A senior manager for a client was recruited on the understanding that he would work from home most days a week and be in the office for one or two days, which has now turned into 3 days on many weeks. The office is about 60 miles from home. The company is paying him 45p per mile for every journey he does from home, and also hotel accommodation for when he stays over for 2 or more days. He has been informed that this is tax deductible.
The company are doing this on the basis that his place of work is home (as per his contract of employment), but I don't believe that this would stack up with HMRC. I just want to check that I am correct about this, before I raise it with the company.
Part of his job description is supervising the staff at the head office, he is actually the most senior member of staff in the UK, and this is their only office, and the place where all other employed staff work.
Replies (8)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
"He has been informed that this is tax deductible." The obvious question is by who(M?) and on what technical analysis? Have you asked for sight of anything like that?
I think you are right to be concerned about the "his place of work is home (as per his contract of employment)" issue. Presumably, if they had engaged someone who lived next door to the office, the contract wouldn't have required him to live 60 miles away or work from home. Para 3.37 of HMRC Booklet 490 might be a good starting point:
"Where an employee performs substantive duties of their employment at home as an objective requirement of the job, we may accept their home as a workplace for the purposes of the ‘travelling in the performance of the duties’ rule "
"He has been informed that this is tax deductible." The obvious question is by who(M?) ...
Definitely "whom".
Definitely "whom".
Ta, I must try and find a definitive account of when to use.
EDIT: It is easy, apparently!
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not-as-complicated-as-you...
Who and whom are interrogative pronouns. Who is the subject case and whom the object case.
Who was there ?
Whom did you see ?
Normally, whom and not who should follow a preposition.
Hence
To whom was that letter addressed ?
and not
Who was that letter addressed to ?
Reminds me of the Abbott and Costello routine......
When a home is a place of work it is still counted as a home and travel therefrom to another place of work in furtherance of his normal duties is still classed as commuting. The treatment of the hotel costs follows the treatment of the travel costs so it is all commuting costs and therefore none of it is allowable.