font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by vince666
Am I missing something here - surely the IP (GT in this case) has incorrectly overcharged the IVAs by levying VAT on their fees. The IVAs are therefore owed monies by GT, not by HMRC. It is down to GT to then recover the VAT for themselves from HMRC. Why should they be able to wait to receive the monies from HMRC before refunding the IVA (this would not be the case in normal business to business cases).
I'm sure Karol and Melanie have different a view and I'd love to hear it.
The IP's are not charging VAT, per se, they are COLLECTING it on behalf of HMRC. It is not the IP's money to refund, but HMRC's. Frustrating I am sure, but there it is.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
I am aware that you are taking time to close accounts due to this VAT issue and expected time for closure is 3 to 6 months after final IVA payment. (Final payment made 01 Oct 2011) If it is going to take this long and possibly longer than 6 months, then surely the IP can at least remove names from the Insolvency Register. I am sure a lot of people will be quite happy waiting for a completion certificate as long as you can remove us from the Insolvency Register within 3 months after account has been passed to closure department.
Can you also confirm to the people on this forum that it will take no more than 6 months to finalise closure?
My regulatory body is the IPA - which is the same as GT's I understand - but I also have IPs in my practice who are regulated by the ICAEW and ICAI. The subject of why IPs are not regulated by one body ought to be raised at government level - and it is a matter of personal choice, and sometimes qualification, as to which body you choose. Until two years ago, I was also regulated by the ICAEW.
Not an ideal situation, but thank you Karol for making the statement so we all know what the delays are and how GT are going to proceed to get IVA's closed as soon as is possible.
Last Payment made 04/12/14. Completion Certificate 25/7/15. IVA company GT. No Issues
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MelanieGiles
My regulatory body is the IPA - which is the same as GT's I understand - but I also have IPs in my practice who are regulated by the ICAEW and ICAI. The subject of why IPs are not regulated by one body ought to be raised at government level - and it is a matter of personal choice, and sometimes qualification, as to which body you choose. Until two years ago, I was also regulated by the ICAEW.
So even within 1 practice you have IP's regulated by different bodies? This cannot be a good thing for the industry or doesnt it raise cause many problems?
Paul
Discharged today the 8th feb 2012. View is much brighter now.
Continuing to rebuild our credit worthiness.
It depends which way you look at it really. On the upside, we have the benefit of three lots of professional bodies and compliance experts to bounce issues and ideas off, on the downside we have to be subjected to three differing regulatory reviews - no-one's favourite time, but beneficial to keep everyone on their toes!
At one stage the cost of renewing the insolvency licence was very different depending on which body you were a member of, but these now seem to be more in line with each other thankfully.
If the IP notified the debtor of how much the VAT claim amounted to in their individual case and the debtor offered to make a "loan" payment equal to that amount to the IVA, on the understanding that it was repaid to the debtor when the refund was received from HMRC, could this "loan" then be used by the IP to distribute to the creditors in order that the IVA could be closed?
What an interesting suggestion Vince - and one I had not thought about until now.
The problem here is that the IVA cases are individual cases, and therefore the output VAT part of the VAT claim can be easily identified on a case by case basis. However, in submitting the IP firms own VAT returns, the output VAT from all cases is lumped as an aggregate, against which the IP had been able to reclaim input VAT from supplies and services to their firms, which left a net position - usually a payment - to HMRC.
In submitting our claims, we have effectively had to reverse the VAT returns - so the output tax element of the claim would be easy to "loan", but the input tax element will have to be pro-rated against all cases probably on a percentage basis - although this is still an issue to be agreed upon/directed.
I suppose if you were prepared to "loan" the whole sum of the output tax attributed to your case, then there may be an arguement for effecting a closure - certainly creditors could be happy with this - but putting my IP hat back on, it is better that we work collectively and globally to sort the practical issues of case closure out once and for all.
How would you feel if your IP were able to:-
Grant you a Certificate of Due Completion once all payments into the IVA had been made?
Remove your case name from the IVA register?
Confirm that any windfalls you may receive after effecting practical completion would not be caught by the terms of the IVA?
Creditors would update your credit files to confirm the IVA had concluded?
Would the fact that the case had to remain open in the IP firm then really bother you? These are the points that I am now working on resolving with my regulators and the lawyers who have been representing same. If we can get clarity on these points, then the fact that the case has to remain open purely becomes and administrative one.
I would almost certainly be prepared to loan the maximum amount that the IP believes could be recoverable and payable to the creditors, if it got the case closed without further delay. This I assume would be the same figure that you as IPs are concerned that creditors could make claims against you for, should you close a case without seeking to recover the refund. Of course I need to be told the amount by my IP before I can be certain I'd do this, but in my case I can't see how it can be more than £1,600 and could actually be an awful lot less. This would surely remove all reasons for not closing the case?
Regarding your other questions, while the case remains open the important things to me are to be removed from the Insolvency register and be exempt from any further windfall provisions. If that could be done I wouldn't really care if the closure was delayed until the VAT issues are resolved.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by vince666
I would almost certainly be prepared to loan the maximum amount that the IP believes could be recoverable and payable to the creditors, if it got the case closed without further delay. This I assume would be the same figure that you as IPs are concerned that creditors could make claims against you for, should you close a case without seeking to recover the refund. Of course I need to be told the amount by my IP before I can be certain I'd do this, but in my case I can't see how it can be more than £1,600 and could actually be an awful lot less. This would surely remove all reasons for not closing the case?
Regarding your other questions, while the case remains open the important things to me are to be removed from the Insolvency register and be exempt from any further windfall provisions. If that could be done I wouldn't really care if the closure was delayed until the VAT issues are resolved.
Something along these lines, as suggested my Michael Peoples previously, would be a good move.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
The scenario you suggested @ 21:51 would be acceptable in my view. As Vince mentioned before, my circs are a little different as we are only in Yr 1 of our IVA, but when we pay after the variation meeting the only thing I would be bothered about was the insolvency register and the windfall clause.
If my IP took me off the register and confirmed in writing that any windfall was ours to keep, I don't mind the IVA being left open nor am I bothered that much about a certificate of completion.
I think that Vince's suggestion of loaning the vat to our IP is a very good one! I wouldn't even charge any interest. lol.
If you are only in Year 1 - do you have a Paymex issue at all in your case Kazzafunk - ie if all fees were drawn net of VAT then there is no adjustment to make and your IP ought to be able to close your case regardless.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MelanieGiles
If you are only in Year 1 - do you have a Paymex issue at all in your case Kazzafunk - ie if all fees were drawn net of VAT then there is no adjustment to make and your IP ought to be able to close your case regardless.
And in my case, if the only VAT charged was by Blair Endersby, and the recovery of this is not for the benefit of the creditors but to be retained by BE, then my IP should also be able to close my case?
Actually Vince has made a good ppoint regarding BE, will they claim the VAT back for monies collected while we were on there books and if so what will happen to it, does it go into their pockets and not to our creditors, or will they pass it on to GT to disburse.
If life is what you make it, I must have been in a strange mood when I made mine
