Named Driver Insurance

jow774

Hi can anyone point me in the right direction of legislation to quote to client please.

Client says is unable to insure car in his name as it is a shared vehicle, car not in his name and he is a named driver but wants to claim tax and percentage of car insurance on SA return. Car is not insured for commuting. Can he legally claim anything if at all?

Thanks in advance.

T.C.

What is he using the vehicle for? Business use or just commuting to work?

jow774

I assume commuting to and from site and trips to builders merchant etc.

T.C.

To and from site is not an allowable expense, in theory. Trips to the builders merchants etc is fine. I would suggest that your client claims mileage allowance for the business mileage.

coojee

If the car isn't insured for commuting then he could be in trouble as this type of travel is surely deemed business usage and if the insurance people found out it would invalidate the insurance. Never mind whether it's allowable for tax purposes or not for insurance purposes it's certainly not just social, domestic, pleasure.

jow774

Ive explained that it is insurance fraud already, but the client just looks at me like Im mental! I would have just liked some sort of legislation (I like to be thorough before I give a definate answer) Ive now told him that I am not claiming it, plain and simple and am going with the idea that if he is so unhappy he can go elsewhere, the trouble with a couple of my subbies is that they claim to have claimed such things in the past through a local chartered accountant! It beggars belief.

All I can say is I see why people refuse to take on CIS subbies, they are nothing but trouble in my eyes.

T.C.

It is unusual for a car not to be insured for commuting to work as that is what many people have a car for???!!! I would check that this is the case. However, how the vehicle is insured is not really relevant to claiming mileage for tax purposes.

coojee

T.C. wrote: »

It is unusual for a car not to be insured for commuting to work as that is what many people have a car for???!!! I would check that this is the case. However, how the vehicle is insured is not really relevant to claiming mileage for tax purposes.

He's doing more than commuting to work, he's going to builders merchants and presumably picking up stock, this is business use. I know it's not relevant to whether or not he can claim the cost of it but it's something that needs to be pointed out to him that he's driving without insurance. It sounds like jow774 has got that covered so it's OK but he/she wouldn't be doing their job properly if they didn't mention it to the client.

deanshepherd

T.C. wrote: »

It is unusual for a car not to be insured for commuting to work..

Not really. Commuting is an add-on to normal SDP cover and very easy to remove on a price comparison site to reduce the quote.

If the insurance does not cover business travel (a further add-on to SDP and commuting) then no proportion of it can be claimed against tax.

As suggested above, see if claiming a mileage rate works out better (assuming you are not changing the method already used on this vehicle).

Bluewednesday

coojee wrote: »

He's doing more than commuting to work, he's going to builders merchants and presumably picking up stock, this is business use. I know it's not relevant to whether or not he can claim the cost of it but it's something that needs to be pointed out to him that he's driving without insurance. It sounds like jow774 has got that covered so it's OK but he/she wouldn't be doing their job properly if they didn't mention it to the client.

When I last spoke to our insurance company they said that our employers could face problems if they paid a mileage rate and we didn't have business use on our insurance, I didn't actually believe that until my husband's company have actually now asked for proof of our car insurance status or they won't pay his business mileage anymore.