<div id="readability-page-1">  <p><time datetime="2026-05-19T11:34:14+01:00">    Tuesday 19 May 2026 11:34 am  </time></p>         <div>    <div>             <div>             <p>            <span>        Professional Services Editor      </span>                </p>          </div>  </div>                                                                                                             Add as a preferred        source on Google                        </div>    <figure>    <div>       </div> <img width="742" height="495" src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://www.cityam.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Bolt-car-2.jpg/query-dz03NDI?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://www.cityam.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Bolt-car-2.jpg/query-dz03NDI"/>  <figcaption>(Image credit: Bolt)</figcaption> </figure> <p>Ride-hailing platform Bolt faces the tax authorities in court today over how it calculates and pays its VAT bill.</p><p>At the centre of this dispute was the question of whether Bolt could use the tour operators’ margin scheme (TOMS). Under this scheme, businesses only pay VAT on the profit margin they make between buying a service and selling it to the customer.</p><p>This means that by qualifying for this scheme, Bolt is only required to account for VAT on the commission it effectively takes from the fare, rather than the entire gross fare paid by the passenger.</p><p>However, HMRC argued in February 2023 that Bolt did not qualify for this scheme. </p><p>The tech giant appealed this decision to the First-tier Tribunal and won, leading HMRC to escalate the case to the Upper Tribunal, which also sided with the Estonian tech giant. </p><p>The Upper Tribunal agreed that Bolt’s provision of passenger transport is broadly the type of service commonly supplied by travel agents or tour operators, satisfying the scheme’s basic requirement.</p><p>The Tribunal also examined whether Bolt’s services were materially altered or constituted in‑house supplies, but it rejected HMRC’s arguments. </p><p>Despite this, HMRC has appealed the case to the Court of Appeal.</p><h2 id="h-hmrc-s-1bn-battle-with-uber">HMRC’s £1bn battle with Uber </h2><p>The reason for its appeal to the second-highest court is that the authorities has a similar ongoing battle with Bolt’s competitor, Uber, over a £1bn VAT bill over TOMS.</p><p>This case is financially significant for Bolt’s legal team to defend, but for HMRC to continue to fight as it disputes with Uber is staying behind this case. </p><p>Black cab drivers already demanded that the government close this tax loophole used by Uber and Bolt. Cabbies wrote to the Chancellor last November asking her to make the tech riding apps pay the same level of VAT as black cabs. </p><p>Rachel Reeves, in her Autumn Budget, altered the scheme to exclude private hire vehicle and taxi services from the TOMS, preventing ride-sharing platforms from paying a lower tax rate, which came into effect in January. </p><p>The Bolt’s case is scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, with a ruling to follow at a later date.</p> </div>

優步

<p>Bolt 正在與 HMRC 就其增值税計算進行法律訴訟，具體問題是它是否可以使用旅遊運營商利潤方案（TOMS）。HMRC 認為 Bolt 不符合資格，而 Bolt 之前的上訴已獲勝。此案具有重要意義，因為它與 HMRC 與優步之間關於 10 億英鎊增值税賬單的持續爭議相似。黑出租車司機已敦促政府關閉打車應用的税收漏洞。預計在週二和週三的聽證會後將作出裁決</p>

英國税務海關總署（HMRC）正在努力關閉 Bolt 的增值税漏洞