VAT incorrectly applied

quadbod

I purchased a pair of safety boots from Amazon.co.uk last week and have since noticed that I was charged VAT of 20%.

I am aware of the qualifying factors for VAT exemption and these boots do qualify & they are also for my own personal use. The price was inclusive of delivery and therefore there is no VAT for delivery to take into account.
The price charged was invoiced at £20.07 plus VAT £4.01 Total paid £24.08

I contacted Amazon and they have said that:
quote:
In the United Kingdom, the VAT rate is 0% on a number of select items, including books, children’s clothing and safety gear. However, in this case, your Order # 203-*******-******* for the item "Dewalt Men's Hammer Boot Brown DWF-50062-103-10 10 UK" is categorized under Shoes hence a VAT refund is not applicable.


So in effect I am being told that because they listed them as 'shoes' on the website, the boots did not come under a VAT exempt category and therefore I have to pay.
I have pointed out that I should not be responsible for their error.

I have contacted Trading Standards who say it is not a consumer issue and suggested I contact Customs & Excise.
Customs & Excise told me to go back to Amazon..... or trading standards..... :mad:

I was feeling a bit dizzy so thought I would post in here to gather further opinions.

I'm thinking to formally request a refund from Amazon threatening court action if not received within 14 days obviously including all additional relevant costs.

I know it's only £4 - but it's MY £4!!

Any further advice appreciated.

ShaneUK

But you were happy to pay £24 when they were listed in Amazon - so what's the problem? Ie - when it is listed on Amazon, it is inclusive of VAT - it isn't added later.

quadbod

Yes, I was happy with the bottom line - right up to the point I found out how I got to the bottom line price....

So you're telling me that personally you wouldn't mind paying 20% than legally required?

I know that in my case it is only £4, if the boots were £72 bottom line price (not an unreasonable figure), you wouldn't mind if you later found out that you shouldn't have paid £12 in VAT?

Gordon_Hose

I notice you spoke to "Cutoms & Excise"... do you mean HM Revenue & Customs? If not, if should be HMRC you need to speak to.

somethingcorporate

You offered to pay the headline price - they accepted.

Deal done.

quadbod

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

I notice you spoke to "Cutoms & Excise"... do you mean HM Revenue & Customs? If not, if should be HMRC you need to speak to.

Yes it was HMRC that I contacted.

antrobus

quadbod wrote: »

I purchased a pair of safety boots from Amazon.co.uk last week and have since noticed that I was charged VAT of 20%.

I am aware of the qualifying factors for VAT exemption and these boots do qualify & they are also for my own personal use. ....

According to VAT Notice 701/23 protective boots qualify for zero rating only if they are for "industrial use".


http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_PublicNoticesAndInfoSheets&propertyType=document&columns=1&id=HMCE_CL_000107#P35_1985

quadbod

somethingcorporate wrote: »

You offered to pay the headline price - they accepted.

Deal done.

I also have the right to assume that I would not be charged VAT on what is clearly an exempt item.

quadbod

antrobus wrote: »

According to VAT Notice 701/23 protective boots qualify for zero rating only if they are for "industrial use".

The criteria is:
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Many protective boots and helmets qualify for a VAT rate of 0%, when the following conditions are met:[/SIZE][/FONT]

1. [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]
2. [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]The articles must be boots or helmets, and[/SIZE][/FONT]
3. [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]They must be manufactured to the appropriate European or British standard, and[/SIZE][/FONT]
4. [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]They must bear a mark indicating conformity with those standards, and[/SIZE][/FONT]
5. [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]They must be for industrial use, and[/SIZE][/FONT]
6. [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]They must not be supplied to persons for use by their employees.[/SIZE][/FONT]

HMRC seem to think that I was right but said that I needed to take it up with Amazon.

wealdroam

Have you read HMRC's definition of the difference between a boot and a shoe?
Does your footware fit their description of a boot?

This is what the HMRC has to say in their notice 701/23...

2.2 What is the difference between a shoe and a boot?

The British Standards Institution defines a boot as having a minimum leg height of 90mm measured vertically from the insole at the back. The European Standard gives the minimum height of the upper (measured vertically from the insole at the back) of 103mm for a size 36 (UK 3) and below, through to a minimum height of the upper of 121mm for a size 45 (UK 11) and above.
Protective shoes that fall outside these specifications are not eligible for zero-rating, even if they meet the remaining requirements.

quadbod

Yes.
I even contacted Dewalt for confirmation that they were a qualifying boot.

I know I'm a sad old git for £4 - blame inclusive calls on my phone package, unlimited internet access and the snow on the ground for keeping me indoors today....