Could you advise me if there is anyone, (individual, individual company or groups of companies), who is either currently contesting, or has made it known that they intend to contest the HMRC's position on the HMRC v Paymex Ltd case as outlined in briefs 27/11, 35/11, 03/12, 17/13 and 25/13. In particular, the following points that the HMRC clarified in brief 17/13, which state:
If the nominee and supervisor are in the same firm then their services to the debtor would comprise a single exempt supply.
Where a supervisor from a different firm is appointed either at the creditors meeting or subsequently as a successor IP.
The supervisor's fees will be standard rated.
Where a new firm acquires a portfolio of cases and a new supervisor is appointed.
The supervisor's fees will be standard rated.
Where a new firm acquires a portfolio of cases but the supervisor moves across with the cases so remains in office.
The supervisor's fees will be standard rated.
Thank you for the reply. I am being told that Grant Thornton are the company that is supposed to be contesting the HMRC's position. I have contacted them and I am awaiting a response.
We have seen this but it makes no difference to us or many of the other firms. In our firm the nominee and supervisor are the same person anyway and we do not buy other books. Even if one of our IPs retires and their portfolio is transferred it seems we would not be affected either provided the new IP is also from McCambridge,Duffy.
I can see why it would affect GT as they have bought numerous books and there could be implications for them. That may explain why they are contesting it and not anyone else.
However, the question that I'm trying to get answered here is:
Is anyone aware of anyone, Grant Thornton in particular, currently contesting the HMRC's position, up to and including brief 25/13, in particular the information from brief 17/13 that I have highlighted in my OP
Sorry I do not know who if anybody is contesting this. The original Paymex case was only brought by one firm but the result was binding across the industry. The briefs to which you refer do not affect us one way or the other whereas the Paymex decision did have an impact.
You would need to check with GT if this is the case but if so it would be difficult to close a file not knowing whether or not there should be VAT on the fees. It may be possible to close the case pending clarification and GT could hold back the funds for distribution but you would need to ask them.
How can it be legal for a company to keep accounts open just because it would be easier for them to re-claim VAT. I have complied with all aspects of my IVA and i can't see anywhere in my proposal where it states that the IP firm can keep my IVA open until such time as this Paymex issue has been resolved.
You will need to ask GT for their reasons but you do have the option of independent legal advice. This may be expensive though and it would be better to get it resolved between yourself and GT.
