The use of VAT for monthly and quarterly turnover estimates A case study between NL and UK

1. The use of VAT for monthly and quarterly turnover estimatesA case study between NL and UK Pieter Vlag, Henk van de Velden Nino Mushkudiani all at: Statistics Netherlands Gareth James, Craig Orchard, Myrto Miltiadou all at: ONS

2. ESSnet Admin DataWorkpackage : STS-estimates AIM: Describe best practices for estimation of STS-variables from adm. sources if due to the timeliness problem the turnover variable is not yet (completely) available in the VAT registration. - the employment variables (wages, persons employed) are not yet (completely) available in the social security admin sources

3. ESSnet Admin DataWorkpackage : STS-estimates OBSERVATION: Survey data: NSIs do have control about timeliness Admin data: NSIs don’t have (complete) control about timeliness Practical implications: a. admin data for monthly and quarterly STS-estimates are (often) incomplete b. availability of admin data for STS-estimates differs per country CHALLENGE: Are recommendations possible, taking into account the ‘national’ differences ?

4. ESSnet Admin DataWorkpackage : STS-estimates ACTIONS Case study between UK and NL (for details see paper) Contacts and visits to other countries (DE, EST, FI, IT, LT) to check whether experiences and solutions for NL-UK are recognizable. Development of a framework to be worked out in 2010-2011 by DE, EST, FI, LT, NL, UK

5. CASE STUDY NETHERLANDS until 2009: VAT reporter yearly if VAT-remittance < € 1883,= year quarterly if VAT-remittance <= € 7000,= quarter monthly if VAT-remittamce > € 7000,= quarter + “special cases” 1.1.2009 threshold M -> Q increased to € 15000,= from 2009 – Q3 year if VAT-remittance < € 1883,= year Quarter general monthvoluntary + “special cases” ? TIMELINESS <= 30 days after reporting period

6. VAT t-12 VAT t MM data data + est. CASE STUDY MQ panels QM QQ Mx stopping Qx NETHERLANDS Quarterly turnover estimates-benchmarking system (prototype producion) Monthly estimates – in research Survey largest enterprises + nowcasting (approach Stat. Finland) Survey largest enterprises + quarterly system (modified) Survey largest enterprises + small survey other ent. , low aggregation levels after quarter (approach Stat. Sweden) xM starting xQ

7. CASE STUDY UNITED KINGDOM Monthly declarations (limited) + 3 three-month periods (“staggers”) Timeliness: 40 days after declaration period

8. CASE STUDY UNITED KINGDOM - Research to be done (small enterprises) • CONCLUSION: after splining the ‘staggers’ into monthly data -> similar methodological problems as in the Netherlands • If representative: approach Dutch benchmark methodology possible • If not: nowcasting or small survey

9. Inventory Legislation, availability NSI, Stabilitytime-series Framework to be worked out by DE, EST, IT, LT, NL, UK adm. Data Example VAT1 1 VAT can be replaced by empl Work Henk (NL), Craig (UK) Analyses transf to STS periods VAT Almost complete coverage VAT no complete coverage VAT < threshold VAT only not representative or cannot be modelled representative or can be modelled with benchmarking without benchmarking (GREG-type) Est. Survey (t,t-x) (GREG-type) Est. VAT (t,t-x) no VAT possible Nowcasting Benchmarking for quality 1st res. Benchmarking for transf. Q -> M

10. Inventory Legislation, availability NSI, Stabilitytime-series Example: The Netherlands 2010 - VAT adm. Data Example VAT Like deliverable I - 2009 Analyses Quarter – deliverable II - 2009 Month transf to STS periods VAT Almost complete coverage VAT no complete coverage VAT < threshold VAT only not representative or cannot be modelled representative or can be modelled with benchmarking without benchmarking (GREG-type) Est. Survey (t,t-x) (GREG-type) Est. VAT (t,t-x) no VAT possible Nowcasting Benchmarking for quality 1st res. Benchmarking for transf. Q -> M

11. Challenge Establishing the link between availability admin data and STS-estimates When established, comparing practices to improve them Providing recommendations