You might also be interested in
Replies (9)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Not very fair, perhaps
But not exactly out of kilter with publically available HMRC guidance, or well accepted interpretation within the accounting profession. There could be few accountants out there who would instruct a client that a Disco could be treated as a van, for VAT, capital allowance or BIK purposes.
You'd have thought that they would have been better off pursuing, say, a pool car argument.
What were they thinking?
As said in the article, there are a range of qualifying commercial options if it was essential that a LR Discovery was the base vehicle. They could have customised it however they wanted as a manufacturer.
Unlucky but badly advised... if they even sought advice.
hard to be sympathetic....
rules reasonably clear....and if you want to make sure its a van you can (without any room for doubt)....but convert a car and you will have a fight on your hands.....
Enjoyment of the car minimal....let me guess.....leather seats/sat nav/heater seats...etc etc? I think driving around in a renault kangoo shouldn't be confused with driving around in an SUV built primarily for the comfort of the occupiers rather than the cargo it is carrying....
Sometimes you just can't fathom it
The types of cases that get to a tribunal with outrageous indignation?
Still makes interesting reading and always useful to quote when a client comes to you and says after he has done it that you can you know!
What price not taking advice?advice £90 tax cost of not taking advice £4K+ + tribunal etc etc
Penalties? Mistake ? careless? Yes Deliberately careless ? your call
to be fair ...
... if you read the full judgement, I'd say it's clear that the taxpayer was not actually trying it on etc.
The technician didn't work for Jag Land Rover. He had worked for Mondial Assistance, who had the Jag/LR recovery contract, and whilst with Mondial had a modified Disco which was treated as a van due to a dispensation that Mondial had with HMRC as a result of a commissioner's decision in 1999 which HMRC decided not to challenge further.
The Jag/LR contract was taken over by the AA, who took on the technician under TUPE but got him a new Disco, which was more modified than the Mondial version - the back seats could be used in the Mondial version but not in the AA version, for example. But the AA doesn't have the same dispensation and HMRC, and the Tribunal, were clearly not in the mood to allow it.
Hard luck, and not quite as much of a try-on as it might sound, when you look at the history. Looking at the VAT rules too, it's possible that the modifications could have been enough for the LR to be treated as a van for VAT purposes.
Treatment was inconsistent.........but
Granted they might have expected the same treatment, but I still can't understand the commerciality behind converting a luxury suv into a van when there are perfectly good commercial alternatives. If they wanted a leather front seats they could have had them as an option or fitted them in the van version rather than selling the back seats they took out on ebay at a discount. Most of the AA technicians I see are driving transits.
I suspect there's still more to this than is being admitted, perhaps a medical reason why the technician couldn't use a commercial>
Jag/LR contract
The technician was working on contracts Mondial & AA had with Jag/LR - I suspect that the contract required the use of a Disco for PR purposes.
harsh but the fact
that he was obligated to use a car...doesn't make it a van....however sympathetic the facts may be to his case
Landrover Discovery Commercial
Can Someone please help..
....If I have a Landrover Discovery 4 Commercial as a company car will this be taxed as a car or van?
I just need to know a definitive answer. Some reports seem to say van, some say its even ok to add temporary seats in the back?
Any advice would be great. I could not afford to make a back payment if the rules changed half way through a contract hire agreement.
Big thanks
Matt