Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat Sep 27, 2025 8:33 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2025 4:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 16794
Brian1010 wrote:
Have we any updates on ‘digital platforms’ and exactly who the new legislations will affect ?

Seems they're still trying to work it all out. Came across this below via TaxiPoint.

And who was it that said further up the thread that it was as clear as mud as regards whether it might apply to legacy platforms? [-(


Eazitax wrote:
The LPHCA, NPHTA and Eazitax engage with the HMRC Digital Platforms Team and DfT on Digital Platform Reporting Rules

A Joint Statement

There has been some concern in our industry about our place in this legislation, so this week, Steve Wright of the Licensed Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA), David Lawrie of the National Private Hire & Taxi Association (NPHTA), and Gary Jacobs of Eazitax (Industry Accountants) met with representatives from the HMRC Digital Platforms Team and the Department for Transport to discuss the new reporting rules for digital platforms.

The meeting with HMRC was organised by The LPHCA as the second major collaborative project in recent weeks with the NPHTA alongside Eazitax, whom we both had worked closely with on other HMRC issues.

Together, we emphasised the need for clarity and understanding for taxi & private hire vehicle operators and industry software suppliers regarding their obligations under these regulations.

The HMRC Team provided an overview of the OECD's reporting rules, which require platform operators to report seller information to HMRC starting this year. However, it was clarified that these rules are only for those captured by the legislation.

We raised concerns regarding the confusion surrounding the definitions of operators and platforms, as well as the lack of clear guidance from HMRC.

We highlighted that there was widespread misunderstanding among operators about their reporting responsibilities, if any! We emphasised the need for clearer communication and definitions to facilitate compliance, particularly for those with limited resources.

The HMRC team were given clear examples of where the definitions were not clear to our trade and all participants expressed a desire for collaboration. It was made clear that penalties would only be applied to those who are aware that they are captured by the legislation and choose not to comply. So those who are genuinely unsure as to their obligations and require help will get it, and not be penalised.

A proposal was made for us to outline various scenarios and definitions related to the reporting rules, with the aim of improving understanding and cooperation between HMRC and the private hire sector. We will, therefore, be working further with HMRC but reporting to our members and the wider trade as we move forward.

We pointed out that, from what we could gather, the majority of our industry would not be affected by this new requirement, as it seems to be more aimed at “platforms” such as Ebay, Etsy, Amazon, AIrbnb, etc, where an item or a service is advertised and paid for on the platform only, the platform then passing payment on to the seller, which did not fit into the majority of Private Hire Operators working models.

HMRC were extremely receptive to our comments and recognised that with the combined input from the two largest industry representative bodies, it would indeed be highly beneficial to work together towards clarity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2025 4:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 16794
LPHCA, NPHTA and Eazitax wrote:
We pointed out that, from what we could gather, the majority of our industry would not be affected by this new requirement, as it seems to be more aimed at “platforms” such as Ebay, Etsy, Amazon, AIrbnb, etc, where an item or a service is advertised and paid for on the platform only, the platform then passing payment on to the seller, which did not fit into the majority of Private Hire Operators working models.

Funny how they're now comparing the legacy private hire platforms to the likes of EBay, Amazon and AirBnB rather than Uber, Bolt and Freenow etc.

Wonder why that would be? 8-[


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2025 11:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 2523
The majority of p/h operators offer payment by their app on booking a p/h vehicle, will this mean they fall foul of this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2025 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 16794
Well who knows, Heathcote - I think that's basically what the legacy opertators are trying to work out with HMRC, hence the joint statement above :-o

But worth going back to the article by Eazitax in PHTM a year ago now:

In February 2024 Eazitax wrote:
Although private and public hire are
longstanding trades, in recent years, more and
more people have opted for flexible work such
as ridesharing and food delivery. This is referred
to in the media as the ‘gig economy.’

So, governments have had to address tax
challenges posed by this kind of work. The UK
government has introduced new legislation that
requires ‘online platforms’ to directly report the
income details of their sellers (drivers in this
case) to HMRC.[...]

Let’s explore this legislation’s impact on drivers
and the platforms they work for.

HMRC mandates that digital platforms
operating in the UK must report income details
of their sellers to HMRC. This information
includes earnings, the number of journeys or
deliveries completed and expenses incurred by
the drivers. This legislation aims to improve tax
compliance in the gig economy, ensuring
drivers pay the right amount of tax on their
income. However, this is only for what’s called a
digital platform, not necessarily private hire
operators.

In February 2024 Eazitax wrote:
• Most of the platforms covered by the new legislation are open marketplaces that match sellers to buyers. Examples are Booking.com, eBay, Etsy as well as ridesharing apps such Uber, Bolt, OLA and Freenow.

• Private hire tech exists in a different space because it pairs operators with drivers, who are already regulated through their relationship with the licensing authority.

So all that's just the usual thing about portraying 'ride-sharing' apps and the gig economy as something new, whereas in my opinion it's just an evolution from what went before. In particular, check out the final paragraph above, which makes it sound like the 'ridesharing apps' aren't even licensed, and to that extent it's all very different :-s

But - and what I've been saying for about a decade now - apart from the fact that Uber and Bolt et al are app-only and non-cash, what's the real difference between them and the legacy operators?

None that I can see. But if a legacy operator does app-bookings and/or automated payments, does that mean it counts as a digital platform, for part or all of its work?

Can't be bothered looking into the actual 'digital platform' definition in the new legislation, but I suspect my question in the paragraph above is the essence of what LPHCA, NPHTA and Eazitax are trying to thrash out with HMRC :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2025 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 16794
And although Eazitax's article from last year was of course aimed at the PHTM audience, and basically banged the drum that that audience wanted to hear, if you read the article closely, Mr Jacobs of Eazitax does hedge his bets a bit as regards whether it would all apply to the legacy operators:

In February 2024 Eazitax wrote:
However, this is only for what’s called a
digital platform, not necessarily private hire
operators.

In February 2024 Eazitax wrote:
What does this mean for traditional private
hire and taxi operators and fleets?


The definition of a digital platform has yet to
be made clear to us in the ground transport
industry.


• One thing to understand is that operators and
despatch software are not necessarily
included in the legislation
.

So despite the main thrust of the article being that the PHTM audience could just ignore it all, Mr Jacobs did leave the door open to the fact that it could potentially be problematic, hence the recent meeting with HMRC and joint statement above :?

(And there's another attempt above to cement the binary/dichotomy, or whatever you want to call it - "us in the ground transport industry". So your average private hire driver is in the 'ground transport industry', while the average Uber driver is in, er, what? 'Beam me up, Scotty', or the trade equivalent? :lol: )


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group