How to avoid getting tangled in VAT fraud

Credit guru Eddie Pacey explains how businesses can scrutinise their supply chains to make sure they don't become a scapegoat in a VAT fraud

Is enough really done by companies and HMRC to counter and nullify VAT fraud? In my view, not quite enough is done by either but HMRC could and should do much more.

Since 2003, HMRC has raised its game; it produced a leaflet on "how to spot missing trader VAT fraud" and followed with sending companies Form 726 Notices on Joint and Several Liability for unpaid VAT but this is not sufficient enough to ensure business owners are adequately equipped to tackle this type of activity or be properly warned of the consequences.

(VAT fraud or missing trader intra community [MTIC] is described by Europol as the theft of VAT from governments by organised criminals. The full definition, and explanation of complex cases, can be found here.)

The problem centres on the checklist companies are asked to consider in making sure of the integrity of a supply chain and the legitimacy of customers and suppliers. Many of these are standard and will apply to legitimate business activity and it is how a business owner is supposed to make a judgement on sudden noted new business or increased business using such checklists that makes the current advice fall short. Giving companies four, five or six copies of Form 726 over a period of time is an appalling way of attempting to control MTIC and VAT fraud. This slow and cumbersome approach of repetitive ‘chucking' of forms, visits and interviews results is far too many MTIC traders not being VAT de-registered early enough to cut the chain.

Section six of Form 726 is titled ‘Dealing with other businesses, how to make sure the integrity of your supply chain'. It goes on to list bullet-point subheadings in a question format that do not in essence warn companies precisely what is indicative of VAT fraud transactions.

They're answerable with either a yes or a no but there is nothing there to suggest what a business should do in the event of either too many yes or no answers. Is it risky business or isn't it?

If the aim is to seriously warn businesses of the consequences then Form 726 needs to be an instructional guide not a yes/no questionnaire. Let's assume a redraft looks like this:

Section 1)

I now add a few more that should be included:

Section 2)

Section 3)

Section 6.2 bullet points half a dozen or so actions to take in checking proposed business partners which arose out of a 2003 consultation document but again is not as clear and concise as it should be and I suggest the following:

Form 726 would carry more leverage and weight if this type of ‘instructional' format were to be used as opposed to the current question tick-box list with no onward advice or suggested course of action.

Business owners handed the current Form 726 or receiving it via mail will either quickly read certain sections or simply pass the form to their accounting or finance functions, having reached perhaps a conclusion that given the nature of their business, they're unlikely to find themselves embroiled in such MTIC activity.

HMRC guidance therefore today is simply a case of ‘here are some things to watch out for, we're not going to tell you exactly how to behave from a commercial perspective but we may refuse to repay you at some point in the future if we think you've not applied yourself correctly'.

It should be far more punchy and direct in what it expects business owners and senior management to do. It should also facilitate a contact point within HMRC that would allow businesses to call and validate new or unusual trade approaches. Imagine what a wealth of additional information this would provide HMRC, how much earlier the intervention and how reduced the cost to the public purse would be.