Rank: Super forum user 
|
We all know that employers must supply appropriate PPE including (to quote from the regs) “clothing affording protection against the weather” to their employees. But has anybody come across HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) telling staff that as this clothing is dual use eg you can take waterproof jackets and walking boots home and use for hill-walking, it is taxable as a perk?
This has happened to us and they have issued us an administrative fine to us for not declaring this.
Are we being victimised or is this common practice?
We are looking at ways of making this PPE less dual use eg issuing only equipment with our logo on it but it does seem a nuisance. Our staff have to go out into the field so they need the kit and sometimes we don’t want the to be identified as obviously working for us. (Some of our staff are statutory inspectors).
Any thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I've got some thoughts but can't put them into writing.
On the face of it I think I'd take legal advice and try to slap the ppe regs in their face. If this is the case then any workplace that issues non-hi vis clothing for protective purposes could be facing the same thing.
Utterly counter productive...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Challenge it as I have a mate who works for a machine maintenance company that supplies PPE in the form of wet weather gear and HV vests etc and my mate goes no where near a set place of work because he works at various customer premises to maintain the kit they hire/own as part of his company's business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Love em! So. Some large corporations are avoiding VAST amounts of tax by cunning (and legal) tax avoidance schemes and Fred Bloggs is being chased for a benefit in kind, to the value of a few quid? I am struggling a little about the practical differences between 'giving' PPE and 'making it available'. I have seen any number of people walking their dogs etc in hi vis jackets with their employers logo on i.e. I don't see that having a logo really makes any difference in reality. Grasping at straws?
http://www.adviceguide.o...e_e/benefits_in_kind.htm
"Clothing - Work and safety clothes provided by your employer, for example, overalls and protective helmets or shoes, are not liable to tax. However, any normal clothing provided by your employer is taxable.".
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/p...xb/a-z/c/clothing.htm#x1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
canopener wrote:Love em! So. Some large corporations are avoiding VAST amounts of tax by cunning (and legal) tax avoidance schemes and Fred Bloggs is being chased for a benefit in kind, to the value of a few quid? I am struggling a little about the practical differences between 'giving' PPE and 'making it available'. I have seen any number of people walking their dogs etc in hi vis jackets with their employers logo on i.e. I don't see that having a logo really makes any difference in reality. Grasping at straws?
http://www.adviceguide.o...e_e/benefits_in_kind.htm
"Clothing - Work and safety clothes provided by your employer, for example, overalls and protective helmets or shoes, are not liable to tax. However, any normal clothing provided by your employer is taxable.".
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/p...xb/a-z/c/clothing.htm#x1
What's really galling is that we not some 'large corporations are avoiding VAST amounts of tax by cunning (and legal) tax avoidance schemes' we're another government department paid for by the taxpayers, so any money we pay in fines go back to same pot we are paid out of!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think this is one where one needs to engage the media so that pressure can be brought in the right quarters to stop the nonsense. Perhaps your local MP could be encouraged to ask a question in the right place. Or pass this on to the press. They often have a go at health and safety. Why not try to get the to have ago at the 'authorities' and, for once, be on our side.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I am afraid that it is correct that HMRC deem any PPE that can be worn away from the workplace as a taxable "perk" & in a previous organisation (some 17 years ago) we had the same issues.
As a result, all our coats, etc. had the company logo on to "deter" personal use, & at the time, this was deemed as acceptable....until one bright spark attached the logos with velcro!
There are similar situations of Govt. double standards, e.g. trying to get people back into work after musculoskeletal injuries, but then taxing them if they receive physiotherapy provided by the employer!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
A Kurdziel wrote:
What's really galling is that we not some 'large corporations are avoiding VAST amounts of tax by cunning (and legal) tax avoidance schemes' we're another government department paid for by the taxpayers, so any money we pay in fines go back to same pot we are paid out of!
Sounds like austerity measures by stealth !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
You could try claiming that your employees have to be available 24 hours a day 7 days a week, so there is no such thing as outside working hours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
One of the galling aspects is that HMRC makes a blanket assumption that every person provided with PPE by their employer also uses it when away from work, No proof needed. In a similar vein years ago I heard from a former colleague that HMRC's co-predecessor, HM Inland Revenue (HMIR), assumed that people working in the restaurant & hotel industry received certain levels of tips and/or other unrecorded income and therefore taxed them on this basis. This operated to the detriment of my former colleague when he operated a restaurant for a while with a friend and diligently recorded and declared all of their income to HMIR.
Canopener's comments about large corporations being able to escape paying vast amounts of tax wil be very familiar to readers of "Private Eye" magazine which regularly contains articles and updates regarding HMRC and apparent deals with large firms, especially a certain mobile phone company, which let them 'off the hook' as regards tax. Also, while on the subject of "Private Eye", it's worth mentioning that it usually takes a pro-OS&H line unlike other parts of the press. Along with other publications such as the "West Highland Free Press" it isn't beholden to big business, politicians or anyone else - so is about as near as one can get to a 'free' press in the UK. This aspect, coupled with the fact that it tends to tackle topics which other parts of the press avoid, explains why many people (including myself I declare) subscribe to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I have been known to use a respirator when emptying/cleaning the cat's litter tray. How much do I owe?
Also, most safety footwear is used by employees during their daily commute - hope no HMRC readers here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I am now considering whether as part of my review of the PPE policy to add some wording to the effect of that PPE is only 'being made available' and that staff are not to wear it outside of work. I'm not sure how effective that would be in practice or in keeping the man in the bowler hat off our case! (apologies to the ladies of the HMRC, wh I suspect don't wear these!)
And now here is my conundrum. How did HMRC figure that your staff were wearing their PPE outside of work (if at the moment they don't have a logo on it?.). Only a thought.
As I have already said, I see any number of people wearing their 'branded' PPE outside of work. It's hardly seems an effective method of discouraging 'private' use; and therefore the attention of the HMRC. Arguably it potentially has the opposite effect!
Surely the HMRC have bigger fish to fry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bigger fish ?
Why fry a few big fish when you can fry several tens of millions of small fish ?
Small fish don't complain to their MP, and if they do he doesn't care anyway.
HMRC is now an executive agency of the Big Four accounting companies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
david bannister - after reading your response at #11, I can't quite resist wondering just what your cat/s think if they see you wearing a respirator while dealing with their litter tray!
In addition I wonder how much I owe if I now admit to wearing a pair of HSE waterproof overtrousers (unbadged) during an ascent of Schiehallion in Perthshire in March 1979. They were in my car boot and available for use when I realised that I'd forgotten to pack my own pair of mountain overtrousers! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Oh dear. With interest it looks like you can kiss your pension good bye!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Just had a simular issue when bringing in mandatory safety footwear.
Safety boots = no VAT
Safety trainers = +VAT
WHY! A person could just easily wear either item of footwear whilst not at work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
canopener wrote:I am now considering whether as part of my review of the PPE policy to add some wording to the effect of that PPE is only 'being made available' and that staff are not to wear it outside of work. I'm not sure how effective that would be in practice or in keeping the man in the bowler hat off our case! (apologies to the ladies of the HMRC, wh I suspect don't wear these!)
If your staff earn more than £8,500 pa that doesn't help - you still have to declare it, just on P11D(L) rather than P11D(A). At least, that's what http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/paye/exb/a-z/c/clothing.htm says, though I'm no tax expert.
What you actually need to do (my accountant tells me) is get the item covered by a dispensation, then you have no reporting or payment obligations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Woah, gobsmacked!
Thanks for posting this - it had not even crossed my radar and I think that goes for about 99% of us! How incredibly petty and stupid, nonetheless, we don't want to fall foul of the good people at HMRC, I shall pass this to our HR and give them something to think on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes, I did post that very same link myself at #4. I am not a tax expert either, but the point of my post was that it would APPEAR to reduce the TAX liability rather than the REPORTING requirement. Which I think is the issue at hand.
CAPS used for emphasis
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not sure whether it still applies, but many years ago when working as a toolmaker, it became apparent that employees could apply to the HMRC to inform them they needed to purchase clothing for work purposes. HMRC then dutifully adjusted the employees tax code accordingly (can't remember how much this worked out per anum now, as it was about 20 years ago!)
If this still exists, I wonder if the more savvy employees would apply for this to counteract any BIK tax implication on current PPE issued by their employers...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
canopener wrote:Yes, I did post that very same link myself at #4. I am not a tax expert either, but the point of my post was that it would APPEAR to reduce the TAX liability rather than the REPORTING requirement. Which I think is the issue at hand.
CAPS used for emphasis
No, a dispensation removes the reporting requirement as well. See http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/p...schemes/dispensation.htm - "A dispensation is a notice from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) that removes the requirement to report certain expenses and benefits at the end of the tax year on forms P11D or P9D".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks for the responses so far especially the more amusing ones- it’s Friday!
Keep sending them.
I will collect them together and forward them to our finance people who are currently, banging their heads on a brick wall called HMRC.
I’d love to take this to the papers, local MP, Watchdog etc. Unfortunately since we are part of the government this is regarded as an internal matter and the civil service code makes it clear you do not wash your dirty linen in public etc.
I am probably pushing the limits of what I am allowed to say anyway but I wanted to find out how common this was and whether it was new thing.
So if this gets read by the powers that be I will be spending Christmas in the Tower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Quote achrn (I don't particularity like this quoting business - but)
"No, a dispensation removes the reporting requirement as well. See http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/p...schemes/dispensation.htm - "A dispensation is a notice from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) that removes the requirement to report certain expenses and benefits at the end of the tax year on forms P11D or P9D".
Yes, I KNOW; and I am NOT disagreeing with you! If you follow the thread of my posts you will see that I was originally alluding to adopting a 'policy' of PPE 'being 'made available' as a potential measure to avoid the problem at hand. Whether this would be effective or not I don't know, as I am NOT a tax expert which I have already admitted to. Applying for a dispensation is ANOTHER avenue that employers can explore. I can (and did) read the content of the link that I myself posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
canopener wrote:Quote achrn (I don't particularity like this quoting business - but)
"No, a dispensation removes the reporting requirement as well. See http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/p...schemes/dispensation.htm - "A dispensation is a notice from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) that removes the requirement to report certain expenses and benefits at the end of the tax year on forms P11D or P9D".
Yes, I KNOW; and I am NOT disagreeing with you! If you follow the thread of my posts you will see that I was originally alluding to adopting a 'policy' of PPE 'being 'made available' as a potential measure to avoid the problem at hand. Whether this would be effective or not I don't know, as I am NOT a tax expert which I have already admitted to. Applying for a dispensation is ANOTHER avenue that employers can explore. I can (and did) read the content of the link that I myself posted.
Sorry canopeneer, it's obviously getting you very cross, but I honestly don't know why and just don't know what you are saying.
As I read it you said that a dispensation appears to reduce the tax liability rather than the reporting liability, to which I said no it reduces the reporting liability as well. I am disagreeing with your statement "it would APPEAR to reduce the TAX liability rather than the REPORTING requirement". It does both. I'm disagreeing with that statement, and you're saying you agree - so you agree with me disagreeing with you - which gets me lost.
Now you say what you were saying was that merely making PPE available might avoid the problem, but the link you posted (and which you are at pains to say you have read) says it doesn't, so I'm lost. It is my understanding that merely 'making available' does not avoid the problem (that's what the link says) but having a dispensation does solve the problem.
That's all I said. I have no idea whether you agree or diagree (or both agree and disagree) but it's not intended to make you cross. Sorry it has done so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You either play the game their way, or lose.
A logo is quick, simple and easy.
if the staff do not like it then they can buy their own protective gear for hill walking etc.
The same way that if I want a nice warm and waterproof coat that is easy to see when out, I buy a nice reflective coat intended for work.....and consequently vat free....as long as I do not impart the information to the vendor that it is for personal use...
There are loads of silly games to play out there...buy your own cold drink/pie and use a microwave etc..
Any prize for the best way to defeat tax-paying ?
Just don't moan about lack of government services ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Other less generous people may say hidden but not me.
In the HMRC's website here
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/relief-tools.htm
In a stroke not seen since the Vogon's advertised planning permission to destroy Earth for a Hyperspace bypass; is a section on the rebate available for employees laundering their uniform/ppe. This can go back up to 4 tax years, not sure of the amount available as a rebate but something in my head says 40 pounds. This of course is in the totally understandable section "tool relief".
Observers may want to draw further similarities between HMRC and Vogons by visiting the wiki article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon
I of course have had a fruitful and productive relationship with the HMRC and they never ever have made a mistake..its always been my fault.
Ford Prefect
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JohnMurray wrote:You either play the game their way, or lose.
A logo is quick, simple and easy.
if the staff do not like it then they can buy their own protective gear for hill walking etc.
The same way that if I want a nice warm and waterproof coat that is easy to see when out, I buy a nice reflective coat intended for work.....and consequently vat free....as long as I do not impart the information to the vendor that it is for personal use...
There are loads of silly games to play out there...buy your own cold drink/pie and use a microwave etc..
Any prize for the best way to defeat tax-paying ?
Just don't moan about lack of government services ?
As I have said our staff do not always want to be identified as working for our organisation. We have considered detachable logos but these would fail the dual purpose test (we are second guessing HMRC here).
One of our financial bods is even as we speak going through thousands of purchase orders to try to identify which ones are for genuine PPE and which are just for a natty jacket. In future we will have to be more careful and make sure our staff do not just buy stuff for themselves but purchase it all centrally so that we can keep track of it.
Most of the staff involved work away from HQ, many are home base, so getting the kit to them will be a pain.
Getting logo jackets is not that difficult but replacing 200+ hundred perfectly good jackets with ones that have logos will not be cheap and somewhat wasteful.
How you get logos onto walking boots we don’t know.
Our staff have to go out in all sorts of weathers. They do not do it for fun but to provide a public service- and they require the most appropriate equipment.
It is a pain that HMRC are taking this approach as whatever happens, the money involved is public money and the cost of finding a solution would be greater than any gains made in extra tax.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
You could put hand on heart AK and say they all are identified with a clear company logo
Berghaus
Craghopper
Asics
Caterpillar
Cofra
SEPP
etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
My uniform has a small loop on the trousers which is hidden by the belt with the company name.
Shirts and jumpers have logo.
The only thing without a logo are my shoes
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have my wonderful colleague working on obtaining iron on logos even as we speak.
The only things we have without logos are the large blue waterproof coats for our sales staff, everything else is logo'd up, but as we only have half a dozen of these items I thought that iron on logos would be the most cost effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
hilary, sound like you are creating a perfect opportunity for your employees to be charging you fees for being living advertisments, which you then can offset against profits, making it a tax effcient bonus system for the workforce.
Of course any fees they collect would be subject to tax.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
"clothing is dual use eg you can take waterproof jackets and walking boots home and use for hill-walking,"
Do most of your staff make personal use of the jackets and boots outside work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
redken wrote:"clothing is dual use eg you can take waterproof jackets and walking boots home and use for hill-walking,"
Do most of your staff make personal use of the jackets and boots outside work?
Well they shouldn't be but how to police this? As I said most of the staff involved are working away from base with many home-based. They will drive into work in their kit and drive home in it and what they do after that is not policed. HMRC seems to assume that people will be using this stuff at home so it becomes a taxable perk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
the easiest way arround this is an instruction that ppe cannot be taken home, it is for work use only. this eliminates the personal use issues. I did this with my own company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Rob M wrote:the easiest way arround this is an instruction that ppe cannot be taken home, it is for work use only. this eliminates the personal use issues. I did this with my own company.
As I said some of the guys work from home. They drive directly to their workplaces( which might be anywhere in a large region and includes farms, airports, nurseries and woodlands and have nowhere to change. The others work form small offices around the country. There are no changing facilities and nowhere to store the stuff. They have to take it home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If they can be used for personal use and have no company logo then the tax is paid.
Simple.
Now, have you looked at the VAT aspect of this as well ?
Only, if they wear them for personal use (non work) then VAT should be paid too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Basically the problem is that HMRC think everybody works in one location 9-5. They come into work, draw the day’s PPE from a manned stores where it is signed for. They take to their place of work whether they work at whatever widget making thing it is they do. Then they return the PPE to the store at the end of the day. But how many organisations nowadays work like this. How many have stores (staffed or otherwise)? How many have staff working from home or minimal offices consisting of a desk, a phone and somewhere to plug in the laptop and no secure storage space?
Furthermore the PPE has to be personal based on that person requirements, getting a logo fixed to some special one off equipment (waders anyone) might be tricky.
Anyway this is now in the hands of our finance people who will discuss this with our cousins in HMRC.
Perhaps this is an example if the red tape that we are all supposed to be burdened with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It is called "tax legislation".
Which is some of the most complex there is.
Simple doesn't work because of the armies of accountants try to avoid/evade every penny they can.
Keeping it simple works, which is why your "but all our workers work away" looks suspiciously like a fiddle to the revenue.
Now, if you had just ordered hiviz with a logo you would be home and dry (pun intended).
Trying to be open and honest is always a revenue loser, they see so little of it that it stands out like a dead horse on a picnic table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
johnmurray - with your allusion to ‘a dead horse on a picnic table’, were you indulging in the use of an absurd analogy or have you actually seen such a sight? If the latter is true, it suggests sadly that there are people around who seek some sort of malicious pleasure through putting deceased equines on such tables. If so, one at least hopes that they first assess the load-bearing ability of the tables in relation to the weights/sizes of the horses and then follow a safe system when doing the placings!
Also, though honesty might be rare, if it is as blatant to the people at the HMRC as you suggest with your analogy, surely they should have no difficulty in recognising it when it does occur! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.