Client is travelling up to London on a regular basis on the train on a contract assignment. Train fares are allowable because he is travelling to a temporary workplace.
However his wife drives him to the station in the morning and picks him up in the evening.
If he drove himself to the station it would be 10 miles a day which he would claim at 45p / mile and he would claim the parking at the station.
However can he claim for 20 miles a day at 45p / mile and "no parking" because his wife is effectively taxi-ing him to the station each day?
Replies (38)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
No, you have to look at what costs were actually incurred on their merits and not compare with other potential scenarios. The purpose of the spouse travelling to and from the station to drop off/collect is not an allowable expense for him.
Perhaps she could charge him??
Hello
The purpose of the spouse travelling to and from the station to drop off/collect is not an allowable expense for him.
Why ?
Whooof!!
Because he isn't incurring any cost. His wife is.
That's a big assumption.
Who owns the car ? Who pays the running costs ? We haven't been told.
If I employ a driver to drive my delivery van, can I claim the running costs of the van ? I think I can.
I agree it's a big assumption, and it is made on the way the OP is phrased. It does, however, answer the "Why?" question.
Now, if more information was made available, I would adjust the answer as appropriate.
All we are told is that the wife drives the car. We are not told who owns the car or who pays for its running expenses. The 45p the OP asks about claiming is not for the wife's time for acting as chauffeur, it's for the running expenses and depreciation of the car.
Solution
The solution is definitely for her to drive a car which he owns and for which he pays.
Job done.
If it's a jointly owned car, whose running expenses are paid out of a joint account - what then?
Anybody?
Whose ?
If it's a jointly owned car, whose running expenses are paid out of a joint account - what then?
Anybody?
Great question. But I think that's fine.
Possibly a more pertinent question is, does the wife work ? Does she have any income beyond what her generous husband puts her way ? If not, how can she be said to be incurring an expense ?
Can I have him when she's finished
If it's a jointly owned car, whose running expenses are paid out of a joint account - what then?
Anybody?
Great question. But I think that's fine.
Possibly a more pertinent question is, does the wife work ? Does she have any income beyond what her generous husband puts her way ? If not, how can she be said to be incurring an expense ?
Surely if that is the case then it has to be said that the expense is entirely the husbands? And when she's finished with him I'll have him so I can retire in abject luxury, but he will have to make his own way to the station.
Or, could he
Could he not drive the car to the station, then she drive back; and she drive to the station to collect him and then he drive back? At least 10 miles could be claimed then.
Regardless of who pays for the car, the return trip for the wife isn't allowable. Id agree that the husband driving himself and the wife removing/returning the car (i.e. claim ten miles a day which the husband will drive) is the best advice.
Obviously there is 'a chance' that on a rainy windy day the wife will drive rather than swap over at the station - but he will be advised of the rules and it will be up to him to adjust his claim accordingly
Why does it matter who drives? Surely what matters is who incurs the expense of the car being used, and the purpose of the journeys in question.
Agree
Why does it matter who drives? Surely what matters is who incurs the expense of the car being used, and the purpose of the journeys in question.
I agree, John. The purpose of the wife's 20 mile round trip is business, imho. The fact that she travels alone for half of it is irrelevant.
5+5=10
Why does it matter who drives? Surely what matters is who incurs the expense of the car being used, and the purpose of the journeys in question.
I agree, John. The purpose of the wife's 20 mile round trip is business, imho.
It's not a twenty mile round trip though. It's two ten mile round trips.
The purpose of the initial journey to the station is to get the husband there to catch his train. It is allowable. That is five miles.
The wife then embarks on personal travel (hairdressers, work, nail appointment, off to see another bloke - wherever) and eventually returns the car to the station to enable the husband to make another allowable five mile journey.
5+5 = 10 allowable miles.
Interesting
Why does it matter who drives? Surely what matters is who incurs the expense of the car being used, and the purpose of the journeys in question.
I agree, John. The purpose of the wife's 20 mile round trip is business, imho. The fact that she travels alone for half of it is irrelevant.
What part of the spouse driving herself somewhere (or rather the business paying for a car to be driven somewhere unconnected with the business) can be "wholly and exclusively" for the purpose of the client husband's business? The business didn't "need" her to return home and back later and the cost surely cannot therefore be "wholly and exclusively" a business one. She could have sat in the car for hours at the station, for example, or driven a mile away and parked for free at a shopping centre and spent the day there. Neither of those scenarios would have impacted the husband's business so it's difficult to see how choosing to drive home and back was W&E.
Most couples have two cars these days but if this couple only have one, I'd suggest that might point to a clear (non-business) purpose.
I wasn't really making the point about the wife's return trip from the station etc. My point was addressed at those who seemed to think that there could be no claim for the trip to the station unless the husband drove.
Mileage, not allowable expenditure
Why does it matter who drives? Surely what matters is who incurs the expense of the car being used, and the purpose of the journeys in question.
I wasn't really making the point about the wife's return trip from the station etc. My point was addressed at those who seemed to think that there could be no claim for the trip to the station unless the husband drove.
The employee is not entitled to relief on the expense though. They are entitled to a mileage payment for driving. That is completely different and does not apply if the are a passenger.
If the wife was an employee, or director, then the whole lot would be allowed and should clam an extra 5p a mile whilst she has passenger.
Driving?
They are entitled to a mileage payment for driving. .
Well the logic behind the 45p is that is is for the use of the car. If what you say is true it would be a labour rate for driving (and there would be a premium rate for high mileage not a discount after the first 10,000 miles per annum).
Maybe im not explaining it too well
They are entitled to a mileage payment for driving. .
Well the logic behind the 45p is that is is for the use of the car. If what you say is true it would be a labour rate for driving (and there would be a premium rate for high mileage not a discount after the first 10,000 miles per annum).
No. No it isn't.
The logic behind it is that employees are not entitled to relief for actual expenditure on business travel in their own vehicles. They are entitled to mileage payments.
The entitlement to mileage payments specifically excludes instances where they are a passenger! THAT is why I said it was 'for driving'. If they don't drive the vehicle then they cant claim.
Ignore S336, S337, etc. It isn't relevant except for the purposes of defining what is or isn't business travel.
Totally agree it does not matter who drives
The issue is whether the purpose of the expenditure met the relevant tests.
If the client were say banned from driving and his wife was driving him for that reason - or his best friend - or a chauffeur - if he bears the costs of running the vehicle and otherwise meets the relevant tests he can claim.
One more try
The issue is whether the purpose of the expenditure met the relevant tests.
If the client were say banned from driving and his wife was driving him for that reason - or his best friend - or a chauffeur - if he bears the costs of running the vehicle and otherwise meets the relevant tests he can claim.
It seems nobody is going to take my word for it (cant say I blame them for that) so I'll try a different tactic. Under what legislation can he claim a mileage payment if not driving?
And if the husband paid his wife to drive
could he claim that as an allowable expense also?
Probably not
could he claim that as an allowable expense also?
No. Unless she is a taxi driver.............
Why can men not just get frigging taxis, and let their other halves get on with their own frigging days?
There is a reason why hubby has not driven the car to the station and left it in the car park. That reason involves being too frigging stingy to pay for a taxi, and the fact that the wife wants to be able to use the car, and that, in my opinion, gives the expenditure duality of purpose.
Security
Why can men not just get frigging taxis, and let their other halves get on with their own frigging days?
There is a reason why hubby has not driven the car to the station and left it in the car park. That reason involves being too frigging stingy to pay for a taxi, and the fact that the wife wants to be able to use the car, and that, in my opinion, gives the expenditure duality of purpose.
To be honest, id rather not leave my car at the local train station for any length of time. In fact I was bit nervous about letting it out of my sight when dropping a friend off recently.
Thanks
... And the fact that the wife wants to be able to use the car, and that, in my opinion, gives the expenditure duality of purpose.
Always interested in your responses PNL. Was your point re duality specific to there being only one car in the household? I certainly agree with that but was unable to see any business purpose of her journeys alone irrespective.
From the HMRC website
"Mileage Allowance Payments (MAPs) are what you pay your employee for using their own vehicle for business journeys."
Doesn't say anything about who has to drive.
MAPs not for passengers
"Mileage Allowance Payments (MAPs) are what you pay your employee for using their own vehicle for business journeys."
Doesn't say anything about who has to drive.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/1/section/229 does though..................
When is a passenger not a passenger?
If the journey was made purely for the benefit of the employee in the course of his employment surely that is outside of what the legislation refers to in respect of the passenger? For example, if he were being transported because he was unable to drive for one reason or another (let's say the wife broke his leg because he kept dragging her out of bed to run him to the station), but the car and all of the expenses of it were his surely he has still incurred the cost and MAP should still be payable?
No
If the journey was made purely for the benefit of the employee in the course of his employment surely that is outside of what the legislation refers to in respect of the passenger? For example, if he were being transported because he was unable to drive for one reason or another (let's say the wife broke his leg because he kept dragging her out of bed to run him to the station), but the car and all of the expenses of it were his surely he has still incurred the cost and MAP should still be payable?
No. You can claim mileage for driving your own car on business purposes. You cant claim that mileage as a passenger, because the legislation that permits mileage claims specifically tells you that you cant.
You cant claim a deduction for your own costs let alone anyone elses.
If anyone has read EIM31260, EIM31335, and S229 ITEPA, and they STILL disagree, then id be grateful to hear their rationale!
See - this is what we have done with our tax system
we can't even agree on a stupid issue like this thanks to a complicated tax system that treats S/E differently than employed and has manuals and notices that don't agree with the legislation.
...what a shambles.
Not that bad
we can't even agree on a stupid issue like this thanks to a complicated tax system that treats S/E differently than employed and has manuals and notices that don't agree with the legislation.
...what a shambles.
I don't think threes any discrepancy between the legislation, manuals, and notices - although I do agree that it's unnecessarily complicated.
Who here, for example, pays (or claims) mileage for driving to a course..................?
Much more
Love these huge arguments about tax of ten bob a trip.
Much more than the random posting from people wanting to sell their multi-million pound businesses and what do they need to think about ....
Spot on
Love these huge arguments about tax of ten bob a trip.
Much more than the random posting from people wanting to sell their multi-million pound businesses and what do they need to think about ....
Indeed
It's the little things
Love these huge arguments about tax of ten bob a trip.
Much more than the random posting from people wanting to sell their multi-million pound businesses and what do they need to think about ....
Multi million pound saes are interesting when they come up (I've got one on the go now as it happens) but things like this are the bread and butter stuff we get asked all the time ("what can I claim mileage for") especially from startups - and as such is the type of thing we really should know.