Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
HMRC looks into traders trying to cheat VAT rules | AccoutingWEB | photo of letters from HMRC

HMRC looks into overseas traders trying to cheat UK VAT rules


HMRC is writing to approximately 12,000 businesses it believes may be based overseas but incorporated in the UK, in some cases in order to avoid charging output VAT on their UK sales.

26th Jan 2024
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Since a change in the law in January 2021, online marketplaces (OMPs) such as Amazon, eBay and ETSY must collect VAT on sales by overseas traders on their platforms and pay it to HMRC. According to HMRC, some overseas traders are trying to cheat the rules by incorporating in the UK when they have no presence here. The result is that the OMP will not charge them the output VAT and the trader does not pay it to HMRC.

This has the double effect of legitimate traders being undercut and depriving the treasury of VAT revenue. As part of HMRC’s ongoing work to crack down on such behaviour, the tax authority is sending letters to businesses it suspects may be Non-Established Taxable Persons (NETPs).

What is an NETP?

An NETP is any person who is not normally resident in the UK, does not have a UK establishment and, in the case of a company, is not incorporated in the UK.

Where a business has NETP status, HMRC may inform the OMP of this. The OMP will be required to deduct output VAT from the trader’s sales and remit this to HMRC under the marketplace liability guidelines.

HMRC is sending a “one-to-many” (OTM) letter to businesses it has reason to believe may be NETPs to provide an opportunity to confirm its assessment of their status. One indicator that a business may be an NETP is if it is registered at an agent or serviced office address, suggesting it may not have a permanent physical presence in the UK.

Establishing a UK presence

Being incorporated in the UK does not necessarily mean that a business has a UK presence. As stated in HMRC’s VAT notice 700/1, a UK establishment exists if either the:

  • place where essential management decisions are made and the business’s central administration is carried out is in the UK; or
  • business has a permanent physical presence with the human and technical resources to make or receive taxable supplies in the UK.

The notice continues: “We would normally consider a company which is incorporated in the UK to have an establishment in the UK as long as it’s able to receive business supplies at its registered office.”

A registered, serviced or virtual office is not enough to create a business establishment. For example, if you are a company incorporated in the UK, sell all goods using an online marketplace and only have a fulfilment centre in the UK, then you are not UK-established.

What does NETP status mean for a trader?

Having NETP status means that the OMP will typically collect output VAT on the business’ supplies and pay it directly to HMRC. NETPs that make supplies in the UK are not subject to the VAT registration turnover threshold, meaning that they need to be registered for VAT, even if their turnover is below £85,000.

If the recipient does not respond to the letter, HMRC will take this as confirmation that the trader is based overseas and may inform the OMP of their NETP status.

If you or your client receive the letter 

If you or your client agree with HMRC’s assessment that they are an NETP, there is no further action they need to take. HMRC will update the VAT register with the business’ NETP status and may also disclose this to the relevant OMP(s).

If businesses or their agents think they meet the criteria to be established in the UK for VAT, they need to send evidence of this to HMRC within 30 days from the date on the letter. Acceptable evidence is listed in the OTM letter and includes: 

  • rental/lease/tenancy agreements (with proof of payment);
  • records of staff employed at the business address (with the PAYE reference of the business);
  • council tax bills;
  • utility bills; or
  • bank statements. 

An HMRC spokesperson said: “We’re doing this to ensure VAT records are up to date and the correct treatment of VAT is applied by online marketplaces facilitating the sales for overseas-based sellers.”

Tale as old as time

The exploitation of loopholes by overseas businesses to wriggle out of charging VAT on sales is by no means a new issue.

Some of our readers will remember back in 2012 when the Government closed the Low Value Consignment Relief “loophole” which large corporations had been exploiting to sell mail-order CDs from the Channel Islands to the UK without charging VAT.

More recently, in 2023 Dylan Davies suffered the consequences of c.11,000 overseas businesses registering for VAT at his home address in order to claim a UK presence. HMRC now undertakes checks to prevent incorrect addresses being used for VAT registration, including where it is believed a business is not established in the UK.

Tightening of the rules and increased scrutiny from HMRC will be welcomed by legitimate business owners struggling to compete against overseas traders that lop 16.67% off the sales price of like-for-like products.

Further information on the impacts of being a NETP can be found on the GOV.UK site  Who should register for VAT (VAT Notice 700/1).  


Replies (9)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Replying to Justin Bryant:
Amy Chin
By Amy Chin
26th Jan 2024 13:43

Yes, hence the direct link to that exact forum post in the article above...

Thanks (3)
Replying to Amy Chin:
By Justin Bryant
26th Jan 2024 15:38

Noted and force of habit there I guess (caused by skim reading in this case)! At least I have less egg on my face here than JH! (Perhaps if the title or subtitle of the article mentioned JH having egg all over his face here then that would have been better.)

Thanks (2)
By FactChecker
26th Jan 2024 13:32

On the surface, I appear to have entered a twilight zone where HMRC makes decisions with which I don't disagree!

However ... it's not clear whether there is real determination behind this? - or whether it is just another cheapo 'nudge', aimed as much at garnering headlines as at improving tax collection.
There are many (valid) reasons why a business may choose to use an agent or service office as their registered address even though they have a 'permanent physical presence in the UK' ...
and, more importantly, there are plenty of the fraudsters not bothering with that level of subterfuge - relying instead on random fake addresses (and then moving on before being identified).

Dylan Davies isn't the only person to have had his address 'borrowed' - and it's still going on!

So whilst I agree with the objective (who wouldn't?), it doesn't sound as though HMRC are actually doing anything productive - just causing more grief for agents (thanks).

EDIT: And yet again, Justin types faster than me (and provides the salient link) - thanks.

Thanks (2)
Replying to FactChecker:
Amy Chin
By Amy Chin
26th Jan 2024 13:44

The link was already in the article.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Amy Chin:
By FactChecker
26th Jan 2024 14:16

Sorry, but we've been here before.
The underlining of two words (to indicate a hyperlink) doesn't IMHO constitute an instantly understood signpost - let alone one that makes explicit the context.
I don't have time to click on every link on the off chance that it's relevant (especially since many can be more related to advertising than helpful to the reader).

Thanks (4)
Replying to FactChecker:
Jake Smith, AccountingWEB
By Jake Smith
26th Jan 2024 14:51

Sorry you don't have the time to click on every link "FactChecker" but you have the time to comment on just about everything else! Underlining the relevant text and making it a link to a relevant article is pretty much standard practice on websites.

Thanks (10)
Replying to Jake Smith:
By FactChecker
26th Jan 2024 15:06

FWIW with regard to what I presume is a tongue-in-cheek gibe ... I have the time to comment on many things (by no means everything), precisely because I don't let myself be deflected down poorly signposted byways.
I work at speed (as I was trained to do) so make instant decisions as to whether a link is likely to add to what is being gleaned ... and a hyperlink that doesn't indicate the topic or context fails my criteria.
Until recently, journalists were taught to make the context clear (so the two word underlining would've been replaced by a few more words such as 'problem with fraudulent addresses'), but no doubt I've fallen behind newer 'standards'.
Quite definitely my loss - but you'll find that bots have the same problem as me, so whether or not you're intentionally proofing against AI scraping it's what you're doing.

Oh and the other facet of having/making time is maintaining a wide spread of interests - so Aweb is not the only beneficiary/sufferer of my thoughts. As I get less mobile and so rely more on the digital world, people are tripping over my words across all sorts of other interests - from vinyl records to bird watching and even middle-eastern politics - so be grateful Aweb doesn't get all my attention! :=)

Thanks (4)
Replying to FactChecker:
By rmillaree
29th Jan 2024 09:42

i wander if this is the same 11,000 companies that registered at one random address in wales and Jim Harrah previoulsy looked and advised there is no evidence of fraud.

Harrah’s said its investigation “found no evidence of fraud or fraudulent intent” and that 70% of the companies registered to Davis’ address were online marketplaces.

I suggest that Jim Harrah only found no evidence of fraud because he didnt look - shame he is not held to the same level of standards as others are expected too. Pretty sure none of us accounatnts would have allowed a client to incorporate 11k companies with overseas owners at an address they dont use ?

Thanks (1)