Replacement to Air Passenger Duty (APD): consultation analysis

7. Registration

7.1. The current UK APD system requires anyone operating chargeable aircraft for the carriage of chargeable passengers from a UK airport to register for APD - although an Occasional Operator Scheme is available for operators with very low numbers of flights (and therefore low APD liability). The consultation document proposes an approach to registration which is broadly similar with that currently used for UK APD. It is proposed that anyone with the intention to operate chargeable aircraft for the carriage of chargeable passengers from a Scottish airport from the date of the introduction of the Scottish APD replacement tax, will be required to register.

7.2. The consultation sought respondents' views on the proposed approach to registration for a Scottish APD replacement tax, including whether there are grounds to incorporate an Occasional Operator Scheme similar to that provided by UK APD.

Q15a: Do you agree with our proposals regarding registration for a Scottish replacement to APD?

Q15b: If you answered no, please explain your answer.

7.3. Question 15a asked whether respondents agreed with the Scottish Government's proposals regarding registration for the Scottish APD replacement tax.

7.4. Relatively few respondents answered Question 15 (40 responses, 25% of all respondents). This perhaps reflects the extent to which the proposals for registration are most relevant to those who will be liable to account for and pay the Scottish APD replacement tax, and as such has a less direct impact on achievement of the Scottish Government's strategic and policy objectives. This is illustrated in the number of group and individual respondents specifically stating that they were not in a position to comment on the proposals for registration.

7.5. The majority of respondents answering the question agreed with proposals regarding registration for the Scottish APD replacement tax; 30 respondents, three quarters of those answering the question. A further 10 respondents indicated that they disagreed with this proposal, all of these being individual respondents. All group respondents answering the question agreed with the registration proposals.

Table 7.1: Q15a Do you agree with our proposals regarding registration for a Scottish replacement to APD?

7.6. The consultation invited respondents to provide further written comment in support of their response at Question 15a; 11 respondents did so, around a quarter of those answering the question. This included 3 of those expressing support for the proposals, and 7 objecting to the proposals.

7.7. Most of those providing written comments referred to the principle of a reduction in APD, rather than the detail of the proposals for registration. This was particularly the case for those who objected to the registration proposals. Nearly all of those providing written comments who did not support the proposed approach to registration indicated that they objected to any reduction in APD, while a further respondent supported an immediate 100% removal of APD. Objections to any reduction in APD were also raised by a small number of those in favour of proposals for registration; these respondents indicated that their support for proposals were conditional on the replacement tax maintaining or increasing current levels of APD.

7.8. Only 1 respondent providing written comment raised a substantive point regarding the detail of proposals for registration. One airline/airline representative respondent suggested allowing taxpayers to register within 7 days of a chargeable flight (consistent with current UK APD registration rules).

Q16a: Do you currently use the Occasional Operator Scheme for UK APD?

Q16b: If you answered yes, what impact does this have on your organisation? What grounds are there to introduce a similar Occasional Operator Scheme for a Scottish replacement tax?

7.9. Only 1 respondent indicated that they currently use the Occasional Operator Scheme ( OOS); an airline/airline representative. This respondent suggested that, while the OOS was welcome when first introduced, subsequent changes to APD mean that it is "almost redundant". This respondent made reference to the simplified model of two bands, and particularly to the higher rates of APD assigned to the higher band meaning that the £5,000 annual threshold for the OOS can be met within a single long haul flight.

7.10. A further respondent, also an airline/airline representative respondent, indicated that they did not currently use the OOS but provided written comments based on their experience in supporting organisations that do use the OOS. This respondent suggested that the OOS provides a more efficient and convenient system for some operators, reducing the administrative burden particularly where an operators' flight schedule is responsive to changing needs of customers and businesses. The respondent also noted that the OOS makes it easier for operators to link the duty to a specific flight, and suggested that this is important for some organisations. In terms of the Scottish replacement tax, this respondent recommended that the replacement should incorporate a scheme which is applied to non-scheduled operators conducting fewer than 24 departures annually from Scotland, and with a threshold of £50,000 annual duty. It was suggested that this should allow operators at least 45 days after departure for filing and payment, and that an electronic filing facility is provided.

Table 7.2: Q16a Do you currently use the Occasional Operator Scheme for UK APD?