Travel & Subsistence in the budget?

[RetSet]

Was on hols when the budget took place. I think I've picked up most of the salient points since then, but there seems to be allusions here to T&S being hit.

I've seen no direct reference to it anywhere else.

Can somebody enlighten me please, what are the details, will it apply to brollies only, or ltd cos, or both?

TIA

[Zero Liability]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...nd-subsistence

[RetSet]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...nd-subsistence

Thanks...

That's an interesting one.

Thinking of IR35...

D&C - out

Substitution - out

No MOO - out

According to the proposal for expenses...

D&C - expenses allowed

Substitution - expenses not allowed

No MOO - expenses not allowed

So, if you are ouside of IR35, it depends on what reason you are outside that determines whether or not you can claim T&S (subject to HMRC's 'consultation').

As I see it, it's another layer of tulipe on top of the tulipe that is IR35.

Tax simplification my arse.

[eek]

Thanks...

That's an interesting one.

Thinking of IR35...

D&C - out

Substitution - out

No MOO - out

According to the proposal for expenses...

D&C - expenses allowed

Substitution - expenses not allowed

No MOO - expenses not allowed

So, if you are ouside of IR35, it depends on what reason you are outside that determines whether or not you can claim T&S (subject to HMRC's 'consultation').

As I see it, it's another layer of tulipe on top of the tulipe that is IR35.

Tax simplification my arse.

Would you like to try and write that as a correct summary of the consultation document or would you prefer me to demonstrate that you are an illiterate scaremonger in person first... I'll give you until late tomorrow morning to correct your glaring flaws...

I would draw your attention to the first full paragraph of the document (at the top of page 2) and then the section on page 22 that explicit addresses Personal Service Companies (I ignore the fact that no such thing as a PSC actually exists legally)

Professional Service Firms
For the purposes of these proposals employment intermediaries’ will be defined, in
part (the complete definition proposed is contained above), as a business primarily in
the supply of labour services. As such the definition will not include professional
service firms that second staff to clients, as their business is not primarily in the supply
of labour.

[mudskipper]

Would you like to try and write that as a correct summary of the consultation document or would you prefer me to demonstrate that you are an illiterate scaremonger in person first... I'll give you until late tomorrow morning to correct your glaring flaws...

I would draw your attention to the first full paragraph of the document (at the top of page 2) and then the section on page 22 that explicit addresses Personal Service Companies (I ignore the fact that no such thing as a PSC actually exists legally)

Agree that there are errors in the OP's summary, but why are you quoting the section on Professional Service Firms? My understanding is that they are suggesting that consultancies are not treated as employment intermediaries for this purpose. A professional service firm is not a PSC.

For the OP - the document says that if you are under Supervision, Direction OR control, you will not be able to claim T&S. For IR35 you need to have Supervision, Direction AND control to be caught (as well as the other two pillars).

[RetSet]

Would you like to try and write that as a correct summary of the consultation document or would you prefer me to demonstrate that you are an illiterate scaremonger in person first... I'll give you until late tomorrow morning to correct your glaring flaws...

What I posted was my impression having skim read the document that ZL kindly linked to. Did you notice that he didn't feel the need to engage in childish name calling?

Perhaps you could write a correct summary using about the same number of words that I did.

BTW, I am neither illiterate nor a scaremonger. Re-read my OP.

[eek]

What I posted was my impression having skim read the document that ZL kindly linked to. Did you notice that he didn't feel the need to engage in childish name calling?

Perhaps you could write a correct summary using about the same number of words that I did.

BTW, I am neither illiterate nor a scaremonger. Re-read my OP.

At least he didn't post an utterly inaccurate summary based upon it.... And in the cold light of morning I think even your Thinking of IR35 section is inaccurate and incomprehensible... Is it listing the rules that make you IR35 safe or what makes you end up subject to IR35...

And as I've commented on other threads in general there is already a topic about this. With far more posts on it... And there is
1 in accounting which has had actual accountants commenting in it (i.e. people paid to understand this stuff)...

What I will say is that if you are an IPSE member it makes sense to respond to their survey. I don't think it makes sense to reply individually as we have all seen badly written responses used to justify polar opposite viewpoints in previous consultations..

Finally I have a serious suspicion that the people starting these crap scare articles about expenses are salesmen trying to soften people up for tax scam schemes later this year... At least one other poster in a similar thread seems to have a very suspicious post history which emphasises a lack of care in previous financial arrangements...

[DaveB]

Something I;m not clear on with the T&S issue is, if it's deemed to be not claimable but you are outside IR35, which seems to be a possible outcome, you can still pay / reimburse T&S from the company account but it would not be deductible against CT. Yes / No?

If Yes, then it's not actually as bad as it sounds as the loss is "only" the tax relief on the CT bill. Yes it will cost more over all but won't actually mean paying your T&S out of personal funds that you have already been taxed on.

Or have I misunderstood completely?

[eek]

Something I;m not clear on with the T&S issue is, if it's deemed to be not claimable but you are outside IR35, which seems to be a possible outcome, you can still pay / reimburse T&S from the company account but it would not be deductible against CT. Yes / No?

If Yes, then it's not actually as bad as it sounds as the loss is "only" the tax relief on the CT bill. Yes it will cost more over all but won't actually mean paying your T&S out of personal funds that you have already been taxed on.

Or have I misunderstood completely?

I doubt it as the entire point is these are personal expenses so will need to be paid from personal (after tax) income. If it was doable via the company its not so bad (as you say) but I can't see how the company could pay mileage in such a way...

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Something I;m not clear on with the T&S issue is, if it's deemed to be not claimable but you are outside IR35, which seems to be a possible outcome, you can still pay / reimburse T&S from the company account but it would not be deductible against CT. Yes / No?

If Yes, then it's not actually as bad as it sounds as the loss is "only" the tax relief on the CT bill. Yes it will cost more over all but won't actually mean paying your T&S out of personal funds that you have already been taxed on.

Or have I misunderstood completely?

The expense payments would likely be treated as a BIK so they would still reduce your company corporation tax bill (like any other remuneration) but taxable personally via your P11D and tax return (probably with extra BIK NI on top too).