This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
MM-Cover-Top-140718.jpg
Categories:Advisers,Regulation

HMRC puts burden of VAT evidence on IFAs

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

HM Revenue & Customs has clarified its stance on VAT relating to financial advice, confirming that advice which includes portfolio rebalancing will be VAT-exempt.

In draft guidance on VAT liability, published this week, HMRC states that VAT will not apply where a customer agrees to take out an investment product following adviser recommendations.

It states that ongoing advice, such as regular reviews, will be subject to VAT but if the ongoing advice includes portfolio rebalancing, then it will be exempt.

If the client takes advice and agrees to a transaction but for any reason the adviser fails to bring about the sale, the service up to that point will also be exempt.

However, if the client decides not to proceed with the recommendation, then VAT will apply.

Advisers will need to have evidence of the tax treatment of advice services through documents such as client contracts, letters of engagement and regulatory returns. If an adviser cannot show evidence of why advice was exempt, VAT will be charged on that service.

Ernst & Young partner David Bearman says: “The real challenge is that the tax decision will have to be supported by evidence produced by the client or taxpayer, which is an additional burden for IFAs. We would recommend that IFAs and insurers agree their approach and what is acceptable evidence in advance with HMRC.”

Informed Choice managing director Martin Bamford suggests most regular reviews will lead to rebalancing and therefore be VAT-exempt.

Personal Finance Society chief executive Fay Goddard says: “There are still some questions that need answering, particularly around where the line is between reviewing, which is taxable, and rebalancing, which is exempt. This issue about where a client decides not to proceed any further, clearly HMRC is saying it is taxable, even if the intent was to intermediate. I think we will see people looking at their proposition on the basis of fees being contingent on the sale. If that is the case, it is a retrograde step.”

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

The Money Marketing CPD Centre
Build your annual CPD - you can log and plan your CPD hours for free with The Money Marketing CPD Centre.

Taxbriefs Advantage
Advantage is a digital reference source giving unbiased, independent, answers to your technical queries. Subscribe to Taxbriefs Advantage.

Readers' comments (1)

  • This is possibly the best article on the recent HMRC draft, inasmuch as it doesn't attempt to do more than repeat what's in the draft. Other articles have generated a lot of heat about this subject but not much light - and as one of a group working with HMRC to ensure the final version produces as much light as possible I am well aware that questions remain. As regards the point about fees being contingent on implementation of products - of course this appears anti-RDR and HMRC are well aware of such issues so are in discussion with the FSA. I am sure that the final guidance will clearly set out the core principles and we will then see industry groups agreeing some worked examples, flowcharts etc with HMRC to flesh matters out.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

The Cost of Advice

Sponsored by Brooks Macdonald

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Would you vote in favour of Scottish independence?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments