We talked about airport shops doing you out of money, and now, the government have actually noticed. No, honestly.
Government people are now joining in the complaints that are saying airport shops need to cut their prices after it turned out they weren’t passing on VAT discounts to passengers.
Treasury minister, David Gauke, said: ”The VAT relief at airports is intended to reduce prices for travellers, not as a windfall gain for shops. While many retailers do pass this saving on to customers, it is disappointing that some are choosing not to.”
“We urge all airside retailers to use this relief for the benefit of their customers.”
Of course, you can urge businesses all you want and they still might not listen. Obviously, to make something happen, you need to threaten them with something. As yet, no-one at the government is promising to do anything official, other than moan about it and hope that businesses have a sense of fairness.
Steve Baker, a Conservative member of the Treasury select committee, echoed the sentiment of being diddled out of pennies, saying that passengers were being “ripped off”, adding: “Consumers are entitled to expect that tax savings will be passed to them rather than become another addition to the bottom line for companies.”
“I always thought that showing a boarding pass was an official requirement.”
The boarding pass issue focuses on the fact that airport shops ask to see your boarding card, even though it isn’t an actual requirement. Basically, the only reason airport shops ask to look at them, is so them can use them to claim VAT relief on all sales relating to people who are travelling outside the EU.
Seeing as it isn’t a legal requirement for passengers to show their boarding cards when buying stuff at airports, next time you’re in one, try telling them that you’re not prepared to show them and see what happens.
Everyone now knows that smoking is A Very Bad Thing, and the Government have been taking this as carte blanche to slap as much tax as humanly possible on those evil little sticks of icky stuff. In fact, over the past five years, taxes on tobacco products have risen by 40%, meaning that tax is now around three-quarters of the price of a packet of cigarettes- the highest in the 28 states of the EU. But have the Government pushed smokers too far? A major new survey of over 12,000 adult smokers suggests that consumers are now turning to‘non-shop sources’ to avoid paying the excessive taxation-resulting in a massive loss to Treasury coffers.
The poll, by Mitchla Marketing/Survey Sampling International, is one of the largest of its kind and received input from law enforcement officials and surveyed smokers nationwide.It found almost one third (29 per cent) of smokers are now buying tobacco products from ‘non-shop sources’ due to the excessive costs in the UK.
While cigarettes (and to a lesser extent, alcohol) have always been seen as a no-brainer for levying taxes- after all the demand is considered ‘inelastic’, meaning no matter how much the price rises, the demand will stay the same- it seems there does become a tipping point at which demand doesn’t fall, but desire to do the right thing in respect of UK duty, does. This large increase in ‘non-shop’ alternative shopping has caused the Treasury to lose an estimated £2.6 billion of tax revenue every year.
The survey found that the primary reason smokers were buying non-UK duty paid products was due to the high prices in the UK – UK smokers buying a premium brand of 20 cigarettes duty-paid are charged over £9, while 87% of those buying from ‘non-shop’ sources pay under £5.
The survey also found that over half of smokers (51%) plan to buy tobacco products from abroad and bring back as many as they legally can (although almost half of those don’t actually know how many they can bring back, which depends whether you are travelling from inside or outside the EU, of course). Almost one in five smokers (17%) now regularly buy their tobacco from abroad to avoid paying UK duty and 78% of smokers said they had no objections to buying fags without UK tax, so long as it was legal, i.e. from abroad rather than from the back of a van.
Of course, cigarettes for ‘personal use’ can be brought back in potentially unlimited quantities from EU countries, but even within the EU, UK fags can cost up to sixteen times more- in Belgium smokers pay £4, in Spain £3.80 and in Moldova just 57 pence for a packet of 20 cigarettes- so it’s no wonder savvy smokers are buying cheap without paying UK tax.
Giles Roca, Director General of the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association (TMA) said: “This survey shows that excessive taxation on tobacco products is forcing up prices and driving consumers away from legitimate sources. This is clear proof that the government’s high tax tobacco policy is not working.”
Naturally, non-smokers are probably far happier with the amount of tax levied on cigarettes, given the amount of revenue it brings in that can be used to fund the NHS for example, treating all those nasty smokers’ coughs. But what happens if the balance tips and the maximum revenue is earned at a slightly lower tax rate, meaning smokers can’t be bothered to try and get their fix cheaper?
Retailers who ply their trade in Britain’s airports are being asked to come clean about the millions of pounds in VAT discounts they’re making on duty free items, which of course, saves them loads of money which they’re not passing on in savings to customers.
So what’s this about? Well, have you ever wondered why airport shops ask to see your boarding cards at the checkout? Well, this is not a legal requirement, but rather, the information the retailers are getting off them is so they can avoid paying 20% VAT on everything they flog to those travelling outside the EU.
That Paul Lewis fella says: “I think the problem here is that the retailers are not being straight with the public. They are asking to see passengers’ boarding cards but not telling them that this is so they can make more money by not paying the VAT on what they’re selling. What of course they should be doing is passing on the savings that they make to the passengers who are travelling outside Europe.”
“The problem is, though, that they have got a captive audience,” he continued.
Of course, airport shops are a swizz and ‘duty-free’ hardly ever means ‘noticeably much cheaper’. All it really means is that the retailers themselves are not paying duty. In the case of Boots, their airport stores charge customers all over the country the same amount as they charge in London stores, even though they avoid paying 20% tax on everything they sell to those travelling outside the European Union.
HMRC have said that there’s no need for stores to pay VAT on goods sold to passengers leaving the UK: “Duty free shops may treat the sale of goods to passengers intending to take them to non-EU destinations as zero rated exports, provided they retain suitable evidence such as by scanning the boarding card.”
“There is nothing in VAT law to require the production of a boarding pass to purchase goods in airport shops, but without such evidence the supply cannot be zero-rated as an export.”
“HMRC cannot comment on the pricing policies of individual retailers.”
Be prepared to be blown away! You’ll barely be able to believe what you’re about to hear! Staff at some of the biggest banks in the UK, aren’t able to answer basic questions about tax and savings accounts.
This is according to the folks at Which!!! who have been going hard on some mystery shopper action. They found that almost 1 in 10 staff couldn’t tell them whether tax was automatically taken from interest in savings accounts, while 40% of them had no idea how much was deducted.
Which!!! also found that staff didn’t know much about the ways non-taxpayers can stop tax being deducted, or how to claim back tax that has been overpaid.
Of course, most customer-facing staff in banks aren’t trained very well and, of course, aren’t paid particularly well, which means those who would be experts in such matters are probably working elsewhere, for better wages. However, there’ll be enough people who think bank staff should know more.
Which!!! asked the following questions.
‘Is tax deducted?’ – 1 in 10 call handlers answered incorrectly, with one Barclays agent suggested that anyone on a pension wouldn’t be taxed and another from HSBC put their researcher on hold twice while trying to get an answer – and then came back with the wrong one.
‘How much is deducted?’ – Which!!! wanted to hear that 20% tax was automatically deducted, however, 42% of those asked couldn’t answer the question. Barclays and TSB were judged to have been the worst.
‘If you don’t pay tax, what can you do?’ – Which!!! wanted to hear about R85, the form you submit to banks to stop tax being taken from your interest. Not one of the banks scored 100% on this question, but Halifax, Yorkshire Building Society and First Direct scored highly.
‘What can you do if you’ve overpaid tax?’ – This is where someone should tell you about the R40 form, where you can claim back overpaid tax. The banks did not do well on this.
So, in terms of doing well, Halifax, Yorkshire Building Society and First Direct came out on top, while at the bottom of the pile, you’ll find Barclays and NatWest.
Are you married? Well done you. You must be thrilled and exponentially more lonely as you’ve irritated everyone on Facebook with your incessant cooing and 3,000 wedding photos that look like everyone else’s stupid wedding photos.
Anyway, if you’ve got married and are earning £10,600 or less in the 2015 to 2016 tax year, you may well be able to reduce your partner’s tax by up to £212 thanks to the new Marriage Allowance.
It isn’t a huge amount of money, but it is worth getting on it, as basically, it is free money for doing absolutely nothing of note. Tories love people getting married and, in their minds, marriages stop things like riots from happening, so there you go.
So, grab all your personal details ever, and head over to the government’s dedicated website for Marriage Allowance and get registered, by clicking here.
If you’re married and earn a higher amount than the threshold, then maybe you can sell all those spare toasters you got from your wedding day? If not, maybe you could moan about it and be passive aggressive with your beloved while you shop for matching fleeces?
Well, George started his speech this afternoon by saying he was presenting a ‘Budget for workers’ and it was certainly very interesting. Here’s a round up of the main things that could affect your pocket from the Chancellor’s announcements.
Child Tax Credits/Universal Credit
Widely tipped to be for the chop, the Chancellor duly cut Child Tax Credits and Universal Credit in a fairly hefty way. New claimants will not get the family element of tax credits and will be limited to claims for two children only. Existing claimants will see the earnings cap, before which amounts are not reduced, brought down from £6,420 to £3,450, with the taper rate on earnings above that level increased to 48%. The income disregard for income fluctuations between years will also be reduced from £5,000 to £2,500. The overall benefits cap will be reduced from £26,000 to £23,000 in London and £20,000 elsewhere.
National Living Wage
Totally taking the wind out of Labour’s sails, the Chancellor’s announcement of a £9 per hour minimum wage for the over 25s by the end of this Parliament will be welcomed across parties. The NMW rate will increase to £7.20 from next year. George is, of course, assuming that employers will have to pay people more so that they won’t notice the reductions in tax credits. Which is a great idea in theory, but many are predicting that those earning slightly more than hardly anything, who will see the biggest cuts in tax credits but the smaller increase in wages, will miss out.
But the idea of getting employers to pay more towards a living wage is accepted as a reasonable one, and giveaways like increasing the employers NI exemption for small employers and a reduction in corporation tax rates by 2% over the next five years.
Tax on individuals
Working towards his 2020 targets, the Chancellor announced that the personal allowance will go up to £11,000 from April 2016 (£11,200 for 2017/18), and at the same time the point at which the 40% tax rate kicks in will also go up to £43,000 from the current £42,385 (£43,600 for 2017/18).
However, the most radical change is that relating to dividends. Currently, dividends are subject to special rates, but benefit from a notional tax credit to reflect the corporation tax paid by the company. However, the Chancellor announced a new idea to scrap tax credits altogether, and make the first £5,000 of dividend income tax-free, with the next basic, higher and additional rates of tax being recalculated to be 7.5%, 32.5% and 38.1% respectively. This move should only make those receiving high levels of dividends end up paying more tax.
Pensions tax relief will be further restricted and the Government is consulting on changing the pension relief regime totally- mooting the idea that pensions would become more like ISAs, receiving no relief on the way in, but being tax free on the way out- another move that would penalise those paying tax at higher rates.
Additionally, no IHT will be due when passing down a family home worth up to £1m.
There were a number of other things crammed into the Budget, and as widely predicted, non-doms who live in the UK will see their tax advantaged status withdrawn after being UK resident for 15 years. Fuel duty remains frozen and the rent a room relief threshold will go up to £7,500. Interesting, but likely bad news for landlords- from 2017 mortgage interest will only be deductible from rental income to the extent that it gets relief at the basic rate of tax (20%) rather than at higher rates.
Those aged 18-21 are coming off quite badly, with a ‘youth obligation’ to earn or learn (meaning it will be much harder for them to get any benefits) and the withdrawal of housing benefit for these groups. But don’t think about going into higher education- at the same time, University maintenance grants will be withdrawn and replaced with additional student loans.
Finally, new classifications for new cars paying road tax will come in, with most cars paying a ‘standard’ rate of £140 per year, which is lower than the current average of £160. Second hand car rates will remain and no one will end up paying more than they currently do. Interestingly, road tax money is to be ring fenced to actually start paying for roads. What a novel idea.
So, as with all Budgets, there are winners and losers. Losers will include those currently claiming tax credits, even if they are the workers the Budget was aimed at. You will be a winner if you have a house worth £1m.
Amazon are doing great in the UK, shifting £5.3bn in sales from British shoppers. Not bad eh? Well, as per, there’s an issue with how much tax they’re paying. Apparently, they paid £11.9m in corporation tax last year, which barely buys a decent centre forward these days.
Accounts filed at Companies House show that Amazon.co.uk made a profit of just £34.4m (in the 12 months to 31 December) which means they only had to pay a relatively small amount of tax. However, seeing as people in the UK account of 10% of Amazon’s entire sales, something is going awry here.
Only last month, Amazon announced that they’d started booking UK sales through a British subsidiary after they’d sent their European sales through a subsidiary in Luxembourg for years. Of course, in Luxembourg, everyone enjoys lower tax rates!
The government are keen to get this all sorted out, and you’d expect that all these big businesses will be looking at moving their UK-bases to somewhere else, to increase profits. It is something that the Chancellor will have to play very carefully, or a load of big businesses will be off so quickly, we won’t see their arses for dust.
Of course, Google, Apple and Facebook are all facing similar criticisms too, and between them, they employ a lot of people in the UK.
According to reports, Facebook paid annual corporation tax of £3,169 here, which is absolutely remarkable. It is amazing what a creative accountant can do with numbers.
Jonathan Isaby, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “You can understand people’s anger at organisations like Amazon perceived not to be paying their fair share, but our frustration should be focused on the politicians and bureaucrats who have created our ludicrously complicated tax code.”
Times have been tough, and what with summer holiday season coming up, who wouldn’t like a nice little extra in their pocket? Well, it seems there is a quick and easy way to get some spare cash, and all you have to do is snitch on your ex-partner/significant other/neighbours to HMRC…
New figures show that backhanders payments to tax informants have jumped by almost 50% in the last year. In 2014/15 a record £600,000 was paid to people who had reported suspected tax dodges by calling HM Revenue & Customs’ (HMRC) confidential telephone hotline, with around 100,000 calls made, compared with £402,000 paid out the year before, and a similar amount (£395,000) in 2012/13.
Now, mathematicians will have spotted that £600,000 in payments compared with 100,000 calls does not add up to a fat lot of cash per call. But many of the callers to the helpline do not necessarily have a pecuniary motive behind the call. The majority of people who tell tales on report the tax affairs of others are bitter ex-wives (or husbands) or disgruntled former work colleagues. Sources suggest that a reward of between £50 and £1,000 is most commonly given, but only if the information leads the taxman to a “big win”. Of course, should you have extremely lucrative information, that could also translate to a higher pay out.
But why have the amounts gone up this year? Either people are just getting grumpier with each other, or people are wising up to the fact that, if they are inclined to share some juicy details with HMRC, they may as well be compensated for their trouble.
The ‘hotline’ for tax informants was set up in April 2006, and launched with a £1 million advertising campaign that showed a worker ‘getting away’ without paying tax. However, what is less widely publicised is the fact that HMRC have discretion to pay you for your information- after all, if you’re going to do it, you might as well do it properly. Adam Craggs, a tax partner at law firm RPC, suggested insightfully that “if too many people know that they can get paid for information supplied to HMRC they may be less willing to provide information for free.”
A spokesman for HMRC said: “The majority of people who provide information to us do so without any expectation of a financial reward. Cash rewards are discretionary and based on what is brought in as a direct result of the information provided.
“We receive information from a wide variety of sources and it is always used to make sure everyone pays what they should.”
Now, the only question that remains is- are HMRC backhanders undeclared income too…?
Controversial alternative taxi firm Uber has now been hit by a new campaign by black-cab drivers in London, and this time it’s war. The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association (LTDA) said the campaign is to “highlight what we are up against” and sees taxis and billboards across London slapped with posters claiming that Uber does not pay tax in the UK.
Uber burst onto the scene as a cheaper and easier alternative to traditional cabs in London. Many consumers like the convenience and affordability but ‘proper’ taxi drivers in many cities are understandably peeved that Uber does not appear to be subject to the same stringent regulations. Following concerns, Uber has been banned in a number of cities across the world, together with questions over the adequacy of its driver checks.
The posters show Uber’s senior vice president of policy and strategy Rachel Whetstone and Prime Minister David Cameron, with whom she is friends, beside a picture of Chancellor George Osborne – with an incorrect sum adding up to the fact that Uber apparently pays no tax in the UK.
“These ads are not anti-Uber,” Steve McNamara, general secretary of the LTDA told the BBC.
“The campaign is designed to highlight that the lobbying arm of Uber, a $50bn US company, has its tentacles embedded deep within Whitehall.
“The irony is that UK tax payers are subsidising Uber, a company that pays no tax in the UK, through tax credits and other DWP (Department of Work and Pensions) benefits paid to Uber drivers earning less than minimum wage.”
Uber, whose head office is in the Netherlands, said in response: “The campaign is simply incorrect. We pay taxes in every country we operate in and comply with all local and international tax laws, this includes the UK.”
Last year, Uber’s tax affairs were referred to HMRC by Transport for London following a complaint from Labour MP Margaret Hodge that it was opting out of the UK tax regime. The campaign will initially feature on 250 cabs, three advertising vans and on more than 25 digital sites across London.
There’s been long grumbles about Amazon’s way of doing business concerning e-books, and this probe will look at certain clauses in Amazon’s contracts with publishers, which are thought to be relating to the protection Amazon get from publishers offering rivals more favourable terms.
Margrethe Vestager, heading up the EU’s competition policy squad, said that she has a duty to make sure that Amazon’s arrangements with publishers were not harmful to consumers, by “preventing other e-book distributors from innovating and competing effectively with Amazon.”
“Our investigation will show if such concerns are justified.”
Of course, the EU is already snooping around Amazon, concerning their tax arrangement in Luxembourg. As we know, some gigantic companies are paying as little as 5% in corporate taxes, while smaller companies are stumping up 30%.
A potential double whammy of fines on the horizon, if Amazon are found guilty of being thoroughly shifty. We await the outcome.
You may recall that, in March’s Budget the Chancellor announced a new plan to take 95% of savers out of tax on the interest on their savings. However, rather than wait until April 2016 to take advantage, why not start earning tax-free interest now. Interested?
You see, the new limits of £1,000 worth of interest for basic rate taxpayers, and £500 for anyone paying higher rate tax (if you pay additional rate tax at 45%, the Government reckon you can do without the savings allowance), take effect from April 2016,and at that point, given the vast majority of taxpayers won’t be paying tax, banks will stop deducting 20% tax at source (ie before you even receive your interest payment, as they do currently). However, if you are savvy enough to open an account that doesn’t pay interest until after 5 April 2016, then all of the interest falls into the 2016/17 tax year, and the new savings allowance applies.
And it’s official. A spokesman for HMRC told The Telegraph: “If a savings product, such as a one-year bond, taken out now, pays out interest before April 2016, the saver will not be able to benefit from the new personal savings allowance as they have a right to access interest before April 2016. But if they cannot touch the interest before April 2016, the saver can take advantage of the new allowance.”
So, what you are looking for in order to facilitate this wheeze are accounts that only pay interest annually. You might consider the market leading Virgin Defined Access E-Saver, which pays 1.41% gross, which would allow a basic rate taxpayer to stash £70,920 into the before breaching the savings allowance threshold, halved to £35,460 for higher-rate taxpayers. However, closer inspection of the terms and conditions reveals that the annual interest isn’t paid on the anniversary of account opening, but is instead credited on 11 March each year. Which means the interest will be taxable, and the net equivalent is reduced to 1.13%
Consequently, the second best product on the market, the Paragon Bank Limited Edition Easy Access, begins to look more attractive, given its rate of 1.35% gross paid annually on the anniversary of the account opening, and therefore tax free so long as it falls within the savings allowance amount.
It’s May. People are starting to go on holiday. Few people are thinking about their tax return, given the first filing deadline is a little under six months away. However, despite this being the notional ‘quiet season’ for HMRC, Which!!! are reporting numerous complaints from members, as it seems it is still just as impossible to get through.
Last December Which!!! performed scientific tests to see how long it took for HMRC to answer the phone. While the average time was 18 minutes, some calls took over 40 minutes to get an answer. And as we’ve all heard, hang on for too long and the phone will just cut you off, leaving you no option but to just hang on the telephone for hours again.
Back then, HMRC admitted there was a problem, saying it had hired extra staff for the January ‘tax season’ and trained more people to take calls. New Government plans for a’digital account’ should improve the position, but that’s a way off and Which!!! think its “worrying” that people are waiting more than 20 minutes, and often up to 40 minutes, now to get through, when the pressure on phone lines is at its lowest. This “doesn’t bode well for later in the year.”
However, Which!!! are never ones to be daunted by the fact that their earlier investigation actually resulted in a poorer service than was offered previously, and they have now launched a poll asking people to log how long they have been waiting to speak to HMRC. Presumably they are planning to use this information to beat HMRC around the head at a later point.
If you are in the unenviable position of needing to call HMRC, prevailing advice seems to be to get up early- the general enquiries number (0300 200 3300) and self-assessment helpline (0300 200 3310) both open at 8am, so early birds get through much quicker. Hopefully.
People are deserting McDonald’s and, to make matters worse for the beef dealers, the EU’s competition commissioner has floated the idea of expanding a corporate tax investigation to McD’s.
Magrethe Vestager said that her charges were looking at whether or not they should launch an inquiry following claims by campaigners and unions of an alleged deal with Luxembourg, which basically allows the burger vendor to hugely reduce their tax bill on European sales.
This investigation would be added to the one that is already swooping down on Luxembourg’s tax arrangements with Amazon and Fiat. Of course, the EU is already ferreting around Apple in Ireland and the Dutch wing of Starbucks.
Officials believe that some tax breaks offered to big companies breach Europe’s rules on state aid, and basically is tantamount to an unfair subsidy which puts other companies at a massive disadvantage. This all follows the publication of a report by War On Want who reckon that McDonald’s siphoned off billions of euros of franchise sales from EU nations between 2009 and 2013.
The report said that McDonald’s coughed up €16m in tax, but, if the tax had been paid in the countries that the sales were made, then it is thought that Ronald McDonald would have to pay a total of €1.05bn in tax.
McDonald’s have outright rejected these allegations.
Gadget vendors Apple have been warned that they’re looking at a £1.5billion bill if they are found guilty of avoiding taxes across Europe. The tech behemoth is currently under investigation by authorities in the EU who, if they find Apple guilty, they have the power to rake all those unpaid taxes back in.
This week, Apple talked to investors about the scale of the potential repercussions. The amounts they could end up paying out ‘could be material’, which is a stock market term which translates to 5% of their average profits over the last three years. That should work out at over a billion quid, which is not to be sniffed at.
Apple’s deal with Ireland and taxes has been scrutinised for a while now.
In a statement to the stock exchange, Apple said: “If the European Commission were to conclude against Ireland, it could require Ireland to recover from the company past taxes covering a period of up to 10 years reflective of the disallowed state aid, and such amount could be material.”
Of course, Apple made £8.9billion in profit between January and March of this year, so they’re invariably not too worried about these looming tax penalties. They’ve probably got a couple of billion down the back of the sofa that’s fallen out of their jeans pocket.
European competition chiefs will release their report in June.
As announced in last year’s Autumn Statement, from this Friday, 1 May, Air Passenger Duty (APD) will be scrapped for children under 12. Interestingly, the removal of the charge applied to both new and existing economy-class bookings, meaning if you had already booked ahead, you may have already paid APD that actually isn’t due. Unfortunately, however, not every airline is automatically processing these refunds and you may have to do something to claim back the APD, which could be up to £97 per flight.
How much you could reclaim depends on when you booked at how far you are travelling. If you booked before 19 March 2014 , besides being a very organised person, you’ll probably get £13 for flights under 2,000 miles, £69 for flights between 2,001 and 4,000 miles, £85 for flights between 4,001 and 6,000 miles, and £97 for flights over 6,000 miles. Flights booked on or after 19 March 2014 will be due a refund of £13 for flights under 2,000 miles and £71 for longer flights
Note that APD is charged only on outgoing flights from the UK, not on inbound ones and strictly speaking, is charge paid by the airlines to HMRC, although generally the cost is included in the ‘fees and charges’ element of ticket prices. As a result, if you have paid APD for children for flights leaving on or after 1 May, they ought to refund the charge, with HMRC confirming there’s no deadline to reclaim the APD. The new waiver does not apply to non-economy flights, nor on tickets for children under 2 (as they don’t have to buy a seat, therefore pay no APD). Also note that the exemption is for children under 12, at the time of the flight, so if you paid APD last year for your 11 year old who is now 12, hard cheese.
But what if your airline isn’t doing automatic refunds? MoneysavingExpert have produced a handy table which tells you which airlines are offering automatic refunds and which are not, and what you need to do. In most cases it tends to be the cheaper airlines that aren’t offering automatic refunds, but you generally just need to complete some kind of claim form in order to get your APD back. Examples of airlines that do require a some kind of action include FlyBe, Jet2, WizzAir and everyone’s favourite Ryanair. However, note that Ryanair did actually stop charging children APD over a month ago in an uncharacteristic show of generosity, and that WizzAir are claiming that some of their fares were actually lower than the APD charge, and in those cases, refunds of APD will not be given. Which seems reasonable, if far-fetched.
Finally, make sure you keep an eye on the APD paid for older children if you’re booking flights beyond 1 March 2016, when the exemption will be extended to children under 16.