10th February 2011, 10:56 PM
Hi Kevin,
it’s a good point you make about the Revenue, my personal view is that is better to be able to make a decision from an informed position rather than get nailed at a later date. It would be all of us paying the bill after all. The Revenue doesn’t take ‘but I didn’t know…’ as an excuse.
The DF is aware that the survey could throw up results that run contrary to perceived opinion, and in some respects the initial data is doing just that. When discussing whether to hold the survey the possibility was taken into account that it might result in some negative side effects but it was felt that the need for transparency outweighed the possible downsides. Once we have the data and know what questions need asking of the taxman, then we’ll be asking those questions.
What the DF are aiming to do is collect data on current practices, and how they affect both employees (and the employer). Initial data suggests a wide variety of experiences of away work and travel across the UK -this is partly due to different types of employers, and the different type of work they carry out. The DF want to find out what this range of practice is, and then look to see what steps could be taken to make life better for everyone. Hopefully at the end of this process diggers will be in a better position to judge what they are being offered, and the tax situation will be just one part of this.
By shining a light on what the current situation is we can hopefully make it easier for diggers to see the true value of any potential employment. Whilst I know that some will consider that at the moment any employment would be a bonus, the advertised basic-level pay is only part of the story. If you work for the right unit you can apparently make over ?3,000 a year tax-free on top of basic salary, plus more for driving –and some diggers are doing just that, work for the wrong unit and you end up paying a huge amount just to get to work. But both jobs can carry the same salary in an advert…
As we both know English Heritage managed to solve the ‘problem’ of tax liability on provided accommodation for temporary staff by making arrangements the taxman, my understanding is that this is not the only employer that has made such an arrangement. One of the questions we will be putting to employers is whether they have checked whether any payments they make are liable for tax!
With your example, as I read it, yes: as long as you go to the employer’s yard under your own steam you aren’t taxed on travel from that point onwards. This seems to follow the same tax logic as the tax situation on accommodation, company cars, mileage etc etc as I understand it. If you are on a bone fide away job, then the transport is usually from temporary accommodation supplied by your employer to the site (which is only a temporary place of work: the travel is required by your work and therefore not a perk?). I think there may be a misunderstanding creeping in about claiming back expenses from the taxman whilst actually on PAYE?
it’s a good point you make about the Revenue, my personal view is that is better to be able to make a decision from an informed position rather than get nailed at a later date. It would be all of us paying the bill after all. The Revenue doesn’t take ‘but I didn’t know…’ as an excuse.
The DF is aware that the survey could throw up results that run contrary to perceived opinion, and in some respects the initial data is doing just that. When discussing whether to hold the survey the possibility was taken into account that it might result in some negative side effects but it was felt that the need for transparency outweighed the possible downsides. Once we have the data and know what questions need asking of the taxman, then we’ll be asking those questions.
What the DF are aiming to do is collect data on current practices, and how they affect both employees (and the employer). Initial data suggests a wide variety of experiences of away work and travel across the UK -this is partly due to different types of employers, and the different type of work they carry out. The DF want to find out what this range of practice is, and then look to see what steps could be taken to make life better for everyone. Hopefully at the end of this process diggers will be in a better position to judge what they are being offered, and the tax situation will be just one part of this.
By shining a light on what the current situation is we can hopefully make it easier for diggers to see the true value of any potential employment. Whilst I know that some will consider that at the moment any employment would be a bonus, the advertised basic-level pay is only part of the story. If you work for the right unit you can apparently make over ?3,000 a year tax-free on top of basic salary, plus more for driving –and some diggers are doing just that, work for the wrong unit and you end up paying a huge amount just to get to work. But both jobs can carry the same salary in an advert…
As we both know English Heritage managed to solve the ‘problem’ of tax liability on provided accommodation for temporary staff by making arrangements the taxman, my understanding is that this is not the only employer that has made such an arrangement. One of the questions we will be putting to employers is whether they have checked whether any payments they make are liable for tax!
With your example, as I read it, yes: as long as you go to the employer’s yard under your own steam you aren’t taxed on travel from that point onwards. This seems to follow the same tax logic as the tax situation on accommodation, company cars, mileage etc etc as I understand it. If you are on a bone fide away job, then the transport is usually from temporary accommodation supplied by your employer to the site (which is only a temporary place of work: the travel is required by your work and therefore not a perk?). I think there may be a misunderstanding creeping in about claiming back expenses from the taxman whilst actually on PAYE?