VAT Calculation question

Jan 26, 2004 15 Replies

My maths is not up to this...



How can I work backwards from a net price of an article to find out what the amount of VAT on it was?



i.e.. if I paid 10 for an item what calculation would I need to do to establish how much of that was VAT.



Thanks,



Keith


the amount of VAT on it was?

establish how much of that was VAT.

For gross - multiply by 7/47. Therefore, 11.75 (gross) has a vat content of

1.75.

For net, multiply by 1.175, then again by 7/47. Therefore 10 (net) = 11.75 (gross), and vat of 1.75.

RR may well have quicker method? :)

Thanks Doug.

Which leads me onto a follow up.

In the event of tax changes, is there a simple way of calculating the 'multiplier' for any particular tax rate.

'

"Doug Ramage" wrote

Why not simply multiply by 7/40?? :-)

"Therefore 10 (net) has vat of: 10 x 7/40, ie 1.75.

"Keith.F" wrote

When rate is 17.5%, you can get 7/47 from :- (17.5 / 117.5) ...

For 15% (say), you would use 15 / 115 = (3 / 23).

Or just go to one of the many online VAT calculators?

formatting link
John.

In message , Keith.F writes

In message , Doug Ramage writes

Why not divide by 1.175?

JB has. Multiply by .175

In both cases express the VAT rate as a decimal equivalent, NOT as a percentage.

I posted my reply to your last post before this one appeared on my server- honest Guv!

Neb

In message , Nebulous writes

You seem a decent enough cove, so I'll believe you ! just this once!

There's a very compelling reason: You'd get the wrong answer. :-(

To get 7/47 from this, double 17.5 / 117.5 to get to integers:

Giving 35 / 235

Reduce by dividing each value by 5:

7/47.

One nice thing about this is that you can do it in your head quite easily. Well, easier than multiplying by 0.14893617!

hth

Robin

Come off it. The nice thing about it is that you only need six keypresses on a calculator. If you can multiply £987.65 by 7 and then divide it by 47 in your head, as opposed to with the aid of pencil and paper, then I covet your head.

Your time starts NOW.

WELL?

Not worked it out yet?

TOLD YOU SO!

"robin" wrote

Why not simply divide each value by 2.5 at the start, rather than doubling originally? You only need one stage rather than two then! :-)

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required