C2W Scheme - Proof of 50% worth of commuting??

[AndyRM]

I won't abuse it but I can't ride 15 days out of 30 but I can stick to the more than 50% rule.

I have a company car yes but I ride my motorbike sometime also and as I don't claim business mileage for more than two or three journeys per month and intend to do some commuting I think I can have a clear conscious.

As to people lowering take home pay to get benefits, one has to know the whole story, so many people are paid less than they are worth, nurses, firemen, some policemen (except traffic cops...) and so many people are paid more than they are worth (me sometimes...) so it isn't an easy judgement to comment on.

I'd really not worry about it too much. Get the bike, ride it to work as often as you can and commute by alternative means when you have to. Pretty simple really.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I'd really not worry about it too much. Get the bike, ride it to work as often as you can and commute by alternative means when you have to. Pretty simple really.

Yup, you're over thinking it, although I can see why if you are going to administer it to some degree. Nobody on the administration side cares anywhere near as much as @KneesUp seems to. I have two bikes on the scheme and nobody has asked me to prove anything. I have a friend who has bought his wife's road bike and an OnOne fat bike through it in consecutive years, no questions asked and neither have seen any commuting miles at all (one's a fat bike FFS). The only people who ever seem to care are the middle manager types within the individual organisations and I guess that's backside covering. Really the scheme just seems to care about getting bikes in to ownership and little else, it's probably good for the economy or something.

The only thing that did change is the end of scheme pay off, 5+ years ago (or so, haven't checked dates) you'd have got away with just handing over a tenner and calling it done (know someone who did that on a very expensive electric assist bike) now it's properly 10% of original value (again, or whatever figure, haven't checked).

I guess you have to be comfortable in yourself that you aren't going to get a big surprise half way through, but it doesn't look like anything is going to change soon.

 

[Soltydog]

@KneesUp Think you'll find there are plenty more people who are using the scheme to avoid tax who don't actually need another bike. I've bought a few through the scheme & have no problem with it. I'm sure there's much bigger tax avoidance going on in the world that people dont bat an eyelid at
If someone was using the scheme to avoid tax/gain tax credits & not using the/or any other bike at all you gripe might be more valid

 

[Soltydog]

The only thing that did change is the end of scheme pay off, 5+ years ago (or so, haven't checked dates) you'd have got away with just handing over a tenner and calling it done (know someone who did that on a very expensive electric assist bike) now it's properly 10% of original value (again, or whatever figure, haven't checked).

I guess you have to be comfortable in yourself that you aren't going to get a big surprise half way through, but it doesn't look like anything is going to change soon.

My first bike through scheme about 7 years ago I never had to make a final payment, so I guess that technically my employer still owns that bike
Subsequent schemes have resulted in a final payment of approx 1 months payment. Our previous schemes were over 18 months, but the latest one is only over 12 months which under the hmrc guidance figures will mean a higher final value, so wasnt too sure about the scheme, but with the higher tax threshold being lowered I dont need much overtime &/or payrise to take me over it, so I'll be saving 40% tax this time which even with a high final value figure makes it worthwhile to me

 

[vickster]

My first bike through scheme about 7 years ago I never had to make a final payment, so I guess that technically my employer still owns that bike
Subsequent schemes have resulted in a final payment of approx 1 months payment. Our previous schemes were over 18 months, but the latest one is only over 12 months which under the hmrc guidance figures will mean a higher final value, so wasnt too sure about the scheme, but with the higher tax threshold being lowered I dont need much overtime &/or payrise to take me over it, so I'll be saving 40% tax this time which even with a high final value figure makes it worthwhile to me

The scheme changed, 7 years ago the final payment thing wasn't so clear, it may be that the company simply absorbed or wrote it off. You'd need to read the terms of the scheme at that point

 

[KneesUp]

@KneesUp Think you'll find there are plenty more people who are using the scheme to avoid tax who don't actually need another bike. I've bought a few through the scheme & have no problem with it. I'm sure there's much bigger tax avoidance going on in the world that people dont bat an eyelid at
If someone was using the scheme to avoid tax/gain tax credits & not using the/or any other bike at all you gripe might be more valid

I don't make a moral distinction between what you and @DCLane are doing and my MP fiddling his expenses. OK so the sums were bigger with my MP, but the underlying principle of "well it doesn't specifically say I can't fill my boots, so I will" is the same.

I asked about an equivalent of the C2W scheme for the self-employed in 2012, and got 'advice' such as "man up and buy a bike" It's interesting that a self-employed person (who in 2011 earned less than the minimum wage due to market conditions, not clever accounting) gets advice like that when looking to buy one bike to replace a 30 year old one, but apparently most people seem happy for employed people to get bike after bike subsidised by the tax payer.

 

[DCLane]

I don't make a moral distinction between what you and @DCLane are doing and my MP fiddling his expenses. OK so the sums were bigger with my MP, but the underlying principle of "well it doesn't specifically say I can't fill my boots, so I will" is the same.

Hang on. A MP fiddling their expenses is breaking the rules. Both @Soltydog and I are using the government's own taxation system.

 

[JoeyB]

My accountant told me that the employee / employer will never be asked for any proof.

 

[KneesUp]

Hang on. A MP fiddling their expenses is breaking the rules. Both @Soltydog and I are using the government's own taxation system.

Well no. My MP bought a flat in London and we paid the mortgage. Then he sold it 20 years later and kept the substantial capital gains for himself. That was entirely within the rules. Loads of them did it.

It was never against the rules - but I think most people find it morally dubious.

 

[CopperBrompton]

I don't make a moral distinction between what you and @DCLane are doing and my MP fiddling his expenses.

The two are not equivalent. What DCL is doing is legally exploiting a tax avoidance scheme. If he were to complain at Philip Green or Vodafone doing the same thing, then you could accuse him of hypocrisy, but you can't equate tax avoidance with fraud.

 

[PK99]

@KneesUp - you might think that, but I'm going to be using the current C2W MTB over 2 winters whilst it's in the 18-month C2W period. It'll be used then.

Just because I don't use it in the summer should I not sign for a C2W bike? Seriously?

And yes, it's to reduce take home pay. That's the government's taxation rules. I pay my taxes and, like most people, will use methods to reduce them. Have you an ISA? Do you claim for professional memberships, etc? Isn't that the same as you're doing that to reduce your overall level of taxation? It's not "blatant abuse" at all.

You are ok then that some companies and individuals us the governments taxation rules to reduce their overall level of taxation?

 

[SquareDaff]

Hang on. A MP fiddling their expenses is breaking the rules. Both @Soltydog and I are using the government's own taxation system.

Give it up DC - the idiot will argue black is blue next. What you're doing is within the rules so stuff what anyone else thinks. If they're really that bothered get them to put some effort in and get the rules changed!

 

[KneesUp]

The two are not equivalent. What DCL is doing is legally exploiting a tax avoidance scheme. If he were to complain at Philip Green or Vodafone doing the same thing, then you could accuse him of hypocrisy, but you can't equate tax avoidance with fraud.

I'm equating taking as much as possible from the taxpayer even when there is no need with, er, taking as much from the taxpayer as possible when there is no need.

It's the same thing.

My MP spending a fortune on "essential" furniture that he then kept - within the rules
My MP getting his morgage paid for 20 years and then keeping the half a million in capital gains - within the rules
Buying bike after bike subsidised by the taaxpayer - within the rules

All are morally questionable though.

 

[BSRU]

Buying bike after bike subsidised by the taaxpayer - within the rules

All are morally questionable though.

Private car drivers are subsidised by all tax payers, by over £600 per year.

 

[PK99]

The two are not equivalent. What DCL is doing is legally exploiting a tax avoidance scheme. If he were to complain at Philip Green or Vodafone doing the same thing, then you could accuse him of hypocrisy, but you can't equate tax avoidance with fraud.

The revenue make a distinction:

Tax Evasion = deliberate breaking of the law = illegal

Tax Avoidance = deliberate manipulation of rules outside the design intent = legal but immoral

Tax planning = use of tax rules for the purposes they were designed for.

Isas/pensions/capital allowances for a business etc/making films and employing real people to to real jobs = Planning

Buying multiple bikes on the C2W scheme and not using them for commuting/film investment schemes with the sole purpose of creating tax losses = Avoidance