This would be the same Tesco that has made a load of staff redundant from my local store and is now advertising for staff, finding that they made too many redundant....
I might be wrong, but I get the impression that HMRC are relying on the accounting profession to make their clients aware of MTD. Let's face it, how many AWEB members would be aware of MTD at all, if they weren't in the accounting profession?
Hi Les
HMRC having been doing it on VAT for years - I first came across it, probably about 20 years ago in respect of input tax errors. The officer would take a recent quarter, consider an over-claim on, say, input invoices that were inadequate and extrapolate it backwards. "If you got it wrong on this quarter, we can only assume you've always been doing it." (Subject to the 3 or 4 year cap, of course)
Regards
Dave
Hi Les
I've had various problems with the DIY team of late, possibly due to them losing 9 staff all at once, at the beginning of the year. Unfortunately, the replacement staff seem to be approaching their new role with something resembling undue vigour. I recently had one case where several invoices were denied recovery as they weren't "VAT invoices". When I pointed out that the legislation includes wording to the effect that they don't have to be, I was met with a retort to the effect that they weren't 'invoices' - one was an 'order acknowledgement', for example. I'm awaiting reconsideration of that decision. I've also had them disallow the majority of two barn conversion claims as the descriptions on the invoices were not sufficiently detailed. "Interim payment on barn conversion" was not deemed good enough, and even when I later provided back-up schedules, that was not good enough either. I even provided the (unclaimed) white goods invoices to illustrate that they were not included! I'm awaiting reconsideration on that one as well. I despair sometimes.
I was a member of the VAT section in the south west about 15 years ago and found it very useful - and I believe that we achieved quite a lot, whilst it was in existence. Then, one day, someone decided that the VAT meetings should be merged with the tax meetings. What was the point of that? To my knowledge, none of the VAT participants joined the main meetings and an excellent line of communication was lost. Although it now doesn't affect me, I assume that another line of communication will be lost if all WTI groups are disbanded.
In closing, although I am a CIOT member, I wasn't even aware of the WTI forum - how many other members are there who are blissfully unaware of this? Hardly surprising that there is a lack of feedback.
"In new guidance on VAT rules for salary sacrifice schemes HMRC says that the ECJ Astra ruling has wider implications for the VAT treatment of salary sacrifice schemes."
takes us to an HMRC publication dated July 2011. Am I missing something here?
My answers
Yet Notice 708 includes a list of items that can be zero rated - and yes, mirrors are included. And if you really want some soporific night time reading, have a look at the list of items allowable on DIY claims:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/goods-and-services-you-can-claim-for-under-t...
Goodness me - I've just found "Mirrors (if firmly affixed to the dwelling" on the list.
There is also some appalling spelling in there. I guess they must have some work experience youngsters in this week.
This would be the same Tesco that has made a load of staff redundant from my local store and is now advertising for staff, finding that they made too many redundant....
And how can it possibly take up to 4 or 5 months to set up an email address?
Never heard of them. Why was this organisation set up? Don't professional bodies do this adequately already?
I might be wrong, but I get the impression that HMRC are relying on the accounting profession to make their clients aware of MTD. Let's face it, how many AWEB members would be aware of MTD at all, if they weren't in the accounting profession?
Hi Les
HMRC having been doing it on VAT for years - I first came across it, probably about 20 years ago in respect of input tax errors. The officer would take a recent quarter, consider an over-claim on, say, input invoices that were inadequate and extrapolate it backwards. "If you got it wrong on this quarter, we can only assume you've always been doing it." (Subject to the 3 or 4 year cap, of course)
Regards
Dave
Hi Les
I've had various problems with the DIY team of late, possibly due to them losing 9 staff all at once, at the beginning of the year. Unfortunately, the replacement staff seem to be approaching their new role with something resembling undue vigour. I recently had one case where several invoices were denied recovery as they weren't "VAT invoices". When I pointed out that the legislation includes wording to the effect that they don't have to be, I was met with a retort to the effect that they weren't 'invoices' - one was an 'order acknowledgement', for example. I'm awaiting reconsideration of that decision. I've also had them disallow the majority of two barn conversion claims as the descriptions on the invoices were not sufficiently detailed. "Interim payment on barn conversion" was not deemed good enough, and even when I later provided back-up schedules, that was not good enough either. I even provided the (unclaimed) white goods invoices to illustrate that they were not included! I'm awaiting reconsideration on that one as well. I despair sometimes.
WTI VAT group
I was a member of the VAT section in the south west about 15 years ago and found it very useful - and I believe that we achieved quite a lot, whilst it was in existence. Then, one day, someone decided that the VAT meetings should be merged with the tax meetings. What was the point of that? To my knowledge, none of the VAT participants joined the main meetings and an excellent line of communication was lost. Although it now doesn't affect me, I assume that another line of communication will be lost if all WTI groups are disbanded.
In closing, although I am a CIOT member, I wasn't even aware of the WTI forum - how many other members are there who are blissfully unaware of this? Hardly surprising that there is a lack of feedback.
Not the first late return
Why so high?
It would appear to be a 15% penalty, for the 5th late return - well, at least 5 late returns.
Per the article...
The link attached to:
"In new guidance on VAT rules for salary sacrifice schemes HMRC says that the ECJ Astra ruling has wider implications for the VAT treatment of salary sacrifice schemes."
takes us to an HMRC publication dated July 2011. Am I missing something here?