Has anyone else heard that HMRC are asserting that couriers are not in the transport sector ?
Replies (24)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
if the courier has been using the % for 'transport or storage, including couriers, freight, removals and taxis’ @ 10% without challenge, I don't see how they could now argue that a courier is not in the transport sector.
Agreed. Both "transport" and "courier" in the same definition in HMRC's own list. To attempt to split the two now brings phrases related to the ownership of cake and consumption thereof to mind.if the courier has been using the % for 'transport or storage, including couriers, freight, removals and taxis’ @ 10% without challenge, I don't see how they could now argue that a courier is not in the transport sector.
Not that I've heard to date.
If they do I can see someone taking that to tribunal. The restrictions on limited cost trader status are ludicrous already. To seek to also exclude a business that is "transporting" goods as well would be taking the [***].
As far as I'm aware it's not defined in statute but the dictionary or similar definition of the transport sector definitely includes them, I'd say they're on to plums.
Haven't heard of them testing it though.
Who was the lecheror? There are a great number that just talk out of their arses for the sake of something to say. Such comments should be treated as what they are; farts.
VAT notice 733 latest edition refers to this problem as follows:
" Information regarding the trade sectors and flat rate percentages can be found at Regulation 55K of the VAT Regulations 1995. You would use these rates if you’re not a limited cost business, see paragraph 4.4.
If you’re a limited cost business you need to use 16.5%. "
This can be interpreted as follows:
" you can use the chosen / appropriate FRS rate (eg. 10%) but ONLY if you are not a limted cost trader "
The guidance then goes on to provide an interpretation of "relevant goods" and "limited cost trader".
I think what has emerged (and the lecturer might have been considering) is that many VAT advisors would have interpreted vehicle fuel as "relevant goods" however the guidance says not so, so pushing couriers into the higher than expected LCT FRS rate.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-733-flat-rate-sche...
You don't appear to have appreciated the issue at all. If the individual operates in the transport sector, then vehicle fuel, etc is "relevant goods"; that's the point.
And the point is actually addressed in the VAT Regulations. I have no clue whether it goes on to be reflected in HMRC misguidance:
It says (Reg 55A(4)(a)(i)) that vehicles, vehicle parts and fuel are relevant goods where the applicable category of business is "Transport or storage, INCLUDING COURIERS, freight, removals and taxis".
I suspect that it's a genuine case of a lecture talking complete guff. It happens so much.
Apologies to any lecturers that I may have heckled in the past, but, inevitably, you completely deserved it!
I NEVER suggested that ALL lecherors were inept Basil. Many are guilty of just making 5h1t up though, so it sounds like they actually have more practical experience than they actually do.
Thet being said, I have come across some lecherors that are pretty clueless in all respects.
Methinks thou dost protest too much though! :P
Your middle paragraph re clients submitting their own stuff because it won't be checked and it won't matter if they get it wrong is basically the response that I got (in fact it's almost word for word the response I got) having raised issues regarding MTD with my MP. The official response was forwarded to me by my MP's office and was from The Treasury. It talks about 'software...using the information that the taxpayer has already recorded and prompt them to send that to HMRC' and 'no requirement for an update to be done by an agent, and no penalty for inaccuracy in an update...'. Clouds and cuckoos spring to mind.
Not contributed for a year or so (sorry, busy earning a VAT living!), but can see that PNL is still hanging 'em before they have taken their oath, making outlandish and inflammatory accusations and Fawlty Basil is the voice of reason. Will check back again in another year to see if anything changes!!