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

[vickster]

I'd have thought a decent accountant would have got @KneesUp a way of claiming back costs on a bike that he could justify as a work expense. I have a friend whose accountant claims back his breakfasts every morning. There are lots of things you can do if you're self employed, a good accountant comfortably pays for themselves on that front.

Precisely

 

[Soltydog]

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.

Totally different to MPs fiddling expenses! Claiming for a mortgage that was already paid off etc no comparison at all
To avoid going into the higher tax bracket this year I had 2 options, C2W scheme, or increase pension contributions. If I increase my pension contributions to avoid paying higher rate of tax is that morally wrong too??
I have a clear conscience using the scheme. My new bike used 7 times, approx 240 miles, 2 leisure rides 80 miles & 5 commutes at 160 miles, well within the scheme requirements.

 

[KneesUp]

Aren't people who use the cycle to work schemes actually taxpayers too? I think knees up is a little bitter that c2w doesn't apply to him, but then I don't think he commutes to a place of work (could be wrong).

You are wrong. And I am a taxpayer too.
You are right that I think it is unfair that the c2w scheme doesn't apply to the self-employed though. I only want one subsidised bike though

 

[smokeysmoo]

Thanks for the replies. NTJK has checked in to this thread a couple of pages ago, (and straight back out it seems ), so he's got the info he needs now.

Thanks again.

Mods, I'm done with this thread now so feel free to close it if you wish, thanks.

 

[KneesUp]

I'd have thought a decent accountant would have got @KneesUp a way of claiming back costs on a bike that he could justify as a work expense. I have a friend whose accountant claims back his breakfasts every morning. There are lots of things you can do if you're self employed, a good accountant comfortably pays for themselves on that front.

You'd be wrong too. I commute to one fixed place - so I can't claim mileage. I'd use it for myself too, so it can't be a business expense -and given that when I do travel I either go about half a mile (post office) or 200 miles (London) I can't claim it as a legitimate expense as a bike is not suitable for either journey. I've looked in to it. I could lie about it and get away with it, of course ...

 

[CopperBrompton]

You are right that I think it is unfair that the c2w scheme doesn't apply to the self-employed though. I only want one subsidised bike though

Assuming you earn enough to be in the 40% tax bracket, it will be financially advantageous to create a one-person Limited company - and then the company can buy a bike under a similar scheme to C2W but where the company retains ownership of the bike. Ask your accountant about it.

 

[KneesUp]

Totally different to MPs fiddling expenses! Claiming for a mortgage that was already paid off etc no comparison at all
To avoid going into the higher tax bracket this year I had 2 options, C2W scheme, or increase pension contributions. If I increase my pension contributions to avoid paying higher rate of tax is that morally wrong too??
I have a clear conscience using the scheme. My new bike used 7 times, approx 240 miles, 2 leisure rides 80 miles & 5 commutes at 160 miles, well within the scheme requirements.

No, my MP didn't claim for a mortgage that was paid off.

He bought a flat in 1980-odd, in London, for about £40k I think. We paid the mortgage for 20 years. He sold in 2012 for £500,000. And kept the money. Perfectly within the rules, but not at all in the spirit of the rules. Morally suspect. But not illegal.

 

[KneesUp]

Assuming you earn enough to be in the 40% tax bracket,.

You're wrong too, sadly.

 

[vickster]

I am wrong that people who use the C2W scheme are taxpayers...really, how so?

 

[JoeyB]

Assuming you earn enough to be in the 40% tax bracket, it will be financial advantageous to create a one-person Limited company - and then the company can buy a bike under a similar scheme to C2W but where the company retains ownership of the bike. Ask your accountant about it.

Ah that must be what my accountant was talking about. I assumed it was all one scheme but I guess there are more options?

 

[KneesUp]

I am wrong that people who use the C2W scheme are taxpayers...really, how so?

No, you were wrong in thinking I don't commute. Commuting to a single place of work doesn't count as an expense for self-assesment tax regardless, though.

 

[dexter101]

The C2W scheme all seems a bit weird any way really as what about the people who decide to use it, get a bike and then get fed up (or put off) by the journey and use a different method of transport? surely you cant give the bike back to your company as they aren't going to want a second hand bike clogging the offices up are they?

Also if the scheme allows you to purchase a bike every 18 months then there's no way of complaining about people using it. it would be the same as saying to people who claim benefits (employed or not) to only claim what they "need". Theres no way for anyone else to judge what that person needs.

I think in the bigger picture of things, the more people exploiting the system the more people with good quality bikes, who may use it to commute or simply for recreation, the better everyones health, the less cars there will be on the road and less pollution etc etc

If people do it every 18 months the more high quality second hand bikes there will be on the market! result for people like me who cant even think about spending £200+ on a bike as it stands!

 

[KneesUp]

The C2W scheme all seems a bit weird any way really as what about the people who decide to use it, get a bike and then get fed up (or put off) by the journey and use a different method of transport? surely you cant give the bike back to your company as they aren't going to want a second hand bike clogging the offices up are they?

Also if the scheme allows you to purchase a bike every 18 months then there's no way of complaining about people using it. it would be the same as saying to people who claim benefits (employed or not) to only claim what they "need". Theres no way for anyone else to judge what that person needs.

I think in the bigger picture of things, the more people exploiting the system the more people with good quality bikes, who may use it to commute or simply for recreation, the better everyones health, the less cars there will be on the road and less pollution etc etc

If people do it every 18 months the more high quality second hand bikes there will be on the market! result for people like me who cant even think about spending £200+ on a bike as it stands!

On the other hand, I think there would be fewer bikes that just happen to be £1,000 or thereabouts if more people were using their own money to buy them. But maybe not.

 

[jarlrmai]

I think thats the philosophy behind it, the savings of the health benefits of those that do commute outweigh those that abuse it a bit or never ride the bike they buy.

I just wish they'd apply the same logic to road and cycle provisioning, then we might see more of those C2W bikes getting used.

 

[400bhp]

Wow, must be a hell of a view from that high horse.

Not seen as much tripe posted here for a while.