• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE
Inshur

Uber has warned its UK arm could be crippled by a tax probe

Gilga

Well-Known Member
You are a liar and a fabricator of bullshit. Not once have I ever said I don't pay tax. I said that like anybody with a brain, I didn't declare all my cash takings. And if you had the opportunity neither would you. And you have turned that into an accusation that "I didn't pay tax for 40 years", which is complete bullshit. I think that if that was true I might have had a visit by now from HMRC asking me how I manage to live so well, and where did the earnings go when I was working.
Like your imaginary income figures you are, as usual, full of crap. As for this country giving me everything, I've paid more tax in the last 15 years than you will pay in your lifetime. That's why I don't have to work anymore and you'll be driving for a crap minicab firm for years.
View attachment 365385

Relax darling...
 

Harold Shand

Well-Known Member
Relax darling...
I'm relaxed. If you want to insult me, swear at me, call me names, insult my family etc etc I'll laugh and couldn't care less. If you tell lies about me, I'll call you out on it and make you look stupid. Stick to the truth and not what's in your imagination and we will be fine. I actually used to like you, I thought you were ok. Then you changed. Maybe life isn't as rosy as you make out.
Post automatically merged:

You sound like Boris Power lol
Well spotted lol.
Post automatically merged:

Ah ah yes sure but anyway welcome back let’s see how long before you get banned lol
Last week he managed under 12 hrs lol.
Post automatically merged:
 

Harold Shand

Well-Known Member
کەرە مەتۆپە بەهار نزيکە=Jack Ass don't die from starvation spring is approaching.

I assure you that will not happen in your life. You will take that to the graveyard with you. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I wouldn't trust you to assure me whether it was night or day, I'd have to check for myself rather than trust your judgement.
 

renod babek

Well-Known Member
This is great news.

Currently those who are Registered for VAT have to pay the VAT as the fare stays the same but for VAT reg it’s including VAT.

This will lead to loads of PH Drivers becoming VAT Reg on the Flat Rate Scheme.

So they can claim the VAT back on their vehicle purchase and get a small increase in revenue as they will be 20% VAT on the fare but they only send 10% of the entire job price to HMRC, so effectively it’s an 8% pay rise and vehicles are 20% cheaper.

Though on flat rate you can get any of your VAT back on fuel or servicing, just on purchases over £2k
Post automatically merged:
Update on Uber must pay all of its taxes

After years of pressure from us, funded by you, Uber now accepts it is likely to have to charge VAT to its customers and hand over unpaid VAT to HMRC.
We know this because it has told us that under its US accounts it will recognise a contingent liability. And as I understand matters (I am not a US accountant) a company recognises a contingent liability, as Uber has done, when it thinks it has a more than 50/50 prospect of having to pay it. So Uber thinks it has a more than 50/50 prospect of having to charge VAT - and hand over unpaid VAT.
You can read more in the Financial Times here. We will continue with our judicial review proceedings until we have absolute clarity - and our next hearing is on 6 November.
 

Jack Barclay

Well-Known Member
I suspect their highly paid advisors know more than any of us on Tax

And a fair bit more than the Journalist that wrote the article.
Post automatically merged:



Lol

You really believe that don’t you?
There will be drivers (volume not stated) that will be in this catchment. I know of a driver who has taken 68k via apps in a year, also with card increase and a diminishing volume of cash transactions it could be probable yes.

If you can show me evidence that there are no taxi drivers registered for VAT I’ll stand corrected.
 

UberLuxbod

Well-Known Member
Moderator
Uber thinks the taxman is TFL lol

Tax man will have zero nonsense
Uber only issues a VAT Invoice to customers if the Driver is VAT Registered.

I haven’t checked but Uber should charge VAT on the commission they take.

I am not bothered enough to check
 

renod babek

Well-Known Member
Uber only issues a VAT Invoice to customers if the Driver is VAT Registered.

I haven’t checked but Uber should charge VAT on the commission they take.

I am not bothered enough to check
.2 What’s liable to VAT
The fares you charge to your passengers for taxi or private hire journeys are liable to VAT at the standard rate. This also includes any additional charges you may make.

Tips or gratuities voluntarily given by passengers are not regarded as payment for a supply and are outside the scope of VAT.
 

MEATIE

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #34
A bit more insightful

Post automatically merged:

Uber’s UK VAT liability confirmed







7 hours ago
By: Izabella Kaminska

Earlier this week Uber London Ltd filed its full accounts up until December 2018 at Companies House.
The big news wasn’t that the division made a relatively meagre profit of £5.1m. (The profit is hardly indicative of anything due to the group’s structural complexity.)
It was Note 13 which recounted the following about Uber London’s contingent liabilities:


The most newsworthy part was arguably this one: “the Uber Group is involved in an ongoing dialog with HMRC, which is seeking to classify the Uber Group as a transportation provider. Being classified as a transportation provider would result in a VAT (20%) on Gross Bookings or on the service fee that the Company charges Drivers, both retroactively and prospectively.”
Uber London’s accounts do not provide any indication of the total sum being recorded as a contingent liability at Uber London’s parent, the Uber Group.
But various sources tell us the bill could be as large as £1bn, or more. These are not small sums.
But the statement is striking for other reasons too.
First, Uber says it’s in an “ongoing dialog” with HMRC which hints at a negotiation taking place to potentially lower Uber’s liability. But that’s a big no no for HMRC. The tax authorities are not supposed to cut deals with corporations on unpaid back taxes, not least because of the scale of public outrage associated with legacy sweetheart deals, which prompted far-ranging internal policy reviews.
HMRC told FT Alphaville that on an ongoing basis it investigates about half of the UK’s large businesses at any one time. As part of that process companies are man-marked with HMRC officers whose job it is to speak to the financial people at the organisation. So it could be that Uber is treating this sort of relationship as a dialogue.
But a source tells Alphaville the view at Uber seems to be that the company sees itself as in negotiations with HMRC, with a view to settling the case before the all-important outcome of its UK Supreme Court appeal regarding its employer status is determined.
The other issue is the nature of the exposure and HMRC’s overall responsibility to capture its full extent.

It’s worth noting Alphaville first alerted readers to Uber’s potential VAT tax exposure in December 2016. At that time it was well known that the tax exposure in question was contingent on Uber successfully defending a tribunal case regarding the employment status of the company’s drivers. A loss would see the company’s drivers classified as workers not contractors, which would incur costly employer liabilities upon Uber, among them a VAT liability.
This is a big deal because the threshold for UK businesses having to pay VAT at the time was a turnover of more than £81K (it’s now £85k).
Since Uber drivers mostly earn much less than that, most do not incur VAT liabilities. If Uber is deemed an employer, however, those revenues would then be deemed Uber’s rather than drivers’ — more than surpassing the VAT threshold and thus exposing the company to potentially huge VAT liabilities from then on.
But the ruling would also reveal how much tax revenue the state will have missed out on over the years because of Uber’s potentially incorrect insistence it is not an employer.
The problem for HMRC is that there is a statute of limitation that ensures the tax authority cannot claim unpaid sums beyond the past four years.
This poses a bit of a quandary for the revenue services. What is a tax authority to do if it suspects a company may be hugely underpaying tax liabilities because of an incorrect employer classification, but cannot claim those sums until a final court ruling about that classification is determined.
One course of action according to Jolyon Maugham QC, who fronts the Good Law project — a non-profit that seeks to support progressive law change in a way that reduces public distrust of the establishment — is for the tax authority to engage in something called a protective assessment as soon as possible. This would allow HMRC to protect its position by flagging that an effective inquiry has begun, in turn allowing it to seek back-taxes from four years before that point even as more time passes.
In Mr Maugham’s opinion it would be a failure of governance at HMRC for the authority not to have issued such an assessment as soon as it was made aware of the issues at stake, irrespective of the pending nature of the all important employer status appeal.
When Mr Maugham made this view known to HMRC back in March in a letter before action, however, the authority’s view seemed to be that it would need to wait until the case was determined to do so. And so, in bid to get to the bottom of the legalities of the situation, the Good Law Project announced on May 29 of this year that it would be suing HMRC via judicial review for failing “to stem losses due to Uber’s tax dodging.”
It is Mr Maugham’s contention that up to £1.1bn of tax is at stake. You can read Mr Maugham’s witness statement, which offers more details on how that figure is arrived at, here.
But there’s another issue in play. As an interested party in the action, Uber has a right to legally represent its interests in the case if it wishes. One of those interests is that the case does not inadvertently expose its private tax affairs to the general public given that in the UK, all tax affairs are deemed private and confidential, including the issue of whether protective assessments have been initiated.
Uber has made it known to Mr Maugham that it will be engaging in the case to ensure any privileged information revealed by the process stays private and confidential and subject to an order that it is “protected from onward disclosure to third parties”.
A hearing on the matter is due on November 6 at the High Court.
Of course, the fact that Uber London since filed a company account noting that a dialogue with HMRC over a VAT liability is ongoing implies some sort of protective assessment may already have been initiated. So to some extent the cat is already out of the bag.
Commenting on the case, Mr. Maugham told FT Alphaville:
It has taken three years for us to force HMRC to collect tax from Uber. Many hundreds of millions of pounds will have been lost because of its inaction. We will now turn our attention to ensuring that other big transport suppliers — such as Addison Lee — comply with the law. And to those, like Amazon, operating arrangements that seem to us to be similar in character.
In response Uber’s spokeswoman said:
We can't comment on any discussions with HMRC but we will always fulfil the tax obligations in any country in which we operate.
Finally, HMRC told Alphaville:
We don’t comment on identifiable businesses. HMRC will always make sure that every business, no matter its size, pays all the taxes due under UK law and we don’t settle for less.
One thing’s for sure. It’s a tax case that could have a huge bearing on Uber’s profit-and-loss at some point, with equally important implications for Uber’s operations in Europe, which also bear similar VAT exposure.
We wait and watch.
 

Harold Shand

Well-Known Member
A bit more insightful

Post automatically merged:

Uber’s UK VAT liability confirmed







7 hours ago
By: Izabella Kaminska

Earlier this week Uber London Ltd filed its full accounts up until December 2018 at Companies House.
The big news wasn’t that the division made a relatively meagre profit of £5.1m. (The profit is hardly indicative of anything due to the group’s structural complexity.)
It was Note 13 which recounted the following about Uber London’s contingent liabilities:


The most newsworthy part was arguably this one: “the Uber Group is involved in an ongoing dialog with HMRC, which is seeking to classify the Uber Group as a transportation provider. Being classified as a transportation provider would result in a VAT (20%) on Gross Bookings or on the service fee that the Company charges Drivers, both retroactively and prospectively.”
Uber London’s accounts do not provide any indication of the total sum being recorded as a contingent liability at Uber London’s parent, the Uber Group.
But various sources tell us the bill could be as large as £1bn, or more. These are not small sums.
But the statement is striking for other reasons too.
First, Uber says it’s in an “ongoing dialog” with HMRC which hints at a negotiation taking place to potentially lower Uber’s liability. But that’s a big no no for HMRC. The tax authorities are not supposed to cut deals with corporations on unpaid back taxes, not least because of the scale of public outrage associated with legacy sweetheart deals, which prompted far-ranging internal policy reviews.
HMRC told FT Alphaville that on an ongoing basis it investigates about half of the UK’s large businesses at any one time. As part of that process companies are man-marked with HMRC officers whose job it is to speak to the financial people at the organisation. So it could be that Uber is treating this sort of relationship as a dialogue.
But a source tells Alphaville the view at Uber seems to be that the company sees itself as in negotiations with HMRC, with a view to settling the case before the all-important outcome of its UK Supreme Court appeal regarding its employer status is determined.
The other issue is the nature of the exposure and HMRC’s overall responsibility to capture its full extent.

It’s worth noting Alphaville first alerted readers to Uber’s potential VAT tax exposure in December 2016. At that time it was well known that the tax exposure in question was contingent on Uber successfully defending a tribunal case regarding the employment status of the company’s drivers. A loss would see the company’s drivers classified as workers not contractors, which would incur costly employer liabilities upon Uber, among them a VAT liability.
This is a big deal because the threshold for UK businesses having to pay VAT at the time was a turnover of more than £81K (it’s now £85k).
Since Uber drivers mostly earn much less than that, most do not incur VAT liabilities. If Uber is deemed an employer, however, those revenues would then be deemed Uber’s rather than drivers’ — more than surpassing the VAT threshold and thus exposing the company to potentially huge VAT liabilities from then on.
But the ruling would also reveal how much tax revenue the state will have missed out on over the years because of Uber’s potentially incorrect insistence it is not an employer.
The problem for HMRC is that there is a statute of limitation that ensures the tax authority cannot claim unpaid sums beyond the past four years.
This poses a bit of a quandary for the revenue services. What is a tax authority to do if it suspects a company may be hugely underpaying tax liabilities because of an incorrect employer classification, but cannot claim those sums until a final court ruling about that classification is determined.
One course of action according to Jolyon Maugham QC, who fronts the Good Law project — a non-profit that seeks to support progressive law change in a way that reduces public distrust of the establishment — is for the tax authority to engage in something called a protective assessment as soon as possible. This would allow HMRC to protect its position by flagging that an effective inquiry has begun, in turn allowing it to seek back-taxes from four years before that point even as more time passes.
In Mr Maugham’s opinion it would be a failure of governance at HMRC for the authority not to have issued such an assessment as soon as it was made aware of the issues at stake, irrespective of the pending nature of the all important employer status appeal.
When Mr Maugham made this view known to HMRC back in March in a letter before action, however, the authority’s view seemed to be that it would need to wait until the case was determined to do so. And so, in bid to get to the bottom of the legalities of the situation, the Good Law Project announced on May 29 of this year that it would be suing HMRC via judicial review for failing “to stem losses due to Uber’s tax dodging.”
It is Mr Maugham’s contention that up to £1.1bn of tax is at stake. You can read Mr Maugham’s witness statement, which offers more details on how that figure is arrived at, here.
But there’s another issue in play. As an interested party in the action, Uber has a right to legally represent its interests in the case if it wishes. One of those interests is that the case does not inadvertently expose its private tax affairs to the general public given that in the UK, all tax affairs are deemed private and confidential, including the issue of whether protective assessments have been initiated.
Uber has made it known to Mr Maugham that it will be engaging in the case to ensure any privileged information revealed by the process stays private and confidential and subject to an order that it is “protected from onward disclosure to third parties”.
A hearing on the matter is due on November 6 at the High Court.
Of course, the fact that Uber London since filed a company account noting that a dialogue with HMRC over a VAT liability is ongoing implies some sort of protective assessment may already have been initiated. So to some extent the cat is already out of the bag.
Commenting on the case, Mr. Maugham told FT Alphaville:

In response Uber’s spokeswoman said:

Finally, HMRC told Alphaville:

One thing’s for sure. It’s a tax case that could have a huge bearing on Uber’s profit-and-loss at some point, with equally important implications for Uber’s operations in Europe, which also bear similar VAT exposure.
We wait and watch.
A good find. Nice post.
 

Jack Barclay

Well-Known Member
A bit more insightful

Post automatically merged:

Uber’s UK VAT liability confirmed







7 hours ago
By: Izabella Kaminska

Earlier this week Uber London Ltd filed its full accounts up until December 2018 at Companies House.
The big news wasn’t that the division made a relatively meagre profit of £5.1m. (The profit is hardly indicative of anything due to the group’s structural complexity.)
It was Note 13 which recounted the following about Uber London’s contingent liabilities:


The most newsworthy part was arguably this one: “the Uber Group is involved in an ongoing dialog with HMRC, which is seeking to classify the Uber Group as a transportation provider. Being classified as a transportation provider would result in a VAT (20%) on Gross Bookings or on the service fee that the Company charges Drivers, both retroactively and prospectively.”
Uber London’s accounts do not provide any indication of the total sum being recorded as a contingent liability at Uber London’s parent, the Uber Group.
But various sources tell us the bill could be as large as £1bn, or more. These are not small sums.
But the statement is striking for other reasons too.
First, Uber says it’s in an “ongoing dialog” with HMRC which hints at a negotiation taking place to potentially lower Uber’s liability. But that’s a big no no for HMRC. The tax authorities are not supposed to cut deals with corporations on unpaid back taxes, not least because of the scale of public outrage associated with legacy sweetheart deals, which prompted far-ranging internal policy reviews.
HMRC told FT Alphaville that on an ongoing basis it investigates about half of the UK’s large businesses at any one time. As part of that process companies are man-marked with HMRC officers whose job it is to speak to the financial people at the organisation. So it could be that Uber is treating this sort of relationship as a dialogue.
But a source tells Alphaville the view at Uber seems to be that the company sees itself as in negotiations with HMRC, with a view to settling the case before the all-important outcome of its UK Supreme Court appeal regarding its employer status is determined.
The other issue is the nature of the exposure and HMRC’s overall responsibility to capture its full extent.

It’s worth noting Alphaville first alerted readers to Uber’s potential VAT tax exposure in December 2016. At that time it was well known that the tax exposure in question was contingent on Uber successfully defending a tribunal case regarding the employment status of the company’s drivers. A loss would see the company’s drivers classified as workers not contractors, which would incur costly employer liabilities upon Uber, among them a VAT liability.
This is a big deal because the threshold for UK businesses having to pay VAT at the time was a turnover of more than £81K (it’s now £85k).
Since Uber drivers mostly earn much less than that, most do not incur VAT liabilities. If Uber is deemed an employer, however, those revenues would then be deemed Uber’s rather than drivers’ — more than surpassing the VAT threshold and thus exposing the company to potentially huge VAT liabilities from then on.
But the ruling would also reveal how much tax revenue the state will have missed out on over the years because of Uber’s potentially incorrect insistence it is not an employer.
The problem for HMRC is that there is a statute of limitation that ensures the tax authority cannot claim unpaid sums beyond the past four years.
This poses a bit of a quandary for the revenue services. What is a tax authority to do if it suspects a company may be hugely underpaying tax liabilities because of an incorrect employer classification, but cannot claim those sums until a final court ruling about that classification is determined.
One course of action according to Jolyon Maugham QC, who fronts the Good Law project — a non-profit that seeks to support progressive law change in a way that reduces public distrust of the establishment — is for the tax authority to engage in something called a protective assessment as soon as possible. This would allow HMRC to protect its position by flagging that an effective inquiry has begun, in turn allowing it to seek back-taxes from four years before that point even as more time passes.
In Mr Maugham’s opinion it would be a failure of governance at HMRC for the authority not to have issued such an assessment as soon as it was made aware of the issues at stake, irrespective of the pending nature of the all important employer status appeal.
When Mr Maugham made this view known to HMRC back in March in a letter before action, however, the authority’s view seemed to be that it would need to wait until the case was determined to do so. And so, in bid to get to the bottom of the legalities of the situation, the Good Law Project announced on May 29 of this year that it would be suing HMRC via judicial review for failing “to stem losses due to Uber’s tax dodging.”
It is Mr Maugham’s contention that up to £1.1bn of tax is at stake. You can read Mr Maugham’s witness statement, which offers more details on how that figure is arrived at, here.
But there’s another issue in play. As an interested party in the action, Uber has a right to legally represent its interests in the case if it wishes. One of those interests is that the case does not inadvertently expose its private tax affairs to the general public given that in the UK, all tax affairs are deemed private and confidential, including the issue of whether protective assessments have been initiated.
Uber has made it known to Mr Maugham that it will be engaging in the case to ensure any privileged information revealed by the process stays private and confidential and subject to an order that it is “protected from onward disclosure to third parties”.
A hearing on the matter is due on November 6 at the High Court.
Of course, the fact that Uber London since filed a company account noting that a dialogue with HMRC over a VAT liability is ongoing implies some sort of protective assessment may already have been initiated. So to some extent the cat is already out of the bag.
Commenting on the case, Mr. Maugham told FT Alphaville:

In response Uber’s spokeswoman said:

Finally, HMRC told Alphaville:

One thing’s for sure. It’s a tax case that could have a huge bearing on Uber’s profit-and-loss at some point, with equally important implications for Uber’s operations in Europe, which also bear similar VAT exposure.
We wait and watch.
6th November, must be a coincidence...
 

MEATIE

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #38
This is not in public interest. Millions give up using Uber. This will cause congestion on public transport and difficulty of public transport to work. This harms the economy.
on the contrary to ensure that nemo est supra legem and pay their taxes just like anyone else is in the public interest.
 

laudhh

Member
Al Capone thought he was untouchable too. Played the law like a violin and got away with it for years. Until the tax man went after him. They show no mercy. Uber will be very very afraid. View attachment 365162
i think if uber attract tax the BC drivers are in the same boat as when they use an app for trade they should or the provider should be liable for vat
Post automatically merged:

This is great news.

Currently those who are Registered for VAT have to pay the VAT as the fare stays the same but for VAT reg it’s including VAT.

This will lead to loads of PH Drivers becoming VAT Reg on the Flat Rate Scheme.

So they can claim the VAT back on their vehicle purchase and get a small increase in revenue as they will be 20% VAT on the fare but they only send 10% of the entire job price to HMRC, so effectively it’s an 8% pay rise and vehicles are 20% cheaper.

Though on flat rate you can get any of your VAT back on fuel or servicing, just on purchases over £2k
Post automatically merged:



If Taxi drivers earn a fortune why are they not VAT Reg?

Surely they must all be breaking the turnover threshold?
Post automatically merged:



So what you are saying is that having the opportunity to commit a crime means you are allowed to commit one?
Post automatically merged:



You realise that is exactly what Uber have been doing?

They have not evaded Tax.

They have simply used legal means to avoid paying it where possible.

They have not come to these decisions after a chat in the Cafe, they have done so with advise from the best Tax Lawyers and Accountants.
uber should not be liable for vat or NI tax on fairs, as im a driver I own my own vehicle and i work from multiple apps, not one single provider
Post automatically merged:

6th November, must be a coincidence...
rubbish
 
Last edited:
Top