Business

2° London Hi 4°C / Lo -2°C

'Tidal wave' of business failure feared as tax help scheme ends

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor

The Government has been warned that it faces a "ticking time bomb" of company closures and job losses when a scheme to allow firms to delay their tax payments is wound up.

Experts say the "time to pay" programme has been a resounding success and has kept many businesses afloat in the recession, since HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) would normally have first call on their money and could have pushed them into liquidation or administration.

But insolvency firms expect that the £4.8bn scheme, which has helped 160,000 businesses employing 1.2 million people, will be axed after the expected May general election, so companies will have to stump up their delayed VAT, national insurance and other tax payments. Malcolm Shierson, a partner at Grant Thornton's recovery and reorganisation practice, said the number of business failures fell in the last three months of 2009 but were still a near historic high. "We expect the number of liquidations to shoot up even further when the future government stops extending the 'time to pay' tax scheme," he said.

Colin Burke, a partner at Milner Boardman corporate rescue and recovery firm, said a significant number of companies helped by the scheme were now falling behind with their payments and increasing the size of their debts to the Government.

He said: "This leaves HMRC with no option but to take action to prevent further default and recover the arrears, thus triggering formal insolvency proceedings. And whereas in the past such proceedings were evenly spread over a period, the Business Payment Support Service has created a backlog which some fear will lead to a tidal wave of business failures. I don't think there is any doubt that it will happen, it's just a matter of when."

George Bull, head of tax at Baker Tilly accountants, said: "I think to bring down the guillotine after an election would be a grave mistake because the system has worked really very well to help clients who want to pay, but cannot, to get more time to pay. If the right was suddenly halted after an election that would be desperately bad news."

Ric Traynor, executive chairman of Begbies Traynor Group, said: "Government support measures are providing welcome relief to the UK's struggling companies in the short term but they may exacerbate problems for some businesses as the need to repay debt catches up with them later in the year."

He said the "insolvency peak" of the recession remained some way off even though Britain officially returned to economic growth in the final quarter of last year. "While business finance is expected to become more readily available during the first half of 2010, we anticipate a rise in the levels of financial distress during the second half of 2010, as temporary financial support measures are unwound."

Government sources admit that there could be a delayed effect on company closures and unemployment when the outstanding tax payments are finally demanded. They point out that many of these firms would have gone under without the state help and insist that most of them will survive since only viable businesses experiencing cash flow problems are being helped.

Officials say it is impossible to estimate how many firms might eventually be pushed into closure when they settle their bills or how many jobs might be at risk. Ministers promised that the scheme would not be scrapped overnight and that the Government would ensure as much flexibility as possible – the whole point of the help in the first place, they said.

A Treasury spokesman said last night: "The 'time to pay' scheme has been hugely beneficial for businesses facing difficulties and will continue to run as long as necessary. Any suggestion that it will end suddenly and businesses forced to repay is incorrect and runs counter to what the scheme was set up to achieve." The Treasury said more than 90 per cent of tax payments are being repaid on time. Of the £4.8bn deferred in tax, some £3.69bn is already in the process of being repaid.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

As usual
[info]keyzeekey wrote:
Monday, 8 February 2010 at 12:25 am (UTC)
these smaller firms can expect no mercy, no easy Govt money, no cheap loans and no Govt guarantees...unfortunately they are not "too big to fail" are they??.......except when there are 100,000's of them!
stupid scheme
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Monday, 8 February 2010 at 12:38 am (UTC)
'"time to pay" programme has been a resounding success and has kept many businesses afloat ......... (HMRC) would normally have first call on their money and could have pushed them into liquidation or administration.'

Obviously a very stupid scheme then, since all it did was allow them to live a little longer on borrowed time when they should have failed earlier.


But we do know it's all about pretending things are oaky when they are not.

'in the recession'

This is not a recession, it's the commencement of the end of the industrial age. Nothing the 'clowns' do can prevent it.

Geology (Peak Oil) trumps ideology every time.
Re: stupid scheme
[info]alan_robinson wrote:
Monday, 8 February 2010 at 05:36 am (UTC)
Someofusknow wrote "This is not a recession, it's the commencement of the end of the industrial age".

Its a long commencement then. I'd say the industrial decline really began in the 1950's, and like so many other things, has followed an exponential curve. The 1970s were bad enough for many, but the 1980s were worse. Hey, I'm already exhibited photographically in a maritime museum. Anyone remember what a shipyard is?

But otherwise you are right. Peak oil is a fact, and we'd better get used to it. Couple that to a constantly increasing population, continuously rising debt and inflation, and environmental issues, and we have a recipe for a new era.......and not a visionary politician in sight from where I'm standing.
Re: stupid scheme
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Monday, 8 February 2010 at 09:55 am (UTC)
It took around 180 years (1780 to 1960) for Britain to fully industrialise and become more or less totally dependent on machines (horses were still in use for farm work and milk deliveries until the late 1950s).

The collapse (reversal of industrialism) seems to be rather slow, but in fact is proceeding at a much faster pace than that original industrialism. Most informed commentators suggest it will be pretty much all over by 2030 at the latest, but probably long before then.

Of course China has done the leap from a largely peasant society (which was reasonably sustainable) to a highly industrialised consumer society (which is totally unsustanable) in just a few decades. And in doing so is putting the final straw on teh camel's back as far as resourve depletion and environmental degradation are concerned.

But it will unbdoubtedly be the US and Australia etc. that cave in before China. Iceland, Greece, Sapin, Portugal, Ireland, Dunai, Hungary, Latvia ... the dominoes are falling.

The only really intersting question is whether we are headed for the 14th century, the stone age, or complete self-annihilation via abrupt climate change (methane burps).
Hey Ho
[info]mitaman wrote:
Monday, 8 February 2010 at 02:42 am (UTC)


If your business is not strong enough to pay bills as they become due, your business is simply not strong enough. Further re-structuring is therefore required. More pain, but longer term gains as businesses are made healthier. If they cannot, then they will go to the wall. I had to do it with my business, so should everybody else. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Too many lame businesses.
Re: Hey Ho
[info]alan_robinson wrote:
Monday, 8 February 2010 at 05:47 am (UTC)
I'm in the process of striking my business off voluntarily. I want some proceeds, not debts.

But it is worth considering why so my businesses were formed in the first place. Mine was a very small business, and might as well have been a single proprietor business as a limited company, but I very soon realized that the cost of having an incorporated company was considerably less than professional indemnity insurance. That is why I formed my company......to protect my private finances from litigious clients.

I'm glad I did it this way now, for over the years I have not only saved about �20,000 on insurance, but also my few but wealthy clients were clear they needn't bother cheating me with legal claims if they wanted my services. And I've never once heard the whisper of complaint about negligence or breach of contract.

Of course, there are other types who form businesses so they can give themselves titles and sit at the end of the meeting table. I wouldn't necessarily regard them as prudent businessmen though.
charlatans at work very hard
[info]ebbi581 wrote:
Monday, 8 February 2010 at 10:52 am (UTC)
umm oh lets se , is footsie up again ???? well if it is up it surely should mean our economy is solid and on the right track to full economic recovery !!! no???? more unemployment ??? more loan defaults ??? more home repossessions??? oh , well we are f....ed again???
there is no recovery as long as there are millions unemployed who can not afford to spend to keep afloat the very companies that are and will be going bankrupt !!!! therefore more misery for the mortals and big money once again for the banks and those responsible for the mess we are in.
Another counter intuitive electioneering mistake
[info]blu_rogers wrote:
Monday, 8 February 2010 at 01:09 pm (UTC)
This was a really stupid policy as it would only have been beneficial in a short recession. Insolvent banks, huge debt and government support of mal-investment does not make for a quick economic recovery.

I wonder if the government were near the start of their term how many of these damaging unsound polices they would have used?
More debt
[info]np57np wrote:
Monday, 8 February 2010 at 07:52 pm (UTC)
Keeping insolvent businesses afloat has surely increased the levels of debt racked up, and has indebted UK plc even further.