VAT on Vehicle Tax

MyRealNameToo

facade said:

milleniumaire said:

I've spoken to my accountant again, who has now confirmed there isn't an issue with the Lease company charging VAT on a TAX and that my company can only claim 50% of the VAT back, since the car is used for personal use as well as business use.

What a great way to raise more taxes.  Tax a Tax.  Why wouldn't HMRC be in favour of this.

We've mentioned this before, tax on tax isn't new. When you buy petrol the fuel duty is subject to VAT being a common motoring example.

Plus VAT is paid on top of duty for anything imported into the UK, ie most stuff sold here

milleniumaire

facade said:

milleniumaire said:

I've spoken to my accountant again, who has now confirmed there isn't an issue with the Lease company charging VAT on a TAX and that my company can only claim 50% of the VAT back, since the car is used for personal use as well as business use.

What a great way to raise more taxes.  Tax a Tax.  Why wouldn't HMRC be in favour of this.

We've mentioned this before, tax on tax isn't new. When you buy petrol the fuel duty is subject to VAT being a common motoring example.

Hi facade, I appreciate there are multiple layers of taxes on many things, but this is just so blatant; HMRC telling lease company's they must treat this as a service and so charge VAT gives them an additional £39 on the cost of a £195 VED for an EV for someone who isn't VAT registered. That's likely to be millions of extra pounds raised by HMRC!

Then there's the £425 per year expensive car supplement for 5 years meaning an additional £124 VAT will be charged on the annual £620 VED.  It's highway robbery!!!!

MyRealNameToo

milleniumaire said:

facade said:

milleniumaire said:

I've spoken to my accountant again, who has now confirmed there isn't an issue with the Lease company charging VAT on a TAX and that my company can only claim 50% of the VAT back, since the car is used for personal use as well as business use.

What a great way to raise more taxes.  Tax a Tax.  Why wouldn't HMRC be in favour of this.

We've mentioned this before, tax on tax isn't new. When you buy petrol the fuel duty is subject to VAT being a common motoring example.

Hi facade, I appreciate there are multiple layers of taxes on many things, but this is just so blatant; HMRC telling lease company's they must treat this as a service and so charge VAT gives them an additional £39 on the cost of a £195 VED for an EV for someone who isn't VAT registered. That's likely to be millions of extra pounds raised by HMRC!

Then there's the £425 per year expensive car supplement for 5 years meaning an additional £124 VAT will be charged on the annual £620 VED.  It's highway robbery!!!!

Same as everything else and yet the government still spending £131bn more than the tax revenues they are raising. Whilst things are in deficit dont expect any changes on taxes that result in less taxes being paid over to HMRC

facade

milleniumaire said:

facade said:

milleniumaire said:

I've spoken to my accountant again, who has now confirmed there isn't an issue with the Lease company charging VAT on a TAX and that my company can only claim 50% of the VAT back, since the car is used for personal use as well as business use.

What a great way to raise more taxes.  Tax a Tax.  Why wouldn't HMRC be in favour of this.

We've mentioned this before, tax on tax isn't new. When you buy petrol the fuel duty is subject to VAT being a common motoring example.

Hi facade, I appreciate there are multiple layers of taxes on many things, but this is just so blatant; HMRC telling lease company's they must treat this as a service and so charge VAT gives them an additional £39 on the cost of a £195 VED for an EV for someone who isn't VAT registered. That's likely to be millions of extra pounds raised by HMRC!

Then there's the £425 per year expensive car supplement for 5 years meaning an additional £124 VAT will be charged on the annual £620 VED.  It's highway robbery!!!!

It isn't HMRC telling them to treat it as a service charge, but telling them that they cannot treat it as a disbursement.

The simple way around it would be for lease companies to put the V5 in their customer's name (It is said often enough that the V5 only tells you the keeper, and is nothing to do with who is the owner!) 

It actually makes more sense to a simpleton like me. Then parking fines, NIPs etc. would go directly to the keeper (no need for admin charges for passing them on, or loss of 14 day appeal time), and the V5 would show where the vehicle was kept.)

MyRealNameToo

facade said:
It actually makes more sense to a simpleton like me. Then parking fines, NIPs etc. would go directly to the keeper (no need for admin charges for passing them on, or loss of 14 day appeal time), and the V5 would show where the vehicle was kept.)

You think those admin fees dont have a profit margin? I mean they arent going to make thousands per fee but revenue is revenue 

facade

MyRealNameToo said:

facade said:
It actually makes more sense to a simpleton like me. Then parking fines, NIPs etc. would go directly to the keeper (no need for admin charges for passing them on, or loss of 14 day appeal time), and the V5 would show where the vehicle was kept.)

You think those admin fees dont have a profit margin? I mean they arent going to make thousands per fee but revenue is revenue 

Yes I know, but surely they could sack 95% of their admin staff which would balance out the admin fees? (Unless of course, the admin fee that they charge is unreasonably high, and doesn't reflect what it costs them...)

Grey_Critic

The government makes the rules so it does not matter but there is a problem if there is a delay in your receiving parking tickets where delayed payment incurs extra charges.