On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:57:07 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:


Then your employer got it wrong. Even if the item was taxable as a BIK
this isn't the way the tax is deducted.

Then some pretty large companies 'got it wrong' including most, if not all
the ITV companies - and maybe also the BBC.

The Corp didn't operate that system in '71-72. We could have late cars
but they were shared and no records kept of who went where sharing
with whom. It would have been a bit of a task to divvi up the tax
liability between the one that got out at Hanger Lane, the next at
Greenford, the next at Litton Avenue, and Meself in South Harrow.


You would get a payment in your salary equal to the supposed benefit and
a simultaneous deduction - after they had used the payment for tax
calclation purposes. Unfair? Oh yes. But then it's the IR we're talking
about who make rules to suit themselves regardless.

The IR did used to negotiate with individual employers and individual
trade unions then. Maybe more so than nowadays when it's "all on the
computer".

DG

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:54:34 +0000 (UTC), "Tim" wrote:

"derek" wrote
I do take issue with the cheap mortgages being untaxed if it's still
going on.

When I had my "cheap mortgage" from employer during the 1990's, it was taxed
(via P11D) - "Beneficial Loan". This was as early as 1991.



Glad to hear it, that wasn't so when I took out my mortgage 1972. Or
when I first started paying company car tax 1975 ?

DG

In article ,
derek wrote:
Then some pretty large companies 'got it wrong' including most, if not all
the ITV companies - and maybe also the BBC.

The Corp didn't operate that system in '71-72.

IIRC, it came in later than that - around '80. It didn't effect me much as
I usually drove to work and in any case rarely finished so late I couldn't
use public transport. But my colleagues who worked at Thames' Euston
studios where the transmission and current affairs areas were often did -
and working in Central London invariably used public transport, often with
a season ticket. So having paid once for a ticket and being taxed again on
being provided with a car home when the said public transport had finished
seemed particularly unfair.

And as regards being taxed on a shared car - yes we were. I worked at
Euston on linking the Olympics for ITV/Ch4 round about '90, and we had a
shift change at 0400. I can't remeber how the actual figure was arrived at
though, as wages dept did it. It was certainly less than having a car to
yourself.
We could have late cars
but they were shared and no records kept of who went where sharing
with whom. It would have been a bit of a task to divvi up the tax
liability between the one that got out at Hanger Lane, the next at
Greenford, the next at Litton Avenue, and Meself in South Harrow.

--
*In some places, C:\ is the root of all directories *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Huge" wrote in message
...
PoP writes:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 17:48:09 +0100, derek
wrote:

I do £22k business miles per year, working from home, 3 other cars in
the household. The IR reckon those business miles cost about £7k/yr. I
believe it would be fair for me to pay tax on the actual cost of my
proportion of the cars use (using IR rates). I'm only home at weekends
and the car's full of kit so I use my wife's car, private use of the
firms car is minimal but say 1.5k miles/year, IE I pay tax on £7,300 *
1.5/23.5 =£465 But the revenue wanted me to pay tax and NI on £4,400.
Note the past tense BTW :-) Not to mention the scale charge for VAT on
private fuel which is not mitigated for low private mileages.

Not forgetting of course that ministers have their own allocated car
and driver on call at all times - without one penny being due in BIK.

I think shortly after Bliar came to power in 97 some bright spark came
up with the idea that ministers could save some money if they used
pool cars (and drivers) instead. Naturally that never saw the light of
day.

And all MPs are allowed huge allowances for all kinds of stuff that would
attract tax is it were you and I.

--
I do 25000 miles in my company van per year and pay £500 tax. I work from
home, NEVER use the van for personal use and think this situation is
perfect. Especially when the dic**eads in parliament get pool cars, 2 jags,
yah-de-yah and pay sod all. At least they're gonna give me the chance to
make some of it back with the new regs he-he!
Have a nice day, Richard.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:55:49 +0100, "Frisket"
made me spill my meths by writing:

I do 25000 miles in my company van per year and pay £500 tax.

I do a fair mileage in a company van and thought I paid tax at the
relevant rate on £500, not £500 as a sum itself. The £500 is the
"benefit it in kind" value that is added to my P-what-ever-it-is.

I got a few raised eyebrows when I declined the new replacement car
and went for the van, then the new rates came in and suddenly it
wasn't such a bad move.

All the best
--
Wayne Davies - Mobile 07989 556213 - Harrogate, N.Yorks, UK

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:26:44 +0200, "tim"
wrote:

Then your employer got it wrong. Even if the item was taxable as a BIK
this isn't the way the tax is deducted.


I'm not so sure it's wrong. What's happening is the employer ups the
salary a bit. He can do that if he wants to. Makes the PAYE
calculation as normal then takes payment for whatever benefit the
employee has had (Hire car, hotel etc), that's OK as well.


Where it doesn't work (shameless plug) is where the IR try to tax the
benefit at 10 -15x what it costs the employer such as trivial private
use of an essential business car. ;-)

DG

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:12 +0100, derek
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:26:44 +0200, "tim"
wrote:

Then your employer got it wrong. Even if the item was taxable as a BIK
this isn't the way the tax is deducted.


I'm not so sure it's wrong. What's happening is the employer ups the
salary a bit. He can do that if he wants to. Makes the PAYE
calculation as normal then takes payment for whatever benefit the
employee has had (Hire car, hotel etc), that's OK as well.


Where it doesn't work (shameless plug) is where the IR try to tax the
benefit at 10 -15x what it costs the employer such as trivial private
use of an essential business car. ;-)

DG

Doesn't the BIK reduce your tax code?


--=20
Peter Saxton from London

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:48:34 +0100, Peter Saxton
wrote:



Then your employer got it wrong. Even if the item was taxable as a BIK
this isn't the way the tax is deducted.


I'm not so sure it's wrong. What's happening is the employer ups the
salary a bit. He can do that if he wants to. Makes the PAYE
calculation as normal then takes payment for whatever benefit the
employee has had (Hire car, hotel etc), that's OK as well.


Where it doesn't work (shameless plug) is where the IR try to tax the
benefit at 10 -15x what it costs the employer such as trivial private
use of an essential business car. ;-)

DG

Doesn't the BIK reduce your tax code?

Conventionally yes, but Dave Plowman was talking about the situation
Ca 20 ? years ago.

Nevertheless, just last week my son was awarded £500 of "incentive
vouchers" by his employer (Quite an impressive looking wad!) he won't
pay tax on them, his employer merely grosses up their value, adds it
to his salary and calculates his paye as normal and then makes a
deduction for them. He doesn't file a P11d (or even a tax return) and
there's no BIK.

DG

In article ,
derek wrote:
Doesn't the BIK reduce your tax code?

Conventionally yes, but Dave Plowman was talking about the situation
Ca 20 ? years ago.

Not quite - I'd say more like 10 or so. And I'm not sure whether it has
changed in broadcasting for the few staff remaining.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:04:30 +0100, derek
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:48:34 +0100, Peter Saxton
wrote:



Then your employer got it wrong. Even if the item was taxable as a =
BIK
this isn't the way the tax is deducted.


I'm not so sure it's wrong. What's happening is the employer ups the
salary a bit. He can do that if he wants to. Makes the PAYE
calculation as normal then takes payment for whatever benefit the
employee has had (Hire car, hotel etc), that's OK as well.


Where it doesn't work (shameless plug) is where the IR try to tax the
benefit at 10 -15x what it costs the employer such as trivial private
use of an essential business car. ;-)

DG

Doesn't the BIK reduce your tax code?

Conventionally yes, but Dave Plowman was talking about the situation
Ca 20 ? years ago.

Nevertheless, just last week my son was awarded =A3500 of "incentive
vouchers" by his employer (Quite an impressive looking wad!) he won't
pay tax on them, his employer merely grosses up their value, adds it
to his salary and calculates his paye as normal and then makes a
deduction for them. He doesn't file a P11d (or even a tax return) and
there's no BIK.

DG=20

That means the incentive vouchers are taxable. I did the payroll for a
client recently and people were given bonuses of up to 500 pounds. I
grossed up their wages to allow for the 500 pounds net. The incentive
vouchers were just treated as cash. The incentive vouchers are
taxable. Hotel stays on business are not.=20


--=20
Peter Saxton from London