Cars Benefits in Kind
groundy
Registered Posts: 495 Dedicated contributor 🦉
I have a company that is currently going through a PAYE review. One thing that has stood out than I am struggling to check if HMRC are right.
The director pays a car lease for his daughter. Initially she was not an employee and therefore I debited his directors loan as a personal expense. She is now an employee and a P11D will be declared. However, HMRC are arguing that a P11D is required for the period she wasn't an employee as the lease agreement is in the company name. They are willing to accept the charge to directors loan as a contribution to benefit but they want to charge the fuel benefit also.
I would have thought charging to directors loan was sufficient but there argument is based on the lease being in the company name.
Any suggestions would be welcome, cheers
The director pays a car lease for his daughter. Initially she was not an employee and therefore I debited his directors loan as a personal expense. She is now an employee and a P11D will be declared. However, HMRC are arguing that a P11D is required for the period she wasn't an employee as the lease agreement is in the company name. They are willing to accept the charge to directors loan as a contribution to benefit but they want to charge the fuel benefit also.
I would have thought charging to directors loan was sufficient but there argument is based on the lease being in the company name.
Any suggestions would be welcome, cheers
0
Comments
-
ITEPA 2003 s201(2) + s721(5)
They've got a pretty strong argument!0 -
I would agree here, under the connected persons rules the director has a P11D for the fuel benefit even if they are not using the car simply because the driver is connected to them, it is a company car, whatever the financial arrangements are. Technically the P11D needs to be for both car and fuel to work out the tax value of them, then the charge to the DLA comes off as contribution towards the use. I suspect HMRC are taking the view that funding the leasing charges personally through the DLA is enough for them, but it isnt correct.
Wouldnt it be more cost effective to fund the lease corporately, claw back whatever VAT can be reclaimed, take the CT relief and just pay the BIK tax under P11D? To me it would be much simpler.
Payrollpro0 -
Thanks for the replies.
payrollpro that was my thought that that we may be better amending for the CT relief but thanks for the confirmation.
This has all come about as our client prepares his own payroll and did not submit a P35 for three years. Always warned him but another one of them that only worries once it happens!!!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.2K Books to buy and sell
- 2.3K General discussion
- 12.5K For AAT students
- 318 NEW! Qualifications 2022
- 161 General Qualifications 2022 discussion
- 11 AAT Level 2 Certificate in Accounting
- 56 AAT Level 3 Diploma in Accounting
- 87 AAT Level 4 Diploma in Professional Accounting
- 8.8K For accounting professionals
- 23 coronavirus (Covid-19)
- 272 VAT
- 92 Software
- 273 Tax
- 135 Bookkeeping
- 7.2K General accounting discussion
- 200 AAT member discussion
- 3.8K For everyone
- 38 AAT news and announcements
- 345 Feedback for AAT
- 2.8K Chat and off-topic discussion
- 582 Job postings
- 16 Who can benefit from AAT?
- 36 Where can AAT take me?
- 42 Getting started with AAT
- 26 Finding an AAT training provider
- 48 Distance learning and other ways to study AAT
- 25 Apprenticeships
- 66 AAT membership