BIK on Classic Car

[northernladuk]

No, that's because pure electrics attract a way better tax treatment to encourage people to buy them, so they make economic sense.

Bearing in mind the high cost of the actual car it doesn't to me but if you really want a Tesla or similar then it's a the perfect opportunity.

[WTFH]

Was the plan involving a non-runner (or one requiring a lot of rebuilding), sell it to the company, get the company to pay for all the repairs, maybe do an engine rebuild while there, charge the company for your time doing the work on it at weekends (see your previous thread about doing overtime), then sell it back to yourself at the same price as you paid for it, or maybe at the same price + cost of materials spent, or at a depreciated value since most cars depreciate?

If so, I’ve got an old Alfa badge, might be off a 1969 Spider. I could sell it to MyCo for £10, then do some “minor repairs” and have a £15k car in a few months…

[malvolio]

In the grand scheme this post has turned purely hypothetical since the the car doesn't apply for classic status.

That alone would make the BIK way more than I could save in terms of VAT/Personal tax/Corp tax.

Maybe it if wasn't a gas guzzling monster it would have been okay.

Probably why so many directors have been buying Teslas recently

No, that's because pure electrics attract a way better tax treatment to encourage people to buy them, so they make economic sense.

[mgrover]

In the grand scheme this post has turned purely hypothetical since the the car doesn't apply for classic status.

That alone would make the BIK way more than I could save in terms of VAT/Personal tax/Corp tax.

Maybe it if wasn't a gas guzzling monster it would have been okay.

Probably why so many directors have been buying Teslas recently

[eek]

Not really. There are certain carry ons HMRC will see as aggressive tax avoidance i.e. you've gone one step too far and this would be one of them. You've entered in to a tax situation that is not driven by the business and is only there to avoid tax. A company car you don't need that then suddenly needs 1000's of pounds spending on it won't sit well with HMRC.

You mean I need to rethink the conversion of the company E-type to electric?

[northernladuk]

What following the law to the letter and paying the Benefit in kind tax required?

Not really. There are certain carry ons HMRC will see as aggressive tax avoidance i.e. you've gone one step too far and this would be one of them. You've entered in to a tax situation that is not driven by the business and is only there to avoid tax. A company car you don't need that then suddenly needs 1000's of pounds spending on it won't sit well with HMRC.

[malvolio]

Well duh, I'd sell the car to the company and the work carried out is just maintenance. Just rust work.

If the company owned the car it would be responsible for the maintenance.

The separation is fairly obvious given I'd pay tax on it.

Why doesn't the company buy the car then sell it back to you on completion at market rates...? You realise that the VAT probably wouldn't be reclaimable I suppose?

It would be cheaper and considerably less suspicious to take a loan or a dividend from the company and do it yourself, especially if you're aiming to pay the taxes anyway. Anything else is simply making things difficult.

It's no different to buying a personal company car, and the advice on that for many years has been that it is not worth the hassle.

[mgrover]

This sounds like the sort of grubby behaviour that gives contractors a bad name.

What following the law to the letter and paying the Benefit in kind tax required?

The ******* audacity...

[mgrover]

It doesn't anyway.

You and YourCo are not the same (legally you and it are separate persons) and I suspect YourCo is not in the business of classic car restoration. You can't simply use one side's money to pay for the other's.

You need to understand that separation before you get into real trouble.

Well duh, I'd sell the car to the company and the work carried out is just maintenance. Just rust work.

If the company owned the car it would be responsible for the maintenance.

The separation is fairly obvious given I'd pay tax on it.

[TheDude]

This sounds like the sort of grubby behaviour that gives contractors a bad name.