Join our VAT simplification scheme - oops no, that's aggressive tax abuse

The VAT Flat Rate scheme was introduced by HMRC in 2002 as a 'simplification scheme'. The idea being that it was simple and beneficial for the small businesses who were eligible to participate and simpler for HMRC in terms of compliance. Essentially the way it works is that a business pays a lower 'flat rate' VAT to HMRC which varies according to their sector. As a trade off the businesses are not able to recover any VAT on expenditure. So a win/win and small businesses signed up for the flat rate scheme in droves. HMRC even offered a 1% discount on the flat rate for the first year of VAT registration.

So all this changed in the last Autumn statement. HMRC have introduced a new concept of a 'Limited Cost Trader' to describe businesses which have minimal expenditure on HMRC's definition of 'goods'. For these businesses they will need to use a new flat rate of 16.5% of VAT inclusive turnover which by my maths comes out at 19.8%. Er...no thank you, we might give that a miss. 

That's all fine but instead of HMRC saying they got it wrong initially and the rates were too generous (even without the 1% first year discount they threw in) or that economic circumstances have changed, low and behold, HMRC have blamed it all on the businesses who took up the scheme.  There is a Technical Note on HMRC's website with the heading, 'Tackling aggressive abuse of the VAT Flat Rate Scheme'  - as if these businesses were doing something wrong? I'm struggling to understand what is aggressive or abusive about adopting a scheme which HMRC devised and promoted and then changed their minds about.

For many businesses the best option will be to revert to standard VAT accounting and recover VAT on their expenses. Depending on their turnover and business sector some businesses will be a few thousand pounds worse off each year as a result of this change. Coming on the back of the dividend tax introduced last April and pensions auto enrolment it's another unwelcome burden for some of the smallest of small businesses. Implying that it was their fault that the scheme is being changed adds insult to injury.

www.base52.co.uk