Author: Glenn

New rules mean late VAT filings and payments now trigger points, fines and interest charges.

The VAT late filing penalties regime changed for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2023. Under the new system, there are now distinct and separate penalties for late filing of VAT returns and for the late payment of VAT liabilities.

The revised system operates on a points-based approach. A taxpayer receives one penalty point for each VAT return that is submitted late. Once a specific threshold of points is reached, a financial penalty of £200 is charged and the taxpayer is notified.

The penalty thresholds based on VAT return frequency are as follows:

• For monthly VAT returns, the threshold is five penalty points.
• For quarterly VAT returns, the threshold is four penalty points.
• For annual VAT returns, the threshold is two penalty points.

For example, a business that files VAT returns on a quarterly basis will receive a £200 penalty once it accumulates four late submission points. To remove the penalty points and return to a clean compliance record, the taxpayer must submit all VAT returns on time for a continuous period of twelve months. There are also statutory time limits after which a penalty point cannot be issued for a particular late return.

Late payment penalties are applied separately. If VAT remains unpaid between 16 and 30 days after the due date, a first penalty of 2% of the outstanding tax is charged. If the VAT is still unpaid 31 days or more after the due date, a second penalty of 4% of the outstanding amount applies.

In addition, late payment interest is charged from the day payment becomes overdue until it is paid in full.

Gift Hold-Over Relief is a form of Capital Gains Tax (CGT) relief that allows you to defer paying CGT when certain assets, such as qualifying shares, are given away or sold for less than their market value, typically to benefit the recipient.

Instead of paying tax at the time of the gift, the gain is "held over" and passed on to the person receiving the asset. This reduces their base cost for CGT purposes, meaning the tax is only due when they eventually sell or dispose of the asset.

The individual making the gift will not usually have to pay CGT, as long as the transfer qualifies. However, CGT may still apply if the asset is sold at an undervalue rather than gifted outright. Transfers between spouses or civil partners are generally exempt from CGT.

A joint claim for the relief must be submitted by the giver and the recipient of the business asset gift.

To claim Gift Hold-Over Relief on business assets, you must meet all of the following:

• Be a sole trader, a business partner, or hold at least five percent of the voting rights in a company (your personal company).
• The assets must have been actively used in your business or in your personal company.

If the asset was only partly used for business purposes, partial relief may still be available.

To qualify for the relief when giving away shares, the shares must be in a company that is either:

• Not listed on any recognised stock exchange, or
• Your personal company.

In addition, the company must be primarily involved in trading activities, such as supplying goods or services. Companies that are mainly engaged in non-trading activities, such as investment, will generally not qualify.

From 2024, platforms like eBay, Vinted and Airbnb must report seller data to HMRC, so check your tax responsibilities.

If you sell goods or services on a digital platform it is important to understand your tax responsibilities. This can apply whether your sales are a part-time income source or your main income. Even casual selling online may mean you need to report earnings and potentially pay tax.

You may need to pay tax if you engage in activities on digital platforms like:

• Buying and reselling items online or making things to sell (even as a hobby).
• Providing services online, such as tutoring, repairs, food delivery, dog walking, or equipment hire.
• Creating digital content, like podcasts, YouTube videos, or social media influencing.
• Earning income by renting out property or land, like letting a holiday home, running a bed and breakfast, or renting out a parking space on your driveway.

Since 1 January 2024, digital platforms (such as eBay, Vinted, Etsy and Airbnb) have been required to collect and report seller data to HMRC. The first reports covered the period from 1 January to 31 December 2024, with information submitted to HMRC by 31 January 2025.

The same rules apply in 2025, meaning income earned this calendar year (January to December 2025) will be reported by 31 January 2026.

Platforms must report your information if either of the following applies:

• You made 30 or more sales in the year.
• You earned over €2,000 (about £1,700).

The digital platforms will also give you a copy of the data they send to HMRC, which can help when completing your self-assessment return.

If you are earning money online you should ensure you check your tax responsibilities. The rules are clear, and platforms are now required to report many types of earnings directly to HMRC.

Gifting assets can cut inheritance tax, but traps like “gifts with reservation of benefit” may undo the plan.

The majority of gifts made during a person's lifetime are not subject to tax at the time they are made. These lifetime transfers are known as "potentially exempt transfers" (PETs). A PET becomes fully exempt from Inheritance Tax if the individual making the gift survives for more than seven years after the transfer.

If the donor dies between three and seven years after making the gift, taper relief may apply, which reduces the amount of tax payable. The effective rates of tax on the excess over the nil-rate band for PETs are as follows:

• 0 to 3 years before death: 40%
• 3 to 4 years before death: 32%
• 4 to 5 years before death: 24%
• 5 to 6 years before death: 16%
• 6 to 7 years before death: 8%

However, different rules apply if the person making the gift retains some benefit or enjoyment of the asset. This typically occurs when the donor does not relinquish full control over the asset, and the transfer is made with a reservation of benefit. These are referred to as ‘gifts with reservation of benefit’ (GWROBs).

A common example is when a person gifts their home to their children but continues to live in it rent-free. In this case, HMRC is likely to argue that the donor’s position has not changed in substance, and that the arrangement constitutes a GWROB. If this is the case, HMRC will not treat it as a valid gift for inheritance tax purposes, and the property would remain part of the donor’s estate, even if they live for more than seven years after making the transfer.

A GWROB can usually be avoided in these situations if the donor pays full market rent for their continued use of the asset.

An extended civil restraint order (ECRO) was issued against a prolific Employment Tribunal (ET) litigant for presenting repeated and baseless claims.

A Mr. Khan has been described as a prolific litigant, having issued no fewer than 42 largely unsuccessful tribunal claims since 2017. These various failed claims have typically involved allegations of disability discrimination and a failure to make reasonable adjustments in recruitment processes. Many claims were struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success or simply as an abuse of process. Only two claims, levelled against solicitors' firms, were settled for "nuisance value payments" of £700 and £1,000. Mr. Khan has also made many unsuccessful applications to adjourn hearings, often on medical grounds, alongside numerous failed attempts to challenge ET decisions.

The High Court granted the claimants’ application for an ECRO, restraining the defendant from issuing or presenting claims or appeals related to job applications in the tribunal system without prior court permission for a period of three years. 

This decision strengthens the mechanisms available to safeguard judicial processes from abuse. It reaffirms that higher courts can step in to protect tribunals from those individuals who repeatedly file baseless claims or appeals without legal merit. This is crucial for preventing the system from being overwhelmed by vexatious litigation, ensuring that resources are available for legitimate disputes.

For individuals who represent themselves in court, while the judiciary strives to ensure fairness and assist unrepresented parties, the case firmly reiterates that procedural rules and the fundamental principles of legal merit still apply. It demonstrates that courts will not tolerate the deliberate misuse of legal processes. Thus, employers and their legal counsel should be wary of disgruntled employees with histories of spurious claims and seek to have baseless claims struck out on such grounds.