Categories
Finance HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Insolvency

Is HMRC buckling under the strain of too hasty IT and insufficient staff?

HMRC needs a conductor to manage the orchestraDoes anyone love the taxman? HMRC is an easy target when it gets things wrong and equally when it seems to be altogether too prompt with reminders!
Earlier this year, for example, the website accountingweb reported an ongoing problem with HMRC charging for late tax return filings for trusts. It transpired that these are not as automated as personal returns and the information on the return has to be input or re-keyed by staff. As a result, even if the tax return is filed on time, any delay in inputting and the HMRC system will flag up a late return and send out a penalty notice.
But HMRC’s system has also been found to not have recorded payments on account on online personal accounts and on paper statements, allegedly a “widespread problem” according to the website.
Other examples have been staff ignorance of the NI (National Insurance) system as it relates to PAYE, of employment allowances, and even miscalculation of tax owed after statements have been submitted, again resulting in incorrect communications.
It is fair to say that HMRC is extremely diligent in following up on late filings, penalties and late payments and in passing cases to its debt recovery teams and in taking swift action to recover monies owed.
At the same time, the Government has been pushing for more and more transactions and communications to be done online.
However, MTD (Making Tax Digital) for example has already overrun deadlines and had to be scaled back – presumably because of problems with the software.
The Treasury was recently accused by the, until yesterday, business minister Richard Harrington of giving SMEs trading with EU States inadequate guidance, which consisted simply of a letter from HMRC advising them to “buy customs software and seek the advice of specialist agents”.
While Adam Marshall, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, has called for a one-year delay to “Making Tax Digital” – which HMRC still intends to switch on three days after the now-postponed March 29 Brexit deadline.
He argued that it would “give businesses and the Revenue needed breathing space to deal with change.”
When so many Government-inspired digital initiatives have to be either abandoned, delayed or launched but riddled with flaws perhaps it is time to remember that these systems are devised and managed by human beings.
Human beings, even IT developers and HMRC staff, are fallible, but in order to do their jobs the first thing they need is realistic, accurate, clear and detailed information with which to operate.
The orchestra needs to be ready before the conductor can begin.

Categories
County Court, Legal & Litigation Finance HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE

HMRC aggression and heavy handed use of powers

HMRC aggression when your house is burnt downThere is no doubt that the Government is putting pressure on HMRC (HM Revenue and Customs) to improve its tax collection rates.
Recently, it launched a consultation, very quietly it should be noted, into a proposal to increase HMRC information-gathering powers while removing some of the protections for those on the receiving end.
Justified as a measure to bring HMRC’s powers into line with those in other countries, the proposal would allow HMRC to demand tax payers’ bank account and other financial information without first having to get the permission of the Tax Tribunal.
Under one of a number of options in the consultation document, Amending HMRC’s Civil Information Powers, the information orders requesting this sensitive financial information could be demanded not only from banks but also from building societies, accountants, lawyers and estate agents.
Furthermore, these institutions could be banned from informing their clients that they have been ordered to provide the information and there would be no right of appeal.
The consultation closes on October 2, 2018 and already there has been criticism that if these powers were granted HMRC would be likely to use them more frequently than can be justified, despite assurances that they were not expected to be used in more than “a few hundred cases”.
This is an alarming development given that HMRC has already been seen to be increasing its willingness to litigate, according to the CIOT (Chartered Institute of Taxation), which has raised its concerns with the Government’s Treasury Sub Committee.
CIOT notes in its submission that there is already “an overwhelming number of cases in the tax tribunal system”.
It also argues that often these cases are about HMRC’s “categorising genuine errors as carelessness, or carelessness as dishonesty” and that there is a better alternative in resolving disputes via ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution).
There is also concern about the cost of defending such claims where HMRC is likely to adopt an attrition strategy to force settlement without them having to prove their claim as this will be the only way for recipients to avoid incurring the significant costs of defending a claim.

The fightback against HMRC aggression

The law firm RPC has been monitoring legal challenges to HMRC for some time and reports that there has been a 184% increase in judicial reviews against HMRC in the last three years. The increase was 36% in 2017 alone.
According to RPC these judicial reviews generally relate to claims that HMRC has overstepped its authority or acted unfairly often because of its increase in the use of APNs (Accelerated Payment Notices) demanding payment of tax within 90 days without the right of appeal, where the recipients are suspected of tax avoidance.
RPC reports that many such cases are caused by “simple errors” by HMRC and a “dogged refusal to correct them”.
The costs of defending such claims are generally huge and unrecoverable.
Given the alarming proposals outlined above and the reported increase in HMRC’s willingness to pursue cases through the courts it would be no surprise if beleaguered SMEs already under pressure also turned to the courts for help.
It all seems like your house having burnt down and then having to spend years in court to pursue your claim.

Categories
Finance HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE

HMRC consulting on closing another tax avoidance loophole

tax avoidanceThe drive to maximise tax revenue continues with another consultation document of very limited duration.
Launched in April with consultations due to end this coming Friday HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has this time turned its attention to “arrangements entered into by UK individuals and traders that aim to place profits proper to the UK outside the scope of UK taxation” also known as Profit fragmentation.
The consultation, announced in the Autumn 2017 budget, is the first step to drafting new legislation, aimed at dealing with individuals and smaller enterprises who are deemed to be deliberately allocating excess profits to an overseas entity from which they, or someone else connected to them, can benefit.
Examples are described in the consultation document as service providers, such as an entertainer, asset manager or specialist producer of high value items. One such example cited is a management consultant resident in the UK and providing their services in the UK and overseas, where a proportion of the fees are paid in the UK but the rest is paid directly by customers to an offshore company.
The argument made by users of such arrangements is that the offshore company has no assets apart from access to the skills of the consultant who is exercising their skill from the UK.
HMRC argues that all the income comes from a single underlying activity operating solely from the UK and that therefore it should all be taxed in the UK as the consultant’s profits.
It emphasises that any proposed legislation should be properly targeted and not “weigh inappropriately” on those UK businesses that do pay all their tax in the UK.
It admits that there is existing legislation to tackle at least some of this issue and that the legislation, such as the transfer pricing and Diverted Profits Tax, contains specific exclusions for SMEs. It also admits that it can be difficult to identify persons using such arrangements.
It proposes that the legislation should include a legal requirement for people using such arrangements to notify HMRC. It calculates that it will affect “8-10,000 wealthy individuals who control a small number of businesses” and increase tax receipts by up to £50 million.
Assuming that such legislation is adopted it will be announced in the budget this autumn and is expected to commence from April 2019.
While maximising the tax revenue is perhaps a laudable aim I have to question whether the acknowledged difficulties of obtaining the detailed information required from offshore entities, as HMRC mentions in the consultation, for a relatively small number of targets and potential revenue is the best use of HMRC’s limited resources.
As with the HMRC consultation to prevent directors using insolvency to “game the tax collection system” that I covered in my blog of May 15 the question is whether these two consultations are straw clutching exercises resulting from pressure on HMRC by the Government.
 

Categories
Cash Flow & Forecasting Finance HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Turnaround

The basics of Time to Pay for businesses struggling to pay their taxes

negotiating Time to PayTime to Pay (TTP) is a scheme run by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to help businesses struggling to pay their VAT, PAYE, corporation or other tax bills.
It was first introduced in 2008 after the global financial crisis as a measure to help businesses experiencing cash flow issues as a result of customers extending their invoice payment times.
Not every business is eligible for the scheme and the first step is for a business advisor to thoroughly review the business and to help prepare a realistic forecast that allows for the TTP payments.
This is because HMRC will want evidence that the business can keep to an agreed payment schedule as well as pay all future tax liabilities on time.
Once a business is aware that it cannot pay a tax liability, it ought to contact HMRC early, if only to ask for time to prepare a forecast.
When speaking with HMRC you should be a director and know your VAT or PAYE or 10-digit UTR reference number so they can identify you and your business.
Be prepared to answer questions when applying, including:
* the amount of all HMRC liabilities due and how much you want to reschedule;
* the reasons why you are unable to pay;
* what you’ve done to try to get the money to pay the bill;
* how much you can pay immediately and how long you may need to pay the rest;
* your bank account details.
You are also likely to be asked to give details of income and expenditure, assets, such as savings and investments and what actions you are taking to ensure you will pay future tax liabilities on time.
The level of detail a business will have to provide is dependent on the level of the debt – below £100,000, from £100,000 to £1 million and for more than £1 million.
HMRC will also consider whether the business is one that cannot pay, or one that will not pay. They do this by looking at your history of payments, both in the applying business, personally and other businesses you are involved with.
This guidance is largely based on that given to HMRC officers and is a useful insight into how they assess TTP proposals.
TTP arrangements, once agreed, usually involve making monthly payments by direct debit over a period of less than one year. While payments from a personal credit card have been demanded and taken in the past, they should no longer be demanded from 13 January 2018.
Essentially a TTP should be regarded as a last chance where any late payment of the agreed amounts or of future taxes is a default of the agreement and most likely will result in immediate enforcement by HMRC or a winding-up petition.

Categories
Accounting & Bookkeeping Cash Flow & Forecasting Finance General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE

SMEs need to keep on top of their tax bills

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) may have been accommodating in the early years after the 2008 financial crash, but not any longer.
In the last three years HMRC use of powers of distraint and seizure of goods from SMEs that have failed to pay VAT, PAYE and also on late payment of self assessment tax bills has been rapidly increasing.
In 2014-2015 distraint powers were used to seize business assets from 1,080 SMEs, according to the finance organisation Funding Options, quoted in an article by Business Money in July. By comparison, 1,376 seizures were carried out in 2011-12 and just 730 in 2010-11.
Previously, these powers had almost fallen into disuse. Then, after 2008 HMRC showed some forbearance for businesses facing difficult economic circumstances with them approving approximately 400,000 Time to Pay arrangements.
However, the signs are that for the last three years, with Government pressing for improved tax gathering, distraint has become more and more aggressively pursued and increasingly in cases of late payment of self-assessment tax bills.
Under these powers Revenue officers have enforcement rights and can attend company premises after issuing a Notice of Enforcement if payment is not made within seven days.
The officer can then take control of the company’s assets whether by walking possession (seizure of goods without removal) or immediate removal and if payment is not made within a further seven days, the goods can be sold to recover the money owed.
The introduction of real time monitoring of PAYE and wages SMEs a couple of years back means that HMRC has far more accurate information about what companies are likely to owe in tax and are plainly acting far more quickly and decisively to recover it.

Categories
Cash Flow & Forecasting Finance General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Insolvency Personal Guarantees Turnaround

HMRC has powers to demand security payments

HMRC is using its powers to demand security payments from company officers for VAT, PAYE and NIC where it considers there is a likelihood of default.
In a case in November 2014 HMRC served a demand notice for a total of almost £70,000 on three named individuals, two directors and the company secretary, of a Berkshire-based metals fabrication company.
An amendment to regulations was made in 2012 allowing HMRC to demand security payments from officers of companies, where it was felt there was a high risk that taxes would not be paid.
HMRC can hold the money as a deposit for up to two years and use it to satisfy any overdue tax debts the company may have.
In our experience such notices have previously only been used for Phoenix companies and not for a trading company.
This new development of personal financial liability is something SME directors and company secretaries need to be aware of and if there is any risk of the company becoming insolvent or being forced into liquidation it would be wise to consult a business rescue advisor early.

Categories
Accounting & Bookkeeping Cash Flow & Forecasting Finance General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Insolvency Rescue, Restructuring & Recovery Turnaround

Record keeping and HMRC communication

SMEs should be prepared for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to become more aggressive in following up on late payment and tax avoidance.
MPs criticised HMRC this month after it emerged that the difference between the amount it should collect and its actual collection total had increased by £1 billion (from £33bn to £34bn) in the year to April 2013.
The tax gap is also forecast to increase by a further £3bn for the year to 2014.
The House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee has also criticised HMRC for not doing enough, quickly enough in tackling tax avoidance schemes.
SMEs are arguably easy targets when HMRC is coming under pressure so they would be wise to ensure that their records are all in order and payments up to date.
It is important to keep copies of all filings and communications with HMRC, preferably confirming phone calls in writing and to not ignore any communications from them.
If you are unable to pay a liability, they are helpful and providing you are proactive they will agree payment terms. If you do agree payment terms then stick to them otherwise they won’t believe any other undertakings you give so make sure your cash flow forecasts are realistic.
Independent of making any payments, make sure your various tax returns (VAT, RTI -PAYE and corporation tax) are submitted on time to avoid automatic penalties.
If it is all becoming too much, remember tax is one area where early help from a professional can be invaluable.

Categories
Finance General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Rescue, Restructuring & Recovery Turnaround

Has HMRC frightened off tax advisors from giving advice?

When considering capital reorganisation as part of restructuring a business it is normal to inform HMRC that holdings are being changed and request clearance.
No money is changing hands in this situation but even so it seems that the accountants and tax advisors are becoming reluctant to advise companies on their capital reorganisation.
Rightly or wrongly accountants are concerned about their own liability given the perception that HMRC’s stance is to assume the purpose of reorganisation is tax avoidance and that any notification may lead to a demand for tax payments in advance, regardless of whether there is any money being made from the restructure.
This is often complicated by the purchase of debt at a discount as part of a financial restructuring alongside the capital reorganisation.
So as restructuring advisors, we are finding that some accountants we approach for advice on Revenue clearance don’t want to get involved for fear of being sued.
Has anyone else come across this?

Categories
Accounting & Bookkeeping General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Insolvency Voluntary Arrangements - CVAs

Beware of Directors’ Loan Accounts

Accountants often advise clients to use directors’ loan accounts as a device to help minimise their personal tax liabilities. However, be warned, they only work when the directors are also shareholders and the company is making profits.
Essentially they involve the directors borrowing money from their company and drawing only a minimum salary through their company’s payroll. The loan account is paid off by declaring a dividend and this is a legal way for directors to minimise their personal tax and it avoids having to pay employee and employer NI contributions.
This is fine when a company is profitable but it can become a problem if the company does not have sufficient profits as distributable reserves that can be used to clear the loan.
We are coming across increasing numbers of companies that have not made a profit and where the loan cannot be cleared, leaving the directors effectively owing money to the company.
This can be a serious problem if the company is hoping to reach a Time to Pay (TTP) agreement with HMRC to defer payment of corporation tax, PAYE or VAT because HMRC generally stipulates that such loans are repaid as a pre-condition of approval.
Similarly, when proposing a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) or when a company becomes insolvent, the appointed administrator or liquidator will most likely ask the director(s) to repay the loan. Before approving a CVA, experienced creditors particularly HMRC also tend to demand repayment of directors’ loans.
It is often forgotten that such attempts to reduce tax carry the risk of creating a huge personal liability. To avoid it, we recommend that such dividends are declared in advance so as to avoid a loan or at least regularly to avoid building up a huge directors’ loan account. This avoids the normal practice of waiting until long after year end when the annual accounts are prepared, during which time the company may incur losses that mean dividends cannot subsequently be declared.
A further note of caution relates to any directors’ loan account outstanding at the company year end, which will be highlighted to HMRC in the accounts. Despite any intention to reduce the tax liability, tax legislation seeks to limit the benefit by imposing a section 455 CTA 2010 tax liability (under Corporation Tax Act 2010, formerly s419 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988). While this tax can be recovered when the loan is subsequently repaid by the director, whether in cash or as a dividend, it triggers a significant tax liability on the company.

Categories
General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Personal Guarantees Voluntary Arrangements - CVAs

How to protect Personal Guarantees when a company is insolvent

Many insolvent companies are being run to avoid the triggering of personal guarantees given by directors and owners.
Most personal guarantees are provided to secured creditors such as a bank to cover loans or overdrafts that are already protected by a debenture which provides for a fixed and floating charge over the company’s assets. In such cases the personal guarantee is often only triggered by liquidation when the bank is left with a shortfall.
In view of the above I am astonished how many directors plough on, stretching payments to HMRC and extending unsecured creditor liabilities without fundamentally improving their company’s financial situation via a company voluntary arrangement (CVA).
Secured creditors stand outside a CVA and therefore they have no need to call upon a personal guarantee.
I would urge all professional advisers, including accountants, lawyers and consultants to learn about CVAs since they are such a powerful tool for saving companies and in so doing avoiding personal guarantees being triggered.

Categories
Banks, Lenders & Investors Cash Flow & Forecasting General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Insolvency Interim Management & Executive Support Liquidation, Pre-Packs & Phoenix Rescue, Restructuring & Recovery Voluntary Arrangements - CVAs

Many companies for sale turn out to be insolvent

Many companies are being listed for sale through brokers with high price tags based on very tenuous valuations, where the owners have been deceived into thinking they will be paid a huge amount for their equity.
However, on closer inspection it turns out that many of them have a Time to Pay arrangement with HM Revenue and Customs or are in arrears with the Revenue and are stretching their trade creditors. All too often they are insolvent but don’t realise it. 
This over indebtedness is becoming a serious concern among potential investors because often the company they want to buy is operationally a great business and for trade buyers a perfect fit with their existing businesses. The problem for investors is how to protect their own interests and avoid contamination.
Very often, even experienced executives lack the knowledge and methodologies for assessing a company they want to buy, let alone knowing how to sort out the indebtedness once due diligence has revealed its extent.
In my view, potential investors can work with incumbent directors to reach agreement with creditors that protects all parties by enhancing the prospect of a return to sellers and avoiding cross contamination.
One method I use is an investment, conditional on approval of a CVA by creditors thus leaving finance agreements and any liabilities in the target company. It also allows creditors’ issues to be addressed where they are not normally consulted in a pre-pack. For the investor, this can be structured to give them security and control if they so wish.
As a rescue specialist I would advise owners trying to sell a business in difficulty to employ their own turnaround advisers before putting the business on the market.

Categories
Cash Flow & Forecasting General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Voluntary Arrangements - CVAs Winding Up Petitions

HMRC Insolvency and Enforcement workload

The HM Revenue and Customs insolvency and enforcement department in Worthing appears to have an increasing workload.
I believe there are several likely reasons for this. Businesses are continuing to withhold payment of PAYE and VAT liabilities, using any cash available to prop up their businesses. Fewer Time to Pay arrangements are being approved by HMRC and a lot of TTP arrangements are failing. The Revenue have also have resumed using seizure and distraint as a method for collecting overdue tax.
HMRC in Worthing are picking up the pieces, which probably explains the large number of Winding Up Petitions that dominate the Companies Winding Up Courts.
The only options for saving a company with a WUP are either paying the undisputed amount due or a Company Voluntary Arrangement and the Courts are generally happy to adjourn the Petition at the first hearing to allow time to either pay the bill or propose a CVA.
There is considerable evidence that HMRC are supporting the rescue of companies via CVAs although their focus is on proposals being realistic and incorporating fundamental change to ensure survival rather than continuing the old business model.
I am not yet clear whether the upsurge in HMRC Worthing’s activity relates to the traditional post recession increases in company failures when the market begins to grow, or whether the downturn is continuing and companies are just not able to hang on any longer.
However all of us in the restructuring profession must urge the directors of companies in difficulties to act urgently if they are to save their company, and that they or we as advisers keep HMRC fully informed of progress during the development of rescue plans.

Categories
Debt Collection & Credit Management General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Rescue, Restructuring & Recovery Turnaround

HMRC Taking a Tougher Line on Debt Recovery

Evidence is emerging that HM Revenue and Customs is adopting a tougher approach to PAYE, VAT and tax arrears and increasingly using its powers of distraint to take over control of the goods, stock and assets of businesses.
In one example this week, just two hours after K2 was appointed by a company in difficulties, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) officers appeared at the premises and levied distraint on all the company’s assets and stock. There are similar stories from other turnaround and restructuring professionals.
The issue of a distraint notice (a C204 notice, also called a distress or walking possession notice), under HMRC powers allows it to take control of everything seized and while it does not necessarily remove property at that point, it means that the company cannot continue trading and is effectively put out of business because it is prevented from using its stock and cannot either sell or give away anything that has been distrained.  It normally has just five days to comply.
This walking possession is used rather like Winding Up Petitions (WUPs) when HMRC has exhausted attempts to communicate with the company.  Most companies are shocked when HMRC follows through with the actual action because it appears to come as a surprise, but when they review their correspondence they should not have been.
If the company does not pay or come up with alternative proposals, HMRC or an appointed agent can then take everything away for sale.
This hardline change of tactics comes after figures, published end of January, showed that the HMRC rejection rate for Time to Pay (TTP) arrangements had climbed from 2.7% in 2009 to 5.8% in 2010.
TTP is a very real solution for companies that cannot pay. While for the last two years HMRC has supported government policy of providing a light touch approach to businesses in difficulty, it is responsible for collecting arrears and not for saving businesses.
If a company receives a notice of intention to either wind up or distrain it should not delay in seeking the services of insolvency or turnaround advisers.

Categories
General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Insolvency Turnaround Voluntary Arrangements - CVAs

HM Revenue and Customs is Increasingly Rejecting CVA Proposals

It is not being much talked about in the marketplace but it is becoming increasingly common for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to reject Company Voluntary Arrangements that would previously have been accepted.
In the past HMRC has appeared to be a great supporter of CVAs, but recently they have been rejecting a number of CVA proposals that they would have approved in the past.
While there are no published statistics on the numbers of liquidations resulting from failed CVAs, historically a large percentage have failed. Business rescue advisers and insolvency practitioners believe that the failure rate of CVAs post approval is somewhere between 60% and 70%.
HMRC website guidelines to case officers indicate that they should attempt to get arrears repaid within 12 months with longer periods being the exception. This may explain why HMRC is now rejecting more proposals.
A CVA can be used to improve cash flow quickly in order to keep trading while paying off its debts in a manageable way.  It is a legally binding agreement between an insolvent company and its creditors to repay some, or all, of its historic debts out of future profits, over a period of time.
For a business in difficulty a low level of contributions in the early period of a CVA allows it to get back on its feet in the short term while refocusing the business on survival and increasing profits, thus enabling it to pay higher contributions later in the CVA.  This increases the chances of the business being able to maintain its payments throughout the CVA period and reducing the risk of failure. High repayments required in the early stages will mean it cannot do this.
However, many CVAs are drafted by insolvency practitioners with a view to the proposal being approved, and as a result many of those being approved today are offering significant contributions to creditors, some exceeding 100p in the £.
While the greater contribution improves the chances of a CVA proposal being approved by creditors, the lack of realism about a company’s ability to achieve the commitments is the reason for such a high failure rate post approval.

Categories
Cash Flow & Forecasting General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Insolvency Rescue, Restructuring & Recovery Turnaround

The Questions HM Revenue and Customs Asks to Assess a request for Time to Pay Arrears

Recently uploaded guidelines for HM Revenue and Customs case officers dealing with requests from businesses in difficulty for time to pay arrears of VAT, PAYE or tax, reveal the detail of what questions will be asked before the request for a Time to Pay arrangement (TTP) can be considered.
Applicants must be able to show that they have tried to raise the money they owe by other means beforehand.  Individuals, which includes sole traders and the self employed, may be asked to show that they have approached their bank or asked friends or family for a loan or that they cannot pay the debt via a credit card.
However, the advice to case officers also states that for individuals “it is unacceptable for us to insist that a customer has made every effort to secure a loan before agreeing TTP” because it would contravene Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidelines.
Both individuals and larger businesses may also be asked whether they have any assets that can be easily converted into cash or any savings that they could use to settle the debt, even if early withdrawal might incur a payment penalty. This also applies to endowment or life insurance policies, although the HMRC cannot insist that these are cashed to pay a debt.
The HMRC distinguishes between debts below £100,000 and debts above that amount and for larger businesses HMRC would want to see evidence, usually a letter from the bank, that the company has approached their bank and discussed borrowing facilities beforehand as well as exploring options for raising money from: shareholders, Directors, book debt factoring and invoice discounting, stock finance, sale and leaseback of assets or venture capital providers.
The case officer will also consider the applicant’s previous history of paying on time, whether they have had a previous TTP and previous difficulties will weigh heavily in the final decision and whether the business is viable.
It would make sense, therefore, to have a thorough business review and the support of a rescue adviser or insolvency practitioner to assess the business viability and explore all these options and to document them before approaching HMRC.

Categories
General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Insolvency Rescue, Restructuring & Recovery Turnaround

HMRC’s Assessment Criteria for a Time to Pay Arrangement for Revenue Arrears

As businesses face continued tough trading conditions in 2011 a new series of guidelines has appeared on the HM Customs and Revenue (HMRC) website on the arrangements for paying arrears of tax, VAT and PAYE, known as Time to Pay (TTP).
Although the guidelines are aimed at those working in the revenue they are equally useful for businesses in difficulties in outlining the questions and conditions businesses will need to be prepared for if they are in arrears with revenue payments and looking for a manageable way to spread the repayments.
Firstly, in all cases the repayment period to be set will be as short as possible and usually no more than a year unless there are “exceptional circumstances”. However long the arrangement, interest will be charged while the debt remains outstanding.
There is no entitlement for a business to be granted a TTP.  HMRC officers must consider the timescale being requested by the “customer”, their previous payment history and the amount outstanding. 
Businesses must meet two further conditions and they are that the applicant must have the means to make the agreed payments as well as the means to pay other tax liabilities that become due during the TTP period.
Finally, the guidelines make it clear that the preferred method of dealing with TTP requests is by telephone, because it allows for detailed questioning of the viability of the business, and as part of the assessment of whether the situation is a “can’t” or a “won’t” pay.
The amount of detailed information that will be requested from the applicant will vary according to the level of the debt, divided into three categories, for debts below £100,000, from £100,000 to £1 million and for more than £1 million.
Whatever the level of arrears, for a successful TTP to be achieved any business in difficulty is strongly advised to be honest with itself and its advisers about all its outstanding debts and liabilities if it is to be able to stick to any TTP arrangement.
It is crucial that before the telephone conversation the applicant has all the required information on income and expenditure prepared and ready so that they can remain calm throughout what can be a stressful situation.

Categories
General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Insolvency Rescue, Restructuring & Recovery Turnaround Voluntary Arrangements - CVAs Winding Up Petitions

Guide to Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVA) and When to Use Them

A Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) is a binding agreement between a company and those to whom it owes money (creditors).
It is based on a proposal that will include affordable, realistic and manageable repayment terms. It normally allows for repayment to be spread over a period of three to five years and can also be used to offer to repay less than the amount due if this is all the company can afford.
The proposal is sent to the Company’s Creditors along with an independent report on the proposal by an insolvency practitioner acting as Nominee.
Creditors are invited to respond to the CVA proposal by voting to either accept it, or reject it, or accept it subject to modifications that the Creditor proposes as a condition of their vote for acceptance. The votes are counted by value of claim where the requisite majority for approval is 75% of the votes cast. This is subject to a second vote to check that 50% of the non-connected creditors approve the proposals.
A CVA can only be used when a company is insolvent but it can be used to save a company rather than close it when creditors are pressing including when a debt related judgement can’t be satisfied or a creditor has filed a Winding Up Petition (WUP).
In addition to proposing terms for repaying debt, it helps to include details of any restructuring and reorganisation along with a business plan so that creditors can assess the viability of the surviving business. The proposals must be fair and not prejudice any individual or class of creditor including those with specific rights such as personal guarantees. These include trade suppliers, credit insurers, finance providers, employees, landlords and HM Revenue and Customs, the latter often being key in view of the arrears of VAT and PAYE that many companies have built up.
A CVA should only be used when the company’s directors are willing to be honest with themselves and face up to the position the company is in, preferably with the advice and guidance of an insolvency practitioner or experienced business rescue advisor but used properly it can improve a company’s cash flow very quickly by removing onerous financial obligations and easing the pressure from creditors.

Categories
Cash Flow & Forecasting General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Rescue, Restructuring & Recovery Turnaround Voluntary Arrangements - CVAs

Save Your Company by Terminating Onerous Contracts to Cut Costs

Many directors are afraid of terminating contracts and agreements when their companies are in financial difficulties normally out of a concern that termination will lead to a cancellation payment that the company cannot afford.
If a company is experiencing fewer orders or lower sales, for example, generally it will need fewer staff but the worry is that terminating contracts of employment will trigger costs, particularly where senior staff are involved.
Similarly, a reduction in orders may mean that the company only needs two of the five fork lift trucks it has where terminating a hire purchase, hire or lease arrangement ahead of the agreed contract period will trigger a termination settlement or a contract termination liability.
Equally it might now no longer be able to afford the 12-month advertising contract it agreed six months previously. Even terminating contracts with advisers can be expensive.
A company in financial difficulties does not have the surplus cash to meet these obligations.  But while it puts off terminating arrangements it no longer needs it continues to bear the costs.
It is often better to cut the cash flow if this reduces costs that mean the business is viable: profitable with positive cash flow. There are remedies that can be used if necessary to deal with the crystallised liabilities when a company cannot afford them.
Negotiating terms for informal arrangements with creditors is sensible. It may involve negotiating terms of payment, such as a Time to Pay (TTP) arrangement with HMRC for PAYE or VAT arrears, which have been very effective in helping companies out of insolvency.
Many companies leave it far too late to reach informal arrangements that would have allowed them to terminate contracts before the company finally runs out of money.
But there is a solution that allows companies to terminate contracts and not pay for them immediately on termination. A Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) avoids liquidation of the business and closing it down. It allows for paying the contract termination out of profits.

Categories
General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Rescue, Restructuring & Recovery Turnaround

Managing Tax Payments with Time To Pay Arrangements

There are hundreds of thousands of businesses struggling to meet their financial obligations to the Exchequer.
Businesses, especially smaller enterprises, have been reporting that in the current difficult economic climate they are struggling with cash flow issues as customers and suppliers try to stretch out the time they take to pay invoices. That means they may not have enough liquidity to pay the tax they owe.
While the majority of these tax monies are repaid, the HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs) has reported that 10% of expected revenues are outstanding.
The UK’s Time to Pay (TTP) scheme was introduced in 2008 and allows businesses to pay overdue tax bills over a certain period of time. The scheme is administered by the Businesses Payment Support Service.
According to the HMRC website, arrangements are tailored to the ability of the customer to pay and are typically for a few months although they can be longer.
TTPs lasting longer than a year are only agreed in exceptional cases. Most arrangements involve regular monthly payments being made but in exceptional cases may involve a short period of deferral.
All businesses seeking a TTP of £1m or more need to pay for an Independent Business Review (IBR) to be carried out by an approved firm, normally an insolvency practitioner, and a total of 13 firms have been approved by HMRC to carry out IBRs to establish whether the business can pay back their deferred tax bill.
When the restructuring plans are ready, a business rescue adviser would normally expect to bring in an HMRC approved firm that they already know. The IBR would assess the company’s ability to eventually pay back any tax deferred by HMRC based on a review the proposals prepared by the adviser. These would be prepared with view to demonstrating a viable business.
The most recent statistics issued by HMRC are from March 2010 when it was revealed that 300,000 businesses have entered TTP arrangements since the end of 2008, deferring at least £5.2bn in business taxes. That equates to an average of 4,500 a week.
Concerns have been raised that it is getting tougher to join the scheme, and there have been some predictions that it would eventually have to close. However HMRC has insisted the TTP is still available and the eligibility criteria have not changed. The UK Coalition Government’s Business Secretary Vince Cable, speaking at a recent Institute of Directors event, reinforced this by saying that his department’s instructions to HMRC was to still make it “easy” for applicants to agree TTP arrangements.

Categories
General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Rescue, Restructuring & Recovery Turnaround

Dealing with VAT Arrears and PAYE Arrears

Owing HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs) more than £150,000 for overdue VAT and PAYE when your turnover is less than £3 million is not uncommon in 2010.  
The leniency of HMRC, whose light touch approach to collecting Revenue arrears since the recession began has helped the cash flow of many companies, has also made it easier for them to accrue both VAT and PAYE arrears. But the lack of a recovery has left companies in arrears burdened with debt they can’t easily repay.
Companies in this position have a number of options, but a real challenge is when to do something about it. If ignored, the liability can build up and the underlying business problems can escalate to a point where the company can find it more difficult to recover.
While directors are normally aware of the problems, and in particular of the liability in respect of Revenue arrears, they may not be aware of their options, assuming: “I know my business better than anyone else and if I don’t know the solution, then no one else will.”
Consider three financial solutions when dealing with HMRC arrears. They are immediate payment, a Time to Pay (TTP) arrangement or a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). However, all too often one of these is implemented without considering other issues that perhaps need to be addressed at the same time.
The build up of PAYE arrears and VAT arrears is an indicator that the business is no longer profitable or that it doesn’t have sufficient working capital. The underlying issues can be identified by a business review and preparation of forecasts. It is obvious that an unprofitable company cannot achieve a payment plan while also covering ongoing payments. Less obvious is the restructuring and reorganisation that may be needed to achieve a viable business, one that is profitable with adequate working capital and positive cash flow.
Surviving the pressure of PAYE and VAT arrears generally involves more than just fixing the financial problem.  the underlying issues need to be identified and workable solutions put in place.

Categories
County Court, Legal & Litigation General HM Revenue & Customs, VAT & PAYE Insolvency Personal Guarantees Rescue, Restructuring & Recovery Turnaround Winding Up Petitions

Guide to Winding Up Petitions (WUP) and How to Deal With Them

A Winding Up Petition is a legal application to the High Court or another appropriate court by a creditor asking that a company be closed down.
If granted by the court, the official receiver is appointed to oversee closing down the company and may then engage a licensed insolvency practitioner as approved liquidator.
The purpose of winding up a company is generally to remove control of a company from its directors so that its affairs can be dealt with properly. At the end of the process the company is dissolved and ceases to exist.
The petition must be properly served on the company, normally by personal delivery at its registered office and also it must be advertised in the London Gazette. The advertisement is intended to notify the public but in practice this is normally how banks and other institutional creditors learn of the petition.
Directors, on receipt of the petition, should be aware that the company’s bank account is likely to be frozen when the bank learns about it. They should also be aware that any further trading after the date of receipt may mean that they can be held personally liable for any company debts accrued after that date if, when their actions are investigated, they are found not to have acted in the best interests of the company’s creditors.
If the directors wish to continue trading in order to save the company then they should seek help from a business rescue adviser if the company is insolvent. If they believe that trading on as a managed workout would benefit creditors through recovering assets, then they should seek help from an insolvency practitioner who might well be introduced by the bank or another secured creditor.
Although the petition is very serious and should not be ignored it does not mean that the company is doomed to closure.  With proper representation based on a credible plan to deal with the company’s difficulties it is possible to have a winding up petition dismissed.
A WUP is often used as an action of last resort initiated out of frustration following attempts by a creditor to agree terms for repayment of money owed or after repeated attempts to contact the company have been ignored. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) regularly uses the petition when its repeated written reminders and requests for repayment of outstanding PAYE, VAT or tax have been ignored.