VAT - Anti - Fragmentation

Heisenburg81

Assuming avoidance, can the VAT anti - fragmentation rules look through a limited company structure to deem a Case 1 trade of a company and a Case 1 sole trade of the company director the same for VAT registration threshold purposes?
Or, is it only separate sole trades that can be aggregated?

barneystinson

Heisenburg81 wrote: »

Assuming avoidance, can the VAT anti - fragmentation rules look through a limited company structure to deem a Case 1 trade of a company and a Case 1 sole trade of the company director the same for VAT registration threshold purposes?
Or, is it only separate sole trades that can be aggregated?

What does the relevant legislative provision say?

Heisenburg81

barneystinson wrote: »

What does the relevant legislative provision say?

S. 6 (2) (b) Relates to common control between "persons".
Persons is not defined though but I assume includes a company.

I suppose it would be easy to just set up new companies to avoid VAT in the absence of the fragmentation rule

barneystinson

Heisenburg81 wrote: »

S. 6 (2) (b) Relates to common control between "persons".
Persons is not defined though

It always is somewhere.

If not in the Section, then in the Chapter.

If not in the Chapter, then in the Part.

If not in the Part, then in the general interpretation at the start of the Act.

If not in the Act, then you go to the Interpretation Act 2005. Which provides (section 18): “Person” shall be read as importing a body corporate (whether a corporation aggregate or a corporation sole) and an unincorporated body of persons, as well as an individual, and the subsequent use of any pronoun in place of a further use of “person” shall be read accordingly.

Of course, common sense should tell you that if a company can be an accountable person, then a company must be a person, for the purpose of the VATCA.

Heisenburg81

barneystinson wrote: »

It always is somewhere.

If not in the Section, then in the Chapter.

If not in the Chapter, then in the Part.

If not in the Part, then in the general interpretation at the start of the Act.

If not in the Act, then you go to the Interpretation Act 2005. Which provides (section 18): “Person” shall be read as importing a body corporate (whether a corporation aggregate or a corporation sole) and an unincorporated body of persons, as well as an individual, and the subsequent use of any pronoun in place of a further use of “person” shall be read accordingly.

Of course, common sense should tell you that if a company can be an accountable person, then a company must be a person, for the purpose of the VATCA.

Thanks for the help but can I ask why you feel the need to imply that I am lacking in common sense?

barneystinson

Heisenburg81 wrote: »

Thanks for the help but can I ask why you feel the need to imply that I am lacking in common sense?

Sorry if I've upset you but you do seem very happy to outsource your thinking to Boards. I reckon you've probably started more threads on this forum than any other poster.

I'm not implying that you don't have common sense, just that you didn't bother to use it. Is that any better?

Heisenburg81

barneystinson wrote: »

Sorry if I've upset you but you do seem very happy to outsource your thinking to Boards. I reckon you've probably started more threads on this forum than any other poster.

I'm not implying that you don't have common sense, just that you didn't bother to use it. Is that any better?

Is there a problem with starting posts on a public forum?
Kind of the whole point to encourage debate and share knowledge.
Would be interested to get others opinions to see if they agree with you.
Will leave the forum for good if the consensus is negative as I obviously would then have totally misinterpreted the point of such forums and in the course of doing so caused great irritation to bastions of knowledge like yourself.

barneystinson

Heisenburg81 wrote: »

Is there a problem with starting posts on a public forum?
Kind of the whole point to encourage debate and share knowledge.
Would be interested to get others opinions to see if they agree with you.
Will leave the forum for good if the consensus is negative as I obviously would then have totally misinterpreted the point of such forums and in the course of doing so caused great irritation to bastions of knowledge like yourself.

Methinks the Heisenberg doth protest too much - you have scant interest in posting on threads other than those you start. So the only debate you seem interested in is in the realms of people debating what the answer to your homework is...:pac:

That's fine, I don't have any particular beef with it, and if I did I wouldn't answer your questions, but don't try to polish your turd and tell me it's a diamond..!

nazzy

My understanding of the rule is that any controlling Director is deemed accountable and the thresholds can be aggregated between companies, partnerships and sole traders.

But, like Barneystinson states, it should be in the legislation somewhere.