Discussion
Berw said:
I admit my UK vat law is 20 years out of date, but can't uber argue they are an agent and not liable for the tax on the value of the transaction. Ok I know a house is out of scope but an estate agent would not be liable for the vat on a house purchase he facilities between a buyer and seller (if the house was in scope) can't uber argue they act as a facilitator between a passenger and a driver? Then they would pay vat in their service, as the estate agent does now.
That is their argument. It's an agent vs principal situation. 
IIRC Uber opened for business in London in mid 2012, I am quite certain it was before the Olympics
My main interest is in why HMRC is not seen to be taking any action on this matter.
That is why I contributed to the crowdfunding
If HMRC has already ruled on the matter (behind closed doors, as it should perhaps do), then the HC case will be very short indeed - Uber will simply say 'not required to register for VAT, here is HMRC confirmation' and that will be that.
If Uber should be registered for VAT and isn't, it shouldn't take a campaign like this to get it dealt with.
All that HMRC needed / needs to do is to state that it is aware of the case and that, for me, would do. I'd be happy that Uber was on HMRC's radar and that it would be dealt with in due course.
That neither HMRC nor Uber is commenting makes me think the HC case is worthwhile - for a tenner anyway.
My main interest is in why HMRC is not seen to be taking any action on this matter.
That is why I contributed to the crowdfunding
If HMRC has already ruled on the matter (behind closed doors, as it should perhaps do), then the HC case will be very short indeed - Uber will simply say 'not required to register for VAT, here is HMRC confirmation' and that will be that.
If Uber should be registered for VAT and isn't, it shouldn't take a campaign like this to get it dealt with.
All that HMRC needed / needs to do is to state that it is aware of the case and that, for me, would do. I'd be happy that Uber was on HMRC's radar and that it would be dealt with in due course.
That neither HMRC nor Uber is commenting makes me think the HC case is worthwhile - for a tenner anyway.
JPJPJP said:
IIRC Uber opened for business in London in mid 2012, I am quite certain it was before the Olympics
My main interest is in why HMRC is not seen to be taking any action on this matter.
That is why I contributed to the crowdfunding
If HMRC has already ruled on the matter (behind closed doors, as it should perhaps do), then the HC case will be very short indeed - Uber will simply say 'not required to register for VAT, here is HMRC confirmation' and that will be that.
If Uber should be registered for VAT and isn't, it shouldn't take a campaign like this to get it dealt with.
All that HMRC needed / needs to do is to state that it is aware of the case and that, for me, would do. I'd be happy that Uber was on HMRC's radar and that it would be dealt with in due course.
That neither HMRC nor Uber is commenting makes me think the HC case is worthwhile - for a tenner anyway.
HMRC wouldn't normally disclose matters between it and the taxpayer. My main interest is in why HMRC is not seen to be taking any action on this matter.
That is why I contributed to the crowdfunding
If HMRC has already ruled on the matter (behind closed doors, as it should perhaps do), then the HC case will be very short indeed - Uber will simply say 'not required to register for VAT, here is HMRC confirmation' and that will be that.
If Uber should be registered for VAT and isn't, it shouldn't take a campaign like this to get it dealt with.
All that HMRC needed / needs to do is to state that it is aware of the case and that, for me, would do. I'd be happy that Uber was on HMRC's radar and that it would be dealt with in due course.
That neither HMRC nor Uber is commenting makes me think the HC case is worthwhile - for a tenner anyway.
It's also not correct to say that if HMRC has ruled on the tax position, that the plaintiff can't bring a successful case. His case is different to that of HMRC, but one which should lead to the same ultimate result.
Inching closer
"Our Uber claim is all drafted and ready to go. We are taking advice from a specialist costs QC and will issue proceedings very shortly."
https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/85783354...
"Our Uber claim is all drafted and ready to go. We are taking advice from a specialist costs QC and will issue proceedings very shortly."
https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/85783354...
Not quite ready to pull the trigger just yet
https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/86194095...
https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/86194144...
https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/86194095...
https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/86194144...
https://twitter.com/goodlawproject/status/86801347...
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 26th May 15:47
Question of potential liability for costs could be critical to progress of the case
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/uber/
"Earlier this week we issued proceedings against Uber London Limited.
Those who funded the action will have noticed that there was a delay between the funds being collected and proceedings being issued. This was to address the question of costs in more detail.
Uber have instructed Herbert Smith Freehills (“HSF”) to act for them in the proceedings and HSF have written several letters stating that Uber will look to recover its costs from Good Law Project Director, Jo Maugham, if they lose. This is no small matter: it is perfectly possible that Uber’s costs of litigating the matter will reach £1m in the High Court alone. And, absent costs protection, that burden will fall on him personally.
Following that correspondence we took advice from a QC who specialises in costs. Having taken that advice we were able to issue proceedings. But we will need to resolve the costs issue early on in proceedings.
We appreciate that many of those who funded this case want to see it move forward quickly. Legally, we are on strong ground. Indeed, following the decision of the Advocate General we are on even stronger ground than we appreciated when the litigation was crowdfunded. And that is the most important point. However, it would be foolish to underestimate Uber’s desire to hold on to what could very easily be £1bn of tax it has avoided and interest on that tax.
We will, of course, keep you updated as matters progress."
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/uber/
"Earlier this week we issued proceedings against Uber London Limited.
Those who funded the action will have noticed that there was a delay between the funds being collected and proceedings being issued. This was to address the question of costs in more detail.
Uber have instructed Herbert Smith Freehills (“HSF”) to act for them in the proceedings and HSF have written several letters stating that Uber will look to recover its costs from Good Law Project Director, Jo Maugham, if they lose. This is no small matter: it is perfectly possible that Uber’s costs of litigating the matter will reach £1m in the High Court alone. And, absent costs protection, that burden will fall on him personally.
Following that correspondence we took advice from a QC who specialises in costs. Having taken that advice we were able to issue proceedings. But we will need to resolve the costs issue early on in proceedings.
We appreciate that many of those who funded this case want to see it move forward quickly. Legally, we are on strong ground. Indeed, following the decision of the Advocate General we are on even stronger ground than we appreciated when the litigation was crowdfunded. And that is the most important point. However, it would be foolish to underestimate Uber’s desire to hold on to what could very easily be £1bn of tax it has avoided and interest on that tax.
We will, of course, keep you updated as matters progress."
JPJPJP said:
Question of potential liability for costs could be critical to progress of the case
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/uber/
"Earlier this week we issued proceedings against Uber London Limited.
Those who funded the action will have noticed that there was a delay between the funds being collected and proceedings being issued. This was to address the question of costs in more detail.
Uber have instructed Herbert Smith Freehills (“HSF”) to act for them in the proceedings and HSF have written several letters stating that Uber will look to recover its costs from Good Law Project Director, Jo Maugham, if they lose. This is no small matter: it is perfectly possible that Uber’s costs of litigating the matter will reach £1m in the High Court alone. And, absent costs protection, that burden will fall on him personally.
Following that correspondence we took advice from a QC who specialises in costs. Having taken that advice we were able to issue proceedings. But we will need to resolve the costs issue early on in proceedings.
We appreciate that many of those who funded this case want to see it move forward quickly. Legally, we are on strong ground. Indeed, following the decision of the Advocate General we are on even stronger ground than we appreciated when the litigation was crowdfunded. And that is the most important point. However, it would be foolish to underestimate Uber’s desire to hold on to what could very easily be £1bn of tax it has avoided and interest on that tax.
We will, of course, keep you updated as matters progress."
Why are you so interested in what Uber does or doesn't do?https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/uber/
"Earlier this week we issued proceedings against Uber London Limited.
Those who funded the action will have noticed that there was a delay between the funds being collected and proceedings being issued. This was to address the question of costs in more detail.
Uber have instructed Herbert Smith Freehills (“HSF”) to act for them in the proceedings and HSF have written several letters stating that Uber will look to recover its costs from Good Law Project Director, Jo Maugham, if they lose. This is no small matter: it is perfectly possible that Uber’s costs of litigating the matter will reach £1m in the High Court alone. And, absent costs protection, that burden will fall on him personally.
Following that correspondence we took advice from a QC who specialises in costs. Having taken that advice we were able to issue proceedings. But we will need to resolve the costs issue early on in proceedings.
We appreciate that many of those who funded this case want to see it move forward quickly. Legally, we are on strong ground. Indeed, following the decision of the Advocate General we are on even stronger ground than we appreciated when the litigation was crowdfunded. And that is the most important point. However, it would be foolish to underestimate Uber’s desire to hold on to what could very easily be £1bn of tax it has avoided and interest on that tax.
We will, of course, keep you updated as matters progress."
JPJPJP said:
Question of potential liability for costs could be critical to progress of the case
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/uber/
"Earlier this week we issued proceedings against Uber London Limited.
Those who funded the action will have noticed that there was a delay between the funds being collected and proceedings being issued. This was to address the question of costs in more detail.
Uber have instructed Herbert Smith Freehills (“HSF”) to act for them in the proceedings and HSF have written several letters stating that Uber will look to recover its costs from Good Law Project Director, Jo Maugham, if they lose. This is no small matter: it is perfectly possible that Uber’s costs of litigating the matter will reach £1m in the High Court alone. And, absent costs protection, that burden will fall on him personally.
Following that correspondence we took advice from a QC who specialises in costs. Having taken that advice we were able to issue proceedings. But we will need to resolve the costs issue early on in proceedings.
We appreciate that many of those who funded this case want to see it move forward quickly. Legally, we are on strong ground. Indeed, following the decision of the Advocate General we are on even stronger ground than we appreciated when the litigation was crowdfunded. And that is the most important point. However, it would be foolish to underestimate Uber’s desire to hold on to what could very easily be £1bn of tax it has avoided and interest on that tax.
We will, of course, keep you updated as matters progress."
So basically they want to sue Uber with someone else's money and don't want to have to pick up Uber's tab if they lose.https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/uber/
"Earlier this week we issued proceedings against Uber London Limited.
Those who funded the action will have noticed that there was a delay between the funds being collected and proceedings being issued. This was to address the question of costs in more detail.
Uber have instructed Herbert Smith Freehills (“HSF”) to act for them in the proceedings and HSF have written several letters stating that Uber will look to recover its costs from Good Law Project Director, Jo Maugham, if they lose. This is no small matter: it is perfectly possible that Uber’s costs of litigating the matter will reach £1m in the High Court alone. And, absent costs protection, that burden will fall on him personally.
Following that correspondence we took advice from a QC who specialises in costs. Having taken that advice we were able to issue proceedings. But we will need to resolve the costs issue early on in proceedings.
We appreciate that many of those who funded this case want to see it move forward quickly. Legally, we are on strong ground. Indeed, following the decision of the Advocate General we are on even stronger ground than we appreciated when the litigation was crowdfunded. And that is the most important point. However, it would be foolish to underestimate Uber’s desire to hold on to what could very easily be £1bn of tax it has avoided and interest on that tax.
We will, of course, keep you updated as matters progress."
The Mad Monk said:
Why are you so interested in what Uber does or doesn't do?
At the risk of repeating myself (again), I am interested in why it is taking a private prosecution to get the question of a potential several hundred million pound VAT liability looked at. That it is Uber that is involved is of no real interest to me.
That it isn't HMRC that is being seen to be asking the question is of great interest to me
PurpleMoonlight said:
So basically they want to sue Uber with someone else's money and don't want to have to pick up Uber's tab if they lose.
This was specifically set out in the fund raising pitch"It is impossible to know what the litigation will cost. It will depend upon what Uber says and what the High Court says. But our initial target of £75,000 will cover the bulk of our costs of bringing the case in the High Court. Our lawyers are all acting at considerably below market rate. But we are likely to need to raise a further sum both for additional legal expenses and to ensure that, because Jo Maugham has no private interest in the litigation, he is not personally exposed to the costs of losing."
I think it would be a great shame if the case could not proceed purely due to the depth of Uber's pockets.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 26th May 19:28
JPJPJP said:
I think it would be a great shame if the case could not proceed purely due to the depth of Uber's pockets.
It would be excellent if it didn't proceed.It is not the responsibility of private organisations to litigate other private organisations on matters of national taxation.
JPJPJP][b]But when the tax authority is conspicuous by its absence and there is a potential several hundred million pound liability...[b/ said:
And a publicity hungry 'wannabe an MP' QC...
And sufficient individual supporters...
Tax authorities don't disclose ongoing enquiries to Joe Public, so I'd expect HMRC to be inconspicuous. And sufficient individual supporters...
And, there MAY be a liability.
I referred to the potential liability.
That is all it is just now, a potential liability, Uber may well have no requirement to register for VAT and absolutely no liability whatsoever.
I would expect that, behind the scenes, a tax QC that may be on the panel from which HMRC chooses its QCs would have a way of knowing, even if only informally, if a case he was about to publically stake a big chunk of his reputation on was already on the desk of someone at HMRC....
Is that an expectation too far?
That is all it is just now, a potential liability, Uber may well have no requirement to register for VAT and absolutely no liability whatsoever.
I would expect that, behind the scenes, a tax QC that may be on the panel from which HMRC chooses its QCs would have a way of knowing, even if only informally, if a case he was about to publically stake a big chunk of his reputation on was already on the desk of someone at HMRC....
Is that an expectation too far?
JPJPJP said:
I referred to the potential liability.
That is all it is just now, a potential liability, Uber may well have no requirement to register for VAT and absolutely no liability whatsoever.
I would expect that, behind the scenes, a tax QC that may be on the panel from which HMRC chooses its QCs would have a way of knowing, even if only informally, if a case he was about to publically stake a big chunk of his reputation on was already on the desk of someone at HMRC....
Is that an expectation too far?
The QC would be aware of any enquires raised by HMRC. But they are enquiries. It happens to many taxpayers. They may or may not lead to a liability. This case is testing a point of law in court, and would go ahead regardless of whatever enquires HMRC has made. That is all it is just now, a potential liability, Uber may well have no requirement to register for VAT and absolutely no liability whatsoever.
I would expect that, behind the scenes, a tax QC that may be on the panel from which HMRC chooses its QCs would have a way of knowing, even if only informally, if a case he was about to publically stake a big chunk of his reputation on was already on the desk of someone at HMRC....
Is that an expectation too far?
There is a piece here from 12 May on Bloomberg BNA titled "EU Court Aide Ruling Delivers Blow to Uber's UK VAT case"
https://www.bna.com/eu-court-aide-n73014450820/
"The EU’s top legal adviser has dealt a blow to Uber Technologies Inc.’s plan to fight claims for unpaid value-added tax in the U.K., classifying it as a transport provider instead of a technology platform."
In the first reference I have so far seen to any comment on the matter by Uber, this article contains
"Commenting on the pending VAT case, Uber said in a statement that drivers who use its smartphone application will be registered for the indirect tax if they meet the U.K.’s threshold of 85,000 pounds.
This has been the case across the taxi and private hire industry for decades,” the statement said. Black cab drivers and the apps they use, such as Gett or myTaxi, “operate in exactly the same way
This claim is fundamentally flawed on a number of levels,”
https://www.bna.com/eu-court-aide-n73014450820/
"The EU’s top legal adviser has dealt a blow to Uber Technologies Inc.’s plan to fight claims for unpaid value-added tax in the U.K., classifying it as a transport provider instead of a technology platform."
In the first reference I have so far seen to any comment on the matter by Uber, this article contains
"Commenting on the pending VAT case, Uber said in a statement that drivers who use its smartphone application will be registered for the indirect tax if they meet the U.K.’s threshold of 85,000 pounds.
This has been the case across the taxi and private hire industry for decades,” the statement said. Black cab drivers and the apps they use, such as Gett or myTaxi, “operate in exactly the same way
This claim is fundamentally flawed on a number of levels,”
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff