cycle scheme question

[Cyclist33]

But what if you had no wife, and wanted one on the cheap, that you only had to legally bewife for 50% of the time, and no one took any notice of that anyway, and the shops let you have a wife of a quality that was well over the legal allowance, provided you agreed silently not to tell the authorities?

 

[Soltydog]

But what if you had no wife, and wanted one on the cheap,

I dont believe such a thing exists or ever will. cheap wife?? i ask you

 

[Cuchilo]

But what if you had no wife, and wanted one on the cheap, that you only had to legally bewife for 50% of the time, and no one took any notice of that anyway, and the shops let you have a wife of a quality that was well over the legal allowance, provided you agreed silently not to tell the authorities?

I still wouldn't want one !

 

[Big Nick]

Who actually checks if you ride it to work?? ( the bicycle, not your wife)

Occurs to me that nobody will give a toss after you've acquired the bike, who it's for or what they do with it

 

[Cubist]

It's perfectly feasible that you will be able to get one for your partner. No one checks what we ride to work. The blurb says it must be used primarily to ride to work, but they are unlikely to insist on checking Strava to see whether this weekend's mileage is greater than the sum of your commutes, nor whether your spouse or partner is riding a cycle scheme bike that was purportedly bought/leased/sacrificed under your name. However, it is dishonest, and a criminal offence. The consequences are potentially a prosecution and criminal conviction. Just because you are likely to get away with it, doesn't mean you aren't breaking the law.

 

[Big Nick]

And that makes it OK to cheat?

It was a question followed by an observation

What's the point in imposing conditions on anything when there's no facility to check those conditions are being adhered to? (another question)

 

[Big Nick]

Who says there is no faculty to check?

Go on then, what is it?

 

[KneesUp]

HR wouldn't know what was bought I don't think. They just check you meet the criteria.

Also, everyone is allowed to have a tax free bike, provided they're employed and the company signs up to the scheme. It's not public money though, it's a salary sacrifice, so in effect you take a pay cut to fund it. Any tax loss is arguably more than made up by the health benefits and less traffic, pollution etc.

I'm not because I'm self employed, and when I asked about what the rules are about claiming the tax back on a bike I use to commute on I got a load of abuse for being a tax evader right here on this very forum. Just for asking what the rules are.

But it seems a fair few people think using the cycle to work scheme fraudulently is fine.

 

[KneesUp]

You can claim a deduction for the cost of using your bike for work. You cannot claim for the cost of commuting between home and your place of work.

Yes, I got that advice in the end - so if you are employed you get a tax free bike to go to work on, but if you're self employed you do not.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Go on then, what is it?

Any sensible ethical employer will have checks in place. What they are will vary.

Where I work all cyclescheme purchases have to be approved by our Operations Director after a "huge bike tiny girl" scenario arose when we introduced the scheme. He will also "have a word" if it is observed that a cyclescheme bike doesn't appear in the bike racks at work from time-to-time.

Not everyone is into ripping off the taxman it seems.

 

[Ganymede]

Not everyone is into ripping off the taxman it seems.

Sounds a good set-up GG - but I'd just reiterate that the taxman is us - it's our money as taxpayers. Which is why checks should be in place. I help run several charities and without actually getting donations from Government, we are in receipt of taxpayers' money due to the fact that we can claim Gift Aid on donations. This gives us a responsibility to fulfil our charitable aims and be financially transparent.

Someone upthread pointed out that "the tax loss is more than made up for by the health benefits etc" - yes, that's one of the points of the scheme, not an excuse for a rip-off - it is also to increase cycle traffic. It's a crying shame that you have to be employed (I'm self-employed so I can't do it) and I maintain it would be better for everyone to be able to get one bike tax-free. Pricey though, and it would be paid for by the tax-payer - arguably a very good use of tax money of course. But why should we pay for someone's n+1?

 

[KneesUp]

It's a crying shame that you have to be employed (I'm self-employed so I can't do it) and I maintain it would be better for everyone to be able to get one bike tax-free. Pricey though, and it would be paid for by the tax-payer - arguably a very good use of tax money of course. But why should we pay for someone's n+1?

I quite agree. I have had no answers from government as to why government policy is to incentivise commuting by bicycle for employees but not the self-employed.

I expect no-one has bothered to do a costing to see if it saves money or costs money. You would, for example, have to offset the initial loss in tax revenue against the fact that without that reduction the bike not have been sold at all, thereby potentially leading to redundancies in bike shops and warehouses and so on - nor will it take into account the increased sale of cycling accessories, spares and servicing as a result of the sale of new bikes and the attendant tax revenue - it's a pretty complicated multiplier effect.

 

[Ganymede]

I quite agree. I have had no answers from government as to why government policy is to incentivise commuting by bicycle for employees but not the self-employed.

I expect no-one has bothered to do a costing to see if it saves money or costs money. You would, for example, have to offset the initial loss in tax revenue against the fact that without that reduction the bike not have been sold at all, thereby potentially leading to redundancies in bike shops and warehouses and so on - nor will it take into account the increased sale of cycling accessories, spares and servicing as a result of the sale of new bikes and the attendant tax revenue - it's a pretty complicated multiplier effect.

Yes it is complex - and perhaps there was just a general feeling that it is "a good thing" - maybe the health considerations are the main thing, they are certainly highlighted on the website. But going into detail you'd have less pollution, less wear and tear on roads and less congestion to quantify as well.

 

[vickster]

Doesn't the company actually fund the bike up front and then recoup its outlay through salary sacrifice, not sure how that works if you are self-employed, i.e. the employer. What about getting VAT back on the bike purchase. A 20% discount is as good as C2W savings I would think

 

[KneesUp]

Doesn't the company actually fund the bike up front and then recoup its outlay through salary sacrifice, not sure how that works if you are self-employed, i.e. the employer. What about getting VAT back on the bike purchase. A 20% discount is as good as C2W savings I would think

It doesn't work @vickster because you don't get a salary if you are self employed, and you can't claim the VAT back on things that are not for the business. What you ought to be able to do is just include the cost of the bike as part of your tax return, but you can't.