Rant VAT Payments - A Bloody Stupid System

Wronger than a wrong thing: HMRC will happily cut you a cheque if the VAT you're reclaiming exceeds the VAT you've collected on their behalf. They just take the higher of 5% or £50 for the privilege. My mistake - they give you the higher of 5% or £50, if your claim takes longer than 30 days to approve.

(Added bonus: remember how you "don't charge VAT?" Well, that page contains the line "if you've charged your customers less VAT"...)

That makes no sense whatsoever. Jane Bloggs can currently buy the MacBook, claim the VAT back (20% discount here we go), *and* claim the purchase as a business expense (another 29%-ish off the top, if she's paying income tax and National Insurance at the usual rates) without involving Joe Bloggs in the least. That wouldn't change at all under my proposed make-it-the-sales-tax-it-actually-is-in-practice.

Your confusion seems to stem from thinking that there has to be an onward sale; there doesn't. The VAT-reg-to-VAT-reg that means Jane can claim back the 20% VAT she paid on the MacBook happened between her and Currys PC World. That's what she's claiming back, and that's what would be zero-rated if it were a sales tax. HMRC doesn't care whether she's selling the MacBook to Joe Bloggs or using it to heat up eggs.

I fear you may need to take a look at the VAT manual for a refresher, based on the above...

 

Or, in other words, claiming VAT back on business expenses can do more than just reduce your tax payment - yes?

You wouldn't be able to claim it back twice if it'd been zero-rated, either...

Who said it was for personal use? Jane Bloggs is a sole trader, buying it for business purposes - otherwise what was the point of the VAT registration certificate?

But you *do* send them a list of expenses, which includes stock. And if a business starts buying in a load of stock but never sells any, guess what HMRC's going to do? Hint: rhymes with plaudit, but it's not as much fun. Hardly risk-free!

You're saying that like it should come as a surprise, when it's what I've been saying all along. See?

I'm saying VAT is, in effect, a sales tax disguised as a value-added tax because every single VAT-registered entity in the chain ends up claiming the VAT back and the only person whose money rests with HMRC is the poor non-VAT-registered buyer. Nothing you've posted has disproven that: I've yet to see you post a purchase chain (or even a single purchase, VAT-reg-to-VAT-reg like Currys PC World to Jane Bloggs) where that's not true.

EDIT:
Even assuming you were right and having zero-rated transactions with no paperwork would increase fraud, who said there would be no paperwork? Just do exactly what you do now, tracking each transaction, but at 0% instead of 20%. HMRC still gets a list of everything that wasn't VAT-exempt (which is distinct from zero-rated) but you don't end up with the stupid I'll-pay-you-£20-and-HMRC-will-pay-me-£20-if-you-pay-the-£20-I-paid-you-to-HMRC dance.

Zero possibility for fraud outside what the current system offers; same traceability; accountants still in a job, because those quarterly VAT returns still need filling in; but nobody needs to pay anybody including HMRC, except whoever sold the widget to a non-VAT-registered entity.

You're telling me that wouldn't be easier? ('cos I'm literally describing how cross-border EEA VAT transactions work right now...)

 

You're arguing semantics, and deliberately muddying the water by confusing "paying VAT" to a supplier and "paying VAT" to HMRC.

My client pays VAT - as in, there's a line-item for "VAT: £20" in the invoice I send - to me, for the goods/services I render unto them.
I pay VAT - that very £20 they gave to me, in as much as you can say that in a world that doesn't work with a £20 note in a brown envelope any more - to HMRC on, as you would say, "the value I add." But that £20 is literally the £20 my client paid me.
My client claims that £20 back from HMRC. If it were an envelope with a £20 note in it, HMRC would now send it back to my client - right where it started.

I cannot claim back the VAT I paid HMRC, obviously, because that was never my £20 - but my client sure as hell claims it back.

Read my post again: my approach would have exactly the same paperwork as the current system. All you'd do is find and replace "20%" in all the invoices with "0%". How would that increase paperwork?

...and that's a good reason not to get rid of it? I mean, for anyone other than accountants?

You've made a mistake, there, and it's exactly the same one you made earlier: the refiner would reclaim the 20p it paid the miner in VAT; the machinist would reclaim the 40p it paid the refiner in VAT. Now, they might do so as input VAT on a transaction - but not necessarily.

Here, perhaps this'll explain where you're going wrong: what if the machinist can't find a buyer? In your example, he's sending 20p to HMRC - the 60p he got from the sale minus the 40p he paid to the refiner. But if he can't find a buyer, he claims the 40p he's already paid to the refiner back from HMRC. That doesn't arrive as a reduction in the tax he owes, because in this simplified example that widget is the only thing he's done all quarter; it arrives 30 days later as a cheque from HMRC for 40p.

If only we had an is-the-VAT-number-really-valid system. Oh, wait, we do!

And, again, I'm talking about a world where you use exactly the same paperwork and file the same filings as now, but at 0% instead of 20%. So, tell me do, how exactly I cheat the system when I'm filing a VAT return which says I owe £0 on humpty-tump transactions at 0% (with each transaction itemised exactly the same way they are now) instead of a tax return which says I owe £0 on humpty-tump transactions at 20% because humpty-tump input VATs equalled exactly humpty-tump output VATs?

 

"If you changed the way VAT works, it would have no effect on how VAT works."

What?

You've ignored the part of my post where I point out the "verification" is literally "type a number into a website." Done.

Dude, you're wrong. Like, completely wrong. Confident, but wrong.

Let's ask Xero, which should know: "Business expenses include things like stock, work tools, computers, phones, and stationery. You can’t claim VAT on client entertainment. [...] You can claim back VAT on supplies even if the end product or service that you sell is 0% VAT rated."

Don't believe Xero? Let's ask HMRC what you can't claim back:

Care to show me where it says "stock" or "materials" there?

Here's HMRC again, saying that when you register you can backdate claims for "goods you still have on hand, or that were used to make other goods you still have"- y'know, goods that you use to make other goods. Raw materials, say.

Here's Go Self Employed, explicitly stating that you can claim VAT back on "goods and materials; stock."

How about bookkeepers VGW&Co's advice on filling in your first VAT return, which clearly states that you can claim "trading stock at date of VAT registration [and/or] materials on hand at date of VAT registration."

Here's a businessperson pointing out VAT reclamation happens "when you bought the stock."

How about Sage, which is very clear in saying "you can claim tax back on: Items that you resell, e.g. stock; Raw materials that you use to make goods for sale; Direct costs from producing goods."

So far you've said a lot of words, but posted zero links backing up your (erroneous, as far as I can see) claims. Care to remedy that, or are we done here?

 

Given @edzieba been in this 'ere thread three times, that I've seen, since I posted my rebuttal and said nowt, I'm guessing the answer is "we're done here."

So, yes. As I was saying, VAT, which I understand perfectly well a whole week on from having to start to care about it, is a stupid system.

 

...I wrote a chapter of an upcoming book this weekend. And still had time to see if you fancied admitting to your error.