I had forgotten abut that, the original advice says much the same thing.

There really ar no grounds to say the EA cannot charge VAT (currently). As long as bailiffs have to pay Tax on their income, they will have to have a means to recover that payment.

This situation may change in the future, but hopefully when and if that happens, there will be new publications to explain how a modified system will work.

There really ar no grounds to say the EA cannot charge VAT (currently).

HMRC state quite clearly when VAT should not be charged'

As long as bailiffs have to pay Tax on their income, they will have to have a means to recover that payment.

What has the bailiff's income tax got to do with charging VAT on fees?

Indeed they do, it is just that everyone else seems to read the guidance differently than you. Not an unfamiliar story for you.

Who said anything about income tax? If you mean VAT, the importance is that if the bailiff did not have to pay it there would be no need to recover it from the debtor "?

Have ever asked a sensible question?

Indeed they do, it is just that everyone else seems to read the guidance differently than you. Not an unfamiliar story for you.

This is what HMRC say:

Therefore, where:

• the judgment creditors are registered for VAT; and
  
• the debt relates to their taxable business activities
  

the VAT on the Under-Sheriffs and Sheriffs Officers enforcement services may be recovered by the judgment creditors.

What is your interpretation of that then?

Who said anything about income tax?

Erm, you did - "As long as bailiffs have to pay Tax on their income, they will have to have a means to recover that payment."

Tax on their income = income tax. Unless you mis-typed again.

Have ever asked a sensible question?

Ever written a coherent sentence?

The part you quoted relates to tax invoices for services to the creditor creditors fees?

As said the service is to the creditor he engages them.

Enforcement fees are due to the bailiff as income, VAT is due because of that.

Sorry is that not coherent ( I have told you this before)

Oh sorry, tax on a bailiffs income is not income tax, that would be tax on the person, not his job.

There is confirmation here, I hope it is not too incoherent for you.

Sheriffs are aware that, although judgment debtors pay the cost of sheriffs’ enforcement fees, the supplies are always to the creditors. VAT invoices for the services must be addressed and sent to the creditors. Any documents issued to debtors should make it clear that they are not VAT invoices.

My emphasis

Oh sorry, tax on a bailiffs income is not income tax, that would be tax on the person, not his job.

What?

Dodgeball, it's very simple. EA's collecting fines, council tax and other debts owed to a Government Agency automatically charge any VAT on fees to the authority who then reclaim it from HMRC.

An HCEA will collect civil debts - this could be someone or a company who may or may not be registered for VAT. If the creditor is not registered for VAT then the VAT on fees is recovered from the debtor. If the creditor is registered for VAT then the VAT on fees is paid by the creditor who then reclaims it from HMRC.

This is why the guide is in place, to instruct on what to do depending on the circumstances.

I see, and you are the only one who spotted this unique interpretation no one else has.

Have you thought of getting a less cerebral hobby.

Gardening is good.

I see, and you are the only one who spotted this unique interpretation no one else has.

.

Seems to me that only you are arguing the opposite. Bit like claiming tax on income isn't income tax.

Income tax is calculated on personal income not business income. You see why it is pointless arguing with you. I will be instructing you on how to do your shoe laces shortly.

I am out.

Income tax is calculated on personal income not business income.

Indeed it is. Just a shame it's not what you said earlier.

tax on a bailiffs income is not income tax,

Substitute the word 'bailiffs' for any other profession and you'll see how ridiculous that sounds.....

Tax on a doctor's income is not income tax...... tax on a bus driver's income is not income tax....... tax on a carpenter's income is not income tax...... tax on a hairdresser's income is not income tax..... you get the idea.

God, you should get a life. Income tax is a personal tax, not a business tax. Do you know this? What you are talking about is a bailiff personal tax. If I would have meant bailiffs personal tax, then that is what I would have said.

I don't now what this has to do with the question of VAT.

Income tax is a tax on one's personal income - the clue's in the title. I'll remind you what you said:

As long as bailiffs have to pay Tax on their income, they will have to have a means to recover that payment.

Tax on their income - clearly that translates as Income Tax. And which payment would they be recovering due to this tax? This is the problem Dodgeball - you don't seem to stop and think before you post to see if you're making any sense.

If I can just remind posters this thread is about Vat charged on fees...not Income Tax or Bailiff Salaries...please lets not have another derailed thread.

let's just lay out what HMRC say.

All EA's charge VAT on their fees. If the debt is under a non-high court warrant, usually owed to an authority for council tax, fines, etc, then the EA charges the VAT to the authority who then reclaim it from HMRC.

For a debt under a high court warrant there are two rules. If the creditor is an individual then the VAT is charged to the debtor.

If the creditor is VAT registered and the debt relates to their business, then the creditor pays the VAT and reclaims it from HMRC. The debtor does not pay the VAT in these circumstances.

The thread that started this debate was about a debt owed to a utility company. Clearly they would be VAT registered so they would need to pay the VAT. The OP of the thread says he paid the VAT - this was wrong.

If anyone wants to present an alternative view, please do.

I think the guidance provides the only alternative view necessary.

I think the guidance provides the only alternative view necessary.

That's not helpful Dodgeball. Perhaps you can expand on how you would explain it.

OK one last time.

The section quoted by you. (about the creditor being able to reclaim VAT) does not concern bailiff fees.

As said in the explanation several times, this is down to the debtor.

The service is due to the creditor, he purchases a service from the HCEO, for that he pays a fee, these fees are also subject to VAT(which he also pays). '

That VAT can be recovered in the normal way as described.

OK one last time.

The section quoted by you. (about the creditor being able to reclaim VAT) does not concern bailiff fees.

 

As said in the explanation several times, this is down to the debtor.

 

The service is due to the creditor, he purchases a service from the HCEO, for that he pays a fee, these fees are also subject to VAT(which he also pays). '

That VAT can be recovered in the normal way as described.

I'm sorry Dodgeball, it most certainly does concern fees as this part shows:

Sheriffs are aware that, although judgment debtors pay the cost of sheriffs’ enforcement fees, the supplies are always to the creditors. VAT invoices for the services must be addressed and sent to the creditors. Any documents issued to debtors should make it clear that they are not VAT invoices.

The VAT for the fees must be sent to the creditor, who then reclaims from HMRC.

^ Sorry meant 'The VAT invoices'.

Sorry i have explained this, I am not going to be explaining it any further, I am sure most on here understand.

Dodgeball, the HMRC manual on HCEO enforcement states who the VAT on fees should be directed to. If the creditor is VAT registered and the debt is regarding their business, then a VAT invoice is given to the creditor.

If the creditor is chasing a personal debt then the VAT is charged to the debtor.

Why can't you accept that and be happy that debtor's can avoid a higher debt? It seems to me that you've gone into typical denial mode, raised the drawbridge and refusing to accept the position simply because who has said it.

"Dodgeball, the HMRC manual on HCEO enforcement states who the VAT on fees should be directed to. If the creditor is VAT registered and the debt is regarding their business, then a VAT invoice is given to the creditor."

No it doesnt , it explains who is eligible to reclaim VAT. Whoever hires the HCEO SERVICE has to pay the fee plus VAT, but if it is a business and if they are pursuing a company debt they can reclaim the VAT, that is what it says, and all it says.

The guidance is very careful to separate the fee for the service and the fees for enforcement.

With all due respect, I think you need to look up how VAT works under normal conditions before attempting to understand this.

"Why can't you accept that and be happy that debtor's can avoid a higher debt? It seems to me that you've gone into typical denial mode, raised the drawbridge and refusing to accept the position simply because who has said i"

I wont dignify this with an answer.

"Dodgeball, the HMRC manual on HCEO enforcement states who the VAT on fees should be directed to. If the creditor is VAT registered and the debt is regarding their business, then a VAT invoice is given to the creditor."

 

No it doesnt , it explains who is eligible to reclaim VAT. Whoever hires the HCEO SERVICE has to pay the fee plus VAT, but if it is a business and if they are pursuing a company debt they can reclaim the VAT, that is what it says, and all it says.

 

The guidance is very careful to separate the fee for the service and the fees for enforcement.

Dodgeball - if you truly believe this can you explain why the VAT on fees for non high court enforcement isn't paid by the debtor? In these cases the VAT invoice will be directed to the creditor who will reclaim it from HMRC.

Can you not understand why the guidance is needed - HCEOs enforce for companies as well as individuals. Sometimes the VAT will be paid by the creditor, sometimes it won't. The guide explains the two scenarios.