Ask AwraIQ about features, pricing, onboarding, login, integrations, security, demos, mobile apps, automation, reports, or support.
Trinidad and Tobago · Caribbean
Trinidad and Tobago charges VAT at 12.5% and collects returns every two months. But zero-rating here is wide — basic foods, crude oil, natural gas, exports — so a great many registered businesses charge little or no tax on what they sell while paying it on almost everything they buy. For those businesses the return is a refund claim, the balance is a receivable, and the whole exercise rests on input tax: what you paid, to whom, on which invoice, in which period. We hold no tax on the purchase side at all. This page is about what that means before you buy anything from us.
One rate, two directions
The same 12.5%, the same bi-monthly cycle, and two entirely different relationships with the Board of Inland Revenue. Which one you are is decided by what you sell, and it changes what your accounting system is actually for.
A standard-rated domestic trader
Output tax. The system needs to get what you charged right, and it does.
An exporter or zero-rated supplier
Input tax. The system needs to get what you were charged right, and we do not record it.
A business in the second column is in a standing credit position: it is financing its own input tax from the moment it pays a supplier until the moment its claim is settled. That is a structural feature of being zero-rated in a country with a broad zero-rating list, not a criticism of anybody, and it is the reason the evidence behind a claim is worth more here than the convenience of producing it.
Which column you are in is not always stable. A domestic trader that wins an export contract moves between them, and can be in both at once — which is precisely the case where a system that records only one side of the tax becomes hardest to work with.
Our own schema, counted
We looked for this rather than remembering it, because the claim is checkable and worth being exact about. Across the whole product, a tax rate is held in three kinds of document — and all three of them are sales.
Customer invoices
A tax rate on every line
SalesQuotations
Tax held on the document
SalesPoint-of-sale receipts
Tax on every retail line
SalesPurchase orders hold no tax at all. Not a rate, not an amount, not a flag — the tax you were charged by a supplier has nowhere to go in this system.
On our Liberia page the same absence is described as adequate, and today it genuinely is — Liberia levies a tax you cannot reclaim, so tax on a purchase really is part of what the purchase cost, and that is where we put it. In Trinidad and Tobago that reasoning does not hold and has not for years. If you are in a standing credit position, input tax is not a cost, it is a receivable, and we are asking you to keep the record of your largest current asset somewhere other than in our system. We would rather write that down than let it emerge in your second filing period.
The same column fixes both markets, which is why it is one piece of work on the roadmap rather than two. It is commissionable on the usual terms — a written specification, a timeline and a price agreed first. What we will not do is imply that landed cost is a substitute, because it is designed to do the opposite of what a claim needs: it puts tax into the cost of goods, and a claim needs it kept out.
What this costs, six times a year
None of these are exotic and none of them are anybody's fault. They are the ordinary consequences of a system that records what you charged carefully and what you were charged not at all.
For a business in a standing credit position the VAT claim is often one of the larger current assets on the balance sheet, and in most systems it is assembled by hand from supplier invoices at the end of every second month. The number is real, material and outside the accounting system.
A claim is only as good as the invoices behind it. Every two months somebody gathers them, checks the supplier is registered, checks the period, and rebuilds a total that the system could have carried all along.
A domestic trader that wins an export contract is suddenly partly zero-rated, apportioning input tax between the two. That is the point where a manual method stops scaling and where errors become expensive rather than annoying.
Landed cost is the right way to value goods and the wrong way to hold a claim, because it folds duty, freight and tax into one unit cost on purpose. Every system that does costing well makes reclaiming harder unless it keeps the tax separate — and most do not.
What we are actually for
Everything below is running today. Input tax, credit position and filing are not on this list, and the scope section immediately after it is specific about that.
Order, receipt and supplier invoice reconciled against one another with variances surfaced rather than absorbed. This is the record a claim is eventually built from, and getting it disciplined is worth doing whether or not the tax field ever arrives.
Freight, duty, port charges and handling attach to a consignment as their invoices arrive and unit cost recalculates each time. Named here with the caveat above: it is costing, deliberately, and not a tax record.
Every supplier carries its own record, contacts and attached documents, so the invoice behind a line is retrievable from the transaction rather than from a filing cabinet.
Output tax is recorded per line as a stored figure, so zero-rated and standard-rated sales sit side by side in one ledger and a document raised today keeps its rate permanently.
Raise and hold documents in more than one currency and report across them, which for an exporter is the ordinary case rather than the exception.
Cut activity by whatever period you actually work to, including one that is not a calendar month, and attribute it to the site, project or department that produced it.
Scope, in three parts rather than two
Three columns, because "no" means two entirely different things and one list hides which is which. The middle column has a price. The right-hand column is work we would decline from a paying customer, and it is the one to demand from every other vendor on your list.
Running in the product today
Not built yet — and commissionable
What we would decline, and would rather say now
Purchase-side tax is the piece of work behind three of the five items above, and it is the same piece of work the Liberia page describes from the other direction. Commissionable now on the usual terms: a written specification, a timeline and a price agreed before anything begins. The reason to treat that as a real offer is Kenya, where eTIMS transmission and a maintained statutory payroll engine were both built to specification for a single market and are now part of the product. No dates on a public page.
If you are standard-rated and domestic, almost none of this affects you and the page has overstated your problem. If you export, it is the first thing to ask us — and every other vendor — about.
How this starts
Take your last return. If the bottom line was a claim rather than a payment, input tax is the number your system most needs to hold, and you should be testing every vendor on it rather than on invoicing.
Ask to be shown the field, on the screen, on a purchase order. Not a report — the field. We have told you above that ours does not exist. It is a fair and revealing question to put to anyone else on your list, and the hesitation is usually more informative than the answer.
Not to be paid — to be assembled. If gathering the evidence for one bi-monthly claim takes a person more than a day, that is the recurring cost any system should be measured against, six times a year.
Read before you shortlist
Exporters and zero-rated suppliers reclaim tax rather than remit it. That makes input tax the number the whole return turns on, and it is the number most accounting systems never record as tax.
A cascading tax charges tax on tax. A credit-invoice tax does not. Liberia switches from one to the other on 1 January 2027, and the five percentage points are the least interesting part of it.
If your last return was a claim rather than a payment, one question settles most of the evaluation. We answer it about ourselves first, and the answer is not flattering.
Questions we are asked here
No, and there are two separate reasons rather than one. **Two halves, and they have different answers.** The first is a backlog item: we hold no tax on the purchase side, so the input figure the return needs was never captured and no report can recover it — that is the missing column described above and it is commissionable, on a written specification with a timeline and a price. The second is a boundary: we produce no filing output for any authority in this market and do not represent you to the Board. Even with the column built, the return is something your adviser prepares from our data rather than something we submit.
For the part of your business that matters most, it is incomplete, and you should weigh that seriously. Your sales side is well served — zero-rated and standard-rated lines coexist, rates are stored per line, multi-currency is ordinary. Your purchase side is where your money is, and we hold no tax there. What we would genuinely be good for is the discipline underneath a claim: matched orders, receipts and supplier invoices with the documents attached, which is the evidence a claim rests on even when the total has to be assembled elsewhere. Whether that is enough is your call, and we would rather you made it now.
It captures the money and puts it in the wrong place for this purpose. Landed cost exists to fold freight, duty and tax into the unit cost of goods so your margins are honest, and it does that well. A reclaim needs the opposite: the tax held out of cost, identified as tax, attributable to a period and a supplier. Using landed cost as a claim record would understate your margins and produce a total nobody could defend. **A boundary rather than a backlog** — we will not repurpose it, because the two jobs genuinely conflict.
Not our question to answer, and we would be suspicious of a software vendor who offered a figure. What we will state is the structural part, because it affects what your system needs to do: a business in a standing credit position is financing its own input tax from the moment it pays a supplier until the claim settles, whenever that is. That makes the speed and quality of your evidence worth real money, which is an argument about record-keeping rather than about anybody's administration.
No, and it is worth being precise about why, because we have written elsewhere about a period that does break things. Reporting in this system can be cut to whatever dates you like, including a two-month window, so there is nothing to work around. We have no concept of a statutory filing period because we do not file — that is a boundary rather than a limitation. Our Papua New Guinea page describes a genuinely different case, where a fortnightly pay cycle is refused by a unique key in the database; this is not that, and we would rather not borrow the drama.
It is a real feature of operating here and it is not a software problem, so we will keep this to one line: we will report accurately in whatever currencies you transact in, and we will not advise you on sourcing, timing or holding foreign currency. Our Malawi page sets out at length why we hold that line rather than making a feature of it.
No. English is the official language of Trinidad and Tobago, so the English-only interface — a real constraint on our Francophone and Arabic-market pages — is not one here.
Possibly you would not, and the honest case against us is on this page rather than hidden from it. There is no local office, no implementation partner, and the largest gap we have named is directly relevant to exporters, who are much of the market. The time zone works — a Port of Spain morning reaches a Nairobi evening, so there is a daily window, unlike our Pacific pages. What we offer past that is checkability: we have said which three tables hold a tax rate and confirmed all three are sales, rather than describing our procurement module and hoping you do not ask. Put the same question to every vendor on your list and see who can answer it precisely.
If the bottom line was a claim, we will show you exactly which parts of assembling it our system would carry and which parts it would not. That is a more useful twenty minutes than a demonstration of invoicing.