tim.... wrote on 09 February 2011 18:18:19 ...
"Graeme wrote in message
...
On 09/02/2011 14:29, tim.... wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
wrote in message

If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed to
register for VAT.

It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other consumer
does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They pay
it
to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no mechanism for
paying VAT directly to HMRC.

Yep, and tha's exactly how the MC paidm VAT to HMRC

I think what you're saying is that you paid VAT to the clamper, who must
have been VAT registered. Did you pay him for his services (which would
have been VATable), or did he get paid through collecting VAT-inclusive
charges from illegal parkers? Or, I wonder, did he illegally collect
"VAT" from you, and just pocket it?

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was
that
he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him the VAT
element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on their VAT
return.

Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to claim
it
back.

No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was
legally
correct).


Doesn't sound correct to me. Did he charge you a base fee for his
services?

No.

He came around for free, but whenever he extracted a fine from a
transgressor, we had to pay the VAT (so we were told)

That is complete rubbish. What the clamping company extract is not a
fine (which can only be levied in accordance with legislation), but a
release fee. That fee, like any other amount charged by a
VAT-registered company, is liable to VAT, which must be paid by the
payer of the fee.

If the clamping company wish to invoice the flats management company
with 20% of the release fee as a sort of commission, then that is a
separate transaction which is itself liable to VAT.

Of course in both cases, the release fee and the commission could be
quoted as VAT-inclusive amounts, but it doesn't alter the basics of the
way VAT operates. Similarly, companies which advertise an offer to pay
the VAT on your purchase are in reality just lowering the ex-VAT price
by 16.67%; you still pay VAT on the reduced price.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 20:49:47 +0000, "Richard J."
wrote:

tim.... wrote on 09 February 2011 18:18:19 ...
"Graeme wrote in message
...
On 09/02/2011 14:29, tim.... wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
wrote in message

If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed to
register for VAT.

It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other consumer
does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They pay
it
to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no mechanism for
paying VAT directly to HMRC.

Yep, and tha's exactly how the MC paidm VAT to HMRC

I think what you're saying is that you paid VAT to the clamper, who must
have been VAT registered. Did you pay him for his services (which would
have been VATable), or did he get paid through collecting VAT-inclusive
charges from illegal parkers? Or, I wonder, did he illegally collect
"VAT" from you, and just pocket it?

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was
that
he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him the VAT
element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on their VAT
return.

Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to claim
it
back.

No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was
legally
correct).


Doesn't sound correct to me. Did he charge you a base fee for his
services?

No.

He came around for free, but whenever he extracted a fine from a
transgressor, we had to pay the VAT (so we were told)

That is complete rubbish. What the clamping company extract is not a
fine (which can only be levied in accordance with legislation), but a
release fee. That fee, like any other amount charged by a
VAT-registered company, is liable to VAT, which must be paid by the
payer of the fee.

If the clamping company wish to invoice the flats management company
with 20% of the release fee as a sort of commission, then that is a
separate transaction which is itself liable to VAT.

Of course in both cases, the release fee and the commission could be
quoted as VAT-inclusive amounts, but it doesn't alter the basics of the
way VAT operates. Similarly, companies which advertise an offer to pay
the VAT on your purchase are in reality just lowering the ex-VAT price
by 16.67%; you still pay VAT on the reduced price.

ITYF the VAT might arise because a service not involving a cash
transaction from the user is being supplied which is of value to the
management company; HMRC staked their claim on "services in kind" many
years ago. The arrangement seems rather like the management company
allows the clampers to operate on their land in return for receiving
the service of trespassers being deterred, the VAT being based on the
closest identifiable cash transaction in the proceedings.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:59:48 -0000, "Mizter T"
wrote:


"bobharvey" wrote:

On Feb 9, 12:27 pm, "tim...." wrote:

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
[snip]
ITYF the flat management company was doing the extorting with the man
in the van as their servant applying the clamps..

People have a choice to obey the sign that says: "Private property, no
unauthorised parking, clamping in operation".

You are not familiar with the type of people often associated with
these activities or their methods, then ? Not so far to the north such
activities are a criminal offence unless there is a specific
legislative permission for them.

I can assure you that the clamper was "responsible" in the way that he
chose
to clamp a car. He wasn't a rogue that clamped delivery vans etc
temporarily stopped on the entrance driveway.

Remember that these spaces that were being abused by outside parkers
actually BELONG to the individual flat owners. Would you think it ok if
someone drove up to your house and decided that it was OK for them to
put
their car in your garage without permission?

I've always been a great believer in the rising bollard.

A pain in the rear end from the (legitimate) users point of view though.

Charles Ellson wrote on 09 February 2011
22:48:24 ...
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 20:49:47 +0000, "Richard J."
wrote:

wrote on 09 February 2011 18:18:19 ...
"Graeme wrote in message
...
On 09/02/2011 14:29, tim.... wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
wrote in message

If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed to
register for VAT.

It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other consumer
does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They pay
it
to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no mechanism for
paying VAT directly to HMRC.

Yep, and tha's exactly how the MC paidm VAT to HMRC

I think what you're saying is that you paid VAT to the clamper, who must
have been VAT registered. Did you pay him for his services (which would
have been VATable), or did he get paid through collecting VAT-inclusive
charges from illegal parkers? Or, I wonder, did he illegally collect
"VAT" from you, and just pocket it?

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was
that
he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him the VAT
element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on their VAT
return.

Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to claim
it
back.

No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was
legally
correct).


Doesn't sound correct to me. Did he charge you a base fee for his
services?

No.

He came around for free, but whenever he extracted a fine from a
transgressor, we had to pay the VAT (so we were told)

That is complete rubbish. What the clamping company extract is not a
fine (which can only be levied in accordance with legislation), but a
release fee. That fee, like any other amount charged by a
VAT-registered company, is liable to VAT, which must be paid by the
payer of the fee.

If the clamping company wish to invoice the flats management company
with 20% of the release fee as a sort of commission, then that is a
separate transaction which is itself liable to VAT.

Of course in both cases, the release fee and the commission could be
quoted as VAT-inclusive amounts, but it doesn't alter the basics of the
way VAT operates. Similarly, companies which advertise an offer to pay
the VAT on your purchase are in reality just lowering the ex-VAT price
by 16.67%; you still pay VAT on the reduced price.

ITYF the VAT might arise because a service not involving a cash
transaction from the user is being supplied which is of value to the
management company; HMRC staked their claim on "services in kind" many
years ago. The arrangement seems rather like the management company
allows the clampers to operate on their land in return for receiving
the service of trespassers being deterred, the VAT being based on the
closest identifiable cash transaction in the proceedings.

But the management company isn't (and cannot be) registered for VAT, so
even if they did charge for allowing the clampers access to their land,
there wouldn't be any VAT payable. And VAT is liable already on the
release fee, so I don't see how it can be payable twice on the same
transaction.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:23:11 +0000, "Richard J."
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote on 09 February 2011
22:48:24 ...
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 20:49:47 +0000, "Richard J."
wrote:

wrote on 09 February 2011 18:18:19 ...
"Graeme wrote in message
...
On 09/02/2011 14:29, tim.... wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
wrote in message

If the flat management company wasn't VAT registered (because the
turnover's below the threshold), then no need to add VAT to the
clamping fee.

Actually the flat management company is unregistered because, as a
resident owned company, it is not allowed to register.

Why is that?

It's not a trading company.

I didn't think HMRC cared who the proprieter is. And, if not
registered, how could the company even pay money to HMRC?

It's registered at CoHouse and pays CT to HMRC, but it's not allowed to
register for VAT.

It pays money to HMRC for VAT in the same way that every other consumer
does.

Now I'm even more confused -- consumers don't pay VAT to HMRC. They pay
it
to a trader, who passes it on to HMRC. Consumers have no mechanism for
paying VAT directly to HMRC.

Yep, and tha's exactly how the MC paidm VAT to HMRC

I think what you're saying is that you paid VAT to the clamper, who must
have been VAT registered. Did you pay him for his services (which would
have been VATable), or did he get paid through collecting VAT-inclusive
charges from illegal parkers? Or, I wonder, did he illegally collect
"VAT" from you, and just pocket it?

I don't know how he accounted for it, but I understand that his MO was
that
he charged the clampee a "fine" and the business who hired him the VAT
element of that fine, which they would claim back from HMRC on their VAT
return.

Except than in our case we weren't registered and hence not able to claim
it
back.

No, I still don't know why he worked that way (or indeed, if it was
legally
correct).


Doesn't sound correct to me. Did he charge you a base fee for his
services?

No.

He came around for free, but whenever he extracted a fine from a
transgressor, we had to pay the VAT (so we were told)

That is complete rubbish. What the clamping company extract is not a
fine (which can only be levied in accordance with legislation), but a
release fee. That fee, like any other amount charged by a
VAT-registered company, is liable to VAT, which must be paid by the
payer of the fee.

If the clamping company wish to invoice the flats management company
with 20% of the release fee as a sort of commission, then that is a
separate transaction which is itself liable to VAT.

Of course in both cases, the release fee and the commission could be
quoted as VAT-inclusive amounts, but it doesn't alter the basics of the
way VAT operates. Similarly, companies which advertise an offer to pay
the VAT on your purchase are in reality just lowering the ex-VAT price
by 16.67%; you still pay VAT on the reduced price.

ITYF the VAT might arise because a service not involving a cash
transaction from the user is being supplied which is of value to the
management company; HMRC staked their claim on "services in kind" many
years ago. The arrangement seems rather like the management company
allows the clampers to operate on their land in return for receiving
the service of trespassers being deterred, the VAT being based on the
closest identifiable cash transaction in the proceedings.

But the management company isn't (and cannot be) registered for VAT, so
even if they did charge for allowing the clampers access to their land,
there wouldn't be any VAT payable.

I didn't mention charging by the maintenance company, the only
admitted service involved in my scenario is that of the clampers
supplying the maintenance company. A liability to be charged VAT can
arise from receiving goods or services (in this case, keeping the car
park clear of unwanted vehicles) even if you don't pay for them if
HMRC regard the recipient of those services as paying in kind
(allowing the clampers to operate on their land) for something which
is not a gift, see e.g. 3.7 in
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP... Type=document
[http://tinyurl.com/5v69gy4]
It does not matter whether the recipient of the services is registered
for VAT or not as the VAT has to be collected and accounted for by the
supplier of the services or goods.

And VAT is liable already on the
release fee, so I don't see how it can be payable twice on the same
transaction.

Charles Ellson wrote:

I didn't mention charging by the maintenance company, the only
admitted service involved in my scenario is that of the clampers
supplying the maintenance company. A liability to be charged VAT can
arise from receiving goods or services (in this case, keeping the car
park clear of unwanted vehicles) even if you don't pay for them if
HMRC regard the recipient of those services as paying in kind
(allowing the clampers to operate on their land) for something which
is not a gift, see e.g. 3.7 in
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP... Type=document
[http://tinyurl.com/5v69gy4]
It does not matter whether the recipient of the services is registered
for VAT or not as the VAT has to be collected and accounted for by the
supplier of the services or goods.



The problem here is that some people don't understand how VAT works.

Some aren't even aware that they don't understand. The result is
discussions like this with pointless, circular arguments. The sole
reason is that some people are not prepared to make the effort to find
out how VAT works before they post. Instead, they prefer repeatedly
posting nonsense about why it doesn't work. All that does is
demonstrate that they know nothing (or less than nothing, because what
they think they know is in fact wrong) about the subject.

As ever, Charles, I admire the patience you are able to show while
beating your head against a very thick and immovable brick wall. ;-)

On 10/02/2011 08:59, Bruce wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:

I didn't mention charging by the maintenance company, the only
admitted service involved in my scenario is that of the clampers
supplying the maintenance company. A liability to be charged VAT can
arise from receiving goods or services (in this case, keeping the car
park clear of unwanted vehicles) even if you don't pay for them if
HMRC regard the recipient of those services as paying in kind
(allowing the clampers to operate on their land) for something which
is not a gift, see e.g. 3.7 in
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP... Type=document
[http://tinyurl.com/5v69gy4]
It does not matter whether the recipient of the services is registered
for VAT or not as the VAT has to be collected and accounted for by the
supplier of the services or goods.



The problem here is that some people don't understand how VAT works.

Some aren't even aware that they don't understand. The result is
discussions like this with pointless, circular arguments. The sole
reason is that some people are not prepared to make the effort to find
out how VAT works before they post. Instead, they prefer repeatedly
posting nonsense about why it doesn't work. All that does is
demonstrate that they know nothing (or less than nothing, because what
they think they know is in fact wrong) about the subject.

As ever, Charles, I admire the patience you are able to show while
beating your head against a very thick and immovable brick wall. ;-)



If your level of expertise is such that you can identify a lack of
knowledge, whey don't you set us all straight then?

John Kenyon wrote:
If your level of expertise is such that you can identify a lack of
knowledge, whey don't you set us all straight then?


It isn't rocket science. Even you could probably learn how it works
with just a little effort.

But that's the problem. You aren't prepared to make that small
effort. You expect someone else to do it for you - in this case me.

Well, I'm so very sorry to disappoint you. ;-)

On 10/02/2011 12:10, Bruce wrote:
John Kenyon wrote:
If your level of expertise is such that you can identify a lack of
knowledge, whey don't you set us all straight then?


It isn't rocket science. Even you could probably learn how it works
with just a little effort.

But that's the problem. You aren't prepared to make that small
effort. You expect someone else to do it for you - in this case me.

Well, I'm so very sorry to disappoint you. ;-)


You haven't disappointed me at all - I expected a ****wit reply and I
got one.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:48:05 +0000, John Kenyon
wrote:

On 10/02/2011 08:59, Bruce wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:

I didn't mention charging by the maintenance company, the only
admitted service involved in my scenario is that of the clampers
supplying the maintenance company. A liability to be charged VAT can
arise from receiving goods or services (in this case, keeping the car
park clear of unwanted vehicles) even if you don't pay for them if
HMRC regard the recipient of those services as paying in kind
(allowing the clampers to operate on their land) for something which
is not a gift, see e.g. 3.7 in
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP... Type=document
[http://tinyurl.com/5v69gy4]
It does not matter whether the recipient of the services is registered
for VAT or not as the VAT has to be collected and accounted for by the
supplier of the services or goods.



The problem here is that some people don't understand how VAT works.

Some aren't even aware that they don't understand. The result is
discussions like this with pointless, circular arguments. The sole
reason is that some people are not prepared to make the effort to find
out how VAT works before they post. Instead, they prefer repeatedly
posting nonsense about why it doesn't work. All that does is
demonstrate that they know nothing (or less than nothing, because what
they think they know is in fact wrong) about the subject.

As ever, Charles, I admire the patience you are able to show while
beating your head against a very thick and immovable brick wall. ;-)



If your level of expertise is such that you can identify a lack of
knowledge, whey don't you set us all straight then?

This seems to hark back to a discussion about contracts some time ago
which involved 99 different opinions about who was supplying, who was
being supplied and what the "consideration" (in everyday terms, the
payment) was. The common element seems to be that the
argument/discussion involves services; if goods were involved then it
is generally easy to identify who is supplying and who is receiving
the supply but where services are involved (especially if both parties
are consumers or both in business) it can get a bit complicated when
trying to work out who is doing the supplying/receiving especially if
such things as who first made what kind of offer to the other is not
precisely known. At least in this case only one of the parties seems
to be VAT-registered otherwise HMRC would probably be seeking some way
of having two bites at the same cherry.