HM Revenue & Customs’ Time to Pay (TTP) scheme is under scrutiny once again. This time, it has emerged that the taxman has been agreeing multi-million pound TTP arrangements without requiring businesses to undertake independent reviews to check their viability.
Earlier this month, HM Revenue & Customs released its figures on TTP arrangements, and an analysis of the data by industry publication Accountancy Age showed that 140 high-value arrangements (over £100,000 a year) worth £45m were made in June, at an average of £321,000 each. This compares with an average of around £180,000 to £200,000 in each of the previous 15 months.
HM Revenue & Customs has stated that a small number of very high-value arrangements made in June skewed the figures and, if it were not for these, the average would be similar to other months. Research showed that these arrangements would have to be collectively worth around £17m to skew the June average figures to this extent.
Back in 2009, Alistair Darling announced in the Pre-Budget Report that HMRC would require businesses applying for TTP for debts of £1m or over to provide an independent business review (IBR) supporting their request. This involves the businesses appointing insolvency practitioners to review their long-term viability – but a freedom of information request has shown that no IBRs were carried out in June, and only six had been carried out in total between January 2010 and June 2011.
Senior Partner Paul Carvell comments: “HMRC has claimed that an IBR is not always required in £1m+ cases, because each TTP request is considered on its own individual merits and circumstances. However, in light of the taxman’s recent reluctance to agree TTP arrangements with so many struggling businesses, this seems rather an odd situation. It would appear that, for a few large-scale enterprises with outstanding tax liabilities, HMRC is prepared to be more lenient. When you contrast this with the declining number of TTP arrangements made for smaller sums, one has to wonder whether it’s one rule for bigger companies and another for SMEs.”