New invoicing procedure e mail from + Net

[#1]

Quote from: James_H

I suspect the main flow of 'reasons' will be due to folks claiming stuff on expenses

I don't think that would be a valid reason - not in HMRC's eyes anyway.
The invoice is made out to the employee, not to the employer. The employer is quite free to reimburse the employee the full vat inclusive cost of the invoice, but not to then reclaim the vat on the invoice. To do that, the invoice would have to be in the name of the employer.
I haven't looked lately, but I think the maximum permitted value of 'a less detailed tax invoice' i.e. a vat inclusive invoice you can use to support a vat claim, assuming you are eligible, is £50, so unless you have a <i>very</i> fancy residential account, the vat inclusive aspect should make no difference anyway.

[#2]

Quote from: Simon

The employer is quite free to reimburse the employee the full vat inclusive cost of the invoice, but not to then reclaim the vat on the invoice. To do that, the invoice would have to be in the name of the employer.

Clearly not true.  As a simple example companies can reimburse an employee on production of a petrol receipt and then claim VAT back.

[#3]

I believe even that has been questioned by some of the more aggressive Vat inspectors, but the difference there is that, fortunately, the petrol receipt doesn't have the employee's name on it.
My understanding is that the letter of the law says that if you are buying petrol on behalf of your employer (to put in a company car, <i>not</i> your own), then you should go to the till <i>before</i> filling the tank & say something along the lines of "I wish to purchase fuel for XYZ Ltd & will pay you on their behalf" so that it is clear from the outset that the transaction is with the company, not with the employee.
We all know how often anybody bothers, but that is what you say you said when the Vat inspector tries to disallow the claim.

[#4]

I was billed yesterday and it still shows VAT the same as always when I view my transactions. Should this have changed?

[#5]

The mail states that Plusnet will be making some changes to the billing but it doesn't state when these changes will be implemented. It is merely an advance notice of the changes. Therefore, the fact that the changes have not come into effect on your recent invoice should not be a concern. 

[#6]

Quote from: Simon

I believe even that has been questioned by some of the more aggressive Vat inspectors, but the difference there is that, fortunately, the petrol receipt doesn't have the employee's name on it. My understanding is that the letter of the law says that if you are buying petrol on behalf of your employer (to put in a company car, <i>not</i> your own), then you should go to the till <i>before</i> filling the tank & say something along the lines of "I wish to purchase fuel for XYZ Ltd & will pay you on their behalf" so that it is clear from the outset that the transaction is with the company, not with the employee. We all know how often anybody bothers, but that is what you say you said when the Vat inspector tries to disallow the claim.

if you went to buy petrol to put in to a company car theirs a link between you and the company so its irrelevant (the above) and the spotty girl behind the till will not know whats going on you can ask the petrol station for a vat receipt.
If you company pays for your internet connection you just ask for vat to be included.  You still have to pay tax on it as for the 10p tax rate no no not going their
puddy
I do hope we not going to see a tax fiddle here

[#7]

Quote from: Simon

I believe even that has been questioned by some of the more aggressive Vat inspectors, but the difference there is that, fortunately, the petrol receipt doesn't have the employee's name on it. My understanding is that the letter of the law says that if you are buying petrol on behalf of your employer (to put in a company car, <i>not</i> your own), then you should go to the till <i>before</i> filling the tank & say something along the lines of "I wish to purchase fuel for XYZ Ltd & will pay you on their behalf" so that it is clear from the outset that the transaction is with the company, not with the employee.

Sorry Simon, but that is not what the law states, as the Govt regs for Civil Servants makes clear.
I am involved in a couple of small government agencies, consulting on their accounting software, and their rules show that it does not matter who the invoice is addressed to, as long as the cost is incurred in the course of "business".
I have also proved this in front of the commissioners when a bolshy inspector tried to challenge me claiming my half of a VAT invoice for hotel accommodation, addressed to me personally, which include t' other half (I did not claim her costs)
Invoices do not have to have the entity being supplied's name on them, and nowhere in the legislation does it state that it matters who an invoice is made out to. Any one entity can claim the VAT back on any one invoice.
What it does state is that an appropriate vat receipt/invoice has to be produced on request. And if you don't request it, you can bet that PN's VAT inspectors will. 

[#8]

Quote from: Mand

The changes are part of a number of changes to our billing systems, most of which you will not see, but which will make the systems much more efficient and the processes much smoother.

Silly question, but how does it make the systems more efficent and processes smoother when you end up with two systems, one producing standard VAT receipts and the other producing inclusive receipts?
So looking at one of my invoices on-line, I'm going to get 2 columns less on the description line and 2 lines less below. Hardly earth shattering, the page is going to load x microseconds quicker and if I print it, I still need 1 sheet of paper.
Couldn't the resources/cost of doing this change have been more usefully spent elsewhere?