most recently filed accounts



The FT (https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/10/09/1570629132000/Uber-s-UK-VAT-liability-confirmed/) or google "ubers uk vat liability confirmed" if you are not an FT subscriber suggests

'The most newsworthy part was arguably this one: “the Uber Group is involved in an ongoing dialog with HMRC, which is seeking to classify the Uber Group as a transportation provider. Being classified as a transportation provider would result in a VAT (20%) on Gross Bookings or on the service fee that the Company charges Drivers, both retroactively and prospectively."

...

Of course, the fact that Uber London since filed a company account noting that a dialogue with HMRC over a VAT liability is ongoing implies some sort of protective assessment may already have been initiated. So to some extent the cat is already out of the bag.'

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Friday 11th October 2019
quotequote all
It doesn't really tell you a lot. The last VAT ding dong I was involved with (with about £1m at stake) took 18 months from asking HMRC for clearance to them giving 'an opinion' (adverse to us). By the time I left the company they still hadn't issued an assessment so nothing was particularly formal by that time. Our accounts included a liability line for the disputed amounts and HMRC had given an initial opinion, but nothing more had happened.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Friday 11th October 2019
quotequote all
And, lurking in the background still is employer’s national insurance. If the Supreme Court rules uber is an employer, it could have to pay that too.

A contingent liability is mentioned in Uber Inc’s accounts filed in the US

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Friday 11th October 2019
quotequote all
The Mad Monk said:
So will Addison Lee and everybody else including 'arry's minicabs, the Arches, 'ighgate.

No?
You will have seen specific mention of Addison Lee in the FT article linked yesterday. Draw from that your own conclusions

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

55 months

Wednesday 6th November 2019
quotequote all
The case about the cofidentiality level applied to the broader hearing is today

Just one update - with a bit of a leading comment - on it from Maugham so far

https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/11920746...