Hello.
We have a new client, who is a director of the company. HMRC just opened an investigation on his company account. He bought a car 5 years ago for £8000 and put it on a company pool. He used it for business and private use but never paid any taxes on car benefit (P11D).
Depreciation for those years was £4000, saving him £800 in CT. HMRC expecting him to pay NIC class 1A and to amend his self-assessment tax returns, paying taxes on benefit in kind – car benefit and fuel benefit. Fuel benefit was included without any reason – client always paid for the petrol by himself.
Could anyone advise how to deal with this situation? Can we amend CT tax returns and excluding car from it, as it looks a bit unfair with savings only £800 in CT, and now HMRC expecting him to pay around £15000 In taxes. It’s a small company with a small profit and client will struggle pay as much as £15000 to HMRC.
Thanks for help.
Tanya.
Replies (10)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
If the company owned the car, you can't go back in time and change that.
Or is there an argument to be made that the company didn't ever own the car?
Who paid for it?
It's not proof of ownership, but could help - in whose name is the V5?
At worst, HMRC should reduce the assessable value by £5k in respect of a capital contribution towards the purchase.
For periods prior to the change in legislation following Apollo Fuels you might also try the AF argument that if £8k was the open market value of the car then in paying that price for the car the director has obtained no actual benefit, and therefore nothing to tax for those years. I would expect that argument to meet stiff resistance but I would persist with it.
Having said that, if the director paid for the car, what were the accounting entries to bring it into the company's accounts? If DLA credited, scratch the preceding paragraph (and the one before that).
Since the director paid for the car (albeit reimbursed by the company via credit to DLA) and his name is still on the V5, I'd be minded to tell HMRC that there was just an almighty [***]-up on the preparation of accounts and tax returns. And that in reality, the company has never had any interest in a car with which to provide a benefit to the director. You'd have the issue of correcting the accounts somehow, dealing with overclaimed CAs and possible s455 problems. But overall likely to be far less costly than the BIK tax charge. I'd expect HMRC to resist of course, but if you don't ask ...
as it looks a bit unfair
No-one said tax was fair.
This question is worth bookmarking for use every time someone comes on the site and suggests employing an accountant is an extravagent unnecessary luxury.
If the records are there to demonstrate no private mileage was claimed then you can easily rebutt that element of HMRC's claim. (I'm guessing there are no records.)
BIK on list price when new not the £8k paid (assuming it was second hand) so the benefit will be high anyway multiplied over 5 years.
Unfortunately since he has conveniently “missed" out the BIK for the car it will be more difficult to prove that no fuel was provided retrospectively.
Did the previous accountant not pick up on this?