Surely the amount the employee is paying in this situation should then be treated as a contribution to the running costs of the vehicle and so a reduction in the chargeable benefit?
That would seem fair, but when was tax fair!
Provided it has been structured correctly, that should work.
Or, if there really is no benefit to the employee in having the employer arrange it, they could just go to the lease company direct!
I was hoping someone would say "because the employer gets a fleet discount", which would then demonstrate that there was a benefit to the employee.
Although I appreciate that for most other BIKs there is reference to "cost to employer", as some are referring to below, but when was the last time company cars have been taxed on that basis?
I've thought for a number of years that there was more of a political angle to the company car tax legislation, aimed at discouraging the use of cars which create higher levels of pollution - perhaps I am wrong.
So, why did the employees not just go straight to the lease company?
Why is the employer acting as an intermediary?
I appreciate that the above two questions are the same!
Thanks
Since when to HMRC get to dictate how my clients run their record keeping?
So long as the profit for tax is correct, that is all that matters.
Mr Gauke has got he head up his backside on this one, no doubt the hard lobbying from the software companies about how great all of this is paying off.
This makes RTI and auto-enrolment look like a warm up session in how to plaster small businesses in red tape, and what really sticks in the throat is there is no WHY, other then enriching software companies
That is to say there simply does not seem to be a purpose.
It is quite frankly insulting to hear them keep on bleating about cost savings which are clearly not going to arise.
There are cost savings ... but only for HMRC! It will cost the tax payers more though!
It's a stealth tax, rather than increase tax to cover additional required spending, instead they pass the cost direct to the taxpayer.
My answers
That would seem fair, but when was tax fair!
Provided it has been structured correctly, that should work.
Or, if there really is no benefit to the employee in having the employer arrange it, they could just go to the lease company direct!
I started my career in 1999, so SA was already well underway, but I heard stories of pre-SA and this did sound like that to me.
Everyone appealing against the notices automatically to extend the 60 day window!
I agree that there are lots of people in SA unnecessarily, but this doesn't seem to be the method of tackling that issue.
Yes, that would be OK by me.
Not answer I was hoping for!
I was hoping someone would say "because the employer gets a fleet discount", which would then demonstrate that there was a benefit to the employee.
Although I appreciate that for most other BIKs there is reference to "cost to employer", as some are referring to below, but when was the last time company cars have been taxed on that basis?
I've thought for a number of years that there was more of a political angle to the company car tax legislation, aimed at discouraging the use of cars which create higher levels of pollution - perhaps I am wrong.
So, why did the employees not just go straight to the lease company?
Why is the employer acting as an intermediary?
I appreciate that the above two questions are the same!
Thanks
BTL landlords
What about BTL landlords, will they need accounting software too??
...
There are cost savings ... but only for HMRC! It will cost the tax payers more though!
It's a stealth tax, rather than increase tax to cover additional required spending, instead they pass the cost direct to the taxpayer.