millertime
Registered User
- Messages
- 232
instead of bi-monthly?
Simply answer is yes.
September, October, November and December is now due since January 19th.
...not for everyone. Some are still on bi-monthly. Some are on quarterly. Some are on six-monthly. Frankly, the system is a bit of a mess at the moment. I can't see how Brian Cowen didn't realise this when he brought in this half-baked measure in the 2007 Budget.
In practice what is happening is that Revenue are issuing VAT3 returns to each VAT registered business depending how their records classify the annual VAT liabilities. It seems to be pretty random as I have seen some tiny businesses with very small liabilities continuing to get bimonthly returns
However, some months later I changed to a Ltd. Co. and I was automatically put on to the bi-monthly system. When I contacted Revenue I was told that they need to assess my turnover over the next 12 months and will then make a decision.
This sums up why the new system is a farce.
An entrepreneur starts a new company from scratch, registers it for VAT today and starts trading in a month's time. It may take 6-12 months to build up the trade and during this time the company may have little or no VAT liability as its sales are low and it is claiming back VAT on setup costs.
A year later it has found its feet, and is paying heavy VAT bills. By this time, the Revenue have looked at the 1st year's trading pattern and decided that it is a "small business" and puts it on six-monthly returns. The liabilities on each six-monthly return are large, as they cover half of the entire year's liability, and they may cause particular cashflow problems for the business.
Fast forward another 12 months, and the Revenue once again examines the company and finds (shock, horror) that is no longer a "small business" and should have been on the bi-monthly or quarterly system from the start.
In that scenario, would anyone blame the entrepreneur for being confused?