Tag Archives: vat-fraud

VAT: Electronic Sales Suppression (ESS)

By Marcus Ward 3 January 2024

HMRC has published new guidance on ESS and information on how to make a disclosure.

What is ESS?

ESS is also known as till fraud or till manipulation. It is where a business manipulates their till systems to hide or reduce the true value or number of sales. This is carried out through the use of ESS tools such as misusing built in till functions or installing software specifically designed to suppress sales. HMRC call this sales suppression and it is done either at, or after, the point of sale (POS). The records then appear to be correct and complete.

Businesses do this to reduce their turnover so that they pay less tax. They also do this to try to appear compliant.

Misusing a till system reduces the recorded turnover of the business and the amount of VAT payable, whilst providing what appears to be an accurate and complete record.

ESS is tax fraud. You are involved with ESS if you have made, supplied, promoted, possess or have access to an ESS tool.

You are also involved in ESS if:

you own an ESS tool
have access to an ESS tool
have tried to access an ESS tool

What is an ESS tool?

An ESS tool is a piece of software, computer code script or hardware. It allows a business to hide or reduce the value of individual transactions on its electronic sales records. This includes using and/or configuring a till, or point of sale system, in a way that suppresses sales.

You do not have to have used an ESS tool to suppress sales or pay less VAT for HMRC to charge a penalty for being involved in ESS, it is fraud regardless.

HMRC powers

Finance Act 2022, Schedule 14 allows HMRC to issue an information notice for ESS. This means HMRC can ask for certain information that only applies to ESS. It allows the issue of a Notice to a ‘relevant person’ for a ‘relevant purpose’.

Who is a ‘relevant person’

A ‘relevant person’ is any person who HMRC think it might be able to charge a penalty for being involved in ESS.

What is a ‘relevant purpose’

A ‘relevant purpose’ is the reason that HMRC is asking for information about ESS and ESS Tools. The law allows HMRC to do this in three types of situations which are to help it:

decide whether a relevant person has made, supplied, promoted, or possesses an ESS tool — HMRC would be able to charge this person a penalty
understand how an ESS tool works
identify any other person who has made, supplied, promoted, or possesses the ESS tool

Disclosure

HMRC is offering an opportunity for those involved in ESS to make a disclosure. Early voluntary disclosure could lead to a reduction in financial penalties. Use the ‘Make a disclosure about misusing your till system’ form to tell HMRC that you have been using your till system to reduce your tax bill.

Further reading and more detailed information on penalties here.

VAT: Powers of HMRC – The Impact Contracting Solutions Limited UT case

By Marcus Ward 5 September 2023

Latest from the courts

In the Impact Contracting Solutions Limited (ICS) Upper Tribunal (UT) case the issue was whether HMRC had the power to cancel the VAT registration where that person has facilitated the VAT fraud of another ie; the scope of the “Ablessio” principle. It also illustrates the impact of EU cases on UK courts.

Background

ICS’s customers were temporary work agencies, and its suppliers were approximately 3,000 mini-umbrella companies (“MUCs”) which supplied labour. HMRC decided to cancel ICS’s VAT registration number with reliance on the principle in the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Valsts ienemumu dienests v Ablessio SIA (C-527/11) (“Ablessio”). HMRC considered that ICS was registered for VAT principally or solely to abuse the VAT system by facilitating VAT fraud, and that, in such circumstances, they were empowered by the principle in Ablessio to cancel the registration. In particular, HMRC considered that the arrangements between ICSL and the MUCs were contrived, with the effect that the MUCs failed properly to account for VAT on their supplies to ICS.

ICS appealed against HMRC’s decision to cancel its registration.

The Issues

Does the principle in Ablessio apply only to a party that has itself fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations, or does it similarly apply to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party?

If the Ablessio principle does apply to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party, is simple facilitation sufficient, or must it additionally be proved that:

(a) the facilitating party was itself dishonest, or

(b) the facilitating party knew that it was facilitating the fraud, and/or

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decided that Ablessio applies both to a party that has fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations and to a party who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another party. Further that simple facilitation by a party of the VAT fraud of another is not sufficient to apply the Ablessio principle. However, it is not necessary to prove that the facilitating party was itself dishonest. It must, however, be proved that the facilitating party knew or should have known that it was facilitating the VAT fraud of another party.

Decision

The appeal was rejected an the FTT’s decision was upheld. HMRC powers are not contrary to UK VAT legislation.

The application by HMRC of Ablessio is not contra legem or otherwise prohibited by the VAT legislation where it is applied to deregister a taxpayer who has either fraudulently defaulted on its VAT obligations or facilitated the VAT fraud of another party and at the relevant time has also made taxable supplies unconnected with such fraud or facilitation of fraud and which would result in a liability to be registered.

Ablessio applies to the deregistration by HMRC of a person as well as to a refusal by HMRC to register a person. It also provides for the deregistration of a person who has facilitated the VAT fraud of another, where the person to be deregistered knew or should have known that it was facilitating the VAT fraud of another.

Commentary

This decision was released this month and illustrates the ongoing influence of EU legislation and cases, “despite” Brexit

EU legislation does not, by itself, fall within the scope of retained EU law (see below). However, domestic legislation implementing EU rules forms part of EU-derived domestic legislation and is preserved in domestic law.

The VAT Act 1994 is not affected by Brexit because it is an Act of Parliament and, therefore, remains effective unless it is changed by Parliament.

Overview of the impact of EU legislation

Post-Brexit, the UK could have decided that UK courts should not be bound by EU case law. However, this would have resulted in a situation where the UK courts effectively had to begin with a blank piece of paper in deciding how a piece of retained EU law should be interpreted or applied. This approach would have resulted in considerable uncertainty for business over how retained EU law would operate. In order avoid this, section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provides that:

CJEU judgments made on or before 31 December 2020 are binding on UK courts
CJEU judgments made after that date are not binding, but the UK courts are free to have regard to them, so far as they are relevant to the matter before the court.

Going forward

Helpful guidance is provided in the e-Accounting Solutions vs Global Infosys case (not a VAT case).

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 means that the principle of EU-law conforming construction is a corollary of the supremacy of EU law (which is abolished under Section 3 of the Act) and will therefore no longer apply from 2024.

The principles of statutory construction under English Law require a purposive interpretation of legislation, whether or not EU law principles are engaged. This involves considering the context in which the legislation was made. Depending on the legislation concerned, this process may be guided by “external aids”. External aids referred to in the judgment include Explanatory Notes and Government White Papers, and could also presumably include references to Hansard where seen as appropriate by the courts. To the extent that domestic enactments were made for the purpose of implementing EU law, the EU law position is such an “external aid” and the UK law should be construed accordingly.

Where Parliament used the same language as the Directive, one may assume that it intended to mean the same – accordingly, the CJEU interpretation of Directive-terms informs the interpretation of the UK statute.

However, the statutory language remains paramount – “external aids”, to which EU law instruments are effectively downgraded in UK law from 2024, cannot displace unambiguous statutory language in UK enactments that is inconsistent with EU law.

VAT: What are split payments?

By Marcus Ward 9 January 2023

The term “split payment” is increasingly cropping up in conversations and in the media, so I thought it would be a good time to look at the concept.

Split payments, sometimes called real-time extraction, uses card payment technology to collect VAT on online sales and transfer it directly to HMRC rather than the seller collecting it from the buyer along with the payment for the supply, and then declaring it to HMRC on a return in the usual way.

Clearly, HMRC is very keen to introduce such a system, but there are significant hurdles, the biggest being the complexity for online sellers, payment processors, input tax systems, agents, advisers and HMRC itself.

Where are we on split payments?

At the end of the year HMRC published a Prior Information Notice (PIN) and associated Request for Information (RFI), seeking views on the outline requirements and proposed procurement process split payments. This should, inter alia, assist HMRC in:

identifying where it is intended that the purchased goods or services are to be delivered and/or consumed
the possibility to apply a split only above or below a certain value threshold
the feasibility for the splitting mechanism to calculate a composite VAT total across a mixed basket of goods and/ or services, each potentially with a different rate of VAT.

This builds on previous information gathering/consultations/discussions carried out a number of years ago.

Background

The expansion of the online shopping market has brought unprecedented levels of transactions. The results of digitalisation have also brought challenges for tax systems. Jurisdictions all over the world are currently grappling with the question of how to prevent large VAT losses, which can arise from cross-border online sales. This happens when consumers buy goods from outside their jurisdiction from sellers who, through fraud or ignorance, do not comply with their tax obligations. It is costing the UK tax authorities an estimated £1 billion to £1.5 billion (figures for 2015-16) a year. The UK government believes that intercepting VAT through intermediaries in the payment cycle, split payment potentially offers a powerful means of enforcing VAT compliance on sellers who are outside the UK’s jurisdiction.

Fraud

The fraud carried out by online sellers is not particularly sophisticated but is difficult to combat. Simply, sellers either use a fake VAT number to collect VAT without declaring it, or even more basically, collect the VAT and disappear.

Proposed spilt payment methods

The way in which payments are split represent difficult technical VAT issues, particularly when sales are at different VAT rates. The three proposals are:

Standard rate split. This assumes that all sales are liable to the standard rate VAT and does not recognise any input tax deduction. Extraction of 20% of tax, regardless of the actual liability (potentially, 5%, or zero) appears unfair and would be very difficult to impose. Cashflow would be negatively affected too.
Flat Rate Scheme (FRS). This is a proposal by HMRC to insist that online sellers overseas to use the FRS using a specific new rate for this purpose. The FRS threshold of £150,000 pa could be increased for overseas businesses, but this would potentially give overseas sellers an advantage over UK businesses, so politically, if nothing else, would prove to be a hard sell.
Net effective rate. This would mean an overseas business calculating its own exact net effective rate, based on its outputs and inputs from the previous year’s transactions (similar to TOMS).
Composite rate. A composite VAT total across a mixed range of goods or services, each potentially with a different rate of VAT. The mechanism for carrying this calculation out is unclear.

There may be more proposals forthcoming, but none of the above proposals appear reasonable and the complexity they would bring would seem to rule them out as matters stand – although this has not previously stopped HMRC introducing certain measures and the obvious benefits to the authorities cannot be ignored.

Overall

The technology for split payments currently exists and is being used in some Latin American countries (and Poland). The concept is part of a larger movement towards real-time taxation and MTD. Our view is that split payments are coming, but we do not know in which form or when.

VAT: No invoice – no claim. The Tower Bridge GP Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 9 August 2022

Latest from the courts

In the Court of Appeal (CoA) case of Tower Bridge GP Ltd the issue was whether the appellant could claim input tax in a situation where it did not (and does not) hold a valid tax invoice.

Background

Tower Bridge was the representative member of a VAT group which contained Cantor Fitzgerald Europe Ltd (CFE). CFE traded in carbon credits. These carbon credit transactions were connected to VAT fraud.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that CFE neither knew, nor should have known, that the transactions it entered into before 15 June 2009 were connected to VAT fraud but that it should have known that its transactions were connected to fraud from 15 June 2009. The appeal relates only to transactions entered into before that date.

CFE purchased carbon credits from Stratex Alliance Limited (“Stratex”) The carbon credits supplied to CFE were to be used by the business for the purpose of its own onward taxable transactions (in carbon credits). The total of VAT involved was £5,605,119.74.

The Stratex invoices were not valid VAT invoices. They did not show a VAT registration number for Stratex, nor did they name CFE as the customer. Although Stratex was a taxable person, it transpired that Stratex was not registered for VAT (and therefore could not include a valid VAT number on its invoices) and that it fraudulently defaulted on its obligation to account to HMRC for the sums charged as output tax on these invoices.

Subsequent investigations by HMRC resulted in Stratex not being able to be traced.

Contentions

The appellant contended that it is entitled to make the deduction either as of right, or because HMRC unlawfully refused to use its discretion to allow the claim by accepting alternative evidence.

HMRC denied Tower Bridge the recovery of the input tax on the Stratex invoices on the basis that the invoices did not meet the formal legal requirements to be valid VAT invoices. HMRC also refused to exercise their discretion to allow recovery of the input tax on the basis that:

Stratex was not registered for VAT
the transactions were connected to fraud
CFE failed to conduct reasonable due diligence in relation to the transactions

Decision

Dismissing this appeal, the CoA ruled that where an invoice does not contain the information required by legislation (The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 No 2518 Part III, Regulation 14), or contains an error in that information, which is incapable of correction, the right to deduct cannot be exercised. The appellant did not have the ability to make a claim as of right.

The Court then considered whether HMRC ought to have permitted Tower Bridge to make a claim using alternative evidence. It found that the attack on HMRC’s exercise of discretion fails for the reasons contended by HMRC (above). These were perfectly legitimate matters for HMRC to take into account in deciding whether to exercise the first discretion in the taxable person’s favour.

CFE had failed to carry out “the most basic of checks on Stratex”.

So, the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary

This was hardly a surprising outcome considering that if an exception were to be made, there would be a loss to the public purse consisting of the input tax, with no corresponding gain to the public purse from the output tax that Stratex ought to have paid, but fraudulently did not.

This case demonstrates the importance of obtaining a proper tax invoice and to carry out checks on its validity. Additionally, there is a need to conduct accurate due diligence on the supply chain. I have summarised the importance of Care with input tax claims which includes a helpful list of checks which must be carried out.

VAT – Care with input tax claims

By Marcus Ward 13 December 2019

Claim checklist

You have a purchase invoice showing VAT. You are VAT registered, and you will use the goods or services purchased for your business… can you claim it?

Assuming a business is not partly exempt or not subject to a restriction of recovery of input tax due to non-business activities (and the claim is not for a motor car or business entertainment) the answer is usually yes.

However, HMRC is now, more than ever before, concerned with irregular, dishonest and inaccurate claims. It is an unfortunate fact that some people see making fraudulent claims as an “easy” way to illegally obtain money and, as is often the case, honest taxpayers are affected as a result of the (understandable) concerns of the authorities. Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) or “carousel” fraud has received a lot of publicity over recent years with an estimate of £Billions of Treasury money being obtained by fraudsters. While this has been generally addressed, HMRC consider that there is still significant leakage of VAT as a consequence of dishonest claims. HMRC’s interest also extends to “innocent errors” which result in input tax being overclaimed.

In order to avoid unwanted attention from HMRC, what should a business be watching for when claiming credit for input tax? Broadly, I would counsel making “reasonable enquiries”. This means making basic checks in order to demonstrate to HMRC that a business has taken care to ensure that a claim is appropriate. This is more important in some transactions than others and most regular and straightforward transactions will not be in issue. Here are some pointers that I feel are important to a business:

Was there a supply?

This seems an obvious question, but even if a business holds apparently authentic documentation; if no supply was made, no claim is possible. Perhaps different parts of a business deal with checking the receipt of goods or services and processing documents. Perhaps a business has been the subject of fraud by a supplier. Perhaps the supply was to an individual rather than to the business. Perhaps a transaction was aborted after the documentation was issued. There may be many reasons for a supply not being made, especially when a third party is involved. For example, Co A contracts with Co B to supply goods directly to Co C. Invoices are issued by Co B to Co A and by Co A to Co C. It may not be clear to Co A whether the goods have been delivered, or it may be difficult to check. A lot of fraud depends on “correct” paperwork existing without any goods or services changing hands.

Is the documentation correct?

The VAT regulations set out a long list of details that a VAT invoice must show. Full details on invoicing here If any one of these required items is missing HMRC will disallow a claim. Beware of “suspicious” looking documents including manually amended invoices, unconvincing quality, unexpected names or addresses of a supplier, lack of narrative, “copied” logos or “clip-art” additions etc. One of the details required is obviously the VAT number of the supplier. VAT numbers can be checked for validity here

Additionally, imports of goods require different documentation to support a claim and this is a more complex procedure (which extends to checking whether supplies of goods have been made and physical access to them). A lot of fraud includes a cross border element so extra care should be taken in checking the validity of both the import and the documentation.

Ultimately, it is easy to create a convincing invoice and HMRC is aware of this.

Timing

It is important to claim input tax in the correct period. Even if a claim is a day out it may be disallowed and penalties levied. details of time of supply here

Is there VAT on a supply?

If a supplier charges VAT when they shouldn’t, eg; if a supply is zero rated or exempt or subject to the Transfer of A Going Concern rules (TOGC), it is not possible to reclaim this VAT even if the recipient holds an apparently “valid” invoice. HMRC will disallow such a claim and will look to levy penalties and interest. When in doubt; challenge the supplier’s treatment.

Place of supply

Only UK VAT may be claimed on a UK return, so it is important to check whether UK VAT is actually applicable to a supply. The place of supply (POS) rules are notoriously complex, especially for services, if UK VAT is shown on an invoice incorrectly, and is claimed by the recipient, HMRC will disallow the claim and look to levy a penalty, so enquiries should be made if there is any uncertainty. VAT incurred overseas can, in most cases be recovered, but this is via a different mechanism to a UK VAT return. Details on claiming VAT in other EC Member States here. (As with many things, this may change after Brexit).

One-off, unusual or new transactions

This is the time when most care should be taken, especially if the transaction is of high value. Perhaps it is a new supplier, or perhaps it is a property transaction – if a purchase is out of the ordinary for a business it creates additional exposure to mis-claiming VAT.

To whom is the supply made?

It is only the recipient of goods or services who may make a claim; regardless of; who pays or who invoices are issued to. Care is required with groups of companies and multiple VAT registrations eg; an individual may be registered as a sole proprietor as well as a part of a partnership or director of a limited company, As an illustration, a common error is in a situation where a report is provided to a bank (for example for financing requirements) and the business pays the reporting third party. Although it may be argued that the business pays for the report, and obtains a business benefit from it, the supply is to the bank in contractual terms and the business cannot recover the VAT on the services, in fact, in these circumstances, nobody is able to recover the VAT. Other areas of uncertainty are; restructuring, refinancing or acquisitions, especially where significant professional costs are involved.

e-invoicing

There are additional rules for electronically issued invoices. Details here

A business may issue invoices electronically where the authenticity of the origin, integrity of invoice data, and legibility of invoice content can all be ensured, and the customer agrees to receive invoices electronically.

‘Authenticity of the origin’ means the assurance of the identity of the supplier or issuer of the invoice
‘Integrity of content’ means that the invoice content has not been altered
‘Legibility’ of an invoice means that the invoice can be easily read.

A business is free to choose a method of ensuring authenticity, integrity, and legibility which suits its method of operation. e-invoicing provides additional opportunities for fraudsters, so a business needs to ensure that its processes are bulletproof.

HMRC’s approach

If a claim is significant, or unusual for the business’ trading pattern, it is likely that HMRC will carry out a “pre-credibility” inspection where they check to see if the claim is valid before they release the money. Another regular check is for HMRC to establish whether the supplier has declared the relevant output tax on the other side of the transaction (a so-called “reference”). Not unsurprisingly, they are not keen on making a repayment if, for whatever reason, the supplier has not paid over the output tax.

What should a business do?

In summary, it is prudent for a business to “protect itself” and raise queries if there is any doubt at all over making a claim. It also needs a robust procedure for processing invoices. If enquiries have been made, ensure that these are properly documented for inspection by HMRC as this is evidence which may be used to mitigate any potential penalties, even if a claim is an honest mistake. A review of procedures often flushes out errors and can lead to increased claims being made.

As always, we are happy to assist.

HMRC announces Top 10 prosecutions of 2018

By Marcus Ward 11 January 2019

The publication of this annual list is an insight into the work of HMRC’s Fraud Investigation Service. Clearly this is important work and recovers money that may be used to support important public services and consequently, it is not a victimless crime.

It further demonstrates the diversity of crimes HMRC deals with. HMRC’s fraud investigations have led to 671 people being convicted over the last 12 months for their part in tax crimes. Additionally, HMRC has charged another 919 people and taken on 746 new criminal investigations.

This year’s top 10 prosecutions include:

one of the UK’s most wanted tax fugitives, who spent more than 11 years on the run and owes more than £53 million, ending up behind bars after he was caught in Canada
a tax consultant, who fled the UK before he could be arrested for masterminding a conspiracy to steal £6.9 million from construction workers’ pay packets, going to prison
a high-flying businessman who masterminded a sophisticated £9.8 million international VAT fraud to fund his lavish lifestyle and for which he was jailed for 9 years

HMRC’s Fraud Investigation Service brings in around £5 billion a year through civil and criminal investigations.

EC proposes new tools to combat cross-border VAT fraud

By Marcus Ward 1 December 2017

The European Commission has, this week, unveiled new tools to make the EU’s Value Added Tax (VAT) system more fraud-proof and close loopholes which can lead to large-scale VAT fraud. The new rules aim to build trust between Member States so that they can exchange more information and boost cooperation between national tax authorities and law enforcement authorities to fight VAT fraud.

Commentary

One wonders if this is the type of thing that the UK will miss out on after Brexit. Will this increase the threat of fraud? Will fraudsters target the UK? Or will “taking control of our borders” mean that cross-border VAT fraud will be reduced?

We shall just have to wait and see…..

VAT evasion by non-EU online sellers

By Marcus Ward 26 April 2017

Investigation by The National Audit Office (NAO) into overseas sellers failing to charge VAT on online sales.

The NAO have investigated concerns that online sellers outside the EU are avoiding charging VAT. Full report here

The NAO has published the findings from its investigation into the concern that online sellers based outside the EU are not charging VAT on goods located in the UK when sold to UK customers. Online sales accounted for 14.5% of all UK retail sales in 2016, just over half of these were non-store sales, mainly through online marketplaces.

VAT rules require that all traders based outside the EU selling goods online to customers in the UK should charge VAT if their goods are already in the UK at the point of sale. In these cases, sellers should pay import VAT and customs duties when the goods are imported into the UK and charge their customers VAT on the final selling price. The sellers should also be registered with HMRC and are required to submit regular VAT returns.

Some of the key findings of the investigation are as follows:

HMRC estimates that online VAT fraud and error cost between £1 billion and £1.5 billion in lost tax revenue in 2015-16 but this estimate is subject to a high level of uncertainty. This estimate represents between 8% and 12% of the total VAT gap (The VAT gap is the difference between the amount of VAT that should, in theory, be collected by HMRC, against what is actually collected) of £12.2 billion in 2015-16. UK trader groups believe the problem is widespread, and that some of the biggest online sellers of particular products are not charging VAT. These estimates exclude wider impacts of this problem such as the distortion of the competitive market landscape.

HMRC recognised online VAT fraud and error as a priority in 2014, although the potential risk from online trading generally was raised before this. In 2013 the NAO reported that HMRC had not yet produced a comprehensive plan to react to the emerging threat to the VAT system posed by online trading. The report found HMRC had developed tools to identify internet-based traders and launched campaigns to encourage compliance but had shown less urgency in developing its operational response. Trader groups claim that online VAT fraud has been a problem as early as 2009, which has got significantly worse in the past five years. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute shares this view. Based on the emergence of the fulfilment house (a warehouse where goods can be stored before delivery to the customer) model, HMRC recognised online VAT fraud and error as one of its key risks in 2014 and began to increase resources in this area in 2015.

HMRC’s assessment is that online VAT losses are due to a range of non-compliant behaviours, but has not yet been able to assess how much is due to lack of awareness, error or deliberate fraud. Amazon and eBay consider that lack of awareness of the VAT rules is a major element of the problem. Amazon and eBay have focused on educating overseas sellers and providing tools to assist with VAT reporting and compliance. HMRC’s strategic threat assessment, carried out in 2014, concluded it was highly likely that both organised criminal groups based in the UK and overseas sellers in China were using fulfilment houses to facilitate the transit of undervalued or misclassified goods, or both, from China to the UK for sale online.

HMRC introduced new legal powers to tackle online VAT fraud and error in September 2016. The new joint and several liability power gives HMRC a new way to tackle suspected non-compliance, and is the first time any country has introduced such a power for this purpose. The new powers include making online marketplaces potentially jointly and severally liable for non-payment of VAT when HMRC has informed them of an issue with a seller, and they do not subsequently take appropriate action.

Conclusion

Online VAT fraud and error causes substantial losses to the UK Exchequer and undermines the competitiveness of UK businesses. Compliance with the VAT rules is a legal requirement. Not knowing about the rules does not excuse non-compliance. The UK trader groups who raised the issue report having experienced the impact of this problem through progressively fewer sales. They consider HMRC has been slow in reacting to the emerging problem of online VAT fraud and error and that there do not seem to be penalties of sufficient severity to act as a substantial deterrent.

It is too soon to conclude on the effectiveness and impact of HMRC’s new powers and whether the resources devoted by HMRC to using them match the scale of the problem. We recognise that HMRC must consider effort and efficiency in collecting VAT but its enforcement approach to online trade appears likely to continue the existing unfair advantage as perceived by UK trader groups. This is contrary to HMRC’s policy of encouraging voluntary compliance and it does not take account of the powerful effect that HMRC’s enforcement approach has on the operation of the online market as a whole. We intend to return to this subject in the future.

Further to the above, this article suggests that HMRC should have acted even earlier.