I'd always assumed that provision of hearing aids for a director (and staff) would trigger a BIK if provided by the company(employer) following the same logic than "normal" spectacles are a BIK and other healthcare (physiotherapy etc) is a BIK due to the duality of purpose rules.
BUT, I've seen an article by Croner Taxwise saying that hearing aids are allowable without a BIK if required for the work duties on the grounds of there being a BIK exemption on the grounds of disability. https://www.cronertaxwise.com/community/my-vip-tax-team-question-of-the-...
Looks to be contingent on how badly the hearing loss affects the ability to do the job. But if this is the case for hearing aids, why not for spectacles/contact lenses?
Replies (19)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
How has the director coped to date?
The relief for specific aids needed for employment.
Presumably the director would not need them unless he was employed
Be very careful in assuming everyone with hearing impairment has a disability.
You can be hearing impaired but not disabled. I believe the exemption is based on the disability (and duties of employment) not for a hearing aid.
So some employees may qualify for the exemption and others may not.
All covered very well in the article that the OP has linked to.
And on the basis that carrying out the duties of their employment is a normal day-to-day activity and that the hearing aid is necessary for them to be able to carry out those duties, such an individual would seem likely to satisfy the definition of disabled, for the purposes of the exemption, and thus qualify for the exemption.
Normal day to day activities refers to activities that are normal for people generally, not that specific individual. It also needs to have a "substantial" impact on their ability to carry out normal day to day tasks.
Normally, in the UK, those who are disabled due to hearing impairment would be registered deaf. That may be the case for the director here, but as we were only told of the hearing impairment and not whether it qualifies as a disability, it seemed prudent to check the right criteria has been identified and applied.
There is no requirement to be "registered" deaf, disabled or anything else. Under the Equality Act, and in applying for things such as Access to Work, the employee determines whether their problem is long term and has a significant effect on their day to day lives. Therefore any employee can determine that their condition / impairment amounts to a disability and therefore require a reasonable adjustment.
Is the gradual hearing loss a result of his employment there? If not, I don't see how it could be exempt from BIK. There are specific rules for glasses and contact lenses which seems to draw a line between needing glasses to use a work computer and needing them for reading or driving. On the latter I am a case in point, I can manage reading with the help of reading glasses but I need another pair for computers, so of course my employer kindly pays for them (with a reading add of course).
No. this has discrimination at it's root. If the employee needs to be able to hear well and an individual with a hearing impairment can do so with a hearing aid, then the employer cannot discriminate against them and just needs to provide them with a hearing aid to do the job. It's then discriminatory on the part of the State to tax them on such provision.
Interesting.
I do have spectacles for computer work which is only used in the office. However I need the distance glasses when going to clients (can I apportion costs - joking). I understand the employer can pay for an eye test without any BIK becoming involved.
As a hearing aid wearer - you do get hearing aids free from the NHS - so any purchase of hearing aids from a private provider would, on the face of it, be a personal preference - I would have thought.
NHS hearing adds and hearing assessments can equal the private sector. The issue is being persistent with the GP and getting a referral ideally first to an ENT consultant and then through them to the local audiology service, possibly at a hospital, for a full assessment and making sure you have the follow up appointments and adjustments on a continuous basis as hearing tends to deteriorate. And yes, I have two and there is no need to pay for the hearing aids. the NHS also provides free batteries. The NHS hearing aids can include bluetooth. You might need to pay for an office phone which includes bluetooth whioch should be deductible. A bluetooth streaming device worn round the neck can also connect to other devices eg a TV. The charity RNID has good information on this.
Agreed. I have had hearing aids for just over three years, initially the free NHS ones, which worked OK. However, I have just upgraded to new bluetooth aids (£4200 for a pair of Phonak Audeo P90-R, if anyone is interested) and they are better, but I wouldn't say they enable me to do my job any better than the NHS ones.
On the basis of the linked article - which appears to quote the relevant legislation, I tentatively vote for there being no bik.
As an employer, I was unaware that this might be possible. The key point for me is the requirement to make such a benefit available to all employees. And in my opinion that requires making it known rather than just saying "we would if asked" - most employees wouldn't think to ask.
You could have a "policy" for all reasonable adjustments needed for any disabled (as defined) employees. It doesn't need to be specific, to cover just hearing aids, for example. Then provision is available to all employees.
Most employees then still won't think to ask if you will buy them the electric wheelchair they so desperately desire. Meanwhile, as director you can have your hearing aid (if you needed on) within the exemption.