CHARGING V.A.T on HCEO Enforcement Fees is Completely Legal
VAT and the High cour
Its not exactly a new subject, but there is still a lot of misunderstanding about this. Leading to many initiating costly and unnecessary Detailed Assessment Hearings.
The current advice given in the government briefing notice refers to fees paid to the HCEO for their services, not by debtors who pay fees to licensed self employed EAs operating under a HCEO power.
In other words, the creditor, who pays the HCEO for their services will pay vat, because the HCEO can offset it against their output VAT. This is the usual procedure.
If the creditor is VAT registered he will also be able to reclaim it by offsetting it against his output tax in the usual way.
This is where the confusion arises. It is not about the payment of VAT by debtors to enforcement agents, which is calculated on proceeds. That is well understood, and decided.
Debtors are liable.
.Seek proper advice if you are unsure.
Leave a Reply
17 Comments on "CHARGING V.A.T on HCEO Enforcement Fees is Completely Legal"
I came across A post by pote
It seems to be addressed to me?
All comments made by me on this subject were made before August 1sr the regulations under the TCE have yet to be changed. But of course until they are we will have to advise as instructed.
He says only I held this opinion, not so. Bailiffs were charging vat for 7years, I dont instruct bailiffs
Because of remarks like this, that make no sense, I dont think I need to respond further. All legal explanation is on this thread.
I suggest you place.both hands above your desk and try to concentrate.
Oh my God, Pote is on another of his dead-end theories, he has lots on that forum, and on Cag. He has two major characteristics, he always attaches himself to the biggest get out of debt looney he can see, and he always quotes things out of context. Famous for it.
Won’t let go even after his mates tell him he is wrong. Perhaps he needs to send some FOI requests?
He says that only two people believe debtors have to pay VAT on fees. I honestly didn’t know my word was so powerful, I wonder who the other one is? Because VAT is charged, as we know.
The phrase he quotes from guidance via Mr Wilson is correct of course, although out of context, enforcement fees on schedule 12 are paid to the EA, not the HCEO.
Fees paid to EA’s are kept by the EAs and therefore liable to pay VAT generated from them.
The total fees and allowable expenses payable in respect of services provided by the different people involved are set out in the relevant Sheriff’s Fees Order. The value for VAT purposes is the amount each person gets as their share of the statutory fee and any expenses charged are recoverable from the debtor.
Anyway, where is this case, Bennison? lying again were we?
I don’t know who I feel sorry for more, the man who cannot stop lying or the fools who believe him.
Perhaps if they read carefully (,i.e. by starting at the begining right through to the end) they might understand/see things a lot clearer.
I would also be interested in reading the facts to these cases Bennison is so fond of giving. ” I don’t know who I feel sorry for more, the man who cannot stop lying or the fools who believe him” I am with you on that..
The problem with Bennison and his ilk are that they don’t understand how to read the subject matter.
It looks as if they glance through the written word rather than read it properly, then pick out the bits they think are relevent to their argument in an attempt to score brownie points. I guess joined up thinking is not prevalent in-house over on Bailiff Help Forum/Bailiff Talk.
Indeed, and sometimes they are referring to the wrong legislation anyway. Thats what you get if you just search a few words on google.
It’s Freeman of the land thinking.
Lets wait and see what VAT the HCEO charges when they attend his mothers house to collect your £7,5 grand Peter.
I also came about this, in relation to Bowley and Marks Part 62 problems.
The Statute
common law right
It is self-evident that s. 62 of the TCEA provides that the power conferred by a Writ of control is exercisable only by using the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Act, which includes any Regulations enacted under Sch. 12. It is clear (per Leggatt LJ quoted above) that Sch. 12 and not aspects of the common law govern the validity of taking control of goods.
Sorry, but you were wrong again it seems.
The Government version of the pos below:
The Sheriff’s Officer organises the activities of the bailiffs and, where necessary, the sale of the debtor’s goods. In some areas, they are a salaried employee of the Under-Sheriff. In others, they are a self-employed sole proprietor or partner working either full-time as a Sheriff’s Officer or part-time as a Sheriff’s Officer with other business activities such as an auctioneer.
If they are not an employee their services are taxable. The position of bailiffs is similar to this.
The other people involved in High Court debt recovery work, for example, locksmiths, auctioneers or removal men are also regarded as making taxable supplies in the course of their businesses.
(b) Nature and value of supply
The total fees and allowable expenses payable in respect of services provided by the different people involved are set out in the relevant Sheriff’s Fees Order. The value for VAT purposes is the amount each person gets as their share of the statutory fee and any expenses charged. The full amount charged, including tax, is recoverable from the debtor.