Other Citywire websites

Citywire printed articles sponsored by:


View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/article/a425920

ABI backtracks on VAT treatment of adviser charging

by Iain Martin on Aug 25, 2010 at 13:02

ABI backtracks on VAT treatment of adviser charging

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has promised to clarify its guidance note on the VAT treatment of adviser charging after IFAs flagged up concerns about its accuracy.

The ABI guidance had implied that clients who did not pay upfront for arranging a product and ongoing service would be hit with VAT, but it has now said that provided the payment is arranged upfront, clients will not pay the tax.

ABI policy adviser Alexander Smith said that HMRC had been approached for permission to revise this section of the guidance note, adding that this could take around four weeks to be approved. ‘We were never going to be able to give a black and white picture because circumstances change,’ he said.

Skandia and a number of advisers had flagged up concerns that the ABI's initial interpretation of VAT rules on fees would clash with the objectives of the retail distribution review.

 

‘It is unfortunate that the ABI are backing away from a document that they said was agreed with HMRC,’ said Colin Jelley (pictured above), head of proposition marketing at Skandia. ‘It is good news for advisers to have that clarity and it would be nice for the ABI to confirm that the document is being updated.’

IFA Paul Harding said that there had been no change HMRC rules on VAT and that he hoped the ABI guidance would be clarified. ‘I hope they do change it because it is simply misleading,’ said Harding, director of Kent-based Chevening Financial.

The ABI said its gudiance should have read: ‘To be exempt under a contact for predominantly exempt product arrangement services, payment for all services must be agreed at the time the contract is entered into and the nature of the review services to be provided must be clearly laid out in the contract.’ The note currently states that the payment must be 'made at the time the contract is entered into'.

15 comments so far. Why not have your say?

Richard Ross

Aug 25, 2010 at 14:00

I think its fairly black and white - they got it wrong.......

report this

Gillian Cardy

Aug 25, 2010 at 14:02

Perhaps the ABI should have been concentrating on doing whatever it does for British Insurers instead of scaremongering amongst its product distributors and persuading Chicken Licken that the sky is falling in when it isn't.

report this

stuart lovell

Aug 25, 2010 at 14:23

Well let’s hope that common sense prevails….

report this

paolo standerwick

Aug 25, 2010 at 14:40

The ABI get things wrong as often as the FSA. That says it all.

report this

Michael Brown

Aug 25, 2010 at 14:54

I was always told that when you are sending information out to the public you got it right.

So how can they get this so wrong? ABI = All Brains Incompetent!

Suggest the FSA fines them today then they have got one three days running!

report this

Stratfield

Aug 25, 2010 at 14:57

"....let's hope common sense prevails"....... that will be a first in this industry

report this

Anitaki

Aug 25, 2010 at 15:01

l think it's absolutely clear.. that they don't exactly know

report this

Richard Wilson

Aug 25, 2010 at 15:13

Seems like the blind leading the blind to me.

report this

Richard Wilson

Aug 25, 2010 at 15:14

No change there............. then

report this

Mole

Aug 25, 2010 at 15:26

However the final correct situation turns out VAT on fees will be a nice little earner for the Treasury. Oops - haven't they got something to do with the FSA who have been promoting all this nonsense about dictating how our clients - most of whom are perfectly happy with commission - pay for our advice and service.

report this

Duncan Glassey

Aug 25, 2010 at 15:55

I fear this is only the start of significant change...

report this

Mister Maker

Aug 25, 2010 at 16:11

Anyone who had read that publication, and who had any exposure to indirect tax legislation at all, would have concluded it was ) appallingly drafted b) was not legitimate as precedent guidance and c) being written in conjunction with ABI was hardly unbiased (what more commission please?).

I hope someone somewhere is getting suitably beaten.

report this

Andrew King

Aug 25, 2010 at 16:34

Clear as Mud springs to mind well done

report this

Anonymous 1 needed this 'off the record'

Aug 25, 2010 at 16:51

As my old man used to say ' It's a right bu***rs muddle'.

report this

Banged to Rights

Aug 25, 2010 at 18:39

I think that HRMC should publish a paper on how best to insure yourself then we can have another laugh.

report this

leave a comment

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.

Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet