Uber and VAT

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Monday 29th January 2018
quotequote all
The Mad Monk said:
I really don't understand why some people are concerned about this matter.

I have approximately a million things which i think are more urgent or important.
And yet you are amongst the most prolific posters on the thread....

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

243 months

Monday 29th January 2018
quotequote all
The Mad Monk said:
I really don't understand why some people are concerned about this matter.

I have approximately a million things which i think are more urgent or important.
But it was important enough for you to tell us that? Why not just ignore the thread?

The Mad Monk

10,474 posts

116 months

Monday 29th January 2018
quotequote all
Alpinestars said:
The Mad Monk said:
I really don't understand why some people are concerned about this matter.

I have approximately a million things which i think are more urgent or important.
But it was important enough for you to tell us that? Why not just ignore the thread?
Because I really would love to know why you are so interested in Uber's VAT (or non-VAT).

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

243 months

Monday 29th January 2018
quotequote all
The Mad Monk said:
Alpinestars said:
The Mad Monk said:
I really don't understand why some people are concerned about this matter.

I have approximately a million things which i think are more urgent or important.
But it was important enough for you to tell us that? Why not just ignore the thread?
Because I really would love to know why you are so interested in Uber's VAT (or non-VAT).
Me? I'm a tax practitioner.

And I have a mate who is a black cabbie.

Why are you so (dis)INTERESTED?

hyphen

26,262 posts

89 months

Tuesday 30th January 2018
quotequote all
The Mad Monk said:
Because I really would love to know why you are so interested in Uber's VAT (or non-VAT).
I wouldn't say 'so interested' as it is not an interest in which I am putting in any real effort! I am against unfair competition, and Uber by avoiding Vat, is gaining a unfair advantage over it's competitors that do pay UK vat.

The Mad Monk

10,474 posts

116 months

Tuesday 30th January 2018
quotequote all
Alpinestars said:
Me? I'm a tax practitioner.

And I have a mate who is a black cabbie.

Why are you so (dis)INTERESTED?
Where Uber is concerned, I am disinterested In the legal and financial meaning of the word. In human and personal sense, it interests me.

I have never used Uber, but my son when staying me has used it and I found it fascinating. What a neat clever concept!

I don't know what a tax practitioner does. Perhaps you want all companies that are liable for VAT to pay VAT. That's fair. Or do you have an ulterior motive?
In this field - private hire - just about every company above a one man band would have to pay VAT, from the Addison Lees upwards and downwards - wouldn't they? If it's good enough for Uber, then it's good enough for Joes MiniCabs.

Your friend who drives a black cab, why is he bothered? Well, perhaps, understandably, he wants Uber to go away? Well, of course, in the short term he may be successful. however, I think that in the long run Uber, or perhaps another company working on the same idea will come along. It's the future, isn't it? I don't think the black cab trade is one is one in which I would suggest my son put his future.

I think in the long run the black cab trade as we now know it will shrink to a fraction of it's present size. If it doesn't vanish completely.

Throughout history technical advances have meant job losses for the industry being superseded. From the development of the steam engine to the internal combustion engine, which wiped out just about all horse drawn traffic, to the introduction of containerisation, which destroyed the old dock trade to the revolution in the print industry. The print trade did quite literally fight that change - and lost.

That is why I am interested.

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

243 months

Tuesday 30th January 2018
quotequote all
The Mad Monk said:
Where Uber is concerned, I am disinterested In the legal and financial meaning of the word. In human and personal sense, it interests me.

I have never used Uber, but my son when staying me has used it and I found it fascinating. What a neat clever concept!

I don't know what a tax practitioner does. Perhaps you want all companies that are liable for VAT to pay VAT. That's fair. Or do you have an ulterior motive?
In this field - private hire - just about every company above a one man band would have to pay VAT, from the Addison Lees upwards and downwards - wouldn't they? If it's good enough for Uber, then it's good enough for Joes MiniCabs.

Your friend who drives a black cab, why is he bothered? Well, perhaps, understandably, he wants Uber to go away? Well, of course, in the short term he may be successful. however, I think that in the long run Uber, or perhaps another company working on the same idea will come along. It's the future, isn't it? I don't think the black cab trade is one is one in which I would suggest my son put his future.

I think in the long run the black cab trade as we now know it will shrink to a fraction of it's present size. If it doesn't vanish completely.

Throughout history technical advances have meant job losses for the industry being superseded. From the development of the steam engine to the internal combustion engine, which wiped out just about all horse drawn traffic, to the introduction of containerisation, which destroyed the old dock trade to the revolution in the print industry. The print trade did quite literally fight that change - and lost.

That is why I am interested.
So you’re interested in a not interested way? Strange.

I advise on tax law. Therefore this is relevant in terms of where it gets to.

I’m also not a Luddite, and have no dog in the fight vis a vis Uber, or technological advance. Don’t confuse a passing interest in something with an ulterior motive.

hyphen

26,262 posts

89 months

Tuesday 30th January 2018
quotequote all
The Mad Monk said:
In this field - private hire - just about every company above a one man band would have to pay VAT, from the Addison Lees upwards and downwards - wouldn't they? If it's good enough for Uber, then it's good enough for Joes MiniCabs.
Darlington MiniCab company doesn't have the might to base itself in a foreign EU country and use loopholes to avoid VAT.

This is not about hiring a tax practitioner in one country, it is hiring across countries and having foreign domiciles and subsidiaries setup to the letter to ensure legality, which Bob sitting in a portacabin outside the local station can't do.

It is not a level playing field.

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Tuesday 30th January 2018
quotequote all
hyphen said:
I wouldn't say 'so interested' as it is not an interest in which I am putting in any real effort! I am against unfair competition, and Uber by avoiding Vat, is gaining a unfair advantage over it's competitors that do pay UK vat.
Are they though?

Do all their "competitors" pay VAT?

hyphen said:
Darlington MiniCab company doesn't have the might to .....

It is not a level playing field.
On some/many levels there is no such thing as a level playing field. And trying to make one is where we get tomes and tomes of tax law. It ultimately (IMO) becomes self-defeating.

The level playing field is in Darlington MiniCab company having the same opportunities to become mighty and exploit away. If they can't do this, that is not the fault of a competitor. Should "something" be done? See above.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Wednesday 31st January 2018
quotequote all
Here is the latest update, described as 'rather punchy' by Maugham

https://goodlawproject.org/uber-hmrcs-position/

Included is a link to HMRC's Statement of Case for the FTT case

https://d2l6cjylzkj2qa.cloudfront.net/wp-content/u...

The summary of which is that HMRC contends that Maugham's appeal should be dismissed as it can only focus on the very narrow issue of whether the information Maugham supplied supporting his claim for a VAT repayment met the necessary threshold (and that it didn't)

From which Maugham highlights

18. It cannot, or should not, be inferred from the Letter, as the Appellant seeks to in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the GoA, that HMRC must have reached a decision on the VAT chargeable on the Supply.

19. Thus, in so far as the Appellant seeks to pursue an appeal on a matter within s83(1)(b) VATA, that part of its appeal is misconceived as it is not an appeal based on any decision actually given by HMRC to the Appellant. HMRC have taken no decision on the VAT chargeable on the Supply.

and suggests that is flatly inconsistent with the evidence given by Jim Harra to the PAC (linked previously)

Maugham concludes

"The Statement of Case pretends the situation is otherwise. It pretends that HMRC have not decided whether Uber is chargeable to input tax. And it embarks on that pretence because it wants to escape independent judicial scrutiny of its decision. There is, on the evidence, simply no other explanation.

There is no good explanation for why HMRC might adopt a position that leads to a loss of tax of, by our calculations, around £200 million per year. And in the absence of a good explanation you are compelled to a bad one. Last week direct evidence emerged that HM Treasury does put HMRC under pressure to go easy on other large US multinationals. We cannot identify any alternative candidate explanation that is consistent with the facts.

We will reply – likely next week – to HMRC and the specialist tax Tribunal making these points. And we will invite the Tribunal to refuse to allow itself to be used to advance what, on the evidence, looks to be a simple ruse."

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 31st January 11:02

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Monday 19th March 2018
quotequote all
Maugham has another update on the case

https://goodlawproject.org/uber-update-march-2018/

Since the last update he states that The Good Law Project has

(1) We have replied to HMRC’s Statement of Case: Uber-Reply in which we point out the contradictions in HMRC’s position set out in our update (a link to which is set out above).

(2) The First-tier Tribunal has issued standard directions for the conduct of the hearing: UberDirections.

(3) We have written to the Tribunal stating that those standard directions are inappropriate, explaining why, and asking for the matter to be placed before the President of the Tribunal: Ltr-to-HMCTS-19-Feb-2018.

(4) We have repeatedly chased the Tribunal to list the matter for an urgent hearing (and we understand that the matter was placed before the Judge last week). When we have a date we will announce it.

We are pushing the matter as hard and as fast as we can. But these are not matters over which we can exercise control. We have no reason to think that we will be unable to deliver the purpose of the litigation stated above. And we have no present reason to think that the monies we have raised will be insufficient to pursue that purpose – of course this may change if, for example, Uber or HMRC were to appeal. None of the monies raised have or will go to Jolyon Maugham QC; none have been absorbed into the general spending of the Good Law Project. Neither makes any charge in connection with this litigation.

hyphen

26,262 posts

89 months

Monday 19th March 2018
quotequote all
Thanks for the update beer

The Mad Monk

10,474 posts

116 months

Monday 19th March 2018
quotequote all
JPJPJP said:
Maugham has another update on the case

https://goodlawproject.org/uber-update-march-2018/

edited by TMM
Still fighting the battle.

If, perhaps, eventually, Uber is forced to issue VAT invoices when requested, do you think it will make a jot of difference to their operation in the UK?

hyphen

26,262 posts

89 months

Monday 19th March 2018
quotequote all
They can't elect to pay VAT only when asked though can they? So fares will go up, allowing companies based here a chance to compete on price.

It will also send ripples acorss Europe, and beyond, and if so, cost them a lot more.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Tuesday 17th April 2018
quotequote all
Elsewhere in Europe, Portugal to be specific, there is a special new "tax" for Uber and similar operators

A limit on the intermediation fee (to 25%) which is subject to a 5% tax

H/T @JudithFreedman on the twitter

https://twitter.com/JudithFreedman/status/98626806...



anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

skwdenyer

16,181 posts

239 months

Tuesday 8th May 2018
quotequote all
Will the case outlive VAT itself in the UK? smile

Eric Mc

121,785 posts

264 months

Tuesday 8th May 2018
quotequote all
skwdenyer said:
Will the case outlive VAT itself in the UK? smile
Don't get your hopes up.

VAT is going nowhere. Indeed, it looks like more, smaller, businesses will need to register for VAT after 2020.

skwdenyer

16,181 posts

239 months

Wednesday 9th May 2018
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
skwdenyer said:
Will the case outlive VAT itself in the UK? smile
Don't get your hopes up.

VAT is going nowhere. Indeed, it looks like more, smaller, businesses will need to register for VAT after 2020.
So they're finally going to put on a level(ler) playing field with much of the EU just as we're leaving? Outstanding...

jamoor

14,506 posts

214 months

Wednesday 9th May 2018
quotequote all
I think these tech companies really are taking the piss out of everyone. It's a pretty tried and tested formula for them.

1) launch a business and propose themselves as being a bastion of freedom and doing the right thing for users - think eBay and how they screw sellers, amazon and how they screw everyone, uber and how they screw drivers, google and how they screw users, apple and how they screw customers. Youtube and how they change the rules for their users to suit themselves.
2) wait until they have near on monopolised their marketplace
3) turn around and screw everyone over from governments, users, tax authorities.

Only one country has told the lot of them to fk off.