Landfill Tax changes shock the waste industry

[Roach-Rampino]

On Friday 18^th of May a brief was published by the HMRC, this brief is for landfill site operators and their advisers. It provides further clarification on the Landfill Tax treatment of material used on a landfill site and also the evidence needed when considering whether to apply the lower rate of Landfill Tax to certain wastes. The brief said that tax should be paid on material used to protect or 'provide a suitable stable substrate' for the overlaying layers at the top of a landfill cell. Waste materials used at the top of landfill cells as well as those used at the bottom have been brought within the scope of landfill tax by the HMRC. In addition, fines from screening, grit and recycling processes will no longer be eligible for the lower £2.50 rate of landfill tax applied to inert material. Also, the full rate of £64.00 must be charged per tonne. These changes are expected to have a big impact on the waste management sector, which previously has not had to shoulder landfill tax costs for this material. Some within the waste industry have also said that this could even push up prices on recycling and waste disposal. A landfill tax expert commented:

"The bulletin is causing waves throughout the industry even since Friday, given the two fundamental issues being addressed - namely 'fluff' and 'trommel fines'."

WRG case brings change A landmark case in 2008 involving HMRC and Waste Recycling Group has brought upon these changes. During the case the court ruled, that inert material brought onto site by WRG and used for temporary structures, such as daily landfill cover and site engineering purposes, will not be liable for taxation if it has not been disposed of. WRG received the tax back from HMRC, which paved the way for another £300million in repayments. Some operators had apparently tried to claim back tax paid on 'top fluff layer' material, according the HMRC. After a broad discussions with the Environment Agency, the HMRC concluded that this material should be (and always should have been) liable to Landfill Tax. The reason behind this is that the waste material is disposed with the intention of discarding it and the disposal does not constitute a use of that material. The HMRC said that, where operators have not paid tax for this material and did not seek to do so, they will initiate assessments to ensure all landfill site operators paid the correct amount. However, it warned: "The matter will be litigated if necessary. HMRC will enforce these assessments and penalties may also be applicable in such cases." The HMRC did note that the material which was used to 'form the regulation layer' in landfill sites by providing protection to the cap would constitute a use up until the 1^st of September 2009, when the rules were changed to bring specific uses of waste back into the scope of Landfill tax. It said: "The basis for this conclusion is that such a regulating layer is an engineering specification which would be set out in the specific agreements between the site operator and the EA." Fines Regarding trommel fines, grits and screenings, the HMRC said that materials qualifying for the lower £2.50 -per-tonne rate of landfill tax have been reduced in its Landfill Tax Order 2011 therefore the materials no longer qualify. Therefore it said that the £64-a-tonne rate of tax would apply because the material, while often motionless is variable in nature. Materials which have been subject to some form of reuse, recycling or recovery process before the disposal of the residue to landfill are the materials in question. Also known as waste transfer fines, trommel fines, fines for landfill cover, grit and screenings. The HMRC explained: "Any residue from treated transfer station waste that is consigned to landfill will be very variable and it will be impossible to determine the origin and exact nature of the source material." An HMRC spokesman commented on the changes and denied that they represented a move to claw back money. He continued to say: "If you lose a tribunal case you have to look at your interpretation of the law. It's wrong to say we lost so we are trying to claw back the money from elsewhere." What was the Response? The first reaction came from Leslie Heasman, managing director of technical specialists MJCA. She said that the latest HMRC decisions followed the clarification in 2009 that selected wastes/materials used to provide protection to the drainage blanket and overlying geotextile layer were subject to landfill tax. Ms Heasman continued to say that: "There are two separate issues in this latest ruling concerning the protection wastes/material for the cap and the transfer station fines. We now have clarification that the wastes/materials used to provide the foundation for the clay lined cap are not considered by HMRC as engineering material and are subject to landfill tax." She also explained that while under a 2011 Order which allowed fines - a category of rocks and soils - to count for tax at the lower rate, the HMRC have now clarified this to say that material had to exactly meet the specified conditions. Ms Heasman said: "MRFs and transfer stations and other recycling facilities will have to look again at their segregation processes and there could be quite big cost implications." Charges Managing Director of Suffolk-based Bolton Bros, Reuben Bolton, as well as a past president of the Recycling Association said that the believed the new ruling could hit recycling rates and force up charges for the hiring of skips. He said: "Already today our local landfill is charging us landfill tax for soil and stones we have recovered which we believe to be processed inert material which has been used as engineering cover before." "There are not enough outlets for this type of material and it could mean us having to put up charges for skip hire three or fourfold." A prediction by Mr Bolton that the recycling rate reported by civic amenity sites and waste transfer stations could fall dramatically, as the material was no longer attracting the lower rate and would therefore not be counted as 'recycled' when used as the foundation for the landfill cap, might be very accurate.


http://www.industrytoday.co.uk/pr_an...industry/13262

[stimpy]

All I can see this doing is drive a few waste businesses under and increase the amount of illegally dumped rubbish.

[Roach-Rampino]

Well as some of you know I run a waste management company. Our waste processing plant produces approximately 200 tonnes of this "fines" material a day. The tax on that material has risen from £500 per day to £12800 per day. The only way we can move forward is to charge customers their skips on a transport and weight surcharge basis. It is not an easy thing to implement but we reacted quickly last week and started charging to stem the losses that could run into £10 000's each day. Fortunately the majority of our customers have understood that we had no choice in the matter. The HMRC are unlikley to back down over the matter, despite many firms protesting. The timescale that we have been given is outrageuos but there's no point sitting on our hands, we have to accept it has happened and crack on.
Long term it will offer a much more transparent way of charging for waste disposal and make people think about what is going into their skips before filing them. This in time will actually reduce the amount of waste going to landfil even further and reduce waste disposal costs as a culture of on-site segregation is adopted.

[Mystical_2K]

Well as some of you know I run a waste management company. Our waste processing plant produces approximately 200 tonnes of this "fines" material a day. The tax on that material has risen from £500 per day to £12800 per day. The only way we can move forward is to charge customers their skips on a transport and weight surcharge basis. It is not an easy thing to implement but we reacted quickly last week and started charging to stem the losses that could run into £10 000's each day. Fortunately the majority of our customers have understood that we had no choice in the matter. The HMRC are unlikley to back down over the matter, despite many firms protesting. The timescale that we have been given is outrageuos but there's no point sitting on our hands, we have to accept it has happened and crack on.
Long term it will offer a much more transparent way of charging for waste disposal and make people think about what is going into their skips before filing them. This in time will actually reduce the amount of waste going to landfil even further and reduce waste disposal costs as a culture of on-site segregation is adopted.

fair point but your average skint brit is going to be looking at the costs and thinking they are outrageous they will just start illegally dumping stuff wherever they want to, to be honest I have seen a notable increase in the past couple of years as you can quite often see people pulling up to someone else's skip and chucking their stuff in with whats already in it, also their seems to be alot more rubbish strewn about the greener areas as people just dump where they can, alot of the Council Tips and Recycling centre's around here are being more and more invasive when you go and want to check exactly what you have and I have seen them refuse people a few times, so what do these refused people do with their rubbish? they dump it not far from the tip, its a vicious cycle, you would think they would be encouraging you to take everything to the tip so that it can be processed properly and disposed of correctly?

[tombott]

Typical Tories, more tax, more revenue.

[Roach-Rampino]

Typical Tories, more tax, more revenue.

More revenue, less debt?

[tombott]

More revenue, less debt?

lol, if you say so.
I think the national deficit has already gone up under the Tories. They are still borrowing stupid amounts of money.
Taxing the hell out of the majority of the UK, but letting the big guns off a stupid amount of tax.
So yeah same old Tories, they will be selling off the Post Office next. Shame there isn't much left for them to privatise, they've already done the NHS.

You either have to be stinking rich or fucking brain dead to vote for them.

[Mystical_2K]

You either have to be stinking rich or fucking brain dead to vote for them.

same for voting for any of the political parties really, your fucked if you do and your fucked if you dont

[MsDG]

lol, if you say so.
Taxing the hell out of the majority of the UK, but letting the big guns off a stupid amount of tax.

I doubt suppose you can elaborate on how exactly it is possible to apply high taxation to the very rich?

[mysterym]

I doubt suppose you can elaborate on how exactly it is possible to apply high taxation to the very rich?

I think he may be referring to coporate tax evasion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...idance-schemes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...orporation-tax

[mysterym]

lol, if you say so.
I think the national deficit has already gone up under the Tories. They are still borrowing stupid amounts of money.
Taxing the hell out of the majority of the UK, but letting the big guns off a stupid amount of tax.
So yeah same old Tories, they will be selling off the Post Office next. Shame there isn't much left for them to privatise, they've already done the NHS.

You either have to be stinking rich or fucking brain dead to vote for them.

I don't necessarily disagree with all of that, however anyone who thinks labour were any better needs a reality check, 20 years of positive economy and nothing left for a rainy day steaks of poor management (in contrast to Germany who have become a European superpower), as does brown selling the UK gold reserves at a fraction of what they are now (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...rown-told.html)

The current coalition are making the best of a bad situation and trying there best to improve our debt, yes debt will go up but they must be making positive strides - the major credit ratings think they are doing a decent enough job as otherwise the would have come down from AAA already.

[tombott]

I doubt suppose you can elaborate on how exactly it is possible to apply high taxation to the very rich?

How much tax did eBay, Paypal or Amazon pay in the uk last year?

[tombott]

Indeed I am.

[tombott]

I don't necessarily disagree with all of that, however anyone who thinks labour were any better needs a reality check, 20 years of positive economy and nothing left for a rainy day steaks of poor management (in contrast to Germany who have become a European superpower), as does brown selling the UK gold reserves at a fraction of what they are now (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...rown-told.html)

The current coalition are making the best of a bad situation and trying there best to improve our debt, yes debt will go up but they must be making positive strides - the major credit ratings think they are doing a decent enough job as otherwise the would have come down from AAA already.

To be honest i doubt i will ever vote again. They are all one and the same now. I must say i hardly think printing money is making the best of a bad situation, if anything it is going to make matters worse.

[mysterym]

To be honest i doubt i will ever vote again. They are all one and the same now. I must say i hardly think printing money is making the best of a bad situation, if anything it is going to make matters worse.

Not sure if I agree with QE either, yes it gives a short term shot in the arm but you then get an increase in inflation.

[Over Carl]

Not sure if I agree with QE either, yes it gives a short term shot in the arm but you then get an increase in inflation.

Didn't labour start the whole "we're printing money but we're not printing money" game?

Only sense of it I can think is if the country owes out more money in loans set in sterling than in loans in other currencies. That way the country could in effect disregard part of it's debt while still paying it all back on paper.

[Geko]

lol, if you say so.
I think the national deficit has already gone up under the Tories. They are still borrowing stupid amounts of money.
Taxing the hell out of the majority of the UK, but letting the big guns off a stupid amount of tax.
So yeah same old Tories, they will be selling off the Post Office next. Shame there isn't much left for them to privatise, they've already done the NHS.

You either have to be stinking rich or fucking brain dead to vote for them.

While I don't like any political party, I have to defend some of the work the Tories have done. Our Bond Yield is at it's lowest rate for over 100 years. Which is remarkable in the current climate. The only country in Europe which can beat it is Germany, and their economy is far, far stronger than ours. It basically means we can borrow a hell of a lot of money, should the country wish, and that we should keep our AAA rating indefinitely.

While I agree they tax the working classes heavily and help out their mates. So do Labour. And Labour don't have any budgetary control or sense. So in the current climate the Tories are still the less of the 2 evils.

[Waka]

Shame there isn't much left for them to privatise, they've already done the NHS.
.

Tom I think you'll find Labour beat them to that one. PFI funded hospitals are a cluster-fuck of a bad idea. A short term gain so they look good in the poles and generations paying through the fucking nose for it. Seriously, there should be an IQ test before you can vote, that way we might be able to stop retards voting Labour in ever again.


Back to the OP, Roach, burn it. The Germans can manage to do it cleanly (ish).

[Geko]

I don't necessarily disagree with all of that, however anyone who thinks labour were any better needs a reality check, 20 years of positive economy and nothing left for a rainy day steaks of poor management (in contrast to Germany who have become a European superpower), as does brown selling the UK gold reserves at a fraction of what they are now (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...rown-told.html)

The current coalition are making the best of a bad situation and trying there best to improve our debt, yes debt will go up but they must be making positive strides - the major credit ratings think they are doing a decent enough job as otherwise the would have come down from AAA already.

Germany abolished trade unions and everyone worked their asses off for 25 years for very little. I can't see people in this country sacrificing their lives for the future generations.....

[Roach-Rampino]

Tom I think you'll find Labour beat them to that one. PFI funded hospitals are a cluster-fuck of a bad idea. A short term gain so they look good in the poles and generations paying through the fucking nose for it. Seriously, there should be an IQ test before you can vote, that way we might be able to stop retards voting Labour in ever again.


Back to the OP, Roach, burn it. The Germans can manage to do it cleanly (ish).

We do already send a large amount of unrecyclable waste to a biomass burner but our fines is made up from mostly fine(as in small) soils and aggregate so will not burn. There has been talk that some of the big London firms have been abusing the lower rate of tax by shredding down unrecyclable (dirty plastics etc) and mixing this in with the fines to avoid the higher rate of landfill HMRC has found out and acted on it. The problem is that, if this is true, it has fucked it for all of us that were producing a genuine fines product that qualified for a lower rate of landfill tax.