Reply to: stek's daft question of the day.....

[Podgy]

<sniff>.. You made i cwy! I am telling my mummy on you.

There's some great care homes for northerngrumpys - the further north the better - with lots of cats

[Clare@InTouch]

Or that you'd your mum in that way either I hope?

I'm sure I don't know what you mean!

[Notascooby]

Not that I'm implying I'm old enough to be your Mum!

Or that you'd your mum in that way either I hope?

[Clare@InTouch]

<sniff>.. You made i cwy! I am telling my mummy on you.

Not that I'm implying I'm old enough to be your Mum!

[northernladuk]

I so agree!!

- except for the 'on this one'

<sniff>.. You made i cwy! I am telling my mummy on you.

[Podgy]

A good question but I still don't think it is and falls in the same area as cross training for employees where it isn't related to the work they are doing (say a career progression internally) so wouldn't strictly meet the rules. Corporate accounting is a different beast though.

As ever I am out of my depth on this one so should just really retire and go pick on the noobs in other threads which is much more my level.

I so agree!!

- except for the 'on this one'

[GillsMan]

Something happened recently at my client, albeit in relation to a permie.

ClientCo are opening a new office in Hong Kong. One of the permies was required to assist with the opening, but she was on holiday in Malta. So ClientCo paid for her to fly from Malta to HK (business class ofc), cutting her holiday short by 1 or 2 days.

Of course, the difference is that a flight from somewhere to HK was always going to be needed, however, the staff member's flight actually took her from Malta, back to England and then off to HK. So, in effect, ClientCo paid for the permie's flight back to England from her holiday.

No idea how this affects the debate, but thought it would be interesting anyway.

[Clare@InTouch]

On the re-routing due to motorway pileup question which Clare@InTouch says is OK:



The best I can find is this one EIM31825.

Sections 337 to 339 ITEPA 2003

It is not necessary for the employee to make a business journey by the shortest route in order to obtain a deduction under Sections 336 to 339 ITEPA 2003. Another route may be more appropriate. For example, it may be appropriate to go round London on the M25 rather than driving through the middle. It is also acceptable to make a short detour for a meal.

We are getting better at this, aren't we Clare.


As for the flights, I worked a permie job where a gang of us had booked on the 11:00 flight up North. Something kicked off at work and they wanted me to come in for the day that I was not scheduled to work so they got me a last minute business class seat on the 18:00 flight at some considerable expense to themselves. As far as I know there were never any BIK implications for me.

Thanks Wanderer - my propensity to link is rubbing off

[Wanderer]

On the re-routing due to motorway pileup question which Clare@InTouch says is OK:

Don't believe you without a link.....

The best I can find is this one EIM31825.

Sections 337 to 339 ITEPA 2003

It is not necessary for the employee to make a business journey by the shortest route in order to obtain a deduction under Sections 336 to 339 ITEPA 2003. Another route may be more appropriate. For example, it may be appropriate to go round London on the M25 rather than driving through the middle. It is also acceptable to make a short detour for a meal.

We are getting better at this, aren't we Clare.


As for the flights, I worked a permie job where a gang of us had booked on the 11:00 flight up North. Something kicked off at work and they wanted me to come in for the day that I was not scheduled to work so they got me a last minute business class seat on the 18:00 flight at some considerable expense to themselves. As far as I know there were never any BIK implications for me.

[Clare@InTouch]

Yes! Sort of...

I was working for Sun 2002-ish and I'd booked a week in Kiev, paid, couldn't go, no refunds, had to do two weeks urgently in West Malling, Kent, got the cost of the flights back off Sun, £350 quid or so, never actually went but had paid....

Still got the tickets!

And I lost the lens out of my driving glasses driving back, should have claimed that. Nearly killed 54 people...

You should put in a claim for that, imagine all the tax money you saved HMRC by not having an accident.

[stek]

But is this example real?? Are you sure you are not making an impossible situation up? Are people really called back from holiday for this? If you were employed by IBM would be prepared to do this? I certainly wouldn't so I am not so sure it makes a valid comparison. You come back by choice, at IBM you would have to be ordered back (or in my case frogmarched back in chains).

Yes! Sort of...

I was working for Sun 2002-ish and I'd booked a week in Kiev, paid, couldn't go, no refunds, had to do two weeks urgently in West Malling, Kent, got the cost of the flights back off Sun, £350 quid or so, never actually went but had paid....

Still got the tickets!

And I lost the lens out of my driving glasses driving back, should have claimed that. Nearly killed 54 people...

[northernladuk]

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.....

But is this example real?? Are you sure you are not making an impossible situation up? Are people really called back from holiday for this? If you were employed by IBM would be prepared to do this? I certainly wouldn't so I am not so sure it makes a valid comparison. You come back by choice, at IBM you would have to be ordered back (or in my case frogmarched back in chains).

[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.....

[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

[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?