New Electrical Regs - Again

Page 7 of 10  
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 00:42:18 +0100, Dave Plowman

Can you provide any support for you assertation that you are taxed on having to stay in a hotel when working away from home? It is entered on your P11D and then you claim it as being related to business and no tax is due.
-- Peter Saxton from London snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can't personally anymore since I've been a freelance for over 10 years and don't have records going back to when I was staff. But a tax deduction was made by my employer in exactly the same way as they did to cover transport provided to take you home after public transport had stopped. Both were regarded by the IR as taxable 'benefits'.
--
*Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

some Revenue ruling about "effective place of work" or some such idea. Thuz, if you travel on business to a variety of places to see clients, attend conferences, see suppliers and so on, any overnights necessarily- and-exclusively incurred in such trips are fully reclaimable as expenses and attract no tax/benefit-in-kind guff. However, if you regularly work at your employer's (remote) premises or at some client site long-term, and some Revenue twonk decides that's your regular place of work, then it becomes a Benefit In Kind if your employer chooses to put you up in a hotel close by rather than you having to travel or move house.
Stefek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
London SW 12

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then some pretty large companies 'got it wrong' including most, if not all the ITV companies - and maybe also the BBC.
You would get a payment in your salary equal to the supposed benefit and a simultaneous deduction - after they had used the payment for tax calclation purposes. Unfair? Oh yes. But then it's the IR we're talking about who make rules to suit themselves regardless.
--
*It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:57:07 +0100, Dave Plowman

The Corp didn't operate that system in '71-72. We could have late cars but they were shared and no records kept of who went where sharing with whom. It would have been a bit of a task to divvi up the tax liability between the one that got out at Hanger Lane, the next at Greenford, the next at Litton Avenue, and Meself in South Harrow.

The IR did used to negotiate with individual employers and individual trade unions then. Maybe more so than nowadays when it's "all on the computer".
DG
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IIRC, it came in later than that - around '80. It didn't effect me much as I usually drove to work and in any case rarely finished so late I couldn't use public transport. But my colleagues who worked at Thames' Euston studios where the transmission and current affairs areas were often did - and working in Central London invariably used public transport, often with a season ticket. So having paid once for a ticket and being taxed again on being provided with a car home when the said public transport had finished seemed particularly unfair.
And as regards being taxed on a shared car - yes we were. I worked at Euston on linking the Olympics for ITV/Ch4 round about '90, and we had a shift change at 0400. I can't remeber how the actual figure was arrived at though, as wages dept did it. It was certainly less than having a car to yourself.

--
*In some places, C:\ is the root of all directories *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:26:44 +0200, "tim"

I'm not so sure it's wrong. What's happening is the employer ups the salary a bit. He can do that if he wants to. Makes the PAYE calculation as normal then takes payment for whatever benefit the employee has had (Hire car, hotel etc), that's OK as well.
Where it doesn't work (shameless plug) is where the IR try to tax the benefit at 10 -15x what it costs the employer such as trivial private use of an essential business car. ;-)
DG
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Doesn't the BIK reduce your tax code?
-- Peter Saxton from London snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:48:34 +0100, Peter Saxton

Conventionally yes, but Dave Plowman was talking about the situation Ca 20 ? years ago.
Nevertheless, just last week my son was awarded £500 of "incentive vouchers" by his employer (Quite an impressive looking wad!) he won't pay tax on them, his employer merely grosses up their value, adds it to his salary and calculates his paye as normal and then makes a deduction for them. He doesn't file a P11d (or even a tax return) and there's no BIK.
DG
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not quite - I'd say more like 10 or so. And I'm not sure whether it has changed in broadcasting for the few staff remaining.
--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That means the incentive vouchers are taxable. I did the payroll for a client recently and people were given bonuses of up to 500 pounds. I grossed up their wages to allow for the 500 pounds net. The incentive vouchers were just treated as cash. The incentive vouchers are taxable. Hotel stays on business are not.
-- Peter Saxton from London snipped-for-privacy@petersaxton.co.uk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:28:07 +0100, Dave Plowman

If the necessity for the hotel arose out of your particular circumstances it's taxable. But not many employers pay that anyway, in your business maybe, maybe not nowadays.
If it arises out of the job it's not. I've a machine to install in Aberdeen next week. I won't get taxed on the hotel nights.
DG
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like I've repeatedly said the IR don't apply their 'rules' equally. You only have to look at MPs to realise this - they are allowed all sorts of 'perks' the rest of us aren't.
Different IR rules tend to applied industry by industry. If you're in the fortunate position of getting 'free' accommodation when away from home on business - keep quiet about it, you could be next.
--
*Drugs may lead to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You may not have heard of IR35, which initially targetted IT consultants but in this years budget was extended to cover nannies, butlers, gardeners, anyone who was offering personal service via a Limited company.
If IR35 applies (and the Inland Revenue will always claim it does despite their rhetoric) then 95% of company income MUST be treated as personal salary - you can do what you like with the other 5%, like pay your accountant and so on.
And that's despite you having official receipts which cannot be ignored which might equate to 20-30% of company turnover.
So if your Limited company earned 10K for the year then the first 9.5K would have to be accounted for as personal salary - and if your real expenses were more than 0.5K then by government order you run the company at a loss. Naturally, if you apply the rules for Limited companies then you are required to close down the Limited company at the first sign that the company cannot trade solvently and has no possibility of paying its debts in the future.
There are cases still running between the Inland Revenue and private Limited companies which have been active for over 2 years, causing much stress and anxiety for the individual.
It might sound implausible, but it is fact.
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Seeth, seeth, seeth, seeth, seeth, seeth, seeth, seeth, seeth, seeth.
Thanks for that.        :o(

Oh, and these rules don't apply to large companies, which contribute to Labour Party coffers. Only to small (one man band) businesses.
--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6 Oct 2003 17:20:25 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote:

.....where the one man owns 5% or more of the shares of the company, and the other shares don't belong to a "connected person".
You also managed to leave out (tut, tut...) Labour party supporters and doners. For some reason the Inland Revenue seem to leave them alone when it comes to tax affairs.
Remember the Bernie Eccleston affair? He donated 1M to Labour who got found out. They paid it back as you would expect of any honest political party. I heard a rumour that Eccleston may have "forgotten" to cash the cheque.....
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 19:12:13 +0100, PoP

Oh no! We've had New Labour, Brown is the New Black, new this, new that, and now, New Kebabs! Please! ;O)
Take Care, Gnube {too thick for linux}
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A New Tory Leader.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/2003
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.