Can a company car be made available when on SORN?
Can a company car subject to a statutory off-road notification (SORN) be “made available” to an employee? Lucy Webb reports on a first tier tribunal case that tackled this question.
Replies (16)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
The SORN issue could have been easily remedied - but it wasn't.
Are we now deciding tax matters on what might have happened rather than what did happen ?
Agreed, it might be easy to remedy the SORN situation but the car, in my opinion, isn't made available for use until the SORN is removed.
Fatuous argument and a stupid decision, I'd appeal if the amounts make it worth doing so.
Are we now deciding tax matters on what might have happened rather than what did happen ?
Spot on
This a very interesting article. I understand the FTT decision as, although the car is SWORN, it is still available for private use. Perhaps the companies handbook should have read that no private use of the vehicle is allowed therefore the vehicle cannot be available for private use. Then again who is going to have a Maserati and Gt40 without giving them some welly now and then.
... it is still available for private use.
IS available for private use does not have the same meaning as MADE available for private use which is what the legislation says and is why this decision is wrong.
The company's handbook says that the vehicle cannot be used without "express permission" from the management. Therefore it is or made available for private use.
Private use is not possible without the SORN being lifted. The SORN was never lifted so it was never made available for use.
It could have been made available for use, but wasn't. The law doesn't say a BIK is created if it's possible to make it available for use, that would be ridiculous.
The BIK was already in use so the car was already made available for private use. The FTT decided that SORN didn't make any difference. It's a bit like saying the car was having a service and I wasn't allowed to use it for a week.
I don't agree with the decision but I can see why FTT came to their conclusion.
With cars such as these, they could easily be transported on trailers to a race track and driven to hearts content, with no need to cancel the SORN.
With cars such as these, they could easily be transported on trailers to a race track and driven to hearts content, with no need to cancel the SORN.
No need to cancel the BIK either.
It's being used.
That's another 'what might have happened'. There is nothing in the article to suggest that the cars were ever driven on a race track.
But it is a potential reason why having the vehicle on a SORN doesn't necessarily mean it can't be used.
There is also nothing in the legislation that requires private use. In that sense the whole charge is on the basis of "what might have...".
It might (or might not!) help to consider the position if the cars had been used while SORN'd. Would anyone argue that's not private use 'cos it's use that involves breach of the law?
The management in a car dealership, can quite likely drive any car in stock at any time. Taking this judgement to its logical extreme would suggest that they should be assessed for bik on the entire stock.