Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of MRW, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Landfill tax legislation is quite clear

Has anything really changed following Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ brief and subsequent clarification to the landfill tax regime in respect to transfer stations and trommel fines?

The answer, especially since the publishing of the Landfill Tax (Qualifying Material) Order 2011, is arguably nothing.

The initial presumption that all fines should attract the higher rate of tax is incorrect and HMRC has now stated that, albeit in narrow circumstances, trommel fines can, if appropriately evidenced, still attract the lower rate of landfill tax.

Whilst there may be operators that push the boundaries in this area as a matter of course, there are also those that do not.

There have also been a number of comments stating that pricing throughout the waste supply chain has been adversely affected and the perceived uncertainty has caused businesses to ‘shut up shop’.

It was reported that some operators feared that they would still be required to pay a far larger amount of tax than they had been doing before. There has also been suggestion of operators pressing for the lower rate of tax to be applied to some inert materials that are not currently eligible for it.

This suggests that perhaps incorrect rates of tax have been paid in the past and that 15/12 and 18/12 together are simply going to redress the equilibrium here.

HMRC stated in 18/12 that further clarification may be necessary. I would question however what is left to clarify.

The tax legislation is clear in this regard - if an item is contained within the 2011 Order, it is lower rated. If it isn’t in the 2011 order, it is standard rated.

It is the contents of this Order that should therefore be the starting point for those wishing change.

Julian Bowden-Williams, tax partner, Ernst & Young

Readers' comments (2)

  • I agree - the problem with the QMO is the narrow banding, which does not allow for the inclusion of incidental amounts of other material whilst guidance LFT1 does allow it. The issue did need clarification and Para 3.3 of LFT1 states "Mixed Loads: Where a disposal to landfill contains both standard rated and lower rated materials, tax is due on the whole load at the standard rate. However, you
    may ignore the presence of an incidental amount of standard rated waste in a
    mainly lower rated load, and treat the whole load as taxable at the lower rate.
    For example, we would accept as qualifying for the lower rate:
    • a load of bricks, stone and concrete from the demolition of a building that has small pieces of wood in it and small
    quantities of plaster attached to bricks as it would have not been feasible for a contractor to separate them
    • a load of sub-soil that contains small quantities of grass
    Time to update the QMO quickly!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Maybe today's meeting will help.....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.