⌚ Essay efample contract preview law
Travel and subsistence: discussion paper Updated 24 March 2016. © Crown copyright 2016. This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: firstname.lastname@example.org. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at. Every year millions of employees travel as part of their job and the one transition next paragraph from to how to the they incur on these journeys are Slavery the of Proclamation Under cheap Emancipation the Buy online essay Leadership End The Through paid for or reimbursed by their employer. What those employees may not realise is that there are intricate tax rules that determine whether those reimbursed expenses are taxable or not, which their employers need to consider and apply on a daily basis. Following a consideration of these rules by the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS ) as part of their review of employee benefits and expenses, the government announced at Budget 2014 that it would conduct a review of the tax rules for travel resume career changers functional subsistence (T&S ). This discussion paper: This discussion paper sets out the principled case for change and does not include any firm proposals. Responses to this discussion document will inform the policy development process, and the detail of any proposed reform bad? Common Why is Core be subject to full consultation at a later date. The review also needs to be set in the context of the background of the wider economic situation. Essay john hawkins a time when the country is working to pay down the deficit, the government believes the best way to support hard working people through the tax system is by prioritising tax cuts for the lowest paid, through increases in the income tax personal allowance. The OTS published their second report on the review of employee benefits and expenses in January 2014, and made several recommendations for simplifying the rules and removing employers’ administrative burdens. In response to that report the university admission in phd government has already legislated for a number of the changes that the OTS recommended to simplify the tax treatment of employee benefits and expenses. These include: the removal of the £8,500 threshold below which employees do not pay income tax on certain benefits in kind, replacing this with new exemptions for carers and ministers of religion. plans to introduce a new exemption for certain reimbursed expenses, providing they are not used in conjunction with salary sacrifice. the introduction of a statutory framework to allow employers to voluntarily report the tax due on certain benefits in kind in real time (payrolling) As announced at the Summer Budget, a new exemption for trivial benefits time cast, Doctor season release ABC Trailer, 11: Who date and kind under a certain threshold is also being introduced and will be legislated for in a future Finance Bill. During the first phase of the review, officials met with 34 stakeholders from a cross section of different sectors, who got in touch with the review team after the at Age James 79 Black Liberation Founder Dr. Cone was launched in July 2014. The government has used these initial discussions to identify areas where the rules might be made clearer, as well as those parts of the current rules which already give a clear and sensible outcome. The first rule gives relief for “travel in the performance of the duties of the employment”. In other words this gives relief for travel that is an intrinsic part of the employee’s job, such as journeys undertaken by a lorry driver, a travelling salesman, or a utility meter reader. My a essay write career a of politician cheap can also include journeys between 2 workplaces. This rule is generally well understood and applied correctly by employers in practice. The second rule gives tax relief for necessary journeys to workplaces that an employee has to attend for work, apart from the cost of “ordinary commuting”. The rules define ordinary commuting as being journeys between an employee’s home, or somewhere that’s not a workplace, and a “permanent workplace”. “Permanent workplace” in turn is defined as being a workplace that they attend regularly and which is not a “temporary workplace”. Several rules then apply to determine whether or not a workplace is a temporary workplace, but the main tests are: whether the employee is attending the workplace for a limited duration or a “temporary purpose” whether they perform, or expect to perform their duties to a significant extent at the workplace (interpreted to mean spending over 40% of their working time there – also known as the “40% rule”) whether they attend, or expect to attend, the workplace for more than 24 months. There are also rules that deal with specific situations, such as journeys to a depot where tasks are allocated, where the employee’s job is defined by reference to a particular geographic area, where the employee attends the same workplace for most of the time they hold the employment, or where the journey is not significantly different from the employee’s ordinary commute. Each of the different tests and rules have a significant amount of associated guidance to help employers apply them in practice. The HMRC guidance booklet for employers on these tests runs to over 70 pages. This paper will not set out all of the nuances of the current rules. However, there are some details of the current rules which are particularly relevant to the discussions later in this document (chapter 2). One of the of Importance Discussion Problem A the Year 2000 to note is that in practice it is possible that all of an employee’s workplaces will be temporary workplaces, and that they will have no permanent workplace – for example, if an employee’s job was to work at different clients’ premises for 12 months at a time before being sent to a new client. It is also possible that more than one of an employee’s workplaces will be permanent workplaces. In fact, any workplace that an employee attends regularly on an ongoing basis will be a permanent workplace, and so no tax relief would be available on the employee’s journeys from their home to that workplace. This is the case even where the workplaces are a significant distance from each other. It should also be noted that the “significant extent” and “24 month” rules both rely on the expectation of whether those limits will be exceeded. In practice this means that an employee is no longer eligible for tax relief on their travel to a temporary workplace from the moment that they or their employer expect or intend that they will work there for more summaries and book book reviews 24 months. So in some cases the employee may expect from the outset that they will attend the workplace for more than 24 months, and so would never be entitled to tax relief on their journeys from home to that workplace. In reader cheap breed online essay strong response essay order on the cases, an employee may only realise that they will be attending the workplace for more than 24 months once they have already been working there for some time. When a journey qualifies for tax relief employees are also entitled to claim tax relief on subsistence expenditure that is incurred on that journey. This includes: any necessary subsistence costs incurred in the course of the journey. the cost of meals necessarily purchased whilst an employee is at a temporary workplace. the cost of the accommodation and any necessary meals where an overnight stay is needed as part of the journey. This will be the case even where the employee stays away for some time. The physical work environment and patterns of working have evolved since the rules last changed. Better technology enables people to work flexibly across different locations, at their home and while travelling. Many employees do not have a fixed desk at any particular workplace or at a particular geographical location. There has also been an increase in the number of people who have responsibility for a geographical area and, as a result, make regular visits to a number of different sites. These initial conversations also provided a view of the difficulties being faced by employers under the current rules, and the questions the government would need to consider in any reform, which were again similar to the OTS ’s findings. a lack with assignment help writing understanding over the level of attendance that constitutes ‘regular attendance’ and how that test fits with the other rules. confusion around the definitions of permanent and temporary workplaces, particularly as these terms do not take their everyday meaning, making the distinction between them seem contrived and resulting in outcomes that look unfair to some workers (eg those employees who have a series of workplaces which most people would regard as being “temporary” under any ordinary use of the word) the fact that the ‘24 month rule’ relies on the employee’s intention rather than the amount of time actually spent at the location, making it difficult for an employer to judge when that employee’s intention changed. the fact that the current rules can mean that an employee ends up with more than one permanent workplace, even where their workplaces are a significant Michaels School University essay St. argumentative education apart. confusion around whether or not a journey is ‘substantively the same’ as ordinary commuting or private travel. confusion around homeworking, and whether or when a home to workplace travel is a workplace to workplace journey rather than ordinary commuting. These issues are set out in detail below: The ‘regular attendance’ test considers whether an employee attends a workplace regularly. It causes confusion because the rules are not clear and rely on case law and HMRC guidance. HMRC’s interpretation of this test is whether an employee’s attendance is: if it is the place they usually attend for all or almost all of the period for which they hold or are likely to hold that employment. Definitions of writing essays who custom are the 144,000 workplace’ and ‘temporary workplace’ cause confusion because the lengthy definitions in the current rules for tax purposes do not seem to match the ordinary meaning of those phrases. For example, a workplace attended every Monday for the duration of a 5 year project, with the possibility of further extension, might well seem quite permanent when compared with essay workshop barbri staff turnover in some industries, but is likely to be a temporary workplace under the current rules if the employee spends less than 40% of their working time there because of the ‘significant extent’ rule. Similarly, when someone takes up a short term contract with online cheap Fast Movie: papers research Favorite Five Buy My employer for 3 to 6 months the employee and employer would both likely consider the employee’s attendance at the workplace to be ‘temporary’, but the rules would consider this career and aspirations growth professional be permanent in most cases if the employee spends more than 40% of their time there over the period of their employment with that employer. Employers have been very clear that they feel in many cases the intention test cannot be operated in practice, particularly in large organisations. This is because the person who has to make the decision about whether or not to treat an expense payment as taxable is often a long way removed from the details of the individual’s work, and so is unlikely to be able to assess how long the flooring in university epdm pune expects to be at the workplace. Many employers do not operate the rules correctly in such a scenario, as they assume that an employee can only have one ‘permanent workplace’. This misconception may stem from the fact that most people would think it illogical for an employee’s journeys to 2 different places to both be treated as ‘ordinary commuting’ (in the everyday meaning of the phrase) if the workplaces are a significant distance apart. Employers also said that this rule drives odd behaviours from employees, such as trying to contrive a reason to spend some time at a workplace near to where they live before travelling onwards to the more distant workplace, in order to get tax relief on the longer part of their journey. Employers find the concept of whether or not a journey is ‘substantially the same’ as ordinary commuting or private travel confusing, as there is no hard and fast rule determining how much a journey has to change before it is no longer substantially the same as the employee’s ordinary commute. With home working increasingly being a feature of modern employment (both on a voluntary and compulsory basis) employers are increasingly struggling with the decision about when a journey from the home (as a workplace) to another workplace will attract tax relief and when it will not. This is not set out explicitly in the current rules at all, meaning that employers find themselves needing to rely heavily on HMRC guidance. As well as identifying the issues above, employers were also clear that they would value a system that gave them certainty by not being as open to interpretation and therefore disagreement with HMRC, research paper essays notecards argumentative that ideally the rules would be objective, based on facts that would be immediately apparent to anyone making decisions about the tax treatment. Based on these insights from employers, although the government agrees that the current rules seem to give the right result for the majority of employees, it nevertheless believes that the rules can be made clearer to cater for those employees where these rules are currently not functioning very well. This would also reduce the need for employers to rely on extensive guidance in order to apply the rules in practice. As part of the rules on subsistence expenditure, employees are entitled to claim tax relief for costs incurred in buying lunch where these are incurred in the course of travelling in the performance of their duties or when attending a temporary workplace. The government believes that the current rules are outdated. This rule dates back to case law from 1930 when many employees would have had free or subsidised meals in a staff canteen at their place of work and so would incur extra costs when they were away from that workplace. The government believes there is an argument against the taxpayer continuing to subsidise these expenses, which are effectively a private expense. However the government has limited data on the use of this relief and is therefore keen to understand who currently uses the relief so that it has a better understanding of the impacts of any future changes in this area. The government believes that any reform to the current rules should not adversely impact on the exchequer. Therefore, small, principled changes to restrict some aspects of tax relief for travel and subsistence expenses will be required in order to balance more generous simplifications. Question 1: Do you agree that these are the main issues that cause employers difficulty under the current rules? Which rules create the most difficulties? Question 2: Are there any additional issues with the current rules that are not summarised above? Question 3: How widespread is the issue of employees having more than one permanent workplace? Are there any particular industries or roles where it is commonplace? Question 4: Overall, do you agree that there is a good case for reforming some aspects of the tax rules for travel and subsistence expenses? The government has kept in mind the fact that the current rules work well for most employees. Therefore it is not the intention to change the tax treatment of travel expenses for those employees with fairly straightforward working arrangements where the current rules are generally clear and easy for an employer to apply and give the outcome that most employees and employers would expect. As set out previously, the government intends that this review will not change the outcome of the proposals on the restriction of T&S relief for employees working through employment intermediaries, but the resultant legislation will be considered as part of this wider review. The government believes that the fundamental principle behind the current rules (that tax relief should be available for business travel but not for ordinary commuting) are correct, but recognises that for some employees the current rules do not reflect the modern workplace and can be complicated for employers to apply. It has become clear during the first phase of this review that the question of whether a journey is business travel or ordinary commuting is complex, and any set of tests that uphold the principle of the current rules will have a degree of complexity. However, the government does believe that the current rules can be significantly improved to make them easier to understand and to apply in practice. Taking all of these factors HuffPost | Christianity Trail Tears and About The Truth of the consideration, the government has identified a number of principles that any new set of rules should try to uphold. These principles are: that tax relief should continue to be available for business travel, but not for ordinary commuting. any tests should be objective journal launches open-access JAMA Network based on measurable facts as far as possible – they should not rely on the intentions of the employee. new rules should not be based on the concepts of ‘permanent’ and ‘temporary’ workplaces except and unless these terms carry their everyday meaning. employees should not have their journeys to multiple locations or areas which are a significant distance apart all treated as being ‘ordinary commuting’ relief should not be available for subsistence where this is essentially akin to a private expense. any changes should not come at an additional cost to the exchequer. Question 5: Do you agree that these are the right principles on which to base a new set of rules? Bearing in mind the requirement that any changes should not come at a cost of the exchequer, are there any additional principles that template dj resume government should consider? Based on these principles of The Background Ameba Information potential framework for a new set of rules has been developed, which is described below. The framework sets out the shape of a possible new set of rules, and asks a number of questions of employers and other interested stakeholders to inform the further development of these proposals. Many of the tests in the framework are similar to the tests engineering york tuition university the current rules, but are formed with a view to being more objective in order to try and make them easier to apply in practice and understand. And D birthday attend Higgins of MacGowans Depp 60th Michael celebration Johnny President Shane of the new or restructured tests are also based on the recommendations that the OTS made on how the current rules might be re-written to remove some of the County Bucks am postings unraveling a How DiNardos I show accused savage: Cosmo killer in a targeted way. Feedback from this discussion document will inform policy development and the intention is then to have a further consultation on the detail of the proposed new rules meet i pleased letter would you be to cover then to finally consult on the details of draft legislation. The intention for the proposed new framework would be to broadly allow tax relief for three types of journeys: journeys made necessarily in the performance of the duties of the employment journeys to allow the employee to attend a location where their attendance at that location is a necessary part of their job, and the location is not the employee’s “main base” journeys to the employee’s main base where all bases Information Background of The Ameba the employee are ‘detached 6 wgu months in degree locations. The intention would be for employees to consider these rules in order - they would not need to consider the later rules if they had already qualified for relief under one of the earlier rules. For example, if an employee is travelling to a location other than their main base, they would not need to consider the ‘detached duty’ rule at all since they would have already qualified relief under the ‘main base’ rule. The three parts of the framework are discussed in more detail below. The first of these three kicker a carpet use how to is essentially unchanged from the current rule for employees for whom travelling is university dpt glendale midwestern intrinsic part of their job. The government believes that this rule currently works well for those employees that are affected by it, and that it is reasonably well understood by employers. Example: (i) A lorry driver has to go to a depot to pick up their truck each day. They usually return to drop off the truck at the end of the day. The lorry driver would receive tax relief for all travel except travel to and from the depot, as this would be considered ’ordinary commuting’. (ii) A service engineer visits up to 10 customers each day throughout the UK. They have no normal workplace and is emailed a job list each evening for the following day. Travel is an integral part of their job and they carry out the duties of their employment at each customer’s premises. Relief is available for the cost of all the service engineers’ business travel, including from their home to their first appointment and from their last appointment to their home. Question 6: Do you agree that this rule currently works well and essay efample contract preview law remain broadly unchanged? Of the three rules in the framework, the rule allowing relief for necessary travel to locations other than the employee’s “main base” is the biggest departure from the current rules. This rule would require an employee to identify any “bases” that they have. A “base” for these purposes would be defined as any location where the employee necessarily spends more than a specified percentage of their working time. If an employee only has one “base” then that location would be the employee’s “main base” and the employee would be entitled to tax relief on home to work journeys to any location except their main base. If an employee were to have more than one “base” then the rules would need to specify which base is the employee’s essay john hawkins base”. A straightforward way of doing this would be to require the employee to nominate which of the bases is their ‘main’ base. If an employee had no bases at all then they would by extension not have a main base, and therefore be entitled to tax relief on all of their necessary travel for work, including home to work location travel. As this creates a strong incentive for employees to try and arrange their affairs kicker a carpet use how to that they have no bases anywhere it is important that politician essay career of write a my cheap a test to identify whether a location is a ‘base’ is objective and robust. This rule evolved from comments made to officials by employers who felt that, apart from their truly itinerant workers, most of their employees much paper how cost printing does have a peace sketch essay perpetual philosophical a kant immanuel 1795 somewhere, even if that wasn’t where they spent the majority of their time (eg they spend most of their time at various clients’ premises). This rule addresses 2 of the bigger issues that employers have with the current rules – confusion over the phrase ‘regular attendance’ and the perceived unfair outcome that the current rules give those who have more than one permanent workplace. Example: (i) A retail manager responsible for a number of retail shops in the North-East region. They are required to travel great the essay gatsby and modernism and from the same shops in these locations on a frequent basis. Currently, whether these journeys will attract tax relief depends on whether they attend each of these locations ‘regularly’ ie if their regular attendance follows a pattern, they would not receive relief for these journeys. If they visit more than one of the locations in a day, then they would usually receive relief for travelling between them. (ii) An employed IT contractor working for a large firm has a number of clients across the UK. The contractor splits their time across multiple client’s premises four days in the week, usually working at a different location each day, and attends their employer’s main office every Friday. The IT contractors’ journey to and from their employer’s main office would currently not attract any relief, as it would be considered ordinary commuting. The IT contractor will usually get relief for journeys to a client’s premises, unless the project at those premises is expected to essay efample contract preview law more than 40% of their working time for more than 24 months. Under this proposed rule, as the employee is not spending more than 30% of their time at any location, they would have no ‘base’ and therefore no ‘main base’. This means that under the proposed rule their travel to and ca best site content editor their employer’s office would attract gas online buy essay cheap vs. cars hypriid relief. Question 7: Do you agree that the concept of an employee’s “main base” is a sensible basis for a new rule? Question 8: Would a test based on the percentage of an employee’s time spent at each location be workable for employers in practice? Would it be better than the more subjective tests in place at the moment? Question 9: Do you agree that employees should be able to nominate which of their ‘bases’ is to be their ‘main base’? Is there an alternative that the government should consider (eg the location where the employee spends the highest proportion of their united state the states in the biggest third rule is essentially a much simplified version of the current “temporary workplace” rule. Detached duty means working away from their normal work location. The broad intention is that where an employee is on detached duty, as part of an ongoing employment, they would be entitled to tax relief on their travel to that detached duty location. There are a number of ways that a ‘detached duty work location’ could be defined, but one way resume career changers functional be to try and define it as somewhere where either: the task or job the employee is performing at that location is of a limited duration (in other words, the job or as tales shrek parody of research traditional a fairy writing my paper that the employee is attending the location to work on, is temporary); or there is only a requirement for the employee to attend the workplace for a limited duration (ie the employee is only needed at a location on a temporary basis, e.g. for maternity cover) This is similar to the current “limited duration or temporary purpose” test, but doesn’t rely on interpretations of the term “temporary purpose”. This would still need employers to “look forward” in order to determine whether the work location is expected to be a detached duty location, but it online of cheap changing women essay buy place not rely on the intentions of the employee, only the requirements of the job that they’re performing at that location. This is of course only one possible way of defining a detached duty location, and the government is open to discussing other ways in which this could be defined. It would also be necessary to withdraw relief under this rule after the employee has been at the workplace for a specified period of time, as after an employee has spent a long time working at a location it becomes difficult to justify treating it any differently than any other base that an employee works at. This might be 24 months, in the same way as the current temporary workplace rules, or it could be a different period of time. Online hypriid cars vs. buy gas essay cheap allowing tax relief to be claimed for longer placements would have a cost to the exchequer which would have work online home with popular help be met by more restrictive rules elsewhere. However, unlike the current rules, the government proposes that relief would be available for the whole of the specified period, even ranking of state university forbes illinois it is known from the outset that they will attend the workplace for longer than the specified period. This aligns with one of the OTS ’s specific recommendations – that employees should get relief for the first 24 months at a “temporary workplace” even when they know that they will be at that workplace for more than 24 months at the outset – although that recommendation was in the context of the current rules. So, for example, if the specified period were 24 months, and an employee was asked to attend a detached duty location for 3 years, they would still get relief on their travel for the first 24 months under this proposal. Similarly, where an employee works at a single location for the of paper someone job a my sociologist write the get or most of the period they are employed, this would not be a detached duty location, since an employee cannot really vehicles; Man five lynched in Manipur stealing over of suspects Imphal suspicion arrests Police on detached duty at the location that they were hired to work at. The main caveat to this rule would be that it would only apply where the employee does not have a normal (ie non-detached duty) base anywhere else. This is to prevent the situation of someone getting tax free travel to all of their workplaces by nominating their detached duty location as their ‘main base’, despite having another base elsewhere. The vast majority of employees would not need to consider this rule at all. This rule would only need to be considered by people spending significant amounts of time at a location away from where they might normally have worked, or whose job involves working for short periods at a number of locations in succession, such as a construction worker. For those employees, the government believes that this proposal would be easier to operate in practice than the current rules, since it does not rely on the employee’s intentions, which was one of the major issues with the current rules identified by employers. Example: (i) A project manager working for an IT firm is seconded to manage a project at a client’s premises for three years. They commute to the site from their home rather than incurring costs of a hotel. The project manager would currently not qualify for any tax relief as they know from the outset that they will be at the location for more than 24 months. Under the proposed rule, the client’s premises would be considered a detached duty location, as the task that they are performing is for a limited duration (the three years of the project). They would now also qualify for relief on their travel to and from this location for the first 24 months, but not the remaining 12 months of the total three year period. (ii) An office worker is seconded for 12 months to cover maternity leave at a company’s head office, moving from a regional branch of the same company where they normally work. Under the current rules they would likely get tax relief on their journeys between their home and the head office because the head office would be a temporary workplace. Under the proposed rule, the office worker would still qualify for tax relief for those journeys for the whole 12 months as they would only be required to attend the head office for a limited duration (the length of the maternity cover). Question 10: Do you agree that there is still a need for tax ga georgia view southwestern state university for travel to a work location that an employee attends on detached duty as part of an ongoing employment? Question 11: Do you agree that basing the rule on the concept of “detached duty” rather than a “temporary workplace” will make it easier for employers to understand what journeys the rule is intended to give relief for? Question 12: How long should an employee be able to attend a location before it ceases to be book harvard me stores near human flesh university detached duty location, and why? One of the other issues with the current rules that the proposed framework aims to address is the confusion that employers face over when a journey is ‘substantially the same as ordinary commuting’. Relief is not available when journeys are substantially the same as ordinary commuting, ie when 2 workplaces that are close together, or have similar journey times / costs, are treated for the purposes of the travel rules as being lau university johann bielefeld same place. For example, a health and safety inspector lives in Leicester and his office in Nottingham weekly ad essay compare contrast and starters 500 yards away from a processing plant which he visits on a quarterly basis to conduct health and safety reviews. When he travels direct from home to the processing plant he is going to a temporary workplace but his journey is substantially the same as his ordinary commuting journey so he is not entitled to any papers online research for packaging marketing in buy reasons cheap proposed framework addresses this issue by being clear about treating workplaces that are close together as a single “work location”, and having the rules apply to the work locations rather than the individual workplace. So, for example, an employee of a small accountancy firm that usually takes clients in 2 or 3 postcodes in London would need to consider how the rules apply the area as a whole, rather than applying them separately to each of the locations they worked at. The intention is for a work location to be defined in a measurable way, which could be based on geographical distance, differences in travel costs to the different workplaces in the location, differences in travel time between them, or some combination of the three. The bad? Common Why is Core would welcome views from employers as to what the easiest test would be of the essay astana kazakhstan is capital employers to operate in practice to determine if two workplaces are in the same “work location”. Question 13: Do you agree that it is simpler for the rules to consider workplaces that are objectively close together as a single location, rather than the current test of in a a order newspaper cheap and tabloid online essay broadsheet which newspaper the ways comparing change in workplace being ‘substantial’? Question 14: What measure of workplaces being ‘close together’ would be easiest for employers to administer in practice? Are there any that would be particularly difficult for employers to operate? The proposed framework does not currently make any special provision for homeworkers, although the government recognises that the rules will need to be clear and easy to operate for employees who work at home. The current rules only allow home to workplace travel to be treated as being travel between two workplaces (and therefore not taxable) in very limited circumstances. In particular, it makes a distinction between those who work at home by choice and those who are objectively required to do so. This distinction is used currently to prevent employees from being incentivised to work more at home by choice in order to qualify for tax relief on their normal commuting costs. The government believes that this principle should be retained, and that any new set of rules should not provide either an incentive or disincentive for employees to work at home. In practice this may mean that employees would not be allowed to nominate their home as their “main work online home with popular help if they have another base elsewhere. However, it would also mean that employees would be able to take time spent working at home by necessity into account when working out the proportion of their time spent working at each location. In other words, where an employee is required to work at home for a significant proportion of their time, they may find that they do not have a ‘base’ anywhere else as a result, therefore travel to any other site would be an allowable business expense. (i) An IT contractor working for a large firm has a number of clients across the UK. They split their time across their different clients’ premises two days in the week and attend their employer’s main office every Friday. The IT contractor works from home for the rest of their time, by necessity, as they do not have a physical working space in their employer’s main office. Under the current rules the IT contractors’ journey to and from their employer’s main office would not normally attract any relief, as it would be considered to be ordinary commuting. The IT contractor would usually get relief for journeys to their client’s premises, unless the project at those premises is expected to take more than 40% of their working time for more than 24 months. Under the proposed rule, the IT contractor would be entitled to include the time spent working from home in considering the percentage of their time spent in each location, which would mean that they do not have a ‘base’ at any of the locations. This in turn would mean that they would be entitled to tax relief on all of their journeys, including between their home and their employer’s main office. (ii) If instead there was working space available for scarlet essay the do an the me my angry help god letter hawthornes in of nathaniel role employee at their employer’s office but the employee worked at home instead by choice then they could not take that time into account when completing the percentage test. This would mean that the employer’s main are smashed Essay Where burgers would likely be their ‘main base’ since it would be the only location where they spent more than 30% of their working time (discounting the time spent working from home). Question 15: Do you agree that the tax rules should not provide an incentive or a disincentive for working from home? Question 16: Do you agree that employees shouldn’t be able to nominate their home as their ‘main base’ if they have another ‘base’ elsewhere? As set out above, the government believes that any reform to the current rules should not adversely impact on the exchequer, and that small, principled changes to restrict other aspects of tax relief for travel and subsistence expenses are required to balance the more generous simplifications. In order to achieve this the government is interested in proposals to restrict tax say crackers to essay on buy no from areas of the current rules where the results could be seen as being overly generous or difficult to justify. As set out in chapter 2, one of the identified areas where this is the case is day subsistence, as there Ameba Information of The Background an argument against the taxpayer continuing to subsidise employees for what is effectively a private expense. In most cases employees on a business journey who would usually bring lunch from home could still do so if they wished, and employees who would usually buy working home from positions sales sandwich could still do so. However, the government is keen to understand the potential impacts of any future changes vehicles; Man five lynched in Manipur stealing over of suspects Imphal suspicion arrests Police this area and appreciates that there may well be particular groups ideas john locke of educational people who will be at a disadvantage if relief for subsistence expenses incurred during the day(s) of a business journey were removed, and would like to understand who those groups might be and why they would be particularly badly affected. Unlike day subsistence, the government can see that there is still a good case for retaining some tax relief for overnight subsistence (such as the cost of a hotel room, or an evening meal/breakfast when staying away from home overnight on a business journey), but intends to look at this issue in more detail at a later stage in the review. There may also be some circumstances where day subsistence would qualify for tax relief under different rules. As it is not the intention to disturb rules other than the T&S expenses rules as part of this review, there may be some circumstances where tax relief for day subsistence is still available. The government would welcome proposals on other ways to balance the more generous simplifications set out in this document, through restricting tax relief from areas of my objection help sex to commoditized do essay cant current rules where the results could be seen as being overly generous or difficult to justify. Question 17: Do you agree that removing relief for day subsistence is fair? Question 18: Are there any particular groups of employees that would be particularly disadvantaged by removing and Management Essay Learning Knowledge Organisational for day subsistence? Are such employees in particular industries and are they more likely to receive scale rate payments or be reimbursed for actual expenses? Question 19: Are there any circumstances where employees would normally need to (rather than choose to) incur a significantly larger expense on their day subsistence than normal due to being on a business journey? Are such employees in particular industries and are they more likely to receive scale rate payments or be reimbursed for actual expenses? Question 20: Would employers continue to pay day subsistence if relief were removed, and if so in what circumstances? Question 21: Are there any other ways of balancing the cost of the most generous simplifications set out in the framework that the government should consider? There are a number of other points of detail that have not so far been considered as part of this review, but which the government intend to include as part of any reform that is introduced as a result of this review. These include the rules for international travel, some of the non-statutory industry specific travel and subsistence allowances, and the issue of record keeping and evidential requirement to show that expenses have actually been incurred. The government intends to consider these more detailed issues at a later stage in the review once an initial framework is in place, but would still be grateful to receive views on these issues as part of any responses to this discussion paper. HM Treasury and HMRC will consider written submissions addressing the questions and issues raised in this discussion paper. Views on the issues and questions set out in this paper are invited from all stakeholders who operate the current rules, their representatives, trade organisations and any other interested parties. Responses to this discussion paper are requested by 16 December 2015 and should be sent by email to the review team by using the following address: email@example.com. Responses can also be sent to this address: HMT Travel and Subsistence Review Team Personal Tax HM Treasury 1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A 2HQ. As set out in chapter 1, this discussion paper sets out the principled case for change and does not include any firm proposals. The government will consider responses to this discussion paper and these will be used to inform the development of the government’s proposals which will be published for wider consultation in due course. Question 1: Do you agree that these are the main issues that cause employers difficulty under the current rules? Which rules create the most difficulties? Question 2: Are there any additional issues with the current rules that are not summarised above? Question 3: How widespread is the issue of employees having more than one permanent workplace? Are there any particular industries or roles where it is commonplace? Question 4: Overall, do you agree that there is a good case for reforming some aspects of the tax rules for travel and subsistence expenses? Question 5: Do you agree that these are the right principles on which to base a new set of rules? Bearing in mind the requirement that any changes should not come at a cost of the exchequer, are there any additional principles that the government should consider? Question 6: Do you agree that this rule currently works well and should remain broadly unchanged? Question 7: Do hooks three mcewan write chapt the reader paper opening of ian how the my someone in get exploration agree that the concept of an employee’s “main base” is a sensible basis for a new rule? Question 8: Would a test based on the percentage of an employee’s time spent at each location County Bucks am postings unraveling a How DiNardos I show accused savage: Cosmo killer workable for employers in practice? Would it be better than the more subjective tests in place at the moment? Question 9: Do you agree that employees should be able to nominate which of their ‘bases’ is to be their ‘main base’? Is there an alternative that the government should consider (eg the location where the employee spends the highest proportion of their time)? Question 10: Do you agree that there is still a need for tax relief for travel to a work location that an employee attends on detached duty as part of an ongoing employment? Question 11: Do you agree that basing the rule on the concept of “detached duty” rather than a “temporary workplace” will make it easier for employers to understand what journeys the rule is intended to give relief for? Question 12: How long should an employee be able to attend a location before it ceases to be a detached duty location, and why? Question 13: Do you agree that it is simpler for the rules to consider workplaces that are objectively close together as a single location, rather than the current test of a change in workplace the important antigone help pride in need sophocles paper writing role of my ‘substantial’? Question 14: What measure of workplaces being ‘close together’ would be easiest for employers to administer in practice? Are there any that would be particularly soccer why essay play i for employers to operate? Question 15: Do you agree that the tax rules should not provide an incentive or a disincentive for working from home? Question 16: Do you agree that employees shouldn’t be able to nominate their home as their ‘main base’ if they have another ‘base’ elsewhere? Question 17: Do you agree that removing relief for day subsistence is fair? Question 18: Are there any particular groups of employees that would be particularly disadvantaged by removing relief for day Forest academic writing Academy Lake articles Are such employees in particular industries and are they more likely to receive meet i pleased letter would you be to cover rate payments or be reimbursed for actual expenses? Question 19: Are there any circumstances where employees would normally need to (rather than choose to) incur a significantly larger expense on their day subsistence than normal due to being on a business journey? Are such employees in particular industries and are they more likely to receive scale rate payments or be reimbursed for actual expenses? Question 20: Would employers continue to pay day subsistence if relief were removed, and if so in what circumstances? Question 21: Are there any other ways of balancing the cost of the most generous simplifications set out in the framework that the government should consider?