Share this content

Reasonable personal use of business van

Didn't find your answer?

Imagine a courier who owns a car and a van. He never uses the van for any personal trip, except for commuting to the same warehouse every morning. 
From his home to the warehouse there are 10 miles - 20 minutes.
Once in the warehouse, he picks up the parcels. Delivers on average 140 parcels every day, during 9 hours, driving 40 miles on route. 
Then he goes back to warehouse to leave any non-delivered parcel, and then home again, 10 miles, 20 minutes. 

I am trying to understand which % of personal use of business vehicle would be more tax efficient but reasonable at the same time for HMRC. 
In terms of miles, his personal use is (10+10)/ (10+10+40) = 25%
In terms of time, his personal use is 0.3 hours + 0.3 hours / 9.6 hours = 6.3%

Two questions please: 

Q1) All the guidance I find say the personal use is calculated based on miles. 25% looks very unfair - most of the petrol is spent starting over and over the engine in different deliveries and short trips. How do you calculate this? 

Q2) The insurance of the VAN is £7000 per year due to the courier risk. Can this be claimed 100% as business expense? The courier would not have this insurance if he was not in this business.

Thank you.

 

Replies (74)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

RLI
By lionofludesch
24th Feb 2021 20:13

I definitely wouldn't be adding back a proportion of the £7000 insurance. Most of it relates to the carriage of goods, not road risks. Try getting a quote for the van but without the goods risk. Plenty of comparison sites out there.

Thanks (2)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Soletrader1990
24th Feb 2021 21:50

Thanks for the idea. Good in Transit cover is only £300 (included within the £7,000). The only possible comparison is comparing to a personal use insurance quote but they are like £2000.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Soletrader1990:
RLI
By lionofludesch
24th Feb 2021 22:11

So what's the other £6700 for? I don't recall any of my clients paying so much and that includes couriers.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Soletrader1990
24th Feb 2021 22:17

Public Liability is £150. The rest is the "normal" insurance.
All couriers I know whose licence was issued out of the UK have to pay between £5k and £9k the first year.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Soletrader1990:
RLI
By lionofludesch
24th Feb 2021 22:56

Ok - let me put it another way. If you weren't in business, how much would it cost to insure your van ?

If you're saying £6550, that's grand, you should be adding a third of that back as private.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Soletrader1990
25th Feb 2021 00:02

I see what you mean. However, with the example I have given, which is very real in terms of miles, if you are an Amazon Courier, you are meant to add back as private a third of your motor expenses.

Is Business mileage / Total Mileage the only way to calculate personal use?

If this is the case, either the courier lives next to the warehouse or the personal use % skyrockets, which does not show the true image of the business cost. We definitely spend more than 66% of our expenses in those 9 hours starting and stopping the engine than in a 40 minutes drive.

Also, none of us would have a van if we weren´t couriers although I imagine this is not an excuse for HMRC.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Soletrader1990:
avatar
By Wanderer
25th Feb 2021 00:30

Soletrader1990 wrote:

Is Business mileage / Total Mileage the only way to calculate personal use?

If this is the case, either the courier lives next to the warehouse or the personal use % skyrockets, which does not show the true image of the business cost. We definitely spend more than 66% of our expenses in those 9 hours starting and stopping the engine than in a 40 minutes drive.

Never really considered this before but wondering if a time based apportionment would be a more accurate & fairer method?
Thanks (0)
Replying to Soletrader1990:
RLI
By lionofludesch
25th Feb 2021 06:38

Soletrader1990 wrote:

I see what you mean. However, with the example I have given, which is very real in terms of miles, if you are an Amazon Courier, you are meant to add back as private a third of your motor expenses.

Is Business mileage / Total Mileage the only way to calculate personal use?

Absolutely not. Which is the point I've been trying to make about the insurance with little success so far. You're trying to tell me that a fella who keeps a van for purely non business purposes - maybe to take the dog for a walk - will be paying over £6000 in insurance. I say that's unlikely. The high cost is somehow related to your trade.

You should add back the cost of your private motoring. If you can justify a higher cost per mile for business use than for private use, that's fine. Keep a detailed record of your calculations and be prepared to defend them if challenged by HMRC at an enquiry.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Soletrader1990
25th Feb 2021 21:05

Hi Liono - thanks again for your help! No, I said above "The only possible comparison is comparing to a personal use insurance quote but they are like £2000." So I suppose I would have to add 33% of 2000 back following your logic.
Thanks! I will reply to other users at the bottom.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Soletrader1990:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
25th Feb 2021 22:54

That makes no sense. Private insurance would be £2000 so you'll add back a third of it? I think Liono was suggesting that, rather than adding back a third of the total (business and private) to find the private element, you found out what private insurance would be by itself - £2000, you say - and added that back. (Granted, it wasn't well explained.)

Thanks (3)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Soletrader1990
25th Feb 2021 23:09

Thanks Dragon. I agree with you.
Things would get more frustrating having to add back the £2,000 as personal even when very few people buy a Vivaro with 2 seats for personal reasons. Even more frustrating if you additionally own a car, you end up paying 2 personal insurances.
Nobody said tax was sweet I suppose.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
RLI
By lionofludesch
25th Feb 2021 23:16

Tax Dragon wrote:

That makes no sense. Private insurance would be £2000 so you'll add back a third of it? I think Liono was suggesting that, rather than adding back a third of the total (business and private) to find the private element, you found out what private insurance would be by itself - £2000, you say - and added that back. (Granted, it wasn't well explained.)

What I was trying to get at was some split between insurance for road risks and insurance for carrying goods. The goods part is wholly business imho. The road risks can be apportioned. £2000 seems a lot. None of my van owning clients pay anywhere near half that. Which leads me to believe that this is some kind of furniture van or Sole lives in Northern Ireland.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Soletrader1990
25th Feb 2021 23:45

Liono, if you get a quote for a Vaushall Vivaro / VW Tansporter or similar valued at £7000, the insurance will be at least £2,000 for the average immigrant due to these factors:

- Non British nationality. Reason being we are used to drive at the other side of the wheel. I even have a friend from Albania who has not found insurance under £12k yet, as this country is considered high risk.

-The matter that the average immigrant tends to live in poorer neighbourhood than the average British driver makes a difference also in the location risk of the insurance company - post code is a factor.

- If you haven´t managed to get a Full UK Licence, you can drive but still more risk

- Some insurance companies do not validate no claim bonus from abroad. The ones that do, maximum 3 years.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Soletrader1990:
RLI
By lionofludesch
26th Feb 2021 06:49

Now you're disclosing more information.

Perhaps the one-third add backs aren't so unreasonable as you first claimed.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By frankfx
24th Feb 2021 20:56

33.3%
Not
25%
May refocus your thoughts

Thanks (1)
Replying to frankfx:
avatar
By Soletrader1990
24th Feb 2021 21:54

Oh god. 20/60 = 33.3% . I need a van and a calculator.

Thanks (0)
My photo
By Matrix
25th Feb 2021 06:50

If you believe that an adjustment is required due to ordinary commuting then use the advisory fuel rates multiplied by the number of miles each working day and add this back as your private use adjustment.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Matrix:
RLI
By lionofludesch
25th Feb 2021 07:02

Matrix wrote:

If you believe that an adjustment is required due to ordinary commuting then use the advisory fuel rates multiplied by the number of miles each working day and add this back as your private use adjustment.

Fuel's only part of it though.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
My photo
By Matrix
25th Feb 2021 07:08

I was providing my view on Q1 which is about fuel and you have already answered Q2.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Matrix:
avatar
By Soletrader1990
25th Feb 2021 21:48

I looked at this and with a diesel van 2.2 engine (advisory rate £0.12.) doing 20 personal miles per day that is 5000 miles per year.
5000*0.12= £600 of personal use.

Applying the 6.3% I calculated based on time, to expenses of £12,000 = £756.

Based on advisory rates looks at least fair, might not be allowed though.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Tax Dragon
25th Feb 2021 07:26

It's presumably open to you to use simplified expenses if that gives a better result. That's based on business mileage, of course.

I think use of mileage as the measure is so ingrained into people's minds that you might struggle to get your idea accepted. (And people that sleep in their vans won't thank you if you succeed.)

But the real problem (from a tax law viewpoint) is the "wholly and exclusively" rule. A business mile is a business mile. It's a thing with a clear business purpose. It's easy to test and it's easy to have it (the journey) as the thing tested. If instead you make the use of the van, not the purpose of the journey, the thing tested, you're opening a can of worms. Technically, any private use ("did you have your sandwiches on the seat next to you, sir?") at any moment prevents that moment from being a wholly and exclusively business one.

And that's before you get onto the philosophical debate that the court will enjoy: if it takes 40 minutes to drive 20 miles but 9 hours to drive 40 miles, can you really be said to be "using" the van for the whole 9 hours? Sounds like it's parked up for a chunk of that time.

I like your thinking. I really do. And I wish you luck if you take it up with HMRC. But... be prepared for the worst. And think about simplified expenses, to save the bother.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Soletrader1990
25th Feb 2021 21:49

Responded to Matrix above. Thanks Dragon

Thanks (0)
Replying to Soletrader1990:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
25th Feb 2021 22:46

No, simplified expenses gives you an alternative way of calculating a business expense. (See https://www.gov.uk/simpler-income-tax-simplified-expenses/vehicles- for a basic introduction).

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Soletrader1990
25th Feb 2021 23:01

Yes I saw, but as you mentioned, simplified expenses are still based in mileage. I have checked my average business mileage in the last 2 years and is about 65 miles.
65 x 5 days * 50 weeks = 16,250 miles per year.

10,000 * 0.45 + 6250 * 0.25 = £6062. This wouldn´t even cover the insurance so a bit unfair I think. Add £3000 on petrol, full service, tyres...!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Soletrader1990:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
26th Feb 2021 09:01

IMHO making claims on anything other than a mileage basis is likely to lead to problems. (You can try to break specific costs, such as insurance, down other ways such as Lion suggests, but in general, not. And it would be nice if Lion provided you with a reference to support the different approach even for insurance.)

Re time basis, I didn't say this explicitly before (but I was trying to nudge you towards thinking that) insurance is presumably for 24 hours a day. 9 hours at work includes 1 hour of drink, food and toilet breaks. So business use of insurance, time apportioned, is perhaps 8/24. Instead of a 33% addback, you could end up with a 67% one - or worse.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
RLI
By lionofludesch
26th Feb 2021 10:29

Tax Dragon wrote:

IMHO making claims on anything other than a mileage basis is likely to lead to problems. (You can try to break specific costs, such as insurance, down other ways such as Lion suggests, but in general, not. And it would be nice if Lion provided you with a reference to support the different approach even for insurance.)

Because if it's not on the internet it can't be right ?

Accountancy is an art, not a science. It's about being reasonable and putting yourself in a position that you can justify it with HMRC if asked.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
26th Feb 2021 10:42

This isn't accountancy though. It's tax law. Which is written/tested in court.

(Tbh I thought there had been cases that either confirmed or refuted your suggested approach. I couldn't remember for sure. As you'd suggested it, I assumed you could. But you can't. No worries. As you said above, seems it doesn't make much odds in the OP's case.)

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
RLI
By lionofludesch
26th Feb 2021 11:07

Tax Dragon wrote:

This isn't accountancy though. It's tax law. Which is written/tested in court.

(Tbh I thought there had been cases that either confirmed or refuted your suggested approach. I couldn't remember for sure. As you'd suggested it, I assumed you could. But you can't. No worries. As you said above, seems it doesn't make much odds in the OP's case.)

In all fairness, Dragon, I'd love to be able to say that HMRC specifically accepted such an approach last week. But the fact is that HMRC never question anything these days so there's not much of a track record.

The most recent similar case I've had would be a taxi driver back at the turn of the century, where a York 2 inspector accepted that the bulk of the taxpayer's insurance was for business cover. I'll grant you that it's not much to go on but, then, a lot of tax cases are older than that and still hold good.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
26th Feb 2021 11:14

I'll have a look later, unless someone else confirms here first. I thought there was published, legal certainty (as opposed to Lionesque hearsay).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
27th Feb 2021 07:07

I've had a little look. I (still) haven't found what I'm looking for. Maybe I dreamt it. But BIM37600 is essential reading. A couple of points:

The private use (or, more importantly, the business use) is a proportion of the expense incurred. There has to be an apportionment. (The BIM extract says: "You should not argue that such costs would be incurred in any event and only the marginal additional costs attributed to trade use are allowed." Of course that's aimed at stopping Inspectors being overzealous in what they disallow, but I'd think it cuts both ways. And it's here that I think I thought there was case law, that I haven't now found. IMHO the effect is that comparing the insurance you did take out with insurance you didn't then have to take out is not a basis of 'apportionment'.)
You're right though, Liono, that any reasonable basis of doing the apportionment should be accepted. And if the insurer can provide a business-only/other breakdown of the premium actually paid, that should do, I would think.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Soletrader1990
27th Feb 2021 15:20

Tax Dragon wrote:

Instead of a 33% addback, you could end up with a 67% one - or worse.

I read now bim37600, very useful thank you.
I understand what you mean but the reality is that I doubt one single accountant in the UK has ever submitted a self-assessment for a courier with a similar case scenario to the one above adding back 33% or even more as some options suggest.
So starting from this assumption I wonder: What do accountants actually report?

To summarise the ones in the thread, assuming £12,000 total motor expenses of which £7,000 are insurance) and miles as per the OP, the different add back options are:

a) Personal miles / Total Miles = 33% back
b) Personal Time / Total Time = 6%
c) Adding back advisory rates = 5%
d) Simplied expenses = 49% being (£12,000 - £6062)/£12,000
e) Documenting the add back figure and hope HMRC will find it reasonable. If you choose this option, please leave an estimate.

Optional) To split insurance out of total expenses, finding comparable quotes without the business cover. You would still have to calculate personal use for the rest of motor expenses

Liono, Dragon, thanks so much for your help with this. I do see how art and law get mixed, being the law knowledge and the decision taking the only tools for solving the problems.

I pass to you the hot potato, which option from above would you go for?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Soletrader1990:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
27th Feb 2021 16:32

I think most accountants would find it hard to believe that someone driving 9.6 hours a day was only doing 15000 miles in a year - and paying near 50ppm in insurance for the privilege.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Soletrader1990
27th Feb 2021 16:40

Just took randomly one of my invoices. See link and check average mileage that week:
https://pasteboard.co/JQjMAT2G.jpg

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
RLI
By lionofludesch
27th Feb 2021 16:54

Tax Dragon wrote:

I think most accountants would find it hard to believe that someone driving 9.6 hours a day was only doing 15000 miles in a year - and paying near 50ppm in insurance for the privilege.

I'm not surprised at all. A fella comes down our street every day and makes three or four drops - travelling maybe 200 yards in total. I never noticed that before Covid. Maybe it didn't happen then.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Soletrader1990
27th Feb 2021 17:05

Hi Liono - this was the same before Covid.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Ken Howard
01st Mar 2021 20:04

I wouldn't find it hard at all. The Amazon and Hermes vans who come onto our road seem to be stop/starting every few houses, and usually do a couple of different houses every time they stop. They won't get far in a day if they're doing that on every road in their "round". With Amazon, I get an update as they're getting closer - "9 stops away" etc. They're usually already on our road (or pretty close) as per the tracker when we get that message and it can still take half an hour or so for them to actually arrive at our door sometimes.

I think we need to be mindful of modern times, especially with the massive increase in online shopping due to covid. A year ago, a delivery van would typically race up our road, deliver to us or a neighbour and race off again to the next road. Now, as I say, it's constant stop/start up the road.

The OP raises a very valid point about the accountancy profession's historic treatment of private use adjustments. Covid has been a game-changer in so many ways and we really need to start thinking outside the box to properly account for the change in trading patterns etc.

I've got a few small B&Bs and guest houses and am very mindful of what private use add backs I'm going to be using for their 20/21 tax returns as most have had few guests over the year, so our usual percentage add backs may not produce sensible results. I certainly don't intend to use the same percentages as prior years as the usage proportions will be very different, as will the actual costs, i.e. I'll need to look at fixed costs as opposed to variable costs.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Ken Howard:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
02nd Mar 2021 06:50

Note to self: give both possible conclusions in future.

I wasn't really disputing the 15,000 miles. But I don't believe it takes 9.6 hours per day to drive 15,000 miles. As I said somewhere else, if you're including stationary time, your denominator is 24, not 9.6.

One easy measure of non-stationary time is mileage. (Technology maybe provides alternatives. Maybe such alternatives would be regarded both as more accurate and as 'fairer'; most importantly, they may be accepted by HMRC, or, failing that, by the courts. But that wasn't on the OP's list of options. So no-one has mentioned it.)

Thanks (0)
Kitten
By Hazel Accounts
25th Feb 2021 10:51

I assume it's a personal van and your courier doesn't work through his own Ltd Company?

If it were a company van, company could pay all costs there would not be a BIK as he would meet the restricted private use condition - https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim22795

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hazel Accounts:
avatar
By Soletrader1990
25th Feb 2021 21:49

Yes, I only know about sole traders. I dont know any courier operating through a Limited Company.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By whitevanman
27th Feb 2021 22:15

The most relevant bit of legislation is S34(2) which refers to an identifiable part of "an expense".
So, it is perfectly in order to look at each element of costs and apportion according to the facts relevant to that part.
Taking the purchase of the van itself, an apportionment by reference to usage would seem most logical. In that connection, no-one would argue for a time basis just because someone ate his sandwiches in the car (in any event is that in the course of travelling for work?). Usage would be taken as actual driving and mileage is the most logical choice.
As to insurance, there is no reason why the cost cannot be analysed along the lines already mentioned by others. Identify the cost of an ordinary policy for the vehicle and driver. Compare that with the cost including exceptional cover for business. The extra part is exclusively for business and the former is the amount apportionable.
As to fuel costs, mileage is the most obvious but any apportionment that gives a more accurate result is acceptable. Taking the OP's mileage example, if 1/3rd of mileage is on open roads, the vehicle might return 40mpg whereas constant stops etc for the balance returns 25mpg. If the price per gallon is £5.50, each private mile costs about 13.5p whereas business miles cost 22p.
So, the private adjustment would be, say, £675 for 5000 miles out of 15,000 rather than £958.
Other costs are unlikely to be capable of such detailed apportionment and mileage would in all probability be the only way of doing so.
All that said, proving the differences would be difficult. E.g is private mileage at 70mph so that consumption goes up? What about consumption when the vehicle is cold? Which mileage wears the tyres, brakes and exhaust more? One could go on and it would only show how silly this could get! (Obviously why HMRC plump for the simple mileage apportionment.)
Unless it is really worthwhile, I would suggest sticking with mileage. I cannot imagine HMRC getting worked up over tax of £100 or so. Equally not sure it is all worth the OP's effort (except perhaps the insurance which is easy to do).

Thanks (1)
Replying to whitevanman:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
28th Feb 2021 08:13

We are agreed on all points except I still don't understand the insurance, despite (I think) you and Lion saying the same thing in different ways.

The basic rule, as we all know, is that a cost is not allowable unless it is wholly and exclusively for the business. (So the OP's percentages, based as they seem to be on the notion that everything is business except wholly and exclusively private elements, appear to be back to front.) Where no part of an expense can be identified as wholly and exclusively business, none of it is allowable. If part is so identifiable, that part is allowed.

So far so good (but useful to restate as I don't think anyone has said it quite so clearly in this thread).

To the insurance. Let's suppose commercial van cover costs £y.
The same cover for private only use costs £x.
I don't think anyone would seriously argue with the assertion that £(y-x) is allowable in full. Despite the HMRC sentence I quoted above, the only reason for paying y and not x is the business reason. So y-x seems a perfect measure of the business cost, if one didn't want to use 2/3rds:1/3rd as the apportionment.

But you and Lion, if I've understood you correctly, also want to allow 2/3rds of x (the premium the trader would have to pay if s/he wasn't trading). Now, bear in mind that s/he hasn't paid £x. S/he's paid £y. It's £y you are having to apportion, not £x. Why is the relevant fraction, in your view, ((y-x)+2x/3)/y)? Seems to me, either you use 2/3rds or you use y-x, not some composite of the two. What am I missing?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By whitevanman
28th Feb 2021 08:34

I think the answer lies in your interpretation of what is / is not being allowed. The premium is (in your case ) y. If one accepts that the amount can be apportioned - and HMRC and everyone else seem to accept that it can - the only question is how much.
If the amount of x is what one might term the ordinary premium, that is what one would apportion (1/3: 2/3 here) but the extra bit of y - x can be wholly attributed to business and allowed 100%. It is only how you arrive at the reasonable apportionment based on the facts.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By adam.arca
28th Feb 2021 08:57

I wouldn’t normally venture to comment on a tax thread which has attracted the experts but I’m with Whitevanman (how appropriate is that to this thread btw?) and also Lion.

I know HMRC will say each case stands on its own facts (usually the facts which suits them though), but imagine a hypothetical non UK trader who also has a Vivaro van and also pays £2k premium, who drives the same miles but isn’t a courier. I think in that case we can all agree that p/u would be 33%. Then we have the case in point where the difference is that the taxpayer is a courier and he pays an additional £5k premium and a reading of his policy tells us this relates to the delivery of parcels, then cannot we say that this additional amount must relate to his trade?

Thanks (0)
Replying to adam.arca:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
28th Feb 2021 10:27

OK, so (and maybe the OP did say this, or maybe people are assuming) if the insurance is a composite policy with elements that are explicitly business and elements that are mixed, we can take out the business elements 100% and apportion the rest. That does make sense. 100% of the parcel cover, say, plus 67% of the van cover. (And, as you say, who are any of us to argue with whitevanman on such a topic?!)

But if that's not the case, if it's just general commercial vehicle insurance with no particular business part, I'm still not convinced. You are, if you like, using the whole policy all the time, so the whole policy is subject to the 33% addback*. (Put another way, there is no parcel-only, work-day only element.)

*Though I think the y-x calculation would provide an alternative - as it happens, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the two in this case.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By whitevanman
28th Feb 2021 10:48

I don't think it's a case of composites etc.
The question is whether some part of the expense can be said to be W&E for business.
Looked at from that perspective, if the premium for insuring the van on ordinary terms was £2,000 but the cover including the use for parcel delivery was £5,000, that certainly suggests that the extra £3,000 is wholly business. It would be perfectly reasonable to take that factor into account when determining the appropriate proportion to allow. I agree that, if the amount is not large, it is probably not worth the effort (I have said as much) but in this case the OP suggests it may be. Of course one would need some evidence and the client's nationality and related driving licence issues would also come into it. The fact remains that all such issues are relevant to determining the amount under s34(2).

Thanks (0)
Replying to whitevanman:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
28th Feb 2021 13:10

So am I guilty of the crime of the overzealous Inspector, that the sentence I quoted was intended to prevent? Am I saying "you'd've paid that bit anyway, so you only get relief for the excess"? (There's an irony there somewhere if so.... and I love a good irony, me.... even at my own expense!)

But I don't think I am. Some things cost more than other things. BTL mortgages cost more than a homebuyer's mortgage, for whatever reason. No-one says, when there's personal use, claim the extra in full and apportion the homebuyer element. The logic for commercial van insurance costing more than 'ordinary' van insurance is presumably, in part, that the usage is going to be more. More use, more risk of mishap. It's a combined policy and it's a fiction to say part of it is wholly business and the balance is mixed use so some of that is also wholly business. Unless there is something specific within the premium (eg parcel cover), it's one premium for everything. One premium, one bite of the cherry when you do the apportionment. (As I think we've wandered away from tax law into logic and philosophy, one of my weakest suits, I'd best leave it at this point and accept I am outvoted 3-1 at least. But if I apportion the votes more cleverly, I am sure I could make it sound closer! :-))

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By whitevanman
28th Feb 2021 13:51

I don't think you are "guilty" of being over-zealous (or anything). My own comments were made, to some extent, as general. There is no hard and fast rule in legislation. Apportionment is to be made by reference to the facts.
That brings up the usual problem that the facts given are a bit loose / confusing.
Reading again comments from the OP, the amount attributed to goods in transit is only £300. The balance of £6700 is down to "courier risk" but nothing to say what that means. Then says the cost for personal insurance (I.e no business use) is £2000, implying the extra is due to the business (hence my comments and, I assume, those of Lion).
However, he also refers to others with licences issued outside UK paying similarly large premiums (hence my comments on that aspect).
We clearly don't know why the cost is £7000. To decide what should be disallowed requires consideration of all the facts (not just random statements). Ordinarily, I would agree with you to apportion on mileage but if there is a clearly identifiable part that is attributable to the business use, there is nothing to preclude taking that into account in arriving at the amount allowed.
So, I rather think it is a case that we all agree on the principles but perhaps have viewed the "facts" differently?

Thanks (0)
Replying to whitevanman:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
28th Feb 2021 17:08

Oh I think Lion did say something about £300 + 2/3 × £6700 quite early on. So maybe we have all been saying the same thing all along. Twas the OP that said £5000 + 2/3 × £2000, maybe? Thread's too long now (for me) to reread to check. And as I think I've already said what you just said about a specific element being 100% business (my composite policy remark), I'm not going to disagree with you now.

So make it 4-0. Previous scorer must've forgotten the teams changed ends at half time.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
RLI
By lionofludesch
28th Feb 2021 17:52

Tax Dragon wrote:

Oh I think Lion did say something about £300 + 2/3 × £6700 quite early on. So maybe we have all been saying the same thing all along.

I dunno. I've changed my mind so many times as information has been drip fed in.

Thanks (0)
Replying to whitevanman:
A Putey FACA
By Arthur Putey
01st Mar 2021 12:04

If you read the latest Private Eye (no 1541), on page 10 there is an excellent short article by none other than "White Van Man" about the rip off nature of Delivery Service Providers, who I am guessing are involved in this case, and the hapless driver may well be paying £100 per week insurance.

I wonder if the DSPs (and other gig economy "employers" are concerned about the Uber judgement.

Thanks (0)

Pages

Share this content