I understand the 24 month rule when it comes to claiming travel to a client site i.e. as soon as you become aware that you are going to be there more than 24 months you must stop claiming travel.
However, when it comes to claiming lunches does this rule also apply? A previous accountant advised me that the provision of lunches to an employee (me) by an employer (my ltd co) was exempt from tax and the 24 month rule did not apply.
Source: Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30001-ag.htm#317
I realise this Act is 3 years out of date, so it might have been superseded, but at first sight it would appear that provision of lunches is not taxable. In my permie days I worked for a Big 5 and they provided free lunches without me paying any additional tax (although maybe they did a deal with Hector and paid it on my behalf).
What does the panel think?
However, when it comes to claiming lunches does this rule also apply? A previous accountant advised me that the provision of lunches to an employee (me) by an employer (my ltd co) was exempt from tax and the 24 month rule did not apply.
Workplace meals
317 Subsidised meals
(1) No liability to income tax arises in respect of the provision for an employee by the employer of free or subsidised meals if-
(a) they are provided in a canteen where meals are provided for the employer's employees generally or generally to those at a particular location, or
(b) they are provided on the employer's business premises and conditions A to C are met.
(2) Condition A is that the meals are provided on a reasonable scale.
(3) Condition B is that all the employer's employees or all of them at a particular location may obtain one or both of the following-
(a) a free or subsidised meal, or
(b) a free or subsidised meal voucher or token.
(4) Condition C is that if the meals are provided in the restaurant or dining room of a hotel or a catering or similar business at a time when meals are being served to the public-
(a) part of the restaurant or dining room is designated for the use of employees only, and
(b) the meals are taken in that part.
(5) In this section "free or subsidised meal voucher or token" means a voucher, ticket, pass or other document or token which-
(a) is intended to enable a person to obtain a meal, and
(b) is provided to the employee free of charge or for less than the cost of the meals to be obtained by it.
(6) In this section "meals" includes light refreshments.
317 Subsidised meals
(1) No liability to income tax arises in respect of the provision for an employee by the employer of free or subsidised meals if-
(a) they are provided in a canteen where meals are provided for the employer's employees generally or generally to those at a particular location, or
(b) they are provided on the employer's business premises and conditions A to C are met.
(2) Condition A is that the meals are provided on a reasonable scale.
(3) Condition B is that all the employer's employees or all of them at a particular location may obtain one or both of the following-
(a) a free or subsidised meal, or
(b) a free or subsidised meal voucher or token.
(4) Condition C is that if the meals are provided in the restaurant or dining room of a hotel or a catering or similar business at a time when meals are being served to the public-
(a) part of the restaurant or dining room is designated for the use of employees only, and
(b) the meals are taken in that part.
(5) In this section "free or subsidised meal voucher or token" means a voucher, ticket, pass or other document or token which-
(a) is intended to enable a person to obtain a meal, and
(b) is provided to the employee free of charge or for less than the cost of the meals to be obtained by it.
(6) In this section "meals" includes light refreshments.
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30001-ag.htm#317
I realise this Act is 3 years out of date, so it might have been superseded, but at first sight it would appear that provision of lunches is not taxable. In my permie days I worked for a Big 5 and they provided free lunches without me paying any additional tax (although maybe they did a deal with Hector and paid it on my behalf).
What does the panel think?
Comment