Tax deduction for meals provided on employers premises (home office)

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

The problem as stated repeatedly is that HMRC will think your taking the proverbiable, and if noticed take this as an indicator to look into your accounts very thoroughly

Sure, that's a reasonable argument. It depends how much you have to worry about if they looked into your accounts though, doesn't it? If your books are good and you have no IR35 worries, then I don't see the problem.

[malvolio]

...then I don't see the problem.

Perhaps you should go research Ramsay...

Then look up the cost of having your company logo* printed on your suit, shirts and underpants so they become claimable as work wear. You presumably already claim under the cycle to work scheme, just make sure the route from your bedroom to your study goes outside the house if you don't fancy messing up the carpets.

As I said earlier, BIDI...




* You do have one, of course; if not, getting one designed is an allowable expense

[Clare@InTouch]

What makes you say that? Is the outlined legislation not clear enough? To me, the only contentious issue is whether or not your home office (which is also your registered company address) would be considered "business premises". If it is, I can't see why it wouldn't be allowed.

I don't think it would be, unless you're claiming 100% business use of that room. But then you have potential CGT issues.

HM Revenue & Customs: Capital Gains Tax reliefs for business assets

Just thinking that through - if you're claiming use of home then you're saying the room isn't business premises, as you're being reimbursed personally for the use of it. So even if you could argue it was a business premise, you'd then not be able to also claim use of home. And I suspect use of home is worth more, or at the least cancels out most of the benefit you'd get from interpreting the rules in a way you think is allowable but that goes against the spirit of the law (imo). Catch 22 I reckon.

[northernladuk]

Sure, that's a reasonable argument. It depends how much you have to worry about if they looked into your accounts though, doesn't it? If your books are good and you have no IR35 worries, then I don't see the problem.

But you have to think about these things pragmatically, not bend the situation to suit your needs. It isn't not you that will see the problem, it is HMRC. They set these rules and they will be very good at seeing through them. If you have blatantly broken both the spirit and (IMO) the letter of the rule you immediately start of on the defence which is the worst place to be.

Also if this was as clean cut as you seem to think do you not think it would be widely advertised on all the expenses literature and accountants guides. The fact it is not speaks volumes to start off with.

If you want to take the piss out of your accounts as your comment would suggest then why not go the whole hog and actually do something that is worth something to you. Not something that is going to save a pound or two a day.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

From HMRC: "The cost of food, drink and accommodation is not in general an expense incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, since everyone must eat in order to live. They are (either wholly or partly) normal costs of living incurred by all and not as a result of trading, see BIM37900 onwards.

Where such costs are disallowable they cannot be apportioned to allow extra costs incurred from the necessity of lunching away from home or the place of business. The attempt to apportion betraying the essential duality of purpose"

If you are at home you would eat lunch regardless of whether you were working or not ergo the cost is not allowable

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

From HMRC: "The cost of food, drink and accommodation is not in general an expense incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, since everyone must eat in order to live. They are (either wholly or partly) normal costs of living incurred by all and not as a result of trading, see BIM37900 onwards.

Where such costs are disallowable they cannot be apportioned to allow extra costs incurred from the necessity of lunching away from home or the place of business. The attempt to apportion betraying the essential duality of purpose"

If you are at home you would eat lunch regardless of whether you were working or not ergo the cost is not allowable

I thought the BIM pages were for self-employed/sole traders whose rules around things like this were a lot stricter, not employers (covered by the EIM pages). If what you quoted above applied to employers, the second paragraph would rule out meal claims when travelling to a temporary workplace too.

[malvolio]

I thought the BIM pages were for self-employed/sole traders whose rules around things like this were a lot stricter, not employers (covered by the EIM pages). If what you quoted above applied to employers, the second paragraph would rule out meal claims when travelling to a temporary workplace too.

You really don't get it, do you.

Expenses for temporary workplaces are because they are temporary (the clue is in the name) and you're not expected to be able to use the food at home and so have necessarily incurred an additional expense in the pursuit of your trade. That's also why taking sandwiches isn't allowable, but let's not complicate things.

Your fallacy is exactly the same as the EBT users' one: it's not that the rules aren't there, it's whether or not they apply to your circumstances.

Getting bored now.

[northernladuk]

Would that be allowable? Would you put it through the business?

Yes it is. Yes you can.

Thread closed.

[SueEllen]

Yes it is. Yes you can.

Thread closed.

Another "Yes" post.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

can we have one of those trap doors that Mr Burns used on the Simpsons that will just send people straight to HMRC when they come up with this sort of thing?