Pooled cars legislation unfairly punitive

Pooled cars legislation unfairly punitive

Didn't find your answer?

I am considering a situation where the company's premises are in another city from the director's residence. S167 ITEPA 2003 pool cars condition (e) is not therefore satisfied because the director needs the car for business travel on a daily basis and hence it must be parked outside his home. Because of the particular circumstances, practically conditions (a) & (c) are also not satisfied because none of the employees are based in the city where the director lives.  The director (who by the way is not uk-resident and comes over to the UK from his country for business only and stays only for a few days each time) is confident that there is no private use. Under s.114, since the car is parked at the director's home, it would be argued that the car is made available to the director's private use and hence some would say that availability for private use under s.114 alone would preclude s167 consideration. It seems that because of the personal circumstances in this case, the director is being unfairly treated and punished with a BIK. Many thanks.

Replies (2)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
24th Apr 2015 15:52

(No subject)

Thanks (1)
Replying to chrisacc1985:
By shogun
19th Apr 2015 15:24

many thanks

Thanks (1)