The Book-keepers Forum (BKF)

Post Info TOPIC: Pre Reg VAT


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 287
Date:
Pre Reg VAT
Permalink Closed


I've just finished a pre reg and one of the things I wanted to include was the Company van, as there is quite a lot of VAT on it.  Unfortunately it isn't a proper VAT receipt, it's just been written in on a sales enquiry/vehicle appraisal form.  I contacted the van company today but he said its too far back to find (2.5 years) so I'm assuming that without it, he won't be able to claim the VAT?

Also (and this is mainly me just confirming really am I right in believing that, if it's just in his name, rather than the Company name, it wouldn't have been claimable even with a proper VAT invoice anyway?



__________________

John



Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 287
Date:
Permalink Closed

I should add that the van was paid for from the Company bank account and is down as a fixed asset.



__________________

John



Expert

Status: Offline
Posts: 2021
Date:
Permalink Closed

Worth a punt, John? Maybe just explain to the client that he may have issues in an investigation, but I imagine that if the VAT is listed on the form and the bank/loans agree to the gross, you have a pretty good argument that the VAT was indeed charged.  There is some scope to argue also that whilst its in the Director name, the van is a company asset - everything is there to prove that is being treated that way, and VAT would be charged if you sold it... this all assuming that van was purchased in company lifetime, not as sole trader.. otherwise I don't think there is a claim.

Would you have to consider the the current value of the van for VAT purposes though, because it has been used to make non vatable supplies?  (I know the rules changed in Jan11 but have never had the need to look these over properly, so it may be that full VAT is now allowable - might be worth a look over, if you haven't confirmed that already)

 



-- Edited by FoxAccountancyServices on Tuesday 16th of December 2014 01:54:19 PM

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 287
Date:
Permalink Closed

FoxAccountancyServices wrote:

Worth a punt, John? Maybe just explain to the client that he may have issues in an investigation, but I imagine that if the VAT is listed on the form and the bank/loans agree to the gross, you have a pretty good argument that the VAT was indeed charged.  There is some scope to argue also that whilst its in the Director name, the van is a company asset - everything is there to prove that is being treated that way, and VAT would be charged if you sold it... this all assuming that van was purchased in company lifetime, not as sole trader.. otherwise I don't think there is a claim.

Would you have to consider the the current value of the van for VAT purposes though, because it has been used to make non vatable supplies?  (I know the rules changed in Jan11 but have never had the need to look these over properly, so it may be that full VAT is now allowable - might be worth a look over, if you haven't confirmed that already)

 

-- Edited by FoxAccountancyServices on Tuesday 16th of December 2014 01:54:19 PM


 Thanks Michelle,  your reasoning makes sense and all the documentation is there to support it.  He's been incorporated since day one and won't be affected by the exempt supplies rule, as far as I can tell.



__________________

John



Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 292
Date:
Permalink Closed

At the time of the original purchase, had the company been incorporated, and did the company actually purchase the van? If not, then the supply was to the Director as a sole trader, not to the company. Input tax would therefore not be allowed.
My blog post explains in a bit more detail - www.accountingweb.co.uk/blog-post/claiming-input-tax-pre-registration

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 287
Date:
Permalink Closed

Hi Les

Yes, the company had been incorporated a couple of months when he bought the van.  It was paid for on a company debit card and is in the accounts as a fixed asset.  I think it was just an oversight that it was in his name rather than the company name, as it was sign written at the time and is still in use today.



__________________

John

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us
Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
©2007-2024 The Book-keepers Forum (BKF). All Rights Reserved. The Book-keepers Forum (BKF) is a trading division of Bookcert Ltd. Registered in England Company Number 05782923. 2 Laurel House, 1 Station Rd, Worle, Weston-super-Mare, North Somerset, BS22 6AR, United Kingdom. The Book-keepers Forum and BKF are trademarks of Bookcert Ltd. This forum is a discussion forum only. There will usually be more than one opinion to any question and any posting should not be viewed as a definitive solution. No responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any posting on this site is accepted by the contributors or The Book-keepers Forum. In all cases, appropriate professional advice should be sought before making a decision. We reserve the right to remove any postings which are offensive, libellous, self-promoting or engaged in covert marketing. We will not notify users of removals. The views expressed in the forum posts are those of the individual and do not necessary reflect or agree with those of The Book-keepers Forum. Any offensive or unsuitable posts will be removed by the moderators. Any reader of this forum can request for a post to be looked into by sending an email to: bookcertltd@gmail.com.

Privacy & Cookie Policy  About