Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
9th October 2008, 01:11 AM
This might not be a place for my nose but About this
Quote:quote: A company, who at the moment will remain nameless
Quote:quote: had offered free accommodation
does any one know:
Was this a limited company, council, university, charity trust?
how was the expenditure entered onto the companies books? Did they have their own accommodation owned or rented, did they pay someone else for the accommodation. I donât think that anybody should pay until the taxman sorts out the companys books first. If there is a mistake who made it first. Surely if it advertised as such the company must pay, tax included.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
9th October 2008, 10:52 AM
long story... and if not in control... it is in hand
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
9th October 2008, 10:53 AM
I once again remind people who have been caught in this - if they are a member of PROSPECT dave allen has agreed to act -- IF people come forward... there is a case to be built, as the accomodation was offered for free as part of a contract...
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
10th October 2008, 02:50 PM
There may be a very simple way out of this for most people.
I have a friend who works in the Revenue and had to be provided free accomodation in London as there was no work in the home office of Cardiff. The only reason the London flat was free was that she still paid rent to her parents in Cardiff.
I would imagine there may be some form of loophole here if you are already paying rent somewhere as essentially you are not getting the benefit of completely free accomodation. If people knock out a direct debit to parents / friends / whatever and label it rent you may be able to get around the tax bill.
I think the tax may only apply if your sole accomodation is provided by the unit.
Worth looking into as an easy option out for the future?
Leading a crack team of archaeologists in the hunt for death or glory.
No-one's died yet and I think we lost the glory down the back of the sofa.....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
10th October 2008, 05:17 PM
From what I have heard... it is sadly not a loophole.
If you work for company X and they want you to work for the company in Borchester when your normal area of work for company X is Grundsville THEN and ONLY then is the accommodation free.... IF however you have been working for company X and have a flat in Grundsville... and on hearing about the work in Borchester - head off to work for another company ... company Y then your 'new' place of permanent work becomes the site. (Tax benefit) If you were working for company Y .. then it is NOT a new permanent place of work (Tax free)
will try and make this sensible.. and will produce definitive (??) guide... sorry folks
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
13th October 2008, 09:32 PM
In answer to one of the earlier post the unit is a trust, the accomodation was rented, and all of this came about as a result of the company being audited.
Staff were told that the cost was passed onto staff as company was not responcable, and it was a tax issue so not their fault.
DC do you know if prospect will take thisissue forward as a collective issue on behalf of prospect members or if it has to be done on a person by person basis as there is considerable anxiety about being identified and not employed on other excavations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
13th October 2008, 09:52 PM
Hey ox, they are taking back the cash for the time was working for the company and i their accomodation (moved out of their accomodation into our own place as the accom provided was appalling and not even worth taking if free - is why thi gauls so much more)!!
But if i were you i would wait a bit longer before drawing attention to yourself - this thing could have v.wide reaching repocussions.
Still have no clear idea how all the figures were worked out and why now i work for english heritage they take £10 a week from wages as a token amount and paythe rest of our tax. This is not a new issue it is just units havent caught up and now we pay the price.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th October 2008, 10:10 PM
prospect will take thisissue forward as a collective issue on behalf of prospect members or if it has to be done on a person by person basis as there is considerable anxiety about being identified and not employed on other excavations.
I will contact PROSPECT (again!) and find out what the hell is going on...
they need prospect members to come forward... however... this would be a class action .... it is time to stop the fear... the company should have (in my opinion) stepped in and helped... even if just to pay a bit... they may have had to pay out serious money... but may have lost a lot more support.
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
14th October 2008, 09:39 AM
I spoke to a QS yesterday who suggested that if the accomodation and subsistence was provided that may have prompted the accomodation to be taxable no matter the amount of the subsistence. If this is the case, was susbsistence and accomodation provided?
When will this unit be 'outed' so that no one ever works for them again?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
14th October 2008, 10:51 AM
It has been my experience that trusts were previously council units and that the so called rented accommodation belongs to the council. Was this the case?
Did the auditors/taxman find out how far back this activity went on for. Possibly strength in numbers might be found if it is pointed out and made an issue off that there may be a considerable number of people who have been through that accommodation
If for instance this activity has been going on for more that seven years it might have some legality in common law. Why did the auditors not find the free accomodation activity out earlier?
