The changes will come into effect on:
- 18 November 2024 for quarterly instalment payments
- 26 November 2024 for non-quarterly instalments payment
The press release is available here.
The changes will come into effect on:
The press release is available here.
It is important to compare the use of each scheme to standard VAT accounting to establish whether a business will benefit. Some schemes are compulsory and there are particular pitfalls for businesses using certain schemes.
I thought that it would be useful to consider the schemes all in one place and look at their features and pros and cons.
These schemes reviewed here are:
Cash Accounting Scheme
Normally, VAT returns are based on the tax point (usually the VAT invoice date) for sales and purchases. This may mean a business having to pay HMRC the VAT on sales which customers have not yet paid for.
The VAT cash accounting scheme (CAS) instead bases reporting on payment dates, both for purchases and sales. A business will need to ensure its records include payment dates.
A business is only eligible for CAS if its estimated taxable turnover is no more than £1.35m, and can then remain in the scheme as long as it remains below £1.6m.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Annual Accounting Scheme
The Annual Accounting Scheme allows a business to pay VAT on account, in either nine monthly or three quarterly payments. These instalments are based on VAT paid in the previous year. It is then required to complete a single, annual VAT return which is used to calculate any balance owed by the business or due from HMRC.
A business is eligible for the scheme if its estimated taxable turnover is no more than £1.35m and is permitted to remain in the scheme as long as it remains below £1.6m.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Flat Rate Scheme
The Flat Rate Scheme (FRS) is designed to assist smaller businesses reduce the amount of time and complexity required for VAT accounting. The FRS removes the need to calculate the VAT on every transaction. Instead, a business pays a flat rate percentage of its VAT inclusive turnover. The percentage paid is less than the standard VAT rate because it recognises the fact that no input tax can be claimed on purchases. The flat rate percentage used is dependent on a business’ trade sector.
A business is eligible for this scheme if its estimated taxable turnover in the next year will not exceed £150,000. Once using the scheme, a business is permitted to continue using it until its income exceeds £230,000.
If eligible, a business may combine the FRS with the Annual Accounting Scheme, additionally, there is an option to effectively use a cash basis so there is no need to use CAS. Unfortunately, changes to the scheme rules regarding ” limited cost traders” mean that the scheme has become less attractive.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Margin Scheme for Second Hand Goods
A business normally accounts for output tax on the full value of its taxable supplies and reclaims input tax on its purchases. However, if a business deals in second-hand goods, works of art, antiques or collectibles it may use a Margin Scheme. This scheme enables a business to account for VAT only on the difference between the purchase and selling price of an item; the margin. It is not possible to reclaim input tax on the purchase of an item and there will be no output tax if no profit is achieved (however, if an item is sold for less than the purchase price, a business cannot offset losses against the profits of other items to reduce the overall VAT liability).
There is a special margin schemes for auctioneers and a variation of the Margin Scheme (Global Accounting) is considered below.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Global Accounting
The problem with the Second Hand Goods Scheme is that full details of each individual item purchased and sold has to be recorded. Global Accounting is an optional, simplified variation of the Second Hand Margin Scheme. It differs from the standard Margin Scheme in that rather than accounting for the margin achieved on the sale of each individual item, output tax is calculated on the margin achieved between the total purchases and total sales in a particular accounting period.
Advantages
Disadvantages
VAT Schemes for Retailers
It is usually difficult for retailers to issue an invoice for each sale made, so various retail schemes have been designed to simplify VAT. The appropriate scheme for a business depends on whether its retail turnover (excluding VAT) is; below £1m, between £1m and £130m and higher.
Smaller businesses may be able to use a retail scheme with CAS and Annual Accounting but it cannot combine a Retail Scheme with the FRS. However, retailers may choose to use the FRS instead of a Retail Scheme.
Using standard VAT accounting, a VAT registered business must record the VAT on each sale. However, via a Retail Scheme, it calculates the value of its total VAT taxable sales for a period, eg; a day, and the proportions of that total that are taxable at different rates of VAT; standard, reduced and zero.
According to the scheme a business uses it then applies the appropriate VAT fraction to that sales figure to calculate the output tax due. A business may only use the Retail Scheme for retail sales and must use the standard accounting procedures for other supplies. A business must still issue a VAT invoice to any customer who requests one. It is a requirement of any scheme choice that HMRC must consider it fair and reasonable.
A business can join a retail scheme at the beginning of any VAT period and HMRC does not need to be notified.
Examples of Retail Schemes
The required calculations vary for each scheme.
NB: There are special arrangements for caterers, retail pharmacists and florists.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Overall
As may be seen, there are a lot of choices for a business to consider, especially a start-up. Choosing a scheme which is inappropriate may result in VAT overpayment and a lot of unneeded record keeping and administration. There are real savings to be made by using a beneficial scheme, both in terms of VAT payable and staff time. There are also some schemes which are compulsory, like the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS).
We are happy to review a business’ circumstances and calculate what schemes would produce the best outcome.
Please contact us if you require further information.
VAT penalties for late submissions
HMRC has updated its Internal Guidance VGROUPS01530 on penalties for late submissions,
Penalties for late submissions are calculated on the basis of points.
For VAT groups the representative member has a single liability for these points covering the whole group. If the representative member changes, the existing liability is transferred to the new representative member. A new member joining the group will not affect the points total of the group, even if the member joining had points before. If a business leaves the group and registers for VAT separately they will start with zero points, even if the group that they left had a penalty point balance.
For divisions, each one is liable for its own separate points and penalties. Each division will have its own maximum points total.
If you buy a flapjack* from a vending machine in the corridor at work it is VAT free. However, if you buy the same product from a machine in the staff canteen it will be standard rated.
* Of course, zero rating only applies to a “traditional” flapjack and not cereal or energy/sports nutrition bars…
HMRC’s manual VAT Assessments and Error Correction was updated on 15 October 2024.
This internal guidance is for HMRC inspectors (but is equally useful for advisers) covers assessments and error correction. The amendments apply mainly to General assessment procedures: Importance of avoiding delay.
The manual covers:
It also refers to for the most up-to-date guidance on reasonable excuse CH160000.as a defence against penalties and interest.
More on:
Disclosure of Avoidance Schemes – new rules
New HMRC guidance on error reporting
New online service for error correction
Error Disclosure under £10,000 – Draft Letter To HMRC
The recent announcement of an e-invoicing consultation means that businesses should consider the impacts of the intended introduction now.
When this is published (potentially in the Budget on 30 October) it is be anticipated it will cover the intended effective date, how it will affect types of taxpayer, eg; B2B and B2C, how it will be implemented, and its range.
This raises further questions “down the line”, so here we look a step further and consider “split payments” as there has been a lot of conversation and media coverage on this subject.
What are split payments (sometimes known as “real-time extraction”)?
Split payments use card payment technology to collect VAT on online sales and transfer it directly to HMRC rather than the seller collecting it from the buyer along with the payment for the supply, and then declaring it to HMRC on a return in the usual way.
Clearly, HMRC is very keen to introduce such a system, but there are significant hurdles, the biggest being the complexity for online sellers, payment processors, input tax systems, agents, advisers and HMRC itself.
Where are we on split payments?
HMRC has previously published a Prior Information Notice (PIN) and associated Request for Information (RFI), seeking views on the outline requirements and proposed procurement process split payments. This should, inter alia, assist HMRC in:
This builds on previous information gathering/consultations/discussions carried out some years ago.
Background
The expansion of the online shopping market has brought unprecedented levels of transactions. The results of digitalisation have also brought challenges for tax systems. Jurisdictions all over the world are currently grappling with the question of how to prevent large VAT losses, which can arise from cross-border online sales. This happens when consumers buy goods from outside their jurisdiction from sellers who, through fraud or ignorance, do not comply with their tax obligations. It is costing the UK tax authorities an estimated £1 billion to £1.5 billion (figures for 2015-16) a year. The UK government believes that intercepting VAT through intermediaries in the payment cycle, split payment potentially offers a powerful means of enforcing VAT compliance on sellers who are outside the UK’s jurisdiction.
Fraud
The fraud carried out by online sellers is not particularly sophisticated but is difficult to combat. Simply, sellers either use a fake VAT number to collect VAT without declaring it, or even more basically, collect the VAT and disappear.
Proposed spilt payment methods
The way in which payments are split represent difficult technical VAT issues, particularly when sales are at different VAT rates. The three proposals are:
There may be more proposals forthcoming, but none of the above proposals appear reasonable and the complexity they would bring would seem to rule them out as matters stand – although this has not previously stopped HMRC introducing certain measures and the obvious benefits to the authorities cannot be ignored.
Overall
The technology for split payments currently exists and is being used in some Latin American countries (and Poland). The concept is part of a larger movement towards real-time taxation and MTD. Our view is that split payments are coming, but we do not know in which form or when.
HMRC internal guidance manual has been updated on 9 October 2024.
This is likely to affect; charities and similar bodies, NFP, clubs, associations, philanthropic organisations, galleries and museums, “hobby” activities, amongst other persons.
Business or Non-Business (N-B) is very important in VAT as it determines, inter alia, whether a supplier is
The definition of business and N-B here.
Legislation: The I Act 1994 Section 24(5).
Further reading
I have written about this issue many times, as it is a fundamental issue in the tax.
The following articles consider case law and other relevant business/N-B issues:
Lajvér Meliorációs Nonprofit Kft. And Lajvér Csapadékvízrendezési Nonprofit Kft
What the Guidance Manual covers:
This is the main reference material for HMRC inspectors and other employees, so it is very helpful for advisers to understand HMRC’s likely approach to a potential VAT issue.
Latest from the courts
The second-hands of time.
In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether the second-hand goods margin scheme (margin scheme) was applicable and whether HMRC’s assessments for £5,474,249 (later reduced to £5,004,595) of underdeclared of output tax were issued in best judgement.
Background
The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited (A&M) sold second-hand wristwatches with the majority of the sales properly accounted for via the margin scheme. However, from information obtained from Italian tax authorities in respect of supply chain fraud, HMRC issued the assessments on the basis that supplies of certain goods did not meet the conditions of the margin scheme so that output tax was due on the full value of the watches rather than the difference between the purchase and sale values. HMRC decided to penalise A&M because the errors were deliberate and prompted and subsequently to issue a PLN on the basis that such conduct was attributable to the director. A&M is a “High Value Dealer” for anti-money laundering purposes.
Contentions
Appellant
The appellant claimed that HMRC did not use best judgement on the grounds that:
so the assessments and penalties were invalid.
Whilst accepting that a best judgment challenge is a high bar A&M contended that the conduct and mindset of HMRC’s investigating and assessing officer was so unreasonable that it vitiated the whole assessment.
Respondent
HMRC contended that the assessments were based on best judgement and that its focus was not on the supply chain fraud claims (as claimed by A&M). Additionally, a previous inspection in 2014 had raised prior concerns which provided adequate grounds for the assessments. Moreover, A&M was aware of the terms of operation of the second-hand margin scheme and considered that A&M had wilfully misused the scheme in several regards. The scheme had been incorrectly used for goods purchased by way of intracommunity supplies – which had been imported with the appellant claiming input tax on the imports and then including them in the margin scheme. A&M wilfully failed to carry out due diligence on its suppliers.
Best Judgement
It may be helpful if we consider what the words “best judgement” mean. This was best described by Woolf J in Van Boeckel v CEC [1981] STC 290
“What the words ‘best of their judgement’ envisage, in my view, is that the commissioners will fairly consider all material before them and, on that material, come to a decision which is one which is reasonable and not arbitrary as to the amount of tax which is due. As long as there is some material on which the commissioners can reasonably act, then they are not required to carry out investigations which may or may not result in further material being placed before them.”
Technical
The second-hand margin scheme is provided for under The VAT Act 1994, Section 50A, The Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 and certain paragraphs of VAT Notice 718 which have force of law.
Decision
The appeal was dismissed. It was found that A&M deliberately rendered inaccurate VAT returns. The director of the company was aware both of how the margin scheme worked and that the terms of the scheme had to be complied with if a supply was to be taxed under the it. A&M was found to have acted deliberately in misusing the scheme by including ineligible supplies. A&M had been lax in the completion of its stock book, and it had not met the record-keeping requirements necessary to use the scheme for the relevant transactions. Additionally, some of its EU suppliers were not registered for VAT, a fact A&M did not take steps to discover, and so related purchases could not qualify for the scheme. Also, it was likely that some of the purchases were of new watches which made them ineligible for the margin scheme.
Re, evidence; the FTT found much of the A&M director’s evidence to have been self-serving and, in parts, evasive and that it did not consider that the integrity of HMRC could be impugned. The court determined that; the inspector was diligent and thorough, HMRC had legitimate concerns regarding A&M’s use of the margin scheme generally and specifically and there was a wider concern that the company was a participant in fraudulent supply chains. The FTT considered that the investigation was proportionately carried out considering these concerns and the assessments raised in exercise of best judgment.
Penalties and PLN
The case further considered penalties: whether the appellant’s conduct was deliberate (yes – appeal dismissed). Whether the Personal Liability Notice (PLN) [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] was appropriate for the conduct attributed to the director – whether his conduct led to penalty (yes – appeal dismissed).
Commentary
This case is a long read, but worthwhile for comments on; the margin scheme use, HMRC’s inspection methods, best judgement, evidence and MTIC amongst other matters.
Fruit pulp is zero-rated, but fruit juice is standard-rated.
A newly published (18 September 2024) set of guidelines: Guidelines for Compliance GfC8 are aimed at helping businesses with VAT compliance controls and set out what HMRC considers good practice for accounting and compliance processes.
HMRC says that these Guidelines for Compliance (GfC) set out its recommended approach and are designed to help businesses understand HMRC expectations as they plan, carry out, and review the accounting and compliance processes that ensure VAT is accurately declared by a business.
The guide covers:
General approach to VAT compliance controls
VAT reporting – manual adjustments
Next steps — correcting errors and guidance
The guidelines are aimed at those responsible for the governance, controls, processing and submitting of the VAT return. Such roles may include: