Accommodation - taxed?

[BAJR Host]

Good questions Unit and Sparky

The accomodation was rented but not belonging to the company the ammount of time gone back was one year, and why they never thought about this before??

See announcement in separate thread.

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[trowelmonkey]

The whole sorry mess bothers me, but a few things really alarm me:

Will the circuit digger be able to calculate how much tax will be owed (if this farce continues) prior to accepting the job? This relies on the accommodation being sorted well in advance of the project and not suddenly changing as it's wont to do. This also means that units will have to set wages differently for each project to allow for the taxed benefits. It is VERY difficult to save anything out of a digger's wage as it is.

Provided accommodation brings staff into areas where they could otherwise not afford to work (and I don't think that wages will suddenly shoot up, nice as that would be).

Like is not being compared with like under this new tax practice.

There is still a big difference between how permanent and project basee staff get treated, even at the same level, ie one gets subsistence, the other not. (On a single away project staff may have different places of employment, depending on when they were hired and for what purpose originally.)

I think that there's a world of difference between staying away for a few nights on a watching brief and the seven month away stretch. In the latter case we should be compared with organised labour gangs, like in agriculture. The project simply could not be done if the work force were not found concentrated accommodation. If it is not "traditional" in the industry it is only because we've been late in pulling out boot straps up. Nobody will take us seriously if we go back to living in tents in October and getting drunk to keep warm.

[Oxbeast]

quote:See announcement in separate thread.

Umm, have I missed this, or is it just not up yet?

trawelmonkey, this only seems to apply if you aren't paying for accommodation somewhere else. See Pirate Archaeologists post above.

[Sparky]

The problem could be solved by solely providing subsistence to cover accomo and other living expenses such as is practiced by the construction industry, say £40 / day which is about the going rate.

[Unitof1]

who paid the council tax with this accomodation? Did the trust pick workers up from the accomodation, how were they transported to and from site? Would the accomodation accept dhss if the work finished?

[trowelmonkey]

Oxbeast, I think the subtext is that a lot of folk cannot afford to pay for accommodation elsewhere and only take jobs where the accommodation is provided. It's true that some people can fall back on their parents in a pinch, others really do sofa surf between jobs. historically, this was for other reasons, but now I'm seeing a lot of people in their mid-20's with crippling career development loan debts, which are not nearly as forgiving as student loans as the interest accrues much faster.

[Unitof1]

Get religious, carry a gun and sell booze might solve the problem

http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/articles/ar...php?id=244

it would seem to offer some hope if it could be shown that it was customary to offer accomodation possibly for the facility of getting people to and from site. I suspect that the tax man would want to tax the travel as well?

[Carrie]

As one of the people affectedby this tax issue. The tax bill is only for the last tax year, even though I was employed and in accommodation prior to April 2007. It does feel as if the whole situation was rigged against the field archaeologists. The site was half an hour or so away from the office. The site was designated as the office, which meant that as travel expenses are payable beyond the office, there were no expenses. However our accommodation was situated close to the main office, i.e. also half an hour from site - and for taxable benefit purposes this office counts as 'the office'. It feels as if the office can move depending upon (in)convenience to us.
The site was not in an area where there are a lot of archaeologists, and accommodation was essential. I was probably one of the closest archaeologists - and travelled home,a 2 hour journey to my mortgaged house - every weekend. Running two homes in this way doesn't feel like much of a benefit.
Subsistence was paid with the wages, and was taxed at source, so this isn't really relevant to this discussion. I would have preferred the accommodation to have been taxed at source too. It is hard to be hit with this totally unexpected bill, which obviously I had no opportunity to make provision for. It was not mentioned on the P60. nor was it despatched with that.
I would like to know if I am liable for tax if the company offers bunk-house type accommodation, which is what is provided by my next employer. This is a horrible mess. I am also concerned about the effect it will have on my tax credits, which are based on last years income, so I am likely to find myself worse off anyway this year as a result of this tax bill from last year.

[Unitof1]

How much have you talked to the taxman/been to see them. As a selfemployed person I have got used to talking to them a lot and going to see them. How was the accommodation paid for? Does it say on your payslip accommodation allowance? Have you any literature which says Free accommodation or accommodation paid for on it? Have you pointed out to the taxman that you have a permanent residence elsewhere? How has the taxman treated the charity for national insurance contributions that should have been made on your so-called pay? It sounds to me that theres lots to argue. You could be slicing your own throat but the taxman works off precedent and the fact that you have evidence of payments made in previous years I would have thought is pertinent, going back seven years even. May be BAJR should blow this subject right up and start a public gathering of examples of this practise from elsewhere

There is another angle to this subject that should concern archaeologists:

quote: The site was not in an area where there are a lot of archaeologists, and accommodation was essential

The area was dense enough to have a trust or rather a management with offices there. Have you looked at their accounts? Theres money coming in for the management to exist. It might be purely commercial but I suspect that you will find that there might be service agreements with the local councils and pension arrangements. The problem with managements is that they age and their salaries increment and so less trickles down the greasy pole and before you know it its cheaper to find people from further afield who for reasons of their own are prepared to undertake a short term rip-off rather than the management pay a descent local permanent rate.

[ellie163]

I don't quite understand why this has come as such a shock to people. These tax laws have been in effect for decades. Ultimately the units should have been aware and correctly taxed benefits at source. This is just another example of the unprofessional nature of archaeology. Other professions cope fine with incorporating these rules into working practices, why should we be expected to be treated any different?
Is the tax office just billing those who worked for one particular unit or looking at all units??