stek's daft question of the day.....

[jmo21]

It would, but then it also likely be taxable earnings in the employee's hands. So CT relief and treated as earnings.

Stek can do that too - get the company to pay the flight, claim it, but then it's a BIK. As he owns the company he's no better off, in fact he's probably just cost himself some NI.

He's not being flown on holiday though, so I don't see how it is a benefit in kind. It is not a perk, a bonus, a pension fund, a car - he is being flown at the companies expense, to do work.

If he was in the UK and being flown to another country for work, it wouldn't be a BIK, so why the reverse?

If he was in another country on business, and was needed back in the UK, or some other country, it wouldn't be a BIK would it?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

We'll send you care packages. And some new soap.

And a chastity belt

[stek]

He's not being flown on holiday though, so I don't see how it is a benefit in kind. It is not a perk, a bonus, a pension fund, a car - he is being flown at the companies expense, to do work.

If he was in the UK and being flown to another country for work, it wouldn't be a BIK, so why the reverse?

If he was in another country on business, and was needed back in the UK, or some other country, it wouldn't be a BIK would it?

Two points, why do I as an employee have to be out of pocket to do my job, and if I invoked my favoured substitute, Jarek, who lives in Warsaw, does he have to pay his own air fare?

[Clare@InTouch]

Two points, why do I as an employee have to be out of pocket to do my job, and if I invoked my favoured substitute, Jarek, who lives in Warsaw, does he have to pay his own air fare?

Dereference being that Jarek lives in Warsaw, and it being flown from home to do a job.

[stek]

Even HMRC would be hard pressed to argue that, and the point is that the journey itself was allowable. Whether or not you decided to sit in traffic isn't business related one way or the other

So i have a choice then to not turn up and lose the contract or take the extra flight? The choice as to whether I do that or not is business related surely?

[northernladuk]

Two points, why do I as an employee have to be out of pocket to do my job, and if I invoked my favoured substitute, Jarek, who lives in Warsaw, does he have to pay his own air fare?

Because he is not travelling to his home... and anyway.. I am not sure he can? I thought we had a thread with a Bob asking about flying back and forward to India while he had lodgings in UK and that wasn't allowed? Am confused now.

It is also your choice to fly home, you don't have to. Yes you will lose gig but again isn't that your choice. It is not costing you to do your job... it is costing you to be available to do your job.. that is where the difference lies surely?

[stek]

Dereference being that Jarek lives in Warsaw, and it being flown from home to do a job.

But Jarek isn't real, I made him up! I think i won that one!

[northernladuk]

I'm gonna claim the flights - I don't mind doing a bit of bird for CUK.....

Fingers in ears...LAAA LAAA LAAAA... Didn't see that.. Doesn't exist... LAAAA LAAAA...

Just a thought here... Can't he put it thought as sundries.. i.e. company pays it but it isn't considered for tax purposes... Still comes out of his pocket 1 to 1 in the end but it doesn't reduce the amount he has to spend in a year i.e.... 32K divis + flight cost rather than 32k divis inc flight cost?

Or is this seen as disguised renumeration?

[northernladuk]

But Jarek isn't real, I made him up! I think i won that one!

LOL!!! V good!

You are a lucky man it has to be said Stek.... HMRC would be the very least of my worries if I suggested curtailing the family holiday for a piece of work. I know it paid of the holiday etc etc but it isn't me that needs convincing!! Would be saying goodbye to the family and any chance of nookie for the forseable future at the same time. If I got on the plane with my nads intact I would have done well

[stek]

Fingers in ears...LAAA LAAA LAAAA... Didn't see that.. Doesn't exist... LAAAA LAAAA...

Just a thought here... Can't he put it thought as sundries.. i.e. company pays it but it isn't considered for tax purposes... Still comes out of his pocket 1 to 1 in the end but it doesn't reduce the amount he has to spend in a year i.e.... 32K divis + flight cost rather than 32k divis inc flight cost?

Or is this seen as disguised renumeration?

To be honest - it's 260 quid - haha!

But it is the principle, as an employee I am losing out and as an employee I am legally a separate body from my Ltd, so looking at from that perspective it is blatantly unfair and must well be a breach of some law, that's for tmrw tho...

If I worked for IBM and was dragged back from Bali for an urgent task in Preston, IBM would pay the flights - the tax treatment is the issue and if it's different for me as one-man-ltd than it is for IBM-1m+-ltd, then that isn't legal. So how would IBM be treated re; the cost and the tax liability here?

Or as an employee of IBM I would pay my own flights to return early, bare the cost, be out of pocket to curtail my holiday to end up out of pocket. Sorry - it's wrong.....