Mporium Share Discussion Threads

[yajnas01] 21/10/2019 16:44

read this

hxxps://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/leadx-v-hmrc

MPM have no chance on this
this is as clear as it gets and explains it carefully

this is probably as good an explanation on this as you'll get

I work for an insurer and I don't think any of what MPM are doing falls within financial services.

[sdavis] 21/10/2019 16:41

But it is not a defence to just say "ooops. Sorry about that. I forgot to charge VAT."A sole trader or small business would be subject to a heavy fine. So can the directors hide behind the veil of limited liability?

[equity growth] 21/10/2019 16:41

But did MPM charge VAT? If not, and it should have, wouldn't correcting the original invoices with VAT be feasible? Presumably the counter parties are VAT registered so no net additional cost to them? Was the board and/or its advisers negligent? Many questions requiring immediate answers.

[yajnas01] 21/10/2019 16:13

criminal stupidity...

it's not criminal basically. we just basically undercharged by 3.5m. and actually had we not done this prob wouldn't have got the deal. so it's a mess

[yajnas01] 21/10/2019 15:58

well the thing is if the contract doesn't say excluding vat or something like that it can be viewed that the price included it

they may be able to go back to allay, but allay obvs would say no you'd think

[sdavis] 21/10/2019 15:55

Stupid yes, but is it criminal?

[yajnas01] 21/10/2019 15:54

lol - allay probably knew this all along and kept quiet

cos you're right...

or maybe MPM have to now go and get Allay to cough up the VAT?

basically who is liable for this? I wonder if their contract said anything re VAT and if it was chargeable...

it does seem like MPM liable for VAT. (i.e. failing to charge Allay). which is stupid

[sdavis] 21/10/2019 15:49

I would love to know if other companies that provided the same service to Allay before this exclusive deal charged them VAT....This stinks.

[yajnas01] 21/10/2019 15:45

other than some massive surrender placing to someone

[yajnas01] 21/10/2019 15:44

yeah the whole we are looking for solutions is a generic statement. there are no solutions on this one

[yajnas01] 21/10/2019 15:43

So allay did well !! essentially got a discounted service which should have cost them 3.6m more !

I still think it was naïve to assume no VAT payable without confirming or checking..
surely someone advised them on this?

[sdavis] 21/10/2019 15:36

Last audit to end December 2018.Deal with Allay started January 2019.PPI ended September 2019VAT issue discovered October 2019 saving Allay £3.6m in VAT.Makes you wonder....

[yajnas01] 21/10/2019 15:33

only thing that would come of this is a legal claim against their advisors but that in itself will destroy the company in the way a pyrrhic victory would ... and even that wouldn't work necessarily

stupid situation

[yajnas01] 21/10/2019 15:32

i'd take a break mate... we'll not know much more now.

I've lost money on this too, and I have to just accept it.

i'd suggest you do the same.

sorry can't give any more assurance, but the more I look at it, the harder it is for me to see a way out other than decimation of the share price completely

[stocktrend2] 21/10/2019 15:30

Well if this was deliberate we should all chip in and take legal action against the directors

[yajnas01] 21/10/2019 15:18

again no idea how anyone is supposed to know the management has been so incompetent

[yajnas01] 21/10/2019 15:16

yeah but that's a bit different to MPM...

MPM is looking at insurance which is inherently more complex
MPM isn't looking at sales (which involves advice etc), this is providing a database of leads for a firm who actually follows up on claims.

these clients are not searching MPM's website.

basically the service is this:

here is some data you want to purchase or access in exchange for money. this is not a financial service.

therefore it's vatable

[sdavis] 21/10/2019 15:14

They are basically providing a ppc to Allay. It is VATable. Questions... * what about VAT on deductables* was all of the turnover in question post audit* what was the role of Allay in all of this?I smell a rat.

[stocktrend2] 21/10/2019 15:12

Read this tell me what you all make of it

[stocktrend2] 21/10/2019 15:11

rvices

The lead generators ("leadgens") provide the service of generating leads for its customers which offer various products to consumers.

In this case, the customer was a payday lender, Dollar Financial. Potential borrowers finding the leadgen's website would fill in an application form and then, depending on which of the criteria they fulfilled, would be directed to a suitable payday lender. If the potential borrower met the criteria of more than one payday lender, the leadgen passed the lead on to whichever lender would pay the most for it.

On receiving an offer of a lead from the leadgen, the payday lender then decided electronically – and almost instantaneously –- whether to purchase the lead. Broadly, the decision was taken by double-checking that the relevant criteria were fulfilled and then carrying out a credit check. The payday lender would reject leads where it had a pre-existing relationship with the potential borrower. Commission was then paid to the leadgen for any lead that was purchased.

Intermediary, not "mere conduit"

The Tribunal concluded that the leadgens in this case were acting as intermediaries and not mere conduits, and the services were therefore eligible for the exemption from VAT.

In particular, the leadgen was obliged to filter the borrowers so that the introduction was only offered to those lenders whose criteria the borrowers met. It was not then relevant that the leadgen offered the potential borrower to the lender paying the highest commission rather than the one with the best deal for the borrower; in other words, the intermediary need only undertake an assessment on behalf of one of the parties.

The Tribunal noted that the level of assessment made by, or extent of involvement of, the intermediary will necessarily depend in part on the complexity of the product. Payday loans are very simple products, normally for relatively small amounts, and therefore the intermediary's assessment of the borrower could also be straightforward. More sophisticated financial or insurance products would require an intermediary to undertake a more in-depth assessment.

The Tribunal did not agree that there was no real assessment of the borrower by the leadgen, either because the filtering took place automatically and in seconds, or because only about one per cent of leads were actually paid for as a result of most potential borrowers being already known to the lender in question. Even a simple, broad filter automatically applied by the leadgen is of use to a lender, provided only that it is not too basic to eliminate unsuitable candidates for loans. There is no need for the intermediary to be exercising judgement or discretion on behalf of its clients.

This guidance, together with the factors set out in the box, should assist those both making and receiving lead generation (or similar) services determine whether VAT is chargeable or not.

[yajnas01] 21/10/2019 15:10

lol seeing a tax consultant before would have been the thing to do... now it's just confirming what HMRC already know.

[yajnas01] 21/10/2019 15:09

does anyone know what MPM actually do for Allay?

I looked back and it just looks like they make leads and there is nothing here re financial services eg credit checks, tailored advice, transferring money etc.

that to me is the key question