Accomodation

[trowelmonkey]

It would help if everybody knew where they stood in contractual terms.

Out of interest I 've dug up all the contracts I've ever been handed (some of which were only given to me weeks after starting a job after constant pestering). The practice of not having contracts ready to sign on the first day of work is still pretty wide spread, even in units well established enough to know better. Luckily though I only got badly burnt once when the pay on the paper was nothing like what was discussed. Needless to say I didn't stay long.

On a few occassions I was taken on for a specific project and later was either moved or retained after that project, but no new contract issued. Does this still go on? If one was working on away site A on the contract and the goes on to work in the office for six months and then is sent to away sit B, but still on the same contract, where does this put you?

Even recently I have asked for written notification of pay increases and my requests were shrugged off with a, "It'll be on your payslip." But that's not the point, a pay increase is a contractual issue! If units don't keep on top of the paperwork then we diggers will have trouble presenting a case to the taxman.

[ellie163]

Wherever your current contract states as your main place of work is your main place of work. I don't quite know how the tax office would view it if you're moved but not issued with a new contract.

The general slackness regarding contracts is appalling. That and the very fact that we weren't aware of these tax laws is why other professions just laugh at archaeology. How can we be expected to be taken seriously? It's not as if these rules are new, they've been around for decades and are common knowledge in other businesses.

I spoke to my tax advisor who, although they couldn't say for sure, felt that in reclaiming tax owed, for subs and accommodation etc..., hm customs and revenue were more likely to go after units than individuals, even though it is the reponsibility of the individual to declare anything they haven't been taxed on.

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by ellie163
It is only if you are sent on an away job, where it is not viable to commute from the main office, that accommodation and subs become non-taxable.

Is there any actual definition of when something is not a viable commute from the main office? Given what appears to be the quite widespread practice of expecting people to travel some distance to sites how far away does somewhere have to be? This of course connects into other issues relating to contracts (where they exist) stating a certain length of week and then finding that massive amounts of effectively unpaid overtime are added in travelling to sites. I can see some units potentially expecting more of this sort of thing if they are scared of the potential tax implications otherwise. I've no objection to travelling some distance to site as long as is considered safe and is recompensed in a suitable way but I'm not sure it is in many cases. Units might now think they are doing their staff a favour - avoiding the tex problems by never letting people stay away, no matter how far the journey.

[ellie163]

There's a whole other thread on this topic that has far more info. I'm not sure why this one is still sticky-ed

[BAJR Host]

will stiky the other one

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[oldgirl]

quote:Originally posted by RedEarth

quote:Originally posted by ellie163
It is only if you are sent on an away job, where it is not viable to commute from the main office, that accommodation and subs become non-taxable.

Is there any actual definition of when something is not a viable commute from the main office? Given what appears to be the quite widespread practice of expecting people to travel some distance to sites how far away does somewhere have to be? This of course connects into other issues relating to contracts (where they exist) stating a certain length of week and then finding that massive amounts of effectively unpaid overtime are added in travelling to sites. I can see some units potentially expecting more of this sort of thing if they are scared of the potential tax implications otherwise. I've no objection to travelling some distance to site as long as is considered safe and is recompensed in a suitable way but I'm not sure it is in many cases. Units might now think they are doing their staff a favour - avoiding the tex problems by never letting people stay away, no matter how far the journey.

From what I remember, and from the other thread, if you are working outside a 'reasonable distance' (and I vaguely remember being given a rule of thumb of about an hour) from your nomal place of work, then you are allowed to reclaim reasonable accomodation costs and payments for food, as well as claim mileage where appropriate, from youe employer.

Having been an employer in the past, we were often pointed at those organisations that paid for the accom up front and paid subsistence as what we should be doing. I was always a bit worried about that!

[BAJR Host]

and it turns out right;ly


"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

and it turns out right;ly

Assuming I have followed this all correctly does it not now mean that people (by which I mean diggers) are likely to get even more roaylly shafted, the options being either you get accommodation and you get taxed, or you don't get accommodation and you are expected to travel to site everyday whatever the distance??

[oldgirl]

quote:Originally posted by RedEarth

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

and it turns out right;ly

Assuming I have followed this all correctly does it not now mean that people (by which I mean diggers) are likely to get even more roaylly shafted, the options being either you get accommodation and you get taxed, or you don't get accommodation and you are expected to travel to site everyday whatever the distance??

Not neccesarily. What I take it as is that you will have to pay for your own accomodation, reasonable meals etc up front and then claim it back from the company you work for. The company is then responsible for the tax situation and also can claim back VAT etc too. But his will only happen if organisations are very clear about where, exactly, peopls 'place of work' is. The 'home worker/away worker' idea that has been practiced by a number of larger organisations may have to be looked at again.

One small company I have been part of issued more senior staff (anyone in charge of a site) with company credit cards, which gets round the staff paying up front, but I can't see that working for most organisations. Perhaps charging people a 'nominal' charge might be a possibility?

[BAJR Host]

asked about the nominal charge with the tax.... a definite No-No..

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers