With the retail sector enduring its fair share of challenges, companies are looking at new ways to attract customers, and drive conversion. In an overcrowded, dog-eat-dog marketplace, with behemoths such as Amazon flexing their muscle, it’s easier said than done.
Should platforms deduct tax on P2P income at source?
At the two Budget Speeches in 2015, peer-to-peer lending was the beneficiary of a pair of great results. In March, the Chancellor announced that interest earned on P2P loans will be eligible for the Personal Savings Allowance (PSA) from 6 April 2016, meaning basic-rate taxpayers will have the first £1,000 of P2P income each year removed from income tax (for higher-rate taxpayers this figure will be £500). And in July, it was revealed that the new Innovative Finance ISA (IFISA) – going live on the same date - will allow lenders to shield returns from tax on annual contributions up to the ISA allowance each year.
It is the first of these two game-changing tax efficiencies which has cast the issue of a withholding tax regime into the spotlight though. Currently, savings income from banks and building societies is paid after the deduction of income tax at source (i.e. by the bank or building society itself). However, peer-to-peer lending platforms are not required to do the same, meaning that it is left to the individual lender to declare their income to HMRC, usually via a Self-Assessment Tax Return.
A potential role reversal?
However, this is set to change from 6 April 2016, as traditional financial institutions will no longer withhold tax from income paid out on savings accounts and deposits, while there is also a consultation underway which could result in peer-to-peer lending platforms becoming obliged to deduct tax on lenders’ P2P income at source.
To HMRC’s credit, the consultations they have published on both the Implementation of the Personal Savings Allowance and the Deduction of Tax from Interest on P2P income are comprehensive, and the imposed deadline for comments of 18 September gives all relevant stakeholders ample time to have their say.
In light of the PSA, few could legitimately object to the burden of tax deduction being lifted from banks. After all, given their low rates of return, a basic-rate taxpayer would need astronomical sums of money in their account before the annual interest they earn exceeds £1,000. Albeit on a lesser scale, the same is true of higher-rate tax payers and their respective threshold too. For banks to deduct tax on individuals’ savings income at source and make payment to HMRC, only to have the money later claimed back on a mass scale would be ludicrously redundant.
Yet the same logic applies to peer-to-peer lending too. Indeed, the rates of return are superior to those of banks and building societies, but the majority of lenders won’t be ‘using up’ their PSA in the course of the financial year either. In fact, at an annualised rate of 5%, a basic-rate taxpaying lender would need more than £20,000 invested in a peer-to-peer platform before they become liable for tax (and this calculation assumes the lender doesn’t have an IFISA!).
For higher-rate taxpayers, this number drops to the still-considerable figure of £10,000, and while additional-rate payers do not qualify for the PSA, it seems safe to assume that they will be very familiar with the whole Self-Assessment Tax Return process and may have a greater awareness and understanding of the relevant tax rules.
So should P2P interest be deducted at source?
Whether interest should have tax deducted at source is currently subject to the following criteria:
- The term of the loan (Yes on certain loans longer than 12 months)
- The identity of the borrower (Borrower required to if it is a company and the lender is an individual)
- The identity of the lender (Always no if the lender is a company)
- The location of the lender (Borrower required to if lender is resident outside the UK)
It’s clear to see that the above is mired in complexity. Such criteria have a semblance of logic to them on a single-loan basis, but become highly impractical when loans involve multiple lenders and borrowers.
Market research suggests that the majority of borrowers from peer-to-peer platforms have a fairly limited understanding of peer-to-peer marketplaces as it is, so to require them to treat interest paid on a P2P loan differently to interest paid on a loan from a traditional financial service provider would create unnecessary confusion. And from a lender’s perspective, you could easily end up in a situation whereby you receive interest differently from different borrowers.
Keep it simple, stupid!
The good news is that one of the proposed changes in chapter 4 of the Consultation on the Deduction of Tax from Savings Income is to apply a blanket approach of removing the obligation to deduct income tax from all non-TDSI interest (which includes peer-to-peer lending). We implore HMRC to select this option, given that many of the taxation issues outlined above would fall away.
True, there would be a risk to the Exchequer that the correct tax is not paid if calculating tax liability is left to the customer. Yet that’s not to say that more onus can’t be placed on platforms to assist customers in determining the correct tax obligation for their personal circumstances – be that providing guides, FAQS and links to relevant tax articles, or even offering personalised guidance by email or telephone.
Most basic-rate taxpayers would receive the correct tax treatment following the implementation of the PSA anyway, while the requirements on higher and additional-rate tax payers would not be affected. Most importantly, understanding that tax is payable on all savings income above the PSA is straightforward, and will be easy to implement.
In order to effectively promote P2P lending to savers and investors, and the important benefits it brings to the wider economy, additional complexities need to be avoided. Since the tax treatment of savings and investments are fairly well documented and understood, proposing a complex tax arrangement for P2P lenders would negatively impact the appeal of our asset class.
To place this administrative burden of tax collection on peer-to-peer platforms for the sake of a minority of lenders who would be liable would serve merely to inhibit the efficiency of a sector raising the bar on this front. The P2P collective, in our view, is better off in the absence of a withholding tax regime.
But these are just our opinions! If you have strong views on the matter, why not get in touch with us by email (email@example.com) or phone (0207 096 8512)? Alternatively, you can contribute to the consultation directly by clicking here.
- Quick guide to paying tax on P2P income
- Your tax-related P2P lending questions answered
- Innovative Finance ISA: the good and the 'bad'
- Your updated guide to Innovative Finance ISAs
Get email updates for future blogs:
Our website offers information about saving, investing, tax and other financial matters, but not personal advice. If you're not sure whether peer-to-peer lending is right for you, please seek independent financial advice, and if you decide to invest with Lending Works, please read our Key Lender Information PDF first.
On 4 June 2019, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) released its new regulatory framework for peer-to-peer lending (P2P); a Policy Statement known as PS19/14. As you might imagine, it's a document which, following a three-month consultation, is a hefty read of no fewer than 102 pages.
For all the resilience the UK economy has shown, there is no doubt that this year's ISA season is set against a backdrop of uncertainty. Whatever the pros and cons, Brexit, and a lack of clarity on what our future economic relationship with the EU will look like, has left us at a crossroads.
In a difficult climate, customer acquisition and lead generation present stern challenges for UK retailers, and a great deal of marketing spend invariably gets directed towards getting feet through the door.
Over the last decade, there can be little dispute that the reputation of mainstream banks – and particularly the so-called ‘Big Four’ (HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds and RBS) – is at its lowest ebb.
The peer-to-peer (P2P) lending industry is now regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The regulatory framework has been designed to protect customers and promote effective competition.
When you earn interest from a regular bank savings account, for example, the bank automatically deducts basic rate tax (currently 20%) before paying your interest. With interest earned from peer-to-peer lending, tax is not deducted automatically so lenders will need to declare their income to HMRC.
The financial crisis is a bitter memory of what can go wrong when regulators lose control of markets. It seems hard to fathom now, but a little over a decade ago, buyers could acquire mortgages to the tune of 125 per cent of the home’s value (the Northern Rock Together mortgage being one of the most infamous), with only the most lax affordability checks standing in their way.
Numerous theories have emerged as to why the UK has endured such a severe productivity problem over the last decade. Growth in productivity of just 2 per cent during that period would typically have been accomplished within a single year prior to the financial crisis, and thus the 'productivity puzzle' continues to confound economists
In the aftermath of the financial crisis back in 2008/09, the Bank of England (BoE) had considerable headroom in terms of monetary policy, and - rightly - it made full use of it.
It’s no exaggeration to say that the global financial system as a whole is predicated on the ability to buy something now, and pay for it later. Barely anyone would be able to make a substantial purchase such as a house without an instrument like a mortgage.
With political parties jostling for position amid a series of Elections, and the ongoing spectre of a snap General Election looming large, the Labour Party put forward a policy last week which has proved to be a talking point: increasing the minimum wage to £10 per hour, and extending this to workers under the age of 18.