Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
23rd October 2008, 12:35 PM
They looked at one particular Unit... in wales, and have made a descision (being challanged by the IfA) that this is now across the board. Hence, until such times as this is sorted one way or other... BAJR is informing all advertisers that accomodation is taxable benefit, in most circumstances.
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2007
23rd October 2008, 12:44 PM
So are staff from all units being taxed for accommodation and subs from the past tax yr?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
23rd October 2008, 12:47 PM
Might be a silly question, but has anyone from the IFA (or in fact anyone) informed archaeology units on this?
I've told my boss and he hasn't heard a thing about it. Also, as it's coming from me, he probably won't believe it (us pirates aren't too trustwothy).
Surely this would be a good circular to send to units at least to make them aware of the problem, as well as a circular to diggers?
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
23rd October 2008, 01:20 PM
the IFA should already have asked ROs about this... its what they haev said to me so far. I have made it clear here.. and at the SCAUM meeting will be saying it again. I will be contacting all units in the next week or two.. and will mention this as well.. if people don't believe you... send them to this thread.
So are staff from all units being taxed for accommodation and subs from the past tax yr?
NO... this is a from now situation... which is crap for those caught in the net... however I have a letter from the IR that states it is from now... not backdated on everyone else.
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2007
23rd October 2008, 01:49 PM
Phew. Although tough for those who worked for the one particular unit.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
23rd October 2008, 02:12 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
the IFA should already have asked ROs about this... its what they haev said to me so far. I have made it clear here.. and at the SCAUM meeting will be saying it again. I will be contacting all units in the next week or two.. and will mention this as well.. if people don't believe you... send them to this thread.
yesk, I know 2 other ROs that have been contacted about this.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
23rd October 2008, 02:30 PM
A point not to be missed here.. the IfA DID contact ROs and ARE working on it.... just a comment
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2008
28th October 2008, 12:19 AM
All this seems to indicate to me that the only real options at the moment are:
1. Only take jobs within a 'reasonable' commuting distance of home;
2. Up sticks and relocate every time the job changes;
3. Get hammered for tax on top of all the other expenses in this job.
Somehow none of these options really appeal to me: there's not enough work for 1.; I really don't fancy moving house two or three times a year and I can't really afford 3.
I wonder if the Tax Man would tolerate these conditions?
Steve
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
29th October 2008, 09:19 PM
In answer to unit of ones questions " 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?"
1) The unit paid the council tax - but it is now included as a benifit so we are being charged tax on the amount they paid.
2) The unit used to transport us to and from the trust office in a minibus driven by staff
3) We were not involved in any of the decisions about accomodation and we were not the registered tennants - the trust rented the house in its own name and we signed a document saying we would leave as sson as we were no longer employed by them so there was no option to stay and try for dhss.
We had no idea how much the accomodation cost and the standard was hugely variable, and some people got stung even worse by staying on longer in the contract as when people left the cost of the house increases as split between less people. Imagine the situation where you are living in a five bedroom house ( in which at 2 rooms were occupied by couples) which empties to two people - you have no idea whats coming as you have not been warned.....
Fantasic - sometimes you have to try and see the funnyside but am failing miserably on this issue!!!!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2004
30th October 2008, 08:04 PM
Thanks for the grisly details TF which cut through the miasma of rumour which has surrounded this topic.
I have to say anyone with half an ounce (or even less) of awareness of HMRC regs would see that this is clearly a taxable benefit. You simply cannot provide accommodation for your employees like this without someone paying for the liability incurred.
The company admin should have known what the rules are, but employees have a duty of care to themselves to understand their employment and tax situation. Did anyone stop to think - why do all employers (not just archaeological) not do this then?
