THIS IS NOT A VAT RECIEPT
Discussion
Countdown said:
Marcellus said:
It looks to me as if for it to be a valid vat receipt which a company can use to reclaim the vat then the company name of the buying company has to be on the invoice.
I may be wrong though, but this might help; https://www.gov.uk/vat-record-keeping/vat-invoices
I don't think that's right. Our expenses team reclaim VAT from petrol receipts and they don't have our name/address on themI may be wrong though, but this might help; https://www.gov.uk/vat-record-keeping/vat-invoices
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Evoluzione said:
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Evoluzione said:
Have they got a VAT No. or not? It's easily checked so it's either yes or no from there.
It really isn’t. Pro forma invoices or cash receipts may carry a vat number but not be used to reclaim the vat. The clue is in the printing. If it says it’s not a vat receipt, well, it’s not a vat receipt.
The OP is asking the wrong people. He should be asking whoever it is sending him these receipts, a chartered accountant and HMRC.
It very clearly says "You cannot reclaim VAT using an invalid invoice, pro-forma invoice, statement or delivery note."
Then goes on to define what makes a valid VAT invoice.
But yes you're right, one that says "this is not a vat invoice" obviously is the vendor has just made a mistake!
alfabeat said:
And what would happen in the event of a VAT inspection? Wrap on the knuckles and told to get the proper VAT invoices in future or having to repay the VAT claimed?
I have the same issue here, always struggle to get VAT invoices when buying things on line. Such a hassle, and invariably I don't bother chasing them up.
Any advice that amounts to "Yes, it's wrong but nothing will happen if you get found it" is not good advice, I have the same issue here, always struggle to get VAT invoices when buying things on line. Such a hassle, and invariably I don't bother chasing them up.
As a practising working accountant, I cannot offer such advice and I cannot be seen to be offering such advice - especially on a public forum.
My professional duty is to give people the truth and the legal position. Whether they would rather chose to act on the advice they get from a "pub accountant" - advice such as you get on forums, is up to them.
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
caziques said:
In the good old days of handwritten petrol reciepts, the trick was to purchase nine pounds of petrol, and make it nineteen by adding a 1.
I took our auditors to the pub for lunch. I asked for a receipt at the bar "sure thing, how much do you want it making out for Steve" with both auditors standing next to me.Eric Mc said:
Any advice that amounts to "Yes, it's wrong but nothing will happen if you get found it" is not good advice,
As a practising working accountant, I cannot offer such advice and I cannot be seen to be offering such advice - especially on a public forum.
My professional duty is to give people the truth and the legal position. Whether they would rather chose to act on the advice they get from a "pub accountant" - advice such as you get on forums, is up to them.
You're quite right, you have a professional reputation to protect and can't jeopardise it. If I was a policeman I couldn't say that 31 in a 30 is probably OK. When I worked in the pesticides industry I told people they couldn't use anything as a pesticide unless it had been approved for that use - so no salt to kill weeds etc. As a private investor I can say things on a finance forum that an IFA could not. It just depends where you are.As a practising working accountant, I cannot offer such advice and I cannot be seen to be offering such advice - especially on a public forum.
My professional duty is to give people the truth and the legal position. Whether they would rather chose to act on the advice they get from a "pub accountant" - advice such as you get on forums, is up to them.
Worst case scenario - the OP might be fined for using those receipts to reclaim VAT so must either obtain the correct version of each one, or not reclaim the VAT.
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Or tear that bit off!
Or, as I was discovering a client was doing (many year ago), Tippexing out the "Not A VAT Receipt" and then substituting the original document with a photocopied version.
For this, and other tax related misdemeanours, he was fined £150,000, had to repay all the incorrectly reclaimed Input VAT (and other taxes he'd falsely underdeclared) and was told by the judge that he was lucky to escape a jail sentence.
This was over 30 years ago.
oakdale said:
Just go over the 'this is not a' bit with a felt tip marker pen, it's legit then.
There is absolutely no need to do that. The relevant legislation for claiming VAT input tax back without a VAT receipt is section 29 of Statutory Instrument 1995/2518. Which says:SI said:
Claims for input tax
29. —
(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, and save as the Commissioners may otherwise allow or direct either generally or specially, a person claiming deduction of input tax under section 25(2) of the Act shall do so on a return made by him for the prescribed accounting period in which the VAT became chargeable.
(2) At the time of claiming deduction of input tax in accordance with paragraph (1) above, a person shall, if the claim is in respect of—
(a)a supply from another taxable person, hold the document which is required to be provided under regulation 13;
(b)a supply under section 8(1) of the Act, hold the relative invoice from the supplier;
(c)an importation of goods, hold a document authenticated or issued by the proper officer, showing the claimant as importer, consignee or owner and showing the amount of VAT charged on the goods;
(d)goods which have been removed from warehouse, hold a document authenticated or issued by the proper officer showing the claimant’s particulars and the amount of VAT charged on the goods;
(e)an acquisition by him from another member State of any goods other than a new means of transport, hold a document required by the authority in that other member State to be issued showing his registration number including the prefix “GB”, the registration number of the supplier including the alphabetical code of the member State in which the supplier is registered, the consideration for the supply exclusive of VAT, the date of issue of the document and description sufficient to identify the goods supplied; or
(f)an acquisition by him from another member State of a new means of transport, hold a document required by the authority in that other member State to be issued showing his registration number including the prefix “GB”, the registration number of the supplier including the alphabetical code of the member State in which the supplier is registered, the consideration for the supply exclusive of VAT, the date of issue of the document and description sufficient to identify the acquisition as a new means of transport as specified in section 95 of the Act;
provided that where the Commissioners so direct, either generally or in relation to particular cases or classes of cases, a claimant shall hold, instead of the document or invoice (as the case may require) specified in sub-paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) above, such other documentary evidence of the charge to VAT as the Commissioners may direct.
The bit in bold applies to receipts which have “This is not a VAT receipt” printed on them.29. —
(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, and save as the Commissioners may otherwise allow or direct either generally or specially, a person claiming deduction of input tax under section 25(2) of the Act shall do so on a return made by him for the prescribed accounting period in which the VAT became chargeable.
(2) At the time of claiming deduction of input tax in accordance with paragraph (1) above, a person shall, if the claim is in respect of—
(a)a supply from another taxable person, hold the document which is required to be provided under regulation 13;
(b)a supply under section 8(1) of the Act, hold the relative invoice from the supplier;
(c)an importation of goods, hold a document authenticated or issued by the proper officer, showing the claimant as importer, consignee or owner and showing the amount of VAT charged on the goods;
(d)goods which have been removed from warehouse, hold a document authenticated or issued by the proper officer showing the claimant’s particulars and the amount of VAT charged on the goods;
(e)an acquisition by him from another member State of any goods other than a new means of transport, hold a document required by the authority in that other member State to be issued showing his registration number including the prefix “GB”, the registration number of the supplier including the alphabetical code of the member State in which the supplier is registered, the consideration for the supply exclusive of VAT, the date of issue of the document and description sufficient to identify the goods supplied; or
(f)an acquisition by him from another member State of a new means of transport, hold a document required by the authority in that other member State to be issued showing his registration number including the prefix “GB”, the registration number of the supplier including the alphabetical code of the member State in which the supplier is registered, the consideration for the supply exclusive of VAT, the date of issue of the document and description sufficient to identify the acquisition as a new means of transport as specified in section 95 of the Act;
provided that where the Commissioners so direct, either generally or in relation to particular cases or classes of cases, a claimant shall hold, instead of the document or invoice (as the case may require) specified in sub-paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) above, such other documentary evidence of the charge to VAT as the Commissioners may direct.
Eric Mc said:
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Or tear that bit off!
Or, as I was discovering a client was doing (many year ago), Tippexing out the "Not A VAT Receipt" and then substituting the original document with a photocopied version.
For this, and other tax related misdemeanours, he was fined £150,000, had to repay all the incorrectly reclaimed Input VAT (and other taxes he'd falsely underdeclared) and was told by the judge that he was lucky to escape a jail sentence.
This was over 30 years ago.
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Evoluzione said:
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Evoluzione said:
Have they got a VAT No. or not? It's easily checked so it's either yes or no from there.
It really isn’t. Pro forma invoices or cash receipts may carry a vat number but not be used to reclaim the vat. The clue is in the printing. If it says it’s not a vat receipt, well, it’s not a vat receipt.
The OP is asking the wrong people. He should be asking whoever it is sending him these receipts, a chartered accountant and HMRC.
If you look back Eric never even answered the question when i'd posted.
I also said the OP should be asking whoever is sending these weird receipts which have a VAT calculation on them, but say they they are not VAT receipts.
It's a constant problem these days when purchasing from the internet, especially Ebay. It quite clearly says on Ebay listings peoples VAT numbers and 'I provide invoices with VAT separately displayed.' So when they don't what to do?
As a one man operation I can't afford to sit here every day and spend time messaging people for VAT receipts.
If you think about it it's morally wrong that because the vendor can't be bothered that the buyer loses out.
It says on the HMRC page linked to:
"Valid invoices
You’ll use a full VAT invoice for most transactions. You can use:
a modified invoice for retail supplies over £250
a simplified invoice for retail supplies under £250 - and for other supplies from 1 January 2013"
I'm not sure what that means.
The problem is HMRC don't apply common sense and they know it, personally I do.
Simplified invoices have always been allowable under VAT regulations. Simplified invoices show a reduced level of detail compared to a full VAT invoice.
The simplified invoice needs only show
the name of the supplier
the date of the transaction
the VAT inclusive value of the transaction
the VAT rate being applied
the VAT number of the supplier
It can leave out details such as
the address of the supplier
the name and address of the customer
the actual VAT amount
The OP's question has been clearly answered. The invoice he was given was not a valid invoice and therefore he cannot use it as a basis for making an Input VAT reclaim.
How much clearer can it be?
The simplified invoice needs only show
the name of the supplier
the date of the transaction
the VAT inclusive value of the transaction
the VAT rate being applied
the VAT number of the supplier
It can leave out details such as
the address of the supplier
the name and address of the customer
the actual VAT amount
The OP's question has been clearly answered. The invoice he was given was not a valid invoice and therefore he cannot use it as a basis for making an Input VAT reclaim.
How much clearer can it be?
Eric Mc said:
The simplified invoice needs only show
the name of the supplier
the date of the transaction
the VAT inclusive value of the transaction
the VAT rate being applied
the VAT number of the supplier
The OP's question has been clearly answered. The invoice he was given was not a valid invoice and therefore he cannot use it as a basis for making an Input VAT reclaim.
OP said 'The proof of payments show net amount, VAT paid, gross amount, method of payment and the time and date of payment. They also give the sellers business address and VAT number.'the name of the supplier
the date of the transaction
the VAT inclusive value of the transaction
the VAT rate being applied
the VAT number of the supplier
The OP's question has been clearly answered. The invoice he was given was not a valid invoice and therefore he cannot use it as a basis for making an Input VAT reclaim.
So maybe the only thing missing is the VAT rate? But that can be worked out from the difference between net and gross.
None of that matters. The supplier has specifically instructed the OP they he cannot use the invoice to make a VAT reclaim. Therefore, no matter what information is displayed on the document, it is not a valid VAT invoice and the OP cannot use it as the basis of the Input VAT reclaim.
There is a reason why this is the case. In the hands of the supplier, the document is ALSO not a valid invoice - so therefore, the supplier will not be declaring Output VAT on the basis of that specific document.
VAT works both ways. If the supplier is declaring the VAT content on the invoice as Output VAT, then the recipient of the invoice can use that invoice to reclaim the Input VAT in his next VAT return.
By putting "Not A Valid VAT Invoice" on the document, the supplier is instructing the recipient that he will not be declaring Output VAT on this document so therefore the customer should not try to reclaim the Input VAT.
When the supplier eventually issues a proper VAT invoice, then the Output and Input VAT amounts can be declared in the respective sets of book-keeping records.
I expect that the issuing of the actual VAT Invoice will occur as soon as the OP has actually paid the invoice. If he has already paid but has not yet received a proper, valid, VAT invoice from the supplier, he needs to get in touch with the supplier and demand that he gets one.
There is a reason why this is the case. In the hands of the supplier, the document is ALSO not a valid invoice - so therefore, the supplier will not be declaring Output VAT on the basis of that specific document.
VAT works both ways. If the supplier is declaring the VAT content on the invoice as Output VAT, then the recipient of the invoice can use that invoice to reclaim the Input VAT in his next VAT return.
By putting "Not A Valid VAT Invoice" on the document, the supplier is instructing the recipient that he will not be declaring Output VAT on this document so therefore the customer should not try to reclaim the Input VAT.
When the supplier eventually issues a proper VAT invoice, then the Output and Input VAT amounts can be declared in the respective sets of book-keeping records.
I expect that the issuing of the actual VAT Invoice will occur as soon as the OP has actually paid the invoice. If he has already paid but has not yet received a proper, valid, VAT invoice from the supplier, he needs to get in touch with the supplier and demand that he gets one.
Eric Mc said:
None of that matters. The supplier has specifically instructed the OP they he cannot use the invoice to make a VAT reclaim. Therefore, no matter what information is displayed on the document, it is not a valid VAT invoice and the OP cannot use it as the basis of the Input VAT reclaim.
That's for a tier 1 tribunal to decide (if it ever got that far). My understanding is that such a document is sufficient evidence that input tax has been paid and therefore can be reclaimed (if no other documentation can be obtained).Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff