You might also be interested in
Replies (23)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Thanks Rebecca, in particular for highlighting that there will not be a consultation on this.
I will send a detailed email this week.
Fellow A-webbers may I suggest you do the same?
One thought on this is if they simply make "business services not listed elsewhere" 16.5%, and added 1% to the rest it would be "problem solved"
I would be a bit more radical: my solution to this problem is simply to abolish the FRS completely.
Completing a VAT return the "normal" way is hardly onerous even for the most numerically challenged client. Abolition of the FRS would eliminate a complication and put all VAT traders on a level footing.
(And before anyone points out that there would still be the complication of cash vs standard accounting, I would also in my dream world abolish that distinction: compulsory cash accounting below say £1m and compulsory standard accounting above).
I'm not instinctively in favour of compulsion but to my mind VAT is an area riddled with un-necessary complication absolutely screaming to be standardised one way or another.
And before anyone points out that there would still be the complication of cash vs standard accounting, I would also in my dream world abolish that distinction: compulsory cash accounting below say £1m and compulsory standard accounting above.
You obviously don't have any clients in the construction industry then. If they had to pay VAT up-front instead of on cash accounting, cash flow would be even more on a knife edge than it already is.
adam.arca wrote:
And before anyone points out that there would still be the complication of cash vs standard accounting, I would also in my dream world abolish that distinction: compulsory cash accounting below say £1m and compulsory standard accounting above.
You obviously don't have any clients in the construction industry then. If they had to pay VAT up-front instead of on cash accounting, cash flow would be even more on a knife edge than it already is.
I do and your point is, of course, a fair one.
I prefer a simple system but the consequential problem is one of rough edges.
You can go the other way, which is the way the UK tax system has gone, of trying to micro manage everything and then you end up with the complicated mess we have.
It's about finding the right trade off and, to my mind anyway, the FRS is an unnecessary complication ripe for abolition.
It's about finding the right trade off and, to my mind anyway, the FRS is an unnecessary complication ripe for abolition.
Yes we do need a trade-off between simplicity and the "fairness" that complexity aims to achieve, but the FRS was meant to be a simplification in itself, and was a rare example of simplicity benefiting the taxpayer (the reverse is usually more likely).
It's only these new rules that are complicating it, and we have all those agencies who sent in mass-applications for small companies well below the VAT registration threshold to thank for that.
Not for the first time, the big boys have poisoned the well for the rest of us.
I would be a bit more radical: my solution to this problem is simply to abolish the FRS completely.
Completing a VAT return the "normal" way is hardly onerous even for the most numerically challenged client. Abolition of the FRS would eliminate a complication and put all VAT traders on a level footing.
(And before anyone points out that there would still be the complication of cash vs standard accounting, I would also in my dream world abolish that distinction: compulsory cash accounting below say £1m and compulsory standard accounting above).
I'm not instinctively in favour of compulsion but to my mind VAT is an area riddled with un-necessary complication absolutely screaming to be standardised one way or another.
Totally agree with the above. Stop complicating it.
If we think it's complicated now wait until we get Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with their own different VAT systems in years to come.
One aspect of the change that should be given due consideration is the restriction to 'goods'. I know of at least 2 consultants that will almost certainly have to leave FRS based on the draft proposals. They have little expenditure in the way of goods but do have significant VATable costs on sub-consultants. Their FRS saving will not justify additional expenditure on goods in order to hit the 2% mark, and so remaining in FRS will cost them. Question is - what is the rationale for excluding 'genuine' service costs from the calculation?
And I've also already made the point that HMRC already have the power to remove traders from the Scheme, for protection of the Revenue. The proposed change is wholly unnecessary.
Have I misunderstood the definition of limited cost trader? From this link (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-aggressive-abuse-of-...) I understood that to stay in the new FRS you have to be a limited cost trader (LCT). An LCT is someone who spends less than 2% of their vat inclusive turnover on goods (excluding capital items, food/drink, vehicles). So someone with £80k of vat inclusive turnover has to incur less than £1,600 on goods, which I see, for your service providing clients, as quite likely.
Yet I read your responses as the consultants will have to leave FRS as they spend virtually nothing on goods.
@chaccountant
The point is that if businesses find themselves reclassified as LCTs, it won't be financially viable to stay in the FRS.
The idea of the FRS was to set rates so that the resulting VAT liability would be roughly the same as if the business was paying standard rate and claiming input VAT.
The flat rate for LCTs has been set so that this is true only for agency workers who will have almost no input deductions at all. Almost all other service companies will reluctantly decide to leave the FRS, so that they can claim input deductions for the VAT they pay on the various services that they are supplied.
@Ruddles, I will have almost no clients left on the flat rate scheme, as we deal mainly with small service business and none of them buy any 'goods' that are not excluded. Eg IT kit is probably the only thing. This is small software co's, professional service providers, writers, you name it, they are coming off!
I am on it myself as my turnover is just under the de-reg threshold and we don't qualify either, we simply don't by much 'stuff' other than paper and ink, and even that is going down rapidly.
infact the only two I think who will stay on are two 'consultants' who are sailing very close to the IR35 wind and book virtually no costs but our fee and will probably keep on it for simplicity.
I agree Rebecca.
Get rid of 1% discount.
Also, up percentages by 1% across the board.
Job done!
I agree that as usual HMRC have let the Numpty Department loose on the FRS changes, you really would think the Numpty Department would have their hands full with MTD but hey ho!
"Engineering 14.5%"
How hard is that? At a stroke thousands of people currently on 12% are no longer on it. By having many FEWER sectors like this, we:
Raise more tax
Simplify the UK tax code
This sort of thinking, of course, is entirely alien to HMRC. With them the solution to any problem is more silly rules, more red tape, more daft ideas, a longer tax code.
There's another easy way for the government to fix this problem in a more targeted way, so that "legitimate" service businesses are not forced to withdraw from the scheme. Change the Low Cost Trader expenditure test to include expenditure on services and set a higher threshold of expenditure, at whatever level is necessary so that agency workers, who have little or no expenditure, are LCTs. (5% of turnover?)
I've always felt it was unnecessarily confrontational and bombastic of HMRC to label these businesses as abusers of the system.
"Every man [sic] is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax attracted under the appropriate Act is less than it otherwise would be."
It's the cornerstone of our profession and is undermined by the suggestion that anyone using the scheme they are legally entitled to use is an abuser.
Ruddles, if service costs were not excluded then the agencies bulk registering consultants for the scheme could simply make sure they charged a fee of at least 2% of turnover in order to qualify. Garethgreen's suggestion of upping the threshold to 5% at the same time might work though as an artificial fee at that level would cost more than could be gained through the FRS.
I don't think they have offered a rationale. I imagine it is nothing more sophisticated than an observation that the businesses that they consider to be abusers happen to have very little expenditure on goods. The problem is that they haven't recognised that this is also true for almost all service businesses.
it's interesting that using the laws of the land is considered 'abuse' when it leads to unintended consequences whereby the Exchequer is losing money, but is perfectly fine when it leads to unintended consequences that lead to more tax being collected.
Surely HMRC was fully aware of how the FRS legislation would be used when it was enacted? It's hardly rocket science that taxpayers will try to use the rules as advantageously as possible. Taxpayers are unpaid collectors or VAT and PAYE so why shouldn't they try and benefit?
An excellent article Rebecca, the most evident and sensible solutions to fixing the Flat Rate Scheme.
If only HMRC looked at the registrations for the scheme and disallowed the obvious abusers all would be fine. Were they all on holiday between January and August 2016, when 30,000 bulk applications were received.
I do hope you have forwarded this article to the policy team. Would it be too much to think they may consider such relevance?
That figure of 411,000 is a figure that I have always wondered about. Let's just take a wild guess that the average free money given to businesses is around £3,000 (that would be my guess based on my clients)
That would mean HMRC are throwing away £1.25 billion per year on the scheme.
But the scheme is totally irrational, and does not make things easier for most people. In fact it's totally the opposite, we are forever fiddling round with people's turnover going too high, and back down again, categories changing, calculating whether it's best to be in the scheme or not, and constant enquiries/investigations from HMRC. It was a total joke of an idea in the first place...but a nice little earner and so unfortunately we have been duty bound to do it for everybody.
So now it's out in the open and it would appear that finally somebody in charge has noticed that they are throwing away literally billions of £ (although luckily, to us) why don't they just abolish it ?
What on earth would make him, instead of doing that, decide to invent a libellous statement about us being agressive tax abusers (we would be negligent, and possibly get sued if we didnt use their stupid brainless scheme) and then he proceed to make it even more complicated.
FFS Hammond, just ABOLISH IT. After all, it is our taxes as well.