Hope for help on this one......
Client company wants to charge some customers for the credit card costs, depending on the size of the transaction -
Is that surcharge a standard rate supply or exempt?
Thanks in advance, brain frazzled after January
Replies (30)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
cheekychappy
Did you?
There is no need to be so rude.
I'm not going to waste any further time discussing this.
Yes, and if you read it you
Yes (not that I needed to), and if you read it you couldn't possibly say that the the surcharge is standard rated on the information provided by the OP.
I suggest you read the notice again so that you fully understand it.
Because
And this section is called Any Answers? Wonder why.
Sift thought that "post your lazy [***] questions here" was too long.
Cheekychappy
just for once, give the questioner a break. From the OP: "brain frazzled after January"
Paul, given that VAT is driven by a supply and where that supply is made, it’s not too much to ask for the OP to provide that gem of information, is it?
Any Answers should be renamed to “let everyone post tens of questions every day, often with the important bit of information missing. At the same time, let the same handful of people provide the answers to ill thought out questions, whilst everyone else just whinges in the background”.
Meanwhile, we have had two hypocritical moaners that still haven’t addressed the question. Is that because they can’t because of the missing piece of the jigsaw?
Well
it is perfectly possible to answer the question without that information so why put the OP down?
"Follows the liability of the main supply" would probably do it. Caveat it more if you wish. Not sure who the hypocritical is directed at. If me, why?
No it isn't
Again, Paul, I can't see how you could possibly answer without knowing the facts.
There are some circumstances where the charge can be exempt - see the Scottish Exhibition case, for example.
Until we know the full facts, we can't possibly answer. I'm outta here. I'll leave the numpties to carry on speculating.
So why not
ask for the details you want or else ignore the question?
So, do tell, who are the hypocrites and numpties?
Is the information we need not obvious?
Portia Nina Levin said:
It depends on the one piece of information you have not given.
Cheekychappy said:
Paul, given that VAT is driven by a supply and where that supply is made, it’s not too much to ask for the OP to provide that gem of information, is it?
All these comments, to extract what is basic information. It clearly needs spelling out for the intellectually challenged.
Let's start with:
What is the supply? Who is it supplied to and from? Where is it supplied?
Paulwakefield1 said:
So, do tell, who are the hypocrites and numpties?
The numpties are yourself and MM Bookkeeping:
MM Bookkeeping said:
Standard rate of vat applicable
Paulwakefield1 said:
it is perfectly possible to answer the question without that information so why put the OP down?
"Follows the liability of the main supply" would probably do it. Caveat it more if you wish.
Both posts are purely speculation at this point.
The hypocrites are yourself and Dnicholson.
DNicholson said:
And this section is called Any Answers? Wonder why.
Paulwakefield1 said:
just for once, give the questioner a break
Both of you jumped on my comments but neither of you provided an answer because it was impossible to do so.
Thanks for the clarification
No - the information was not obvious at the time you commented. "It depends on the one piece of information you have not given." hardly makes it obvious.
Not speculation; just a general answer which will cover most situations. Hence the "Caveat it more if you wish" observation. If you want me to expand, I would have thought something along the lines of:
"In general the surcharge liability will follow the liability of the main supply. See VAT notice 701/49 Para 4.7 for instance. There are exceptions so, if you want a more detailed answer, we will need more information about the nature of the main transaction and the proposed credit card charges."
Nope, not a hypocrite. I didn't "jump" on your comments because you did not answer the question but because of your demeaning comments to others. I did not answer because I felt (and feel) there are others better placed to do so.
FAO: cheekchappy
cheekychappy -
Your comment calling me a 'numpty' is totally offensive considering you know nothing about me.
Is this how you treat your clients?
If you can't say anything in a positive manner then I suggest you keep your ill-mannered thoughts to yourself.
I would never call anyone this (even if I thought it) and less so someone in the same profession and even less so on a forum for everyone to see.
An apology would not go amiss if you wish to retrieve the respect I previously had for you on this forum.
FAO: MM Bookkeeping
My initial question to you was an honest one, and not rude. Had you read the VAT notice correctly, you would have understood that you couldn't possibly have given an answer.
Instead, you went on the offensive and said that I was rude. Which, at that point, I wasn't.
I replied asking you to read the VAT notice again as you had clearly missed something. At this point, you clearly thought that your analysis was correct.
In the interim period, we had a couple of annoying sounds that also couldn't possibly give an answer.
I will not be issuing an apology. I've no reason to do so.
Perhaps to avoid people getting sensitive, people should just put a bit of effort into their questions? Would they put such little effort into a question they were asking someone they were paying for advice?
FAO: cheekychappy
Ok maybe I shouldn't have given my views on Vat treatment
I was not looking for an apology for that as we can all make mistakes at some time and maybe I should not have assumed what the OP was questioning.
But I still maintain an apology would be good for the statement you made implying I am a 'numpty'.
If you knew me personally and came to that decision then fine - we can't all be loved by everyone can we?
Now can we move on?
Interesting that the person who asked the question has not responded further - maybe they have decided to checkout HMRC website instead?!!!
Hypocrite?
Maybe you could explain why I'm a hypocrite.
Or maybe you could realise that I'm just winding you up.
Sigh...
It's such a shame that cheekychappy can only aspire to the style and acerbic wit of PNL but I fear he is destined to forever hang onto PNL's coattails in that respect.
Numpty, hypocrite and annoying sound so far. Infinite monkey syndrome should come up with something better eventually (albeit just as inaccurate). :-)
I don’t aspire to be anyone, Paul. Though I do wish I had the knowledge Portia shows because I would be earning a hell of a lot more.
It’s a shame to see people continue to spout “advice” that can’t be given because of a lack of information provided by the OP.
Fair play, after 22 comments, you’ve given it a good go. But sadly, we still don’t have the relevant facts to give an accurate answer. You mean well though.
Don’t you get fed up of seeing lazy questions? Because I do. I suspect that if the people posting these crap questions were paying someone for advice, they would put a lot more effort into their questions.
Oh well
I suppose a move from insulting to patronising makes a change.
I actually didn't say you aspired to be Portia but no matter. And I couldn't agree more about Portia's knowledge.
As for fed up - no. I browse the questions, I look at one's where I may be able to answer (especially Excel) and others which may be of interest/relevant to me, decide if they're worth reading and move on or not accordingly. Constantly Confused nailed it for me in his "I hate" post on 25 November.
FAO Paul
Wow! That works so much better for me than @ Paul.
Paul, I think you may find that Constantly Confused is lacking in the willy department.
The VAT on the credit card surcharge follows the supply and is therefore is standard rated.
That wasn't hard, was it? :)
Thank you Portia and WallyGandy for your comments and just glad that the matter is now resolved.
My other job is clairvoyance!