T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
2043.1 | | WIZZER::WEGG | Some hard boiled eggs and some nuts. | Tue Mar 16 1993 16:18 | 3 |
| That should of course be MANUFACTURER'S list price.
Fuel increased by 10% (approx 12p on unleaded).
|
2043.2 | | WIZZER::WEGG | Some hard boiled eggs and some nuts. | Tue Mar 16 1993 16:20 | 3 |
| ... and if you don't have a company car:
Vehicle excise licence up by �15 to �125.
|
2043.3 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | Anag: Rainbow Rule | Tue Mar 16 1993 16:55 | 3 |
| Has diesel gone up too?
Laurie.
|
2043.4 | | MENOW::PACEN | Here comes the twist | Tue Mar 16 1993 17:01 | 8 |
| > Has diesel gone up too?
There was no specific mention of diesel, but he did say 'fuel'
charges would be incresed by 10%. Whether the chancellor knows
that diesel is a fuel is an interesting question - he doesn't
seem to know we use litres and not gallons!
~sam
|
2043.5 | Hairy promenances | PEKING::GERRYT | | Tue Mar 16 1993 17:44 | 4 |
|
I think he uses Diesel to keep his eyebrows in order!
Tim (who uses diesel)
|
2043.6 | | MAJORS::ALFORD | lying Shipwrecked and comatose... | Tue Mar 16 1993 17:50 | 4 |
| > that diesel is a fuel is an interesting question - he doesn't
> seem to know we use litres and not gallons!
Just as well....12p on a litre would be horrible !!!
|
2043.7 | no point | WOTVAX::BROWNR | Andy Brown | Tue Mar 16 1993 18:22 | 6 |
| > For 1994/1995, a new scheme is to be introduced. Tax liability
> will be 35% OF THE MANUFACTURED LIST PRICE.
> ==================================
Surely that means that there will be no point in buying/leasing
/whatever a second hand car. Assuming you have that choice of course.
|
2043.8 | beats me | WOTVAX::BROWNR | Andy Brown | Tue Mar 16 1993 18:27 | 3 |
| I forgot something in my last reply. How will they go about working out
the tax liability on a car that is no longer available such as the one
I drive?
|
2043.9 | Will we be better off? | WELCLU::OVERELL | | Tue Mar 16 1993 18:43 | 7 |
| Will the amount we pay, be based on the cost of the basic car DEC
supply or will it be on the cost of the car we actually order.
If its the later does that mean that we will be taxed twice, once
when we get paid and again when we chose to spend our hard earned
cash on a car that is a little different from the Digital standard car?
|
2043.10 | No | WELCLU::YOUNG | Policemen aren't nasty people | Tue Mar 16 1993 21:27 | 6 |
|
Kieth,
You don't pay tax on the money you put into your car as I understand it!
Richard
|
2043.11 | All taxed | WOTVAX::MEAKINS | Clive Meakins | Wed Mar 17 1993 09:04 | 8 |
| >>> You don't pay tax on the money you put into your car as I understand it!
You do at the moment, if your care is over 19,250 you pay extra tax,
even though it's your contributions that make take the car over that
price.
I suspect we'll be taxed on the price of the car we drive and not the
"free" one.
|
2043.12 | What it means to the cost of the car | TIMMII::RDAVIES | An expert Amateur | Wed Mar 17 1993 09:20 | 50 |
| He specifically stated it would be based on MANUFACTURERS LIST PRICE he
said those specific words. So it will be based on the published price
at time of purchase.
I've done some calculations:
The new 'benefit' (some benefit, don't they mean liability?) will be
based on
Basic benefit 35% MLP
>2,500 miles 1/3 discount
>18,000 miles 2/3 discount
The current (1992/3) scales are:
Under 1400cc 1400-2000cc over 2000cc
2,140 2,770 4,440
The 1993/4 scales go up 8%
2,311 2,992 4,795
To break even against these the MLP will need to be:
Under Over
2.5K miles <between> 18K miles
Under 1400cc
3,210 2,140 1,070 <1991 - 1992
3,467 2,311 1,156 <1992 - 1993
9903.79 9903.79 9903.79 <1993 - 1994
This is target MRP of car
1400-2000cc
4,155 2,770 1,385 <1991 - 1992
4,488 2,992 1,496 <1992 - 1993
12822.22 12822.22 12822.22 <1993 - 1994
This is target MRP of car
over 2000cc
6,660 4,440 2,220 <1991 - 1992
7,193 4,795 2,398 <1992 - 1993
20548.97 20548.97 20548.97 <1993 - 1994
This is target MRP of car
Market value > �19,250
8,250 5,500 2,750 <1991 - 1992
8,625 5,750 2,875 <1992 - 1993
24641.63 24641.63 24641.63 <1993 - 1994
This is target MRP of car
So now you know at what MLP you break even.
Richard
|
2043.13 | creative mileage still counts! | EBYGUM::WILLIAMSH | | Wed Mar 17 1993 09:20 | 8 |
| Phew, just read today's newspaper,
There will be a 33% reduction (of the 35%) for > 2500 business miles
66% 18000
not too bad unless you drive an expensive car.
Huw.
|
2043.14 | Example of New Scales on Ford Mondeo | SUPER7::HUGHESA | Swimming against the tide @#%* | Wed Mar 17 1993 09:39 | 14 |
|
As an example these are the calculations for a Ford Mondeo GLX 1.8i
5 door...
MRP (excluding delivery and road fund license) 13880
35% of MRP (and less than 2,500 business miles) 4858
2,500 to 18,000 miles 3207
over 18,000 miles 1604
Andy.
|
2043.15 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Wed Mar 17 1993 09:46 | 16 |
| The paper says diesel ans unleaded up by 12p gallon.
Some examples.....on tax to pay size vs price
under 2500 over 2500 over 18,000
MLP size price size price size price
rover metro 6670 866 584 578 389 289 195
ford esc 1.4 11025 866 965 578 643 289 322
V.all cav 2.0i 15325 1794 2146 1196 1430 598 715
bmw 318i 18450 1794 2596 1196 1730 598 865
river sterlng 26995 3726 3779 2484 2520 1242 1260
metro/escort assumed 25% tax, rest at 40% tax
Heather
|
2043.16 | You read it here first. | WIZZER::WEGG | Some hard boiled eggs and some nuts. | Wed Mar 17 1993 13:54 | 11 |
| Re .13>
> Phew, just read today's newspaper,
>
> There will be a 33% reduction (of the 35%) for > 2500 business miles
> 66% 18000
... on the ball then Huw! I said that in the base note.
Ian.
|
2043.17 | | WARNUT::RICE | VW Beetle for sale in next few months | Wed Mar 17 1993 14:02 | 13 |
| >> - he doesn't
>> seem to know we use litres and not gallons!
What's with this "WE" ? As far as I'm concerned petrol pumps use
litres, "I" use gallons. You use litres if you want to.
I didn't listen to the actual speech but CEEFAX said "Hydrocarbon
fuels".
.Steve.
|
2043.18 | | UPROAR::EVANSG | Gwyn Evans @ IME - Open DECtrade -> DTN 769-8108 | Wed Mar 17 1993 15:51 | 2 |
| He actually said "raise all fuel duties by 10%" and then gave
examples for leaded & unleaded petrol.
|
2043.19 | 11,150 the figure to beat | LARVAE::IVES_J | One i-node short of a file system | Thu Mar 18 1993 09:46 | 11 |
| by my calculations if you get hammered for 2600 of taxable benfit at
present then you need to order a car with a MLP of #11,150 or less in
order to break even .
I'm calculating this by the equation
35/100 = 3,900/x where x is the MLP and 3,900 is your current taxable
benfit (2,600) + the third that is chopped if you do more than 2,500
miles.
Or am I wrong ;-) ?
|
2043.20 | Something not quite right | NEWOA::FIDO_T | The Prize Is Bigger Than The Price | Thu Mar 18 1993 10:02 | 16 |
| .19>by my calculations if you get hammered for 2600 of taxable benfit at
.19>present then you need to order a car with a MLP of #11,150 or less in
.19>order to break even .
According to my understanding, your calculations look correct. However,
initially, I couldn't understand why you came up with different figures
from Richard in .12 ( who came up with a target MLP of �9,900 ish ),
but then I realised that the �2600 you say is your taxable benefit isn't
anywhere to be seen in his figures.
Does this figure include anything else as a taxable benefit or are you
being charge the wrong amount or are Richard's figures wrong ?
Terry
|
2043.21 | All the figures are in .12 | TIMMII::RDAVIES | An expert Amateur | Thu Mar 18 1993 10:11 | 12 |
| I'm not sure where you got 2600 from. The 1991-2 ( 1400-2000cc?) figure
was 2650. The 1992-3 figure went up to 2770, and this year is subject to
an 8% rise as of next tax year (1993 -94) which gives 2992 (calculated,
depends if they round out).
the reciprocal of 35% is 2.857 so if you roll up the 2992 * 2.857 then
say this is 2/3 of the car value then the end result will be 12,822.
This figure is across the board of diffent company car milages.
I pasted all these figures in .12 of this note string.
Richard
|
2043.22 | it's a fair cop guv | LARVAE::IVES_J | One i-node short of a file system | Thu Mar 18 1993 10:14 | 2 |
| yeah you're right. i was of course not using the correct figure which
is 2992 as opposed to my curent code. well spotted the chap !
|
2043.23 | The full picture... or do you know better :-)? | TIMMII::RDAVIES | An expert Amateur | Thu Mar 18 1993 10:32 | 36 |
| For those who want to check my figures posted in .12 (and reproduced
below) my formulae are:
e.g col W col X col Y
1400-2000cc <2.k miles >18K miles
19> 4,155 2,770 1,385 current (92/93)
20> 4,488 2,992 1,496 current *8%
21> MRP of car 12822.22 12822.22 12822.22
got by =SUM(W20*2.857) =SUM(Y20*2.857)*3
=SUM((X20*2.857)/2)*3
In full (P.S. in .12 I realise I got my years line one out!)
Under 2.5K miles <between> Over 18K miles
Under 1400cc
3,210 2,140 1,070 <1992 - 1993 Current
3,467 2,311 1,156 <1993 - 1994 Estimate
MLP of car 9903.79 9903.79 9903.79 <1994 - 1995
1400-2000cc
4,155 2,770 1,385 <1992 - 1993 Current
4,488 2,992 1,496 <1993 - 1994 Estimate
MRP of car 12822.22 12822.22 12822.22 <1994 - 1995
over 2000cc
6,660 4,440 2,220 <1992 - 1993 Current
7,193 4,795 2,398 <1993 - 1994 Estimate
MRP of car 20548.97 20548.97 20548.97 <1994 - 1995
Market value > �19,250
8,250 5,500 2,750 <1992 - 1993 Current
8,625 5,750 2,875 <1993 - 1994 Estimate
MRP of car 24641.63 24641.63 24641.63 <1994 - 1995
Richard
|
2043.24 | | CURRNT::CARSON | | Thu Mar 18 1993 10:50 | 1 |
| Bummer if you driver a Supra :-(
|
2043.25 | There are some winners | NEWOA::FIDO_T | The Prize Is Bigger Than The Price | Thu Mar 18 1993 11:47 | 14 |
| .24> Bummer if you driver a Supra :-(
Why, what's its list price ?
It's interesting to see that the people who will be better off under
the new scheme are those whose car is currently valued around
�19.5-24.5K.
For the rest, how many cars under 1400cc cost �9,900 ?
how many 1400cc-2000cc cars cost under �12,800 ?
how many cars over 2litre cost under �20,000 ?
Terry
|
2043.26 | | KERNEL::SHELLEYR | | Thu Mar 18 1993 12:02 | 11 |
| � how many 1400cc-2000cc cars cost under �12,800 ?
Its not very difficult to find a reasonable car for around that price.
What I'm wondering about is how the tax office will be notified about
the list price of your vehicle. Will they have a handy copy of What
Car for reference or what ?
Roy
|
2043.27 | | SAC::HAYCOX_I | Ian | Thu Mar 18 1993 12:47 | 9 |
| Hows the tax man going to work out the MLP of a car when factory
fitted options are available that you may add later.
I was think mainly of BMW's.
A possible loop hole for small companies to buy bottom of the range
then 'upgrade' later ?
Ian.
|
2043.28 | | KERNEL::SHELLEYR | | Thu Mar 18 1993 13:03 | 4 |
| If you add options later (at your own expense) then these extra items
are not taxable.
Roy
|
2043.29 | | KERNEL::FISCHERI | I can always sleep standing up | Thu Mar 18 1993 13:36 | 6 |
| Obviously if you add options at your own expense, then your aren't liable for
extra tax as these are not a perk or benefit. If the company were to pay,
then I would have thought you would have to declare it.
Ian
|
2043.30 | | EBYGUM::WILLIAMSH | | Thu Mar 18 1993 13:36 | 6 |
| RE .16,
Ian, you know what it's like, You get so upset by the news that you
can't read the rest of the message!
Huw. :-)
|
2043.31 | We need to know! | EBYGUM::WILLIAMSH | | Thu Mar 18 1993 13:38 | 5 |
| So, will the list price be the original price of the vehicle, or will
it increase as the manufacturers increase their prices over the 3
years?
Huw.
|
2043.32 | | TIMMII::RDAVIES | An expert Amateur | Thu Mar 18 1993 15:29 | 13 |
| >> <<< Note 2043.31 by EBYGUM::WILLIAMSH >>>
>> -< We need to know! >-
>>
>> So, will the list price be the original price of the vehicle, or will
>> it increase as the manufacturers increase their prices over the 3
>> years?
Sense dictates the former, but I seem to remeber him uttering a phrase
along the lines of "there will be no need to keep changing the tax as
the rising cost of the car will provide the additional taxation" seems
to suggest otherwise. (definitely not the original words!)
Richard
|
2043.33 | | CHEFS::ARNOLD | | Thu Mar 18 1993 18:33 | 47 |
| The following information has been collated from the Financial Times 17
March 1993 to inform Digital Car Scheme members of the 1993/94 Company
Car Tax Proposals and to give as much information as possible about the
proposal for changing the way comapny cars are taxed from April 1994.
Car Benefit Scale Charges Proposed for 1993-94
Cars under 4 years old.
New Scale Charges
Original Engine Size High Business Average Low Business
Market Value Mileage Busines Mileage Mileage
18,000 or more 2,501-17,999 Up to 2,500
� cc � � �
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
0-1400 1,155 2,310 3,465
Up to 19,250 1401-2000 1,495 2,990 4,485
2001+ 2,400 4,800 7,200
19,251-29,000 All 3,105 6,210 9,315
Over 29,000 All 5,020 10,040 15,060
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For 1994 onwards the Treasury stated:
"The present broad-scale charges will be replaced by a new measure of
the benefit of a car for private use:
*the full cost of the car - 35% of the list price of the car from April
6 1994;
*with a discount of one-third if the employee drives more than 2,500
business miles in a year, or two-thirds if the employee drives 18,000
or more business miles;
*all reduced by a third for car four or more years old at the end of
the tax year.
The Chancellor proposes to base the new tax charge on the full cost pf
a car for a year. Full cost includes not only running costs but also
large fixed costs (such as depreciation and financing costs). The
measure of full costs for the income tax charge will be 35% of the
price of the car.
The price of the car will be defined to be its list price at the time
it was first registered, plus the price of "extras" provided with the
car."
|
2043.34 | | CURRNT::CARSON | | Fri Mar 19 1993 13:00 | 1 |
| .25 26k in '89 I think. Which means 35% ~ �9100 !
|
2043.35 | Confusion alert.. | SUBURB::MCDONALDA | Shockwave Rider | Fri Mar 19 1993 13:27 | 18 |
| Could someone explain the following bits from .33.
> *the full cost of the car - 35% of the list price of the car from April
> 6 1994;
Is this the Full Cost minus 35% of MLP, or is it saying the Full Cost
is 35% MLP?
> The Chancellor proposes to base the new tax charge on the full cost pf
> a car for a year. Full cost includes not only running costs but also
> large fixed costs (such as depreciation and financing costs). The
> measure of full costs for the income tax charge will be 35% of the
> price of the car.
What gets added and what gets subtractd to get the Full Cost. or does
everything get added? and what's the financing costs?
Angus
|
2043.36 | RIP-OFF!! | WELCLU::YOUNG | Policemen aren't nasty people | Fri Mar 19 1993 14:27 | 14 |
|
Surely we can only be taxed on the base car ie.1.6L Cavalier as
anything beyond that is financed entirely out of our own pocket and is
therefore not a company provided benefit. Or perhaps the money we chip
in should be deductable from the benifit.
I fail to see how they can tax us for someting we pay for out of our
own pocket!
If they only tax us on the base company provided car DEC could help us
out by changing to a different base vehicle but with a low capital cost
but the same lease cost due to high depreciation/running costs, this
would mean that the taxable benefit would be lower but the lease
contribution would be the same.
Richard (young)
|
2043.37 | | MILE::JENKINS | Suitably refreshed | Fri Mar 19 1993 14:30 | 2 |
|
But when we "chip in" that money is not taxed
|
2043.38 | I think I'll get a 10yr old 2CV. | ESBS01::HARRIS | SCUMBAG extraordinaire | Fri Mar 19 1993 14:32 | 10 |
| � <<< Note 2043.34 by CURRNT::CARSON >>>
� .25 26k in '89 I think. Which means 35% ~ �9100 !
Nope - by then your car will be four years old, so will be reduced by
33% (I think that's the proposed reduction). Plus there is the
reduction(s) for business mileage. It all ends up being quite cheap
really. (Sounds of Harris being dragged off by the men in white coats).
PCH.
|
2043.39 | Re: .36 | KERNEL::SHELLEYR | | Fri Mar 19 1993 14:35 | 13 |
| �anything beyond that is financed entirely out of our own pocket
Not quite true young Richard.
The extra we pay for a better car is deducted as source so no tax is
paid on it. So in effect if you're paying a �1000 per year extra,
because no tax is being paid on it, you will only be loosing �750.
You see, if you didn't spend it on a car you would be taxed (25%)
of that money.
To be honest, this new method is not totally unfair.
Roy
|
2043.40 | How to make friends ... | MUGGER::LEACH | There's a hole in my fuel pipe... | Fri Mar 19 1993 14:43 | 12 |
| I realise in advance that this will be an unpopular reply, but being
taxed for the full amount of the car is correct.
Imagine you have a salary of approx #20,000. To get the car you want
you must pay #1,000 per year to subsidise the lease costs. How, from a
tax point of view would that differ from someone who salary is #19,000
and doesn't have to contribute to get the same car ?
Now if you were already paying tax on the #1,000, that would be
different.
Shaun.
|
2043.41 | ....Still a RIP-OFF! 8*) | WELCLU::YOUNG | Policemen aren't nasty people | Fri Mar 19 1993 14:43 | 8 |
|
I know we're not taxed on the money we chip in but thats not the point
the company aren't paying for it so it's not a benefit is it?
Whether that money we chip in should be taxable is a totally separate
question surely?
Richard (young)
|
2043.42 | re .39 - 34 per cent | SEDSWS::SAMPAYO | I wish I was fault tolerant | Fri Mar 19 1993 15:52 | 9 |
| RE .39
I Have always thought that if you paid �1000 then you actually pay in
real hard cash 66 % of that ammount, i.e �660, because you deduct
income tax at 25 % and also National Insurance at 9 % .
I hope so anyway.
Martin
|
2043.43 | Go self-employed | COMICS::BUTT | Give me the facts real straight. | Fri Mar 19 1993 15:52 | 11 |
| Right now the MLP of a car in the UK allows for large discounting. The
new tax scheme for 93-94 will encourage manfacturers to make their MLP's
closer to the price you pay. So if you get a car now and keep it for 3
years you will carry a tax penalty for 2 years due to the inflated MLP.
Re .-1
Richard, it sounds to me like you should be asking John Birt's
accountant to manage your tax affairs otherwise you will have to pay
just like the rest of us on PAYE. !!
|
2043.44 | some sums. | EBYGUM::WILLIAMSH | | Fri Mar 19 1993 16:49 | 13 |
| OK, some sums,
If the car tax was to be on a 1.6L cavalier and my contribtion to a
better car (�1K) was to be taxable then I'd pay �105 a year more tax.
i.e. if my �1000 was back on my base salary then I'd pay �340 pounds
more tax.
Assuming I'm paying �1000 per year more for a �15K car instead of �12K
Cavalier. With 2/3 reduction for >2.5K miles this then makes my
company car tax �235 less than for the �15K MLP. 340 - 235 = 105.
Huw. (So it's not a rip off!)
|
2043.45 | Is it Friday ?? | CHEFS::ARNOLD | | Fri Mar 19 1993 17:24 | 18 |
| Re .35 Can someone explain ...
I don't think anyone can yet fully explain it, and I suspect this is a
deliberate ploy because I don't believe the Government have finished
"consulting" on this proposal yet. Having run a few numbers through a
simple spreadsheet, it looks as though I (personally) will be some �200
a year worse off than I am now, but not as badly worse off as I would
have been had they taken their original 'proposals' (from the
Consultative Document) and implemented them.
Obviously my point was to put up the best information I had, as soon as
I had it. This I will continue to do, as and when I get it.
AND I've just been given a book (the ink's still wet) which is a guide
to what is known so far. I'll try and read it during Whos line is it
anyway and get back in here next week.
Doug
|
2043.46 | It would be nice if Digital could arrange a deal with the taxman ... | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, NTCC, Birmingham UK | Sat Mar 20 1993 09:17 | 17 |
| Doug,
will Digital UK be taking the tax changes into consideration, and possibly
changing the way that the car scheme works?
I would hope that the fact that "better cars" are paid for out of our
own pockets (admittedly sans-tax), would help us negotiate a deal with
the Inland Revenue whereby we are only charged on the benefit of a
"standard" car.
If not then the plain fact is that one of the "benefits" of working for
this company will be substantially reduced. Whether you are a qualified
car user or not, it always hurts when someone takes something away.
mb
p.s. I haven't forgotten about the crate of beer!!!!!
|
2043.47 | | CHEFS::ARNOLD | | Mon Mar 22 1993 10:19 | 45 |
| This information is courtesy of Vauxhall.
"Transitional Rules from "Old" (pre April 94) to "New" (April 94 on)
System.
No transitional rules have been proposed. The current intention is
that the new system for Company Car taxation should be introduced for
ALL CARS PROVIDED TO EMPLOYEES BEFORE AND AFTER 6 APRIL 1994. The
existing system would therefore cease to operate, even in respect of
Company Cars made available to employees before 6 April 1994.
The calculation of the benefit under the new system is a straight 35%
of the list price of a car. There is a discount of one third if the
employee drives more than 2,500 business miles in a year, or two thirds
for 18,000 or more business miles. The net taxable benefit after the
adjustments above are taken into account, is further reduced by one
third for cars of four or more years old at the end of the tax year in
question.
The 'new' system will use the list price at the time the car is first
registered plus the price of "extras" provided with the car. Special
rules will be announced on how to arrive at a price for a car if no
list price is published.
The 'new' system will not refer to the engine size of a Company Car, in
determining the amount of tax payable on that car."
Employers Reporting
"Under the 'new' system, the provider of a Company Car will, on a
quarterly basis, have to notify the Inland Revenue of any new Company
Cars provided to employees. This should then enable the notice of
coding for each employee to be updated by the Inland Revenue within
each tax year. Employees will therefore pay tax on the Company Car
through the monthly payroll."
That's about it from Vauxhall, and it doesn't add much to what we
already knew.
There was some speculation in the Sunday papers, about people taking
very basic cars and adding extras at the first service. It seems that
the Revenue will keep a close eye on this potential loophole and plug
it, if they see fit.
Doug
|
2043.48 | Much easier option.... | HEWIE::RUSSELL | So much for Tory promises on taxes! | Mon Mar 22 1993 10:24 | 7 |
| why don't we just stop all the shennanigans, and use the same car and expense
"plans" as our employees, the MP's have?
Or the one that Inland Revenue employees have? I've been told they get 36p/mile,
tax free, but I dunno if it's true or not.
Peter.
|
2043.49 | Extra, Extra. | YUPPY::MIDGLEYC | | Mon Mar 22 1993 19:50 | 6 |
| Tax should be payable against the MLP, for a bog standard model
extras come gratis?.
Lets not forget that the Leasing companys have humungus buying
power, and get cars at WELL below MLP??????.
Colin.
|
2043.50 | MLP is the fairest way | NEWOA::FIDO_T | The Prize Is Bigger Than The Price | Tue Mar 23 1993 08:57 | 17 |
| .49> Lets not forget that the Leasing companys have humungus buying
.49> power, and get cars at WELL below MLP??????.
Colin,
what the leasing companys pay for the vehicle is totally irrelevant
to the taxable benefit. Why should Digital's employees pay less tax on
a car when I ( an employee of my company ) would have to pay more tax on
the same car, just because my company doesn't have the same bargaining
power with the leasing companies as Digital does.
The relative bargaining powers of my company and Digital is
business. The benefit of having a company car is a personal tax issue and
the two have no effect on each other.
Terry
|
2043.51 | invisible benefit | PLAYER::SPENCER | working......not! | Tue Mar 23 1993 13:11 | 7 |
| So if I understand correctly...
If I my company buys a 3 year old car for �12000 that had an original
MLP of �25000 I get taxed on 35% of �25000, rather than the benefit
which is actually only �12000. Sounds very fair to me!
Nigel
|
2043.52 | Yes, that's correct (and your choice) | HEWIE::RUSSELL | So much for Tory promises on taxes! | Tue Mar 23 1993 13:17 | 10 |
| re .51;
the car value is reduced when the car is four years old.
I guess they are basing all this on MLP to try and circumvent the games
that can be played in this area.
Mind you, I'm still not sure where the Maynard List Price comes into this...
Peter.
|
2043.53 | | KERNEL::MCGOWAN | | Tue Mar 23 1993 13:39 | 4 |
| Perhaps I'm being dumb here, but is MLP quoted before or after VAT is
added ?
Pete
|
2043.54 | | ESBS01::RUTTER | Rut The Mutt | Tue Mar 23 1993 14:45 | 30 |
| � If I my company buys a 3 year old car for �12000 that had an original
� MLP of �25000 I get taxed on 35% of �25000
That's the way I see it.
� MLP of �25000 I get taxed on 35% of �25000, rather than the benefit
� which is actually only �12000. Sounds very fair to me!
From the tax-man's view (not my own), I think they have a point.
You state that the benefit to your is 'only �12,000', but if the
car *was* worth �25,000 then you *are* being provided with a car
that gives you the luxury/performance/status/whatever to that value.
Thet fact that the resale value is less does not mean that the
car is that much less of a luxury, really.
Your only benefit in purchasing an older car, to avoid (or more to
the point, take advantage of) the large depreciation is the cost.
If it is run for your benefit as a company car, you have to admit
that there is an element of 'a perk' in that. Seems like the tax-man
doesn't want to let you off on the tax just because you have paid
less for the vehicle - it is still 'a luxurious perk' (in their view).
My view - I would rather see a situation where people who *really*
needed cars to perform their business were provided with them, tax-free,
but that the vehicle used for that purpose was not available for private
use at all ! Then, people would pay their own money for cars - which
would (could/should) result in lower retail prices all round (Ha Ha).
J.R.
|
2043.55 | Rat Hole alert | YUPPY::PATEMAN | Scuba Dive in my Think Tank | Tue Mar 23 1993 15:13 | 11 |
| Re -1
So after driving from London to Derby, then to Nottingham, then to
Reading for meetings with customers I go back into my London office,
leave the car behind and get the train home?
Get a life, I've done over 11k miles so far this year on business for
this company, as a London based sales person, assuming I'm willing to
pay, just why shouldn't my car be available to me after hours?
Paul
|
2043.56 | benefit>value? | PLAYER::SPENCER | working......not! | Tue Mar 23 1993 15:56 | 12 |
| re: .54
I suppose it depends what the Taxmans aim in life is. My company pays
�300 per month for a car, I should be taxed on �300 per month, not
�600. The simple way round it of course is for me to buy the car off
the company, pay myself more and buy it off the company, I'm better off
into the bargain.
Off course if he agreed that I could write off depreciation based on
MLP instead of what it cost then I'd be happier, as it is its nuts.
Nigel
|
2043.57 | | SUBURB::TAYLORG | RIP: Freddie Mercury 24-Nov-1991 | Tue Mar 23 1993 17:09 | 6 |
| re the MLP
I think the MLP price is the Basic List price of the car I.E *NOT*
including the VTX or car tax.
Grant
|
2043.58 | Private use = perk ? | ZEM::ILETT | | Tue Mar 23 1993 17:38 | 13 |
| I agree with .54 - The perk factor of the company car
is the ability to use it as your own private
transport. Whether you do 0 or 30,000 miles
per year on company business should be irrelevant
when calculating the "perk" value.
If you don't want to pay tax on your company
provided car then leave it at the office
each night. If you want to use it for
personal travel then pay the tax.
Just my view,
Phil.
|
2043.59 | MLP = Retail | CHEFS::ARNOLD | | Tue Mar 23 1993 18:05 | 10 |
| Ref MLP
I have just read some data from Avis Fleet Services which consistently
refers to "retail price" and the car prices they quote in their
examples are almost to the penny the list price published in What Car
which include VAT but not delivery or on the road charges. As it is
government policy to tax us on taxes we've already paid (eg.Petrol??)
why should we think that they would act differently on Company cars ?
Doug
|
2043.60 | | ESBS01::RUTTER | Rut The Mutt | Tue Mar 23 1993 18:15 | 35 |
| �If you don't want to pay tax on your company
�provided car then leave it at the office
�each night. If you want to use it for
�personal travel then pay the tax.
This is basically how I think it should work.
If you *need* a car for your job - which many people do, but nowhere
near the current number of company car drivers - then you should not
be taxed to use it *for your business*. Not according to the
number of 'business miles' you can record.
If you choose to have the private use of the vehicle, then it is right
that you should pay, since this is a perk...
In the example before, of travelling around the country, then back to
London, to subsequently take the train home - I take it you mean that
you should not need to drive into London to leave the car there if
you are closer to home when performing your business. That would be
fine, under these hypothetical rules, if you took the car home to save
unnecessary travel - if you then use your own car for private use in
the evenings or weekends.
Just an idea on determining what is a benefit and what is not.
Of course, in 'small companies', these rules will be easier to get
round by definitions of 'workplace', 'business', whatever.
I am more concerned with the very large numbers of cars that are
provided for people that do not need them for their job AT ALL.
Sure, they should be taxed for this benefit. It is because of
this [now historic] fleet market that new cars are priced so high.
J.R. (who could work the options for or against company cars, but
prefers to buy/drive cars for enjoyment, not as a salary perk).
|
2043.61 | It gets to you, you know | SUBURB::FRENCHS | Semper in excernere | Wed Mar 24 1993 10:05 | 5 |
| Why is it every time I see MLP in these notes I think,
"What has the Maynard List Price got to do with cars?"
Simon (been here too long)
|
2043.62 | what about vintage cars? | SYSTEM::GILROY | | Mon Mar 29 1993 08:46 | 9 |
|
If the calculation is based on the list price of a car "when it was first
registered", then it seems to me there is potential for small companies
running very old/vintage cars as company cars at very little cost to the
employees.
Must be a catch...
Carol.
|
2043.63 | They've thought of that | IOSG::SHOVE | Dave Shove -- REO2-G/M6 | Mon Mar 29 1993 11:40 | 4 |
| There's some special rule about cars older than 15 years, specifically
to allow for Vintage cars.
D.
|
2043.64 | Pay nett or gross? That's the question | LARVAE::LEWIS_B | I said UNIX not EUNUCHS! | Tue Mar 30 1993 16:21 | 54 |
| Several notes in this string have referenced the fact that employees
(of Digital) who contribute to their car cost should not expect that
this should reduce the level of taxable benefit. They have
(incorrectly) assumed that were one to receive the amount of one's
contribution as salary one would be taxed on it at 25%. It seems to
have escaped a lot of people that there are three levels of taxation in
this country - 20%, 25% and 40%. It also seems to have escaped their
attention that a large proportion of the Digital drivers who do
contribute to their vehicle cost pay tax at the highest level and not
at 25%.
I should like to see some more cogent arguments as to WHY any positive
contribution (before or after tax) to the cost of the vehicle is not
deducted from the taxable benefit. I can see why under the present
rules it may be difficult to calculate the precise value of that
contribution (does one allow for the additional deduction of Nat
insurance - if applicable, and other post tax deductions in the
calculation or not?), but I suspect that the equation should be
somewhat simpler with the arrival in '94-95 of the % of MLP. At least
it would be simpler to prove to the tax man that a contribution is
being made if it appeared on any kind of documentation the tax man
receives! Currently of course because it is deducted from our base
salary before ANY deductions (not just tax) there is nothing one can do
in terms of "proof" of payment of any such contribution.
I agree with the person who made the comment about Digital having full
discussions with the TAX authorities on this matter as the present
scheme pre-dates even the charging of the company car scale charges and
is going to be a potential negative aspect of the Digital car scheme in
future.
One point that people should be cognisant of however is that it is
Digital and NOT the employee who holds the lease contract with the
lease company. Were Digital therefore to allow us to receive our full
salary (with no pre-tax deduction) we would still have to re-imburse
Digtal for the FULL value of the contribution and this has not been
taken into account either in any of the discussions so far! I should
also like to better understand the full implications of coming out of
the car scheme altogether and maybe Digital helping to arrange
preferential rate loans (usually non-taxable) as an alternative. As an
example of the penultimate point:-
Say a car costs an EXTRA contribution of 1000 and tax is paid on this
at 40% i.e you receive an extra 600 nett salary but you still have to
pay the full 1000 contribution you will be 400 worse off (dollars,
pounds, drachmas, whatever!). I seem to remember that NI has a ceiling
beyond which no more deductions are made, but I'm prepared to be
corrected on this. Anyone from Payroll a member of this conference?
The moral of course is ..... let's look at the whole picture, not just
part of it, before we all complain to the tax man too much!
Best regards, Bob Lewis (who's just having to repay the taxman for over
allowance on biz miles! Ouch!)
|
2043.65 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Tue Mar 30 1993 18:25 | 20 |
| > I should
> also like to better understand the full implications of coming out of
> the car scheme altogether and maybe Digital helping to arrange
> preferential rate loans (usually non-taxable) as an alternative. As an
> example of the penultimate point:-
Digital already offers you the option to come out of the car scheme.
You get 3,000 quid, taxed at whatever your rate is.
You don't pay tax for a company car.
No preferential loans - and if they did, they would be taxed too!
> I seem to remember that NI has a ceiling
> beyond which no more deductions are made, but I'm prepared to be
> corrected on this. Anyone from Payroll a member of this conference?
It's about 21,000........................max ni is 1333 a year
Heather
|
2043.66 | | WIZZER::PARRY | Trevor Parry | Wed Mar 31 1993 10:05 | 14 |
| > It also seems to have escaped their
> attention that a large proportion of the Digital drivers who do
> contribute to their vehicle cost pay tax at the highest level and not
> at 25%.
How can you say this ? Salaries are supposed to be secret, have you
been doing a private survey, or peeking in cupboards you aren't
supposed to :-)
If this were widely known, there would be a serious drop in moral
in the support specialists of the Basingstoke Telephone Support Centre.
What's your source ?
tp
|
2043.67 | | WIZZER::WEGG | Some hard boiled eggs and some nuts. | Wed Mar 31 1993 10:13 | 5 |
| Trevor,
I may be wrong, but I think you meant "morale".
Ian.
|
2043.68 | | WIZZER::PARRY | Trevor Parry | Wed Mar 31 1993 13:52 | 3 |
| I think you may be right. Morals are pretty low as it is.
tp
|
2043.69 | Who's immoral? | LARVAE::LEWIS_B | I said UNIX not EUNUCHS! | Wed Apr 07 1993 20:39 | 36 |
| Re: .66
> It also seems to have escaped their
> attention that a large proportion of the Digital drivers who do
> contribute to their vehicle cost pay tax at the highest level and not
> at 25%.
How can you say this ? Salaries are supposed to be secret, have you
been doing a private survey, or peeking in cupboards you aren't
supposed to :-)
No one's specific salary has been mentioned
I have not been looking in cupboards
I have not been doing a secret survey
I do not have access to secret or private information
All the relevant information on which to base such a statement is
readily available including much information regarding taxable benefit
scale charges which have an impact on the level of TAX one pays and
generic salary scale levels and bands. You mean you don't have ANY idea
what your immediate colleagues are earning (ball-park)? If you don't, then
logic dictates that your implication is automatically invalid!
>> If this were widely known, there would be a serious drop in moral
in the support specialists of the Basingstoke Telephone Support Centre.
If what were widely known? The fact that many people in Digital pay at
higher tax levels? Get a life! And I hope you're not suggesting that
people in the TSC are immoral! :-(
>> What's your source ?
Common sense, logic and a little bit of information. Oh! and an ability
to do simple maths! :-)
Regards
|
2043.70 | re .69 | WIZZER::WEGG | Some hard boiled eggs and some nuts. | Thu Apr 08 1993 09:59 | 15 |
| � If what were widely known? The fact that many people in Digital pay at
� higher tax levels? Get a life!
You didn't say "many", you said a "large proportion". Are you
or are you not claiming that a large proportion of employees
with cars pay tax at the higher rate? If yes, what is your
source?
� You mean you don't have ANY idea
� what your immediate colleagues are earning (ball-park)?
I suspect that the author of .66 has a very good idea, which
is the whole point of the reply.
Ian.
|
2043.71 | How it affects the pund in yuor pocket! | TIMMII::TOMMII::RDAVIES | Amateur Expert | Mon May 10 1993 17:18 | 52 |
| At the wekend I picked up an AutoExpress extra on Company Cars. Very usefull as it
has tables of the current real cost of Company Car Tax and a ready reckoner for the
new tax for 1994.
The Tables: (This is the out of pocket cost to YOU)
UNDER 2,500 MILES p.a.
Tax payer at: 25% 40%
up to 1.4 �867 �1,386
1.4 to 2.0 �1,122 �1,794
over 2.0 �1,800 �2,880
�19,250 - �29,000 �2,330 �3,726
over �29,000 �3,765 �6,024
2,500 - 18,000 MILES p.a.
Tax payer at: 25% 40%
up to 1.4 �578 �924
1.4 to 2.0 �748 �1,196
over 2.0 �1,200 �1,920
�19,250 - �29,000 �1,553 �2,484
over �29,000 �2,510 �4,016
OVER 18,000 MILES p.a.
Tax payer at: 25% 40%
up to 1.4 �289 �462
1.4 to 2.0 �374 �598
over 2.0 �600 �960
�19,250 - �29,000 �777 �1,242
over �29,000 �1,255 �2,008
The new tax can be calculated by multipling the published list price of the desired
car by the following appropriate figure.
UNDER 2,500 MILES p.a.
Tax payer at: 25% 0.0875
Tax payer at: 40% 0.1400
2,500 - 18,000 MILES p.a.
Tax payer at: 25% 0.05833
Tax payer at: 40% 0.09333
OVER 18,000 MILES p.a.
Tax payer at: 25% 0.0292
Tax payer at: 40% 0.0466
Richard
|