Uber and the VAT man
 

Uber may be forced to levy VAT on its fares, with a potentially huge
retrospective bill.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/passengers-face-fare-hikes-after-uber-accused-of-taking-taxman-for-1bn-ride-vt8ht588w?shareToken=10f759b81ee2f668f9176a2c196d3 f65

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 10:31:27 on Sun, 19 May
2019, Recliner remarked:
Uber may be forced to levy VAT on its fares, with a potentially huge
retrospective bill.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...ikes-after-ube
r-accused-of-taking-taxman-for-1bn-ride-vt8ht588w?shareToken=10f759b81ee
2f668f9176a2c196d3f65

Even if it turns out that individual drivers don't have to charge their
passengers VAT, what about the bills (for use of the platform) from Uber
to the drivers?[1] Although if those turned out to be taxable, it's only
Uber that would stand the retrospective loss. Future commission rates
(and hence fares for users) would likely rise though.

Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?

[1] Or is that what they refer to as "gross bookings"?
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

On Sun, 19 May 2019 11:56:10 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 10:31:27 on Sun, 19 May
2019, Recliner remarked:
Uber may be forced to levy VAT on its fares, with a potentially huge
retrospective bill.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...ikes-after-ube
r-accused-of-taking-taxman-for-1bn-ride-vt8ht588w?shareToken=10f759b81ee
2f668f9176a2c196d3f65

Even if it turns out that individual drivers don't have to charge their
passengers VAT, what about the bills (for use of the platform) from Uber
to the drivers?[1] Although if those turned out to be taxable, it's only
Uber that would stand the retrospective loss. Future commission rates
(and hence fares for users) would likely rise though.

Yes, almost certainly.


Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?

I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.


[1] Or is that what they refer to as "gross bookings"?

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 12:27:00 on
Sun, 19 May 2019, Recliner remarked:

Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?

I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.

It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

On 19/05/2019 12:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:27:00 on
Sun, 19 May 2019, Recliner remarked:

Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?

I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.

It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.

Presumably though the service is provided by the driver and is
un-VATable (unless they earn more than £85k or whatever), but the
service provided by the platform (ie the server) could actually be
abroad and hence charged at their VAT rate? As the service of matching
user to platform doesn't result in any physical delivery of product then
it could legitimately be said to happen offshore. (I'm not a VAT
expert, but I gueess this is the sort of thing they are basing it off).

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 11:26:50 on Tue, 21 May
2019, Someone Somewhere remarked:
On 19/05/2019 12:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:27:00
on Sun, 19 May 2019, Recliner remarked:

Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base
itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?

I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.
It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.

Presumably though the service is provided by the driver and is
un-VATable (unless they earn more than £85k or whatever), but the
service provided by the platform (ie the server) could actually be
abroad and hence charged at their VAT rate?

The change in 2015 was to make the supplier charge the VAT rate in the
customer's [in this case the Uber driver's] country.
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

On 21/05/2019 11:26, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 19/05/2019 12:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:27:00
on Sun, 19 May 2019, Recliner remarked:

Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?

I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.

It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.

Presumably though the service is provided by the driver and is
un-VATable (unless they earn more than £85k or whatever), but the
service provided by the platform (ie the server) could actually be
abroad and hence charged at their VAT rate?Â* As the service of matching
user to platform doesn't result in any physical delivery of product then
it could legitimately be said to happen offshore.Â* (I'm not a VAT
expert, but I gueess this is the sort of thing they are basing it off).

With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK), the
charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges in the
UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the charge.
How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but all of it will
be liable to the tax if any of it is.

Uber and the VAT man
 

On 21/05/2019 12:48, JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2019 11:26, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 19/05/2019 12:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:27:00
on Sun, 19 May 2019, Recliner remarked:

Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base
itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?

I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.

It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.

Presumably though the service is provided by the driver and is
un-VATable (unless they earn more than £85k or whatever), but the
service provided by the platform (ie the server) could actually be
abroad and hence charged at their VAT rate?Â* As the service of
matching user to platform doesn't result in any physical delivery of
product then it could legitimately be said to happen offshore.Â* (I'm
not a VAT expert, but I gueess this is the sort of thing they are
basing it off).

With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK), the
charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges in the
UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the charge.
How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but all of it will
be liable to the tax if any of it is.


VAT was never my specialist subject but there are various
misunderstandings of the basics of how it works with intra-EU
transnational business to business supplies. Uber set out quite clearly
how they operate he

https://www.uber.com/en-GB/drive/tax-information/

Note especially the reference to the fact that it's an Uber company in
the Netherlands that supplies the service and to the "reverse charge"
scheme.

All this is contentious. But the UK's not the only EU country that's
accepted it. As have others fiscs. See eg

https://library.croneri.co.uk/acmag_185098

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 12:48:07 on Tue, 21
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?

I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.

It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.
Presumably though the service is provided by the driver and is
un-VATable (unless they earn more than £85k or whatever), but the
service provided by the platform (ie the server) could actually be
abroad and hence charged at their VAT rate?* As the service of
matching user to platform doesn't result in any physical delivery of
product then it could legitimately be said to happen offshore.* (I'm
not a VAT expert, but I gueess this is the sort of thing they are basing it off).

With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK), the
charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges in the
UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the charge.
How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but all of it
will be liable to the tax if any of it is.

The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:48:07 on Tue, 21
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?

I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.

It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.
Presumably though the service is provided by the driver and is
un-VATable (unless they earn more than £85k or whatever), but the
service provided by the platform (ie the server) could actually be
abroad and hence charged at their VAT rate?Â* As the service of
matching user to platform doesn't result in any physical delivery of
product then it could legitimately be said to happen offshore.Â* (I'm
not a VAT expert, but I gueess this is the sort of thing they are basing it off).

With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK), the
charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges in the
UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the charge.
How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but all of it
will be liable to the tax if any of it is.

The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.

The question is what service Uber is providing to the passengers: a taxi
service or a booking service. Similarly, does it employ the drivers, or
just provide a booking service for them?

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 14:29:00 on Tue, 21 May
2019, Recliner remarked:

The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.

The question is what service Uber is providing to the passengers: a taxi
service or a booking service.

I don't think the passengers get an itemised bill breaking out those two
components.

Similarly, does it employ the drivers, or just provide a booking
service for them?

That's famously something being looked a very closely for employment law
reasons.

The question which then arises is "if they are employees, is the
passenger's bill entirely from Uber, and if so where's the VAT, given
Uber itself turns over more than £85k per annum".
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:29:00 on Tue, 21 May
2019, Recliner remarked:

The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.

The question is what service Uber is providing to the passengers: a taxi
service or a booking service.

I don't think the passengers get an itemised bill breaking out those two
components.

Similarly, does it employ the drivers, or just provide a booking
service for them?

That's famously something being looked a very closely for employment law
reasons.

The question which then arises is "if they are employees, is the
passenger's bill entirely from Uber, and if so where's the VAT, given
Uber itself turns over more than £85k per annum".

Exactly. And that's why Uber may have a billion pound back tax bill.

Uber and the VAT man
 

On 21/05/2019 13:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:48:07 on Tue, 21
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
Would it mitigate that (a little anyway) if Uber decided to base
itself
in Luxembourg like some other online platforms do?

I think they still have to charge and pay UK VAT for trade services in
the UK. Even Uber can't claim they're delivering the service in
Luxembourg. If you, as a private individual, buy something mail order
from Luxembourg, they have to charge you VAT; only if you provide a
VAT number do they not have to do so.

It seems that there was a rule change in Jan 2015 which essentially
blocked the Luxembourg-loophole for VAT.
Â*Presumably though the service is provided by the driver and is
un-VATable (unless they earn more than £85k or whatever), but the
service provided by the platform (ie the server) could actually be
abroad and hence charged at their VAT rate?Â* As the service of
matchingÂ* user to platform doesn't result in any physical delivery of
product thenÂ* it could legitimately be said to happen offshore.Â* (I'm
not a VATÂ* expert, but I gueess this is the sort of thing they are
basing it off).

With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK), the
charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges in the
UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the charge.
How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but all of it
will be liable to the tax if any of it is.

The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are not
taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole contract
is with Uber itself. And they turn over more than £85,000 pa.

Uber and the VAT man
 

On 21/05/2019 16:42, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:29:00 on Tue, 21 May
2019, Recliner remarked:

The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.

The question is what service Uber is providing to the passengers: a taxi
service or a booking service.

I don't think the passengers get an itemised bill breaking out those two
components.

Similarly, does it employ the drivers, or just provide a booking
service for them?

That's famously something being looked a very closely for employment law
reasons.

The question which then arises is "if they are employees, is the
passenger's bill entirely from Uber, and if so where's the VAT, given
Uber itself turns over more than £85k per annum".

Exactly. And that's why Uber may have a billion pound back tax bill.

Quite right too.

They can't have it both ways, having the exclusive billing contract with
the customer *and* not turning over £85,000 pa.

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 15:42:17 on Tue, 21 May
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:29:00 on Tue, 21 May
2019, Recliner remarked:

The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.

The question is what service Uber is providing to the passengers: a taxi
service or a booking service.

I don't think the passengers get an itemised bill breaking out those two
components.

Similarly, does it employ the drivers, or just provide a booking
service for them?

That's famously something being looked a very closely for employment law
reasons.

The question which then arises is "if they are employees, is the
passenger's bill entirely from Uber, and if so where's the VAT, given
Uber itself turns over more than £85k per annum".

Exactly. And that's why Uber may have a billion pound back tax bill.

Potentially?
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 17:00:44 on Tue, 21
May 2019, JNugent remarked:

With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK),
the charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges
in the UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the
charge. How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but
all of it will be liable to the tax if any of it is.

The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are
not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole
contract is with Uber itself.

Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your money
to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.

And they turn over more than £85,000 pa.

Yes, that's one of the main ingredients.
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:00:44 on Tue, 21
May 2019, JNugent remarked:

With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK),
the charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges
in the UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the
charge. How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but
all of it will be liable to the tax if any of it is.

The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are
not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole
contract is with Uber itself.

Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your money
to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.

These arguments usually come down to how much independence the supposedly
self-employed drivers have, and the answer usually is, "very little". Uber
enforces standards, which of course helps the customers, but means that the
drivers have very little freedom. For example, you talked about
"successfully bidding drivers", which suggests that they have the right to
set their own prices, but they don't.

Uber and the VAT man
 

On 21/05/2019 18:01, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:00:44 on Tue, 21
May 2019, JNugent remarked:

With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK),
theÂ* charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges
in theÂ* UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of
the charge.Â* How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them,
but all of itÂ* will be liable to the tax if any of it is.

Â*The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are
not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole
contract is with Uber itself.

Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your money
to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.

You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by the
passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent to the
operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate of the radio
rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.

But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver. It's 180
degrees the other way round from the Welbeck Minicab model.

*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one of
Uber's overheads.

And they turn over more than £85,000 pa.

Yes, that's one of the main ingredients.

Uber and the VAT man
 

On 22/05/2019 00:33, JNugent wrote:
[snip]

*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one of
Uber's overheads.

Which is why, among other reasons, that if I ever do use a taxi (rare,
except in emergencies) I will only ever use a black cab.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 22:44:27 on Tue, 21 May
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:00:44 on Tue, 21
May 2019, JNugent remarked:

With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK),
the charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their charges
in the UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at 20% of the
charge. How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up to them, but
all of it will be liable to the tax if any of it is.

The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit, they
can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are
not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole
contract is with Uber itself.

Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your money
to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.

These arguments usually come down to how much independence the supposedly
self-employed drivers have, and the answer usually is, "very little". Uber
enforces standards, which of course helps the customers, but means that the
drivers have very little freedom. For example, you talked about
"successfully bidding drivers", which suggests that they have the right to
set their own prices, but they don't.

They set their own availability (ie bid for doing a job they like the
look of, rather than one they don't), though. Which while I agree Uber's
drivers overall feel much more like employees than freelance
contractors, is one of the infamous tests.

Another is providing your own equipment, which I think Uber drivers do,
and also being able to substotute another worker. I'm unsighted as to
what Uber thinks about a driver "loaning" his account to a friend, who
acts as driver for the day, is.
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 00:33:03 on Wed, 22
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 21/05/2019 18:01, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:00:44 on Tue, 21
May 2019, JNugent remarked:

With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK),
the* charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their
charges in the* UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably at
20% of the charge.* How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is up
to them, but all of it* will be liable to the tax if any of it is.

*The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
they can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are
not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole
contract is with Uber itself.
Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
money to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.

You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by the
passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent to the
operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate of the
radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.

But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.

Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the driver,
but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the end of the
day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period is) deducts
one from the other before handing over the *cash*.

It's 180 degrees the other way round from the Welbeck Minicab model.

*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one of
Uber's overheads.

As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

On 22/05/2019 10:01, Roland Perry wrote:

on Wed, 22 May 2019, JNugent remarked: On 21/05/2019 18:01, Roland Perry wrote: JNugent
remarked:
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the UK),
theÂ* charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to their
chargesÂ* in theÂ* UK, it will have to be paid to Uber, presumably
at 20% ofÂ* the charge.Â* How Uber divide up the charge (ex-VAT) is
up to them,Â* but all of itÂ* will be liable to the tax if any of it
is.

Â*The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
theyÂ* can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers are
not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's sole
contract is with Uber itself.

Â*Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
moneyÂ* to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.

You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by
the passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent
to the operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate of
the radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.
But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.

Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the driver,
but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the end of the
day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period is) deducts
one from the other before handing over the *cash*.

Is that what happens?

My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available and
matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how it is
subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any other
recipient, is Uber's turnover.

It's 180 degrees the other way round from the Welbeck Minicab model.

[The famous pioneer "minicab" firm which operated fleet and owner-driven
cars, but in whose business model, the drivers were paid in cash by the
passengers.]

*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.

As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.

Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They pay
their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.

The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 17:31:04 on Wed, 22
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 22/05/2019 10:01, Roland Perry wrote:

on Wed, 22 May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 21/05/2019 18:01, Roland Perry wrote: JNugent
remarked:
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the
UK), the* charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to
their charges* in the* UK, it will have to be paid to Uber,
presumably at 20% of* the charge.* How Uber divide up the charge
(ex-VAT) is up to them,* but all of it* will be liable to the tax if any of it is.

*The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
they* can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers
are not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's
sole contract is with Uber itself.

*Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
money* to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.

You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by
the passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent
to the operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate of
the radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.
But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.
Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the
driver, but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the
end of the day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period
is) deducts one from the other before handing over the *cash*.

Is that what happens?

My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available and
matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how it is
subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any other
recipient, is Uber's turnover.

Does that mean Uber gets all of the "surge pricing", or does some get
fed through to the driver? From driver anecdotes I think they do get a
wedge (because they arrange their shifts to be available at such times).

*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.
As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.

Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They
pay their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.

This page says they take 25% commission:

https://www.uber.com/en-GH/drive/resources/payments/

The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.

Less perhaps a small handling fee from Uber - the 25% mentioned above?
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:31:04 on Wed, 22
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 22/05/2019 10:01, Roland Perry wrote:

on Wed, 22 May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 21/05/2019 18:01, Roland Perry wrote: JNugent
remarked:
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the
UK), theÂ* charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to
their chargesÂ* in theÂ* UK, it will have to be paid to Uber,
presumably at 20% ofÂ* the charge.Â* How Uber divide up the charge
(ex-VAT) is up to them,Â* but all of itÂ* will be liable to the tax if any of it is.

Â*The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
theyÂ* can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers
are not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's
sole contract is with Uber itself.

Â*Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
moneyÂ* to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.

You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by
the passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent
to the operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate of
the radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.
But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.
Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the
driver, but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the
end of the day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period
is) deducts one from the other before handing over the *cash*.

Is that what happens?

My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available and
matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how it is
subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any other
recipient, is Uber's turnover.

Does that mean Uber gets all of the "surge pricing", or does some get
fed through to the driver? From driver anecdotes I think they do get a
wedge (because they arrange their shifts to be available at such times).

Yes, the surge pricing is designed to encourage more drivers to be
available to cope with increased demand. So the drivers certainly get a big
chunk of the higher price, perhaps even more than of the normal charge.
After all, if Uber is simply a matching service, its costs don't double if
demands are higher.

As an aside, we know Uber subsidises drivers in some cases, paying them
more than it collects from the customers. I think this again suggests that
the drivers are closer to being employees than independent contractors
merely linked through Uber's matching service.


*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.
As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.

Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They
pay their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.

This page says they take 25% commission:

https://www.uber.com/en-GH/drive/resources/payments/

The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.

Less perhaps a small handling fee from Uber - the 25% mentioned above?

From what I've read, Uber passes on the whole tip to the driver.

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 15:40:11 on Fri, 24 May
2019, Recliner remarked:
My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available and
matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how it is
subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any other
recipient, is Uber's turnover.

Does that mean Uber gets all of the "surge pricing", or does some get
fed through to the driver? From driver anecdotes I think they do get a
wedge (because they arrange their shifts to be available at such times).

Yes, the surge pricing is designed to encourage more drivers to be
available to cope with increased demand. So the drivers certainly get a big
chunk of the higher price, perhaps even more than of the normal charge.
After all, if Uber is simply a matching service, its costs don't double if
demands are higher.

As an aside, we know Uber subsidises drivers in some cases, paying them
more than it collects from the customers. I think this again suggests that
the drivers are closer to being employees than independent contractors
merely linked through Uber's matching service.

Now that model *would* break the "driver gets passenger payment less
25%" model. Unless it's done via some kind of defined top-up, or
'guaranteed minimum' payment; in which case the driver might still get
the 75%, but plus a separate incentive payment from Uber.

There's also something complicated going on when Uber hands out "free
trip vouchers" to passengers, so the passenger isn't paying any cash.
But that could be rolled into such a minimum payment scheme.

*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.
As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.

Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They
pay their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.

This page says they take 25% commission:

https://www.uber.com/en-GH/drive/resources/payments/

The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.

Less perhaps a small handling fee from Uber - the 25% mentioned above?

From what I've read, Uber passes on the whole tip to the driver.

And so they should. Although a small fee to reflect the extra credit
card commission wouldn't be outrageous.
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

On 24/05/2019 16:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:31:04 on Wed, 22
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 22/05/2019 10:01, Roland Perry wrote:

on Wed, 22 May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 21/05/2019 18:01, Roland Perry wrote: JNugent
remarked:
With Uber (which I have used only twice, neither time in the
UK),Â* theÂ* charges are payable to Uber. If UK VAT applies to
theirÂ* chargesÂ* in theÂ* UK, it will have to be paid to Uber,
presumablyÂ* at 20% ofÂ* the charge.Â* How Uber divide up the
charge (ex-VAT) isÂ* up to them,Â* but all of itÂ* will be liable
to the tax if any of itÂ* is.

Â*The theory is that with taxi drivers below the £85k VAT limit,
theyÂ* can't charge their riders VAT.

That's taxi-driving for you.

With Uber, the charge is not paid to the driver (and the drivers
areÂ* not taxi-drivers just as the cars are not taxis). The rider's
soleÂ* contract is with Uber itself.

Â*Unless Uber is an agency and you are booking with the successfully
bidding driver, and as part of the agency agreement Uber pass your
moneyÂ* to them. Separately charging the driver a commission.

You have more or less described what we might call a "traditional
minicab" (traditional since 1960, that is). The driver gets paid by
the passenger and the driver pays a commission or radio circuit rent
to the operator. The operator's turnover consists of the aggregate
of the radio rent commissions paid to them by the drivers.
But it definitely isn't what happens with Uber. There, the passenger
pays Uber, and Uber pays a part of the charge to the driver.
Â*Alternatively, the Uber pays [on paper] the whole charge to the
driver,Â* but registers the fact that a commission is due, and at the
end of theÂ* day (or week or month or whatever their accounting period
is) deductsÂ* one from the other before handing over the *cash*.

Is that what happens?

My impression is that Uber's accounting model is open and available
and matches what I suggested. All of the turnover, irepective of how
it is subsequently disbursed to the accounts of drivers or to any
other recipient, is Uber's turnover.

Does that mean Uber gets all of the "surge pricing", or does some get
fed through to the driver? From driver anecdotes I think they do get a
wedge (because they arrange their shifts to be available at such times).

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if turnover
changes.

*All* of the money is therefore part of Uber's turnover. And that's
before a penny of it reaches the driver, the driver merely being one
of Uber's overheads.
Â*As this is a railway group, is the turnover of a booking site like
Trainline the whole of the fares they sell, or just the what? 9%
commission they get paid.

Uber do not get paid a commission of any percentage whatsoever. They
pay their drivers a commission / proportion / share of the turnover.

This page says they take 25% commission:

https://www.uber.com/en-GH/drive/resources/payments/

That might be how they explain it. It is how a "normal" minicab company
works.

But:

The only money the driver receives is from Uber. Even a tip if the
passenger decides to add one to Uber's charges.

Less perhaps a small handling fee from Uber - the 25% mentioned above?

See above.

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 18:05:47 on Fri, 24
May 2019, JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.

It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to the
drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if turnover
changes.

The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and the
drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring vehicles,
paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking platform.
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:05:47 on Fri, 24
May 2019, JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.

It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to the
drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if turnover
changes.

The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and the
drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring vehicles,
paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking platform.

I think it's a bit more than that. For example, Uber has to vet its
drivers, something else that suggests that it's more than just a booking
platform.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uber-drivers-forced-to-have-new-criminal-record-check-zf6ctss07?shareToken=3fc2ded3581dd027f86d8376f2e03 46d

Uber and the VAT man
 

On 24/05/2019 21:11, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.

It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to the
drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.

How?

They are still turning the money over, no matter how it is sliced up
after receipt.

It goes through their bank account. It is all part of the turnover.
That's what turnover *means*. They could pay the drivers 99% of the
turnover, but it's still turnover.

If it were otherwise, any small enterprise on the verge of the
compulsory VAT registration turnover quantum could, by sleight of hand,
deduct the amounts they are liable to pay out for wages (that's the
biggy), business rates, fuel duties and VAT, national insurance, etc,
and claim not to be turning over enough to be forced to register.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if
turnover changes.

The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and the
drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring vehicles,
paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking platform.

The amount of their overheads isn't important. The principle *is*.

If they want to avoid VAT liability on turnover, they need to let the
drivers collect the fares (like a real private hire operation) and avoid
making it part of their revenue.

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 20:50:20 on Fri, 24 May
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:05:47 on Fri, 24
May 2019, JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.

It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to the
drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if turnover
changes.

The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and the
drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring vehicles,
paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking platform.

I think it's a bit more than that. For example, Uber has to vet its
drivers, something else that suggests that it's more than just a booking
platform.

Getting drivers through a credential check when joining the scheme is
one of the components of running the booking platform, just like doing
the billing. Those aspects are driver-facing, whereas the public mainly
sees the passenger-facing ones.

--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 11:56:16 on Sat, 25
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 24/05/2019 21:11, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.
It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to
the drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.

How?

They are still turning the money over, no matter how it is sliced up
after receipt.

It goes through their bank account. It is all part of the turnover.
That's what turnover *means*. They could pay the drivers 99% of the
turnover, but it's still turnover.

If you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote is
just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed transaction
fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million], not the total of
all the fares people buy [in the region of £2 billion].

If it were otherwise, any small enterprise on the verge of the
compulsory VAT registration turnover quantum could, by sleight of hand,
deduct the amounts they are liable to pay out for wages (that's the
biggy), business rates, fuel duties and VAT, national insurance, etc,
and claim not to be turning over enough to be forced to register.

You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if
turnover changes.
The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and
the drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring
vehicles, paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking
platform.

The amount of their overheads isn't important. The principle *is*.

If they want to avoid VAT liability on turnover, they need to let the
drivers collect the fares (like a real private hire operation) and
avoid making it part of their revenue.

I don't think credit card companies include the total value of things
purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do collect the
money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount out and
then send an invoice asking for the commission back whenever the trader
feels like it.
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

On 26/05/2019 18:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:56:16 on Sat, 25
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 24/05/2019 21:11, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question of
what their turnover is.
Â*It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75% to
theÂ* drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.

How?

They are still turning the money over, no matter how it is sliced up
after receipt.

It goes through their bank account. It is all part of the turnover.
That's what turnover *means*. They could pay the drivers 99% of the
turnover, but it's still turnover.

If you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote is
just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed transaction
fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million], not the total of
all the fares people buy [in the region of £2 billion].

If it were otherwise, any small enterprise on the verge of the
compulsory VAT registration turnover quantum could, by sleight of
hand, deduct the amounts they are liable to pay out for wages (that's
the biggy), business rates, fuel duties and VAT, national insurance,
etc, and claim not to be turning over enough to be forced to register.

You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.

That is exactly what I am not doing.

Turnover is turnover. Profit, whether gross or net, is something other
than turnover and somewhat less in size.

Profit is not the deciding factor when it comes to VAT registration.
Only turnover counts.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages or
overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if
turnover changes.

Â*The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and
theÂ* drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring
vehicles,Â* paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking
platform.

The amount of their overheads isn't important. The principle *is*.

If they want to avoid VAT liability on turnover, they need to let the
drivers collect the fares (like a real private hire operation) and
avoid making it part of their revenue.

I don't think credit card companies include the total value of things
purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do collect the
money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount out and
then send an invoice asking for the commission back whenever the trader
feels like it.

I don't now about you, but I pay money to my credit card issuers.

They don't pay money to me.

They pay out money *for* me, but really, it's about as bad an analogy as
you could have chosen. The relationship structure is completely
different from that of Uber. In order to get it to look similar, you'd
have to posit the credit card issuer getting my income paid into their
bank account instead of mine and then letting me have some, but not all,
of it.

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 22:53:38 on Sun, 26
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 26/05/2019 18:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:56:16 on Sat, 25
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 24/05/2019 21:11, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question
of what their turnover is.
*It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75%
to the* drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.

How?

They are still turning the money over, no matter how it is sliced up
after receipt.

It goes through their bank account. It is all part of the turnover.
That's what turnover *means*. They could pay the drivers 99% of the
turnover, but it's still turnover.
If you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote
is just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed
transaction fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million], not
the total of all the fares people buy [in the region of £2 billion].

If it were otherwise, any small enterprise on the verge of the
compulsory VAT registration turnover quantum could, by sleight of
hand, deduct the amounts they are liable to pay out for wages (that's
the biggy), business rates, fuel duties and VAT, national insurance,
etc, and claim not to be turning over enough to be forced to register.
You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.

That is exactly what I am not doing.

Turnover is turnover. Profit, whether gross or net, is something other
than turnover and somewhat less in size.

Profit is not the deciding factor when it comes to VAT registration.
Only turnover counts.

The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the commission
element, not including the money that passes straight through to the
drivers and Train Companies respectively.

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages
or overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if
turnover changes.

*The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and
the* drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring
vehicles,* paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking


The amount of their overheads isn't important. The principle *is*.

If they want to avoid VAT liability on turnover, they need to let
the drivers collect the fares (like a real private hire operation)
and avoid making it part of their revenue.

I don't think credit card companies include the total value of things
purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do collect the
money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount out
and then send an invoice asking for the commission back whenever the
trader feels like it.

I don't now about you, but I pay money to my credit card issuers.

That's what I wrote. They collect the money you pay to them, and channel
it through to the merchants.

They don't pay money to me.

I didn't suggest they did. They pay money to merchants. But that's money
from you to the merchant, and isn't part of the card issuer's turnover.

They pay out money *for* me,

Just like Uber pays money *for* the passengers, to the drivers (well,
that's the accounting model we are exploring).

but really, it's about as bad an analogy as you could have chosen. The
relationship structure is completely different from that of Uber. In
order to get it to look similar, you'd have to posit the credit card
issuer getting my income paid into their bank account instead of mine
and then letting me have some, but not all, of it.

I's not about the flow at your end, but at the driver's end.

Yes, the card issuer pays money it has derived from you, into the
merchant's bank account, while deducting a small commission (my
financial model here is that they don't pay it all up front, and then
expect the merchant to pay them back the commission later).
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:53:38 on Sun, 26
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 26/05/2019 18:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:56:16 on Sat, 25
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 24/05/2019 21:11, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question
of what their turnover is.
Â*It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75%
to theÂ* drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25% commission.

How?

They are still turning the money over, no matter how it is sliced up
after receipt.

It goes through their bank account. It is all part of the turnover.
That's what turnover *means*. They could pay the drivers 99% of the
turnover, but it's still turnover.
If you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote
is just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed
transaction fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million], not
the total of all the fares people buy [in the region of £2 billion].

If it were otherwise, any small enterprise on the verge of the
compulsory VAT registration turnover quantum could, by sleight of
hand, deduct the amounts they are liable to pay out for wages (that's
the biggy), business rates, fuel duties and VAT, national insurance,
etc, and claim not to be turning over enough to be forced to register.
You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.

That is exactly what I am not doing.

Turnover is turnover. Profit, whether gross or net, is something other
than turnover and somewhat less in size.

Profit is not the deciding factor when it comes to VAT registration.
Only turnover counts.

The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the commission
element, not including the money that passes straight through to the
drivers and Train Companies respectively.

Yes, Uber refers to Gross Bookings and Revenue. The latter slipped to about
21.3% of the former in Q4 2018.

"Compared to the entire fiscal year of 2017, Uber’s gross bookings
increased 45 percent, to $50 billion in 2018. That resulted in a GAAP
revenue increase of 43 percent, from 2017 to $11.3 billion. Losses also
improved (decreased) from $2.2 billion in adjusted EBITDA losses in 2017 to
$1.8 billion in 2018. "

https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/15/uber-reports-3b-in-q4-revenue-rising-operating-losses/

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 15:51:29 on Tue, 28 May
2019, Recliner remarked:

The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the commission
element, not including the money that passes straight through to the
drivers and Train Companies respectively.

Yes, Uber refers to Gross Bookings and Revenue. The latter slipped to about
21.3% of the former in Q4 2018.

"Compared to the entire fiscal year of 2017, Uber’s gross bookings
increased 45 percent, to $50 billion in 2018. That resulted in a GAAP
revenue increase of 43 percent, from 2017 to $11.3 billion. Losses also
improved (decreased) from $2.2 billion in adjusted EBITDA losses in 2017 to
$1.8 billion in 2018. "

One wonders what they are spending all their revenue on (I suppose the
report might have details).

TheTrainline is doing much better on their approx 8% commission, than
Uber is on their 21%

https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/15/uber-reports-3b-in-q4-revenue-rising-operating-losses/

Several of my tech-savvy friends having nothing but swearwords for the
Oath privacy policy. So for now I'm joining in their embargo of their
site.
--
Roland Perry

Uber and the VAT man
 

On 28/05/2019 17:01, Roland Perry wrote:

Several of my tech-savvy friends having nothing but swearwords for the
Oath privacy policy. So for now I'm joining in their embargo of their site.

Ditto. Won't touch any site they have an interest in. I had quite a few
photos up on Flickr up until that lot took over.

--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

Uber and the VAT man
 

On Tue, 28 May 2019 19:20:03 +0100, MissRiaElaine
wrote:

On 28/05/2019 17:01, Roland Perry wrote:

Several of my tech-savvy friends having nothing but swearwords for the
Oath privacy policy. So for now I'm joining in their embargo of their site.

Ditto. Won't touch any site they have an interest in. I had quite a few
photos up on Flickr up until that lot took over.


Flickr has passed to SmugMug.

--
jhk

Uber and the VAT man
 

Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2019 19:20:03 +0100, MissRiaElaine
wrote:

On 28/05/2019 17:01, Roland Perry wrote:

Several of my tech-savvy friends having nothing but swearwords for the
Oath privacy policy. So for now I'm joining in their embargo of their site.

Ditto. Won't touch any site they have an interest in. I had quite a few
photos up on Flickr up until that lot took over.


Flickr has passed to SmugMug.


Very bumpily…

Uber and the VAT man
 

On 28/05/2019 15:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:53:38 on Sun, 26
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 26/05/2019 18:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:56:16 on Sat, 25
May 2019, JNugent remarked:
On 24/05/2019 21:11, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent remarked:

How Uber allocates their turnover is not relevant to the question
ofÂ* what their turnover is.
Â*It is if the main way they "allocate" the funds is by sending 75%
toÂ* theÂ* drivers (on a booking agency basis) and keeping 25%
commission.

How?

They are still turning the money over, no matter how it is sliced up
after receipt.

It goes through their bank account. It is all part of the turnover.
That's what turnover *means*. They could pay the drivers 99% of the
turnover, but it's still turnover.
Â*If you look at a company like TheTrainline, the turnover they quote
isÂ* just the commission from the Train Operators (and some fixed
transactionÂ* fees from customers) [in the region of £150 million],
not the total ofÂ* all the fares people buy [in the region of £2
billion].

If it were otherwise, any small enterprise on the verge of the
compulsory VAT registration turnover quantum could, by sleight of
hand, deduct the amounts they are liable to pay out for wages
(that's the biggy), business rates, fuel duties and VAT, national
insurance, etc, and claim not to be turning over enough to be forced
to register.
Â*You are fatally confusing gross profit margin with turnover.

That is exactly what I am not doing.

Turnover is turnover. Profit, whether gross or net, is something other
than turnover and somewhat less in size.

Profit is not the deciding factor when it comes to VAT registration.
Only turnover counts.

The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the commission
element, not including the money that passes straight through to the
drivers and Train Companies respectively.

If Uber only received a commission or circuit fee from the driver, that
would be correct and I would certainly not argue with your proposition.

But how can that correct be in the circumstance where they also turn
over the whole of the fare collected from the passenger (account-holder)
on the spot?

Any business which pays out more than it previously did in wages
orÂ* overheads reduces profitability, but turnover only vchanges if
turnover changes.

Â*The only overhead that the Uber that's paying 75% to drivers (and
theÂ* drivers paying all their costs like renting and insuring
vehicles,Â* paying themselves a wage etc) has, is running its booking

The amount of their overheads isn't important. The principle *is*.
If they want to avoid VAT liability on turnover, they need to let
theÂ* drivers collect the fares (like a real private hire operation)
andÂ* avoid making it part of their revenue.

I don't think credit card companies include the total value of things
purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do collect the
money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount out
andÂ* then send an invoice asking for the commission back whenever the
traderÂ* feels like it.

I don't now about you, but I pay money to my credit card issuers.

That's what I wrote. They collect the money you pay to them, and channel
it through to the merchants.

They don't pay money to me.

I didn't suggest they did. They pay money to merchants. But that's money
from you to the merchant, and isn't part of the card issuer's turnover.

Indeed. They are financial trading entities operating as registered /
recognised banks licenced by the state. They lend money (part of their
capital assets) and only the fees and charges they receive are their
turnover.

Does that apply to Uber?

They pay out money *for* me,

Just like Uber pays money *for* the passengers, to the drivers (well,
that's the accounting model we are exploring).

but really, it's about as bad an analogy as you could have chosen. The
relationship structure is completely different from that of Uber. In
order to get it to look similar, you'd have to posit the credit card
issuer getting my income paid into their bank account instead of mine
and then letting me have some, but not all, of it.

I's not about the flow at your end, but at the driver's end.

Yes, the card issuer pays money it has derived from you, into the
merchant's bank account, while deducting a small commission (my
financial model here is that they don't pay it all up front, and then
expect the merchant to pay them back the commission later).

Uber and the VAT man
 

In message , at 02:31:31 on Wed, 29
May 2019, JNugent remarked:

The turnover for someone like Uber or TheTrainline being the
commission element, not including the money that passes straight
through to the drivers and Train Companies respectively.

If Uber only received a commission or circuit fee from the driver, that
would be correct and I would certainly not argue with your proposition.

But how can that correct be in the circumstance where they also turn
over the whole of the fare collected from the passenger
(account-holder) on the spot?

Do they, and send the driver an invoice for their commission later (end
of the month perhaps)?

That would nudge them a bit closer to being perceived by the passenger
as a cab company, rather than a booking agent for the driver.

I don't think credit card companies include the total value of
things purchased with their cards in their turnover. But they do
collect the money from buyers, deduct a commission, they pay the balance to
vendors. And like no doubt Uber, they don't pay the whole amount
out and* then send an invoice asking for the commission back
whenever the trader* feels like it.

I don't now about you, but I pay money to my credit card issuers.
That's what I wrote. They collect the money you pay to them, and
channel it through to the merchants.

They don't pay money to me.

I didn't suggest they did. They pay money to merchants. But that's
money from you to the merchant, and isn't part of the card issuer's
turnover.

Indeed. They are financial trading entities operating as registered /
recognised banks licenced by the state. They lend money (part of their
capital assets) and only the fees and charges they receive are their
turnover.

They lend money to the buyer (at zero interest rate if they pay it off
on demand). They don't lend money to the merchant.

Does that apply to Uber?

And TheTrainline, does the train company get paid for the ticket
straight away, or does TTL have 30day (or whatever) credit with them
all. Whatever the answer, their turnover in their published accounts is
just the commission/fee element.

--
Roland Perry