Discussion
JPJPJP said:
Noises now that uber has been assessed to £1.5bn of VAT
That’s quite a chunk of poke
Whether HMRC has any real prospect to collect (any of) it remains to be seen. But if it has raised the assessment, it thinks it can.
https://twitter.com/goodlawproject/status/12326304...
The first comment amused me. While Uber maybe have to pay the back VAT if Uber is liable for VAT guess who will be paying it in the future. That’s quite a chunk of poke
Whether HMRC has any real prospect to collect (any of) it remains to be seen. But if it has raised the assessment, it thinks it can.
https://twitter.com/goodlawproject/status/12326304...
Murph7355 said:
By an extension of that same logic, companies don't actually pay any tax at all.
I'm actually comfortable with that concept and wish more of us would be... As whining about how much CT the big players pay is missing the point by a country mile.
The rules are the same for all companies. But with scale and global footprint comes leverage.
Should we change the way taxation is applied according to size of firm? Maybe. But to what end? And what would be the unintended consequences when the tax code is already stupidly over-complicated.
Personally I wish we'd keep focusing on expenditure. Overall tax intake is already at very high levels. The pot is not bottomless. But our desire to spend appears to be (despite the it being under better control... At least as of now).
As for Maugham's antics. Fans believe he's fighting the good fight for us all. Non-fans think he's an arse. Another polarised viewpoint of today
Companies should pay cooperation tax, rates and actually gain from VAT tax.I'm actually comfortable with that concept and wish more of us would be... As whining about how much CT the big players pay is missing the point by a country mile.
The rules are the same for all companies. But with scale and global footprint comes leverage.
Should we change the way taxation is applied according to size of firm? Maybe. But to what end? And what would be the unintended consequences when the tax code is already stupidly over-complicated.
Personally I wish we'd keep focusing on expenditure. Overall tax intake is already at very high levels. The pot is not bottomless. But our desire to spend appears to be (despite the it being under better control... At least as of now).
As for Maugham's antics. Fans believe he's fighting the good fight for us all. Non-fans think he's an arse. Another polarised viewpoint of today
It is true the rules are the same for everyone but the larger you are the more you can advantage of the rules which should be simplified so there are no get out opportunities if your big enough to take advantage of them
Macski said:
Companies should pay cooperation tax, rates and actually gain from VAT tax.
It is true the rules are the same for everyone but the larger you are the more you can advantage of the rules which should be simplified so there are no get out opportunities if your big enough to take advantage of them
I like this idea of "cooperation tax". It sounds very cuddly!It is true the rules are the same for everyone but the larger you are the more you can advantage of the rules which should be simplified so there are no get out opportunities if your big enough to take advantage of them
VAT is pretty much neutral once a business is actively trading - the business sets off the VAT that it pays on things that it buys against the VAT that it charges on things it sells, so VAT isn't really a gain for the business.
As for simplification - all desire it in all things, but in reality simplification rarely works outside engineering (and even there it has its penalties, often called "my Lotus is broken again"). That is why Bloke In Pub is usually wrong about most subjects.
BTW, re "VAT Tax", have a think about what the T in VAT stands for. See also: PIN, RAC, etc.
Eric Mc said:
I don't see anywhere in those Twitter comments that HMRC has actually assessed Uber in the UK for £1.5 billion unpaid VAT.
That is what the Court of Appeal case on 1 / 2 April is about Eric: The High Court ruled that HMRC could & should confirm the details of any assessment. Uber has appealed against that. Until that Appeal is heard, HMRC will not say either way on the record.Meanwhile, this is being stated openly on twitter. Which wouldn't happen without reasonable consideration.
JPJPJP said:
That is what the Court of Appeal case on 1 / 2 April is about Eric: The High Court ruled that HMRC could & should confirm the details of any assessment. Uber has appealed against that. Until that Appeal is heard, HMRC will not say either way on the record.
Meanwhile, this is being stated openly on twitter. Which wouldn't happen without reasonable consideration.
Only a bit of unsubstantiated waffle then.Meanwhile, this is being stated openly on twitter. Which wouldn't happen without reasonable consideration.
Eric Mc said:
Only a bit of unsubstantiated waffle then.
Pretty much.That said, Uber has booked an estimated liability for the VAT in it's SEC filings. Up until the Court of Appeal ruling then, without knowing the specific sources alluded to in that tweet, that is the best available, attributable, evidence that could in any way substantiate the waffle
Also common sense leads one to wonder if Uber would carry the cost of an appeal (that it may or may not win) if the outcome of losing was for HMRC to share the good (to Uber) news that it had not assessed it to a whacking great big VAT bill
Eric Mc said:
It would be the largest VAT assessment ever issued in the UK if it was.
The question is, why didn't HMRC not query Uber's VAT status much, much earlier?
That is indeed the question and it has been covered earlier in this thread. It was answered in parliament by the then permanent secretary along the lines of "we've lost 5 agent / principal cases in court and we don't want to try a 6th unless there is something that convinces us we might win"The question is, why didn't HMRC not query Uber's VAT status much, much earlier?
It is Q88 - 92 in this document https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cms...
Breadvan72 said:
VAT is pretty much neutral once a business is actively trading - the business sets off the VAT that it pays on things that it buys against the VAT that it charges on things it sells, so VAT isn't really a gain for the business.
You are wrong Uber gain substantial from the current VAT treatment. They and their customers would be seriously impacted by the treatment proposed by the Good Law Project. If a business model is based on being outside the scope of VAT, it will price accordingly. If it is told, years down the line that it needs to charge VAT on its income and, what's more, owes £1.5 billion on historic sales - VAT it never had collected from the customers and now cannot as they cannot go back to past customer transactions and ask them to pay VAT on these historic sales, that would effectively bankrupt them.
Mrr T said:
Breadvan72 said:
VAT is pretty much neutral once a business is actively trading - the business sets off the VAT that it pays on things that it buys against the VAT that it charges on things it sells, so VAT isn't really a gain for the business.
You are wrong Uber gain substantial from the current VAT treatment. They and their customers would be seriously impacted by the treatment proposed by the Good Law Project. Eric Mc said:
If a business model is based on being outside the scope of VAT, it will price accordingly. If it is told, years down the line that it needs to charge VAT on its income and, what's more, owes £1.5 billion on historic sales - VAT it never had collected from the customers and now cannot as they cannot go back to past customer transactions and ask them to pay VAT on these historic sales, that would effectively bankrupt them.
It won't because they'll have access to the cash, one way or another. What I expect it would mean is their pricing needing to rise by 20% or they absorb reduced margin (or they squeeze their drivers to).Not looked at their accounts so no idea if there's a provision and cash set aside for the potential VAT liability.
Breadvan72 said:
Mrr T said:
Breadvan72 said:
VAT is pretty much neutral once a business is actively trading - the business sets off the VAT that it pays on things that it buys against the VAT that it charges on things it sells, so VAT isn't really a gain for the business.
You are wrong Uber gain substantial from the current VAT treatment. They and their customers would be seriously impacted by the treatment proposed by the Good Law Project. Breadvan72 said:
I like this idea of "cooperation tax". It sounds very cuddly!
VAT is pretty much neutral once a business is actively trading - the business sets off the VAT that it pays on things that it buys against the VAT that it charges on things it sells, so VAT isn't really a gain for the business.
As for simplification - all desire it in all things, but in reality simplification rarely works outside engineering (and even there it has its penalties, often called "my Lotus is broken again"). That is why Bloke In Pub is usually wrong about most subjects.
BTW, re "VAT Tax", have a think about what the T in VAT stands for. See also: PIN, RAC, etc.
That is cool!VAT is pretty much neutral once a business is actively trading - the business sets off the VAT that it pays on things that it buys against the VAT that it charges on things it sells, so VAT isn't really a gain for the business.
As for simplification - all desire it in all things, but in reality simplification rarely works outside engineering (and even there it has its penalties, often called "my Lotus is broken again"). That is why Bloke In Pub is usually wrong about most subjects.
BTW, re "VAT Tax", have a think about what the T in VAT stands for. See also: PIN, RAC, etc.
So the way to make tax law better is make it more complex?
T stands for tax I do believe which companies claim back, well these that are registered for VAT do, is that not an advantage? it was when I had a business made things 17.5% cheaper!
Macski said:
That is cool!
So the way to make tax law better is make it more complex?
T stands for tax I do believe which companies claim back, well these that are registered for VAT do, is that not an advantage? it was when I had a business made things 17.5% cheaper!
It made things about 15% cheaper.So the way to make tax law better is make it more complex?
T stands for tax I do believe which companies claim back, well these that are registered for VAT do, is that not an advantage? it was when I had a business made things 17.5% cheaper!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff