TAX on benefits in kind
Discussion
ReallyReallyGood said:
If it's all employees, £100 per every 50 employess, so if you have 250 staff that's 250/50 = 5 x £100 / month = £6k/yr
If it's just this one guy, £100/month = £1200/yr
Phew - just checked that on HMRC website.If it's just this one guy, £100/month = £1200/yr
That is still a quite a penalty for just £280 of revenue. Then again that's what penalties are for I guess.
Eric Mc said:
Is there any way you could explain the fact that he wasn't paying for his meals as being an essential part of his job?
He'd claim essential I'm sure. But I'd struggle to defend it, it is convenience and a status symbol.To be fair he does work through his lunch (he eats at his desk), but then so do I and many other staff if not all.
Eric Mc said:
What is the nature of the business?
SchoolEric Mc said:
What is the employee's role in the business?
the head
FunkyGibbon said:
Eric Mc said:
Is there any way you could explain the fact that he wasn't paying for his meals as being an essential part of his job?
He'd claim essential I'm sure. But I'd struggle to defend it, it is convenience and a status symbol.To be fair he does work through his lunch (he eats at his desk), but then so do I and many other staff if not all.
Eric Mc said:
What is the nature of the business?
SchoolEric Mc said:
What is the employee's role in the business?
the head
That was my first guess. I came across a similar issue a few years ago!!
OP - this isn't in the North west by any chance?
IIRC teachers were allowed a free meal IF they were on lunch monitoring duty. (it was kind of a quid pro quo - a free meal in exchange for keeping an eye on the Chavs and Chavettes). HT decided that only he would be entitled to free lunch. The tax issues were pointed out to him. he ignored them. the tax issues were then pointed out to the Chair of Governors who suggested he stop.
Given that he was on a six figure salary i thought it was a tad pathetic tbh.
That was what I was trying to get at.
If the service provided to the staff member is NECESSARY for the performance of his duty, then there is no BIK.
He may have a case for being fed then without a BIK being imposed. I know it might sound a bit cheeky but it might, just, get you off the hook.
If the service provided to the staff member is NECESSARY for the performance of his duty, then there is no BIK.
He may have a case for being fed then without a BIK being imposed. I know it might sound a bit cheeky but it might, just, get you off the hook.
Eric Mc said:
That was what I was trying to get at.
If the service provided to the staff member is NECESSARY for the performance of his duty, then there is no BIK.
He may have a case for being fed then without a BIK being imposed. I know it might sound a bit cheeky but it might, just, get you off the hook.
Doesn't the perk have to be available to all staff to avoid it being BIK? Or am I mixing up my BIKs?If the service provided to the staff member is NECESSARY for the performance of his duty, then there is no BIK.
He may have a case for being fed then without a BIK being imposed. I know it might sound a bit cheeky but it might, just, get you off the hook.
Eric Mc said:
That was what I was trying to get at.
If the service provided to the staff member is NECESSARY for the performance of his duty, then there is no BIK.
He may have a case for being fed then without a BIK being imposed. I know it might sound a bit cheeky but it might, just, get you off the hook.
Not that I want to defend his position, but what is the test of NECESSARY?If the service provided to the staff member is NECESSARY for the performance of his duty, then there is no BIK.
He may have a case for being fed then without a BIK being imposed. I know it might sound a bit cheeky but it might, just, get you off the hook.
The necessary bit for him is the flexibility of eating something when he can over a tight and variable window of opportunity. Which is probably the same for most people. So as I see it the necessary part is convenience rather than how it is paid for.
(I'm sure as s
t hoping he's not on PH!)(And yes - oop North somewhere)
Countdown said:
Doesn't the perk have to be available to all staff to avoid it being BIK? Or am I mixing up my BIKs?
Not always.If a shop manager had a job requirement to live over a shop, for instance, then the provision of accommodation by the employer would not be a BIK - even if other shop workers were not required to live over the shop too.
FunkyGibbon said:
Pit Pony said:
Can I ask why this person was the only one with a free lunch and how the HMRC came to know ?
He's the big boss and demanded it. HMRC don't currently know, but our Auditors have spotted in whist testing some account transactions. They have raised it, so I now need to act.Pit Pony said:
The lunch didn't come via the works canteen, where it could have been hidden in the "wastage" then. Invoices from a sandwich shop ? Surely this sort of thing goes un-receipted via petty cash ?
Invoices from our 3rd party caterer, and we don't permit un-receipted petty cash...Eric Mc said:
Who is making the fuss over this?
Our auditors and Responsible officer. There have been a number of expense irregularities in the education sector, so the National Audit office has instructed auditors (via a directive to the education funding agency and DfE) to test for these when carrying out the audits.
FunkyGibbon said:
Pit Pony said:
The lunch didn't come via the works canteen, where it could have been hidden in the "wastage" then. Invoices from a sandwich shop ? Surely this sort of thing goes un-receipted via petty cash ?
Invoices from our 3rd party caterer, and we don't permit un-receipted petty cash...Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff