Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
12th August 2008, 10:06 AM
I think it's important to emphasise the health and safety aspect as well - having (often young and potential vulnerable) new staff attempting to find their own accomodation can lead to them getting ripped off, exploited and possibly worse. The organisations have a duty of care to their staff, which they are exercising by taking responsibility for by finding and providing accomodation. This has indeed being going on in many organisations for a very long time.
In the past, I have had to discuss mileage and expenses with the VAT people, particularly the latter. They were not happy if individuals were claiming expenses when working close to the office (for example, if someone was living some way from our office but the site was near it they weren't happy about us paying expenses). I ended up talking to them regularly for a while, because (to be honest) I got a different answer each time.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
12th August 2008, 10:12 AM
may I also remind those who are involved in the original 'problem' to contact Dave Allen at Prospect if you are a PROSPECT member.
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
15th August 2008, 07:46 PM
UPDATE
IFA are currently in the process of gathering information to see whether a case could be made for the exemption.
cross them fingers ... and hope sense prevails
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2008
3rd October 2008, 02:21 PM
Has there been any further word on this? It seems to have gone worryingly quiet.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
4th October 2008, 04:43 PM
From
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/life...e_benefits
'The cost of hotels and temporary accommodation while travelling for business purposes is not taxed.'
I guess the key phrase is 'while travelling for business purposes'. Obviously a sales rep, eqiupped with nylon shirt and Mondeo is not taxced on his/her Travelodge accommodation. Similarly a geophysicist, to use a random example, is not taxed on his/her hotel/digs. I can see how the nice IR people want to tax accommodation provided for employment at a specific defined site, which is thus the usual place of work, but maybe an argument could be that you go home at weekends AND have a 'usual' or base place of work (i.e. office) other than one particular site?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
4th October 2008, 11:48 PM
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
5th October 2008, 12:48 AM
just one more
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
6th October 2008, 11:37 AM
Can I just ask, Trowelfodder, are they clawing back the tax from the whole of the last tax year, or are they resricting themselves to the period when you were working for that particular company? I was just about to ask them for a rebate, or would I just be drawing attention to myself and setting myself up for a massive tax bill for all the accommodation that I have ever had...
I've also posted on Prospect's rather underused forum to ask them what they're doing....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
6th October 2008, 12:10 PM
I too am in this situation and what I have received from C&E is a revised tax coding that is about £200 less than it was at the outset of this tax year.
Which means that I will have to pay pack any difference between the tax I have paid (through PAYE) at the old code, and the tax I owe as a result of the new lower allowance. As I am not working at the moment I haven't seen how this will work in practice, but I imagine it means that my first pay packet when I start work again will be a little low (perhaps even non-existent).
If I don't work again before the end of this tax year, I guess the new lower tax code will have a bearing when I send in my tax form and if I haven't paid enough, C&E will want to see a payment winging its way from me to them ASAP.
And no I aint happy about it.....I am considering suing the archaeological jobs website which posted an advert saying that the accomodation that went with this job would be free of charge!!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
6th October 2008, 02:33 PM
Adverts placed on said jobsite are the responsibility of the advertiser... if they knowingly mislead, then I would hope the jobsite could sue too
Note point 1.4 in my terms and conditions:
1.4 Clients must ensure that all advertisements submitted to the Site comply with all applicable legislation, regulations, by-laws, ordinances and codes of conduct.
As such... if it appears in the advert... it is binding (unless illegal)
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
