Government crackdown on repayment agents
Repayment agents are those that solely exist to secure refunds for unclaimed reliefs, e.g. for the marriage allowance or fixed-rate deductions. However, many require customers to sign away their rights to receive the refund directly. The government has announced plans to clamp down on this type of practice. What are the principal concerns?
So-called repayment agents have popped up all over the place in recent years. It’s virtually impossible to browse social media without seeing an ad asking if you wear a uniform to work, or are you aware that married couples may be missing out on a tax refund of over £1,000, and similar. Of course, there is a genuine niche for such services, but like many other tax-related incentives, the market has been seized upon by fraudsters and rogue agents, and has been open to abuse.
In particular, concerns have been raised that due to the commission-based payment model used by repayment agents, many require customers to direct HMRC to issue the refund to the agent, rather than their own bank account. This makes some sense, as it reduces the risk that the customer simply refuses to pay once the refund is issued. The idea is that the agent will deduct the commission and forward the remainder to the customer. This is obviously open to abuse by agents who simply vanish with the money, but there can be problems even where the agent is legitimate. The small print of many contracts may mean that future refunds are issued to the agent as well, and they may be entitled to deduct further commission even though they have undertaken no further work.
In its response to a consultation, the government has announced that it plans to introduce a number of measures, including voiding of assignments of repayments, requiring repayment agents to register with HMRC, and introducing greater transparency requirements.
Related Topics
-
Uber loses VAT margin scheme appeal
The Court of Appeal has ruled that Uber cannot use the Tour Operators Margin Scheme (TOMS) when accounting for VAT on its ride-hailing services. The decision could have significant implications for businesses that act as intermediaries when supplying services to consumers. What was the dispute about?
-
Investment bond - undercover tax trap?
Inheritance tax is a hot topic but most couples only need to be concerned if they are worth more than £1m. What you don’t hear about is the income tax charge on investment bonds that’s payable on death. Can you reduce the tax bill before it’s too late?
-
When are staff discounts tax efficient?