Revocation of cycle to work benefits?

After joining the cycle to work scheme earlier this year, my HR
department has recently fired out a couple of warnings that all bikes
purchased 'must be used for 50% of all of your journeys (or part
journeys) to work', or the tax breaks of the scheme will no longer be
eligible.seems

Whilst I think they have merely interpreted the rules in an unusual
way, and policing this seems impossible, it would still be nice to
prove de-jure one way or the other. Letter to the CTC or the contract
to the CAB?

Regards,

Duncan

On Aug 29, 6:12 am, Duncan Smith wrote:
After joining the cycle to work scheme earlier this year, my HR
department has recently fired out a couple of warnings that all bikes
purchased 'must be used for 50% of all of your journeys (or part
journeys) to work', or the tax breaks of the scheme will no longer be
eligible.seems

Whilst I think they have merely interpreted the rules in an unusual
way, and policing this seems impossible, it would still be nice to
prove de-jure one way or the other. Letter to the CTC or the contract
to the CAB?

That's not correct. The main use of the bike must be for commuting
(qualifying journeys).

I'd expect your company could set an additional condition that you
must use the bike for the majority of your journeys to work in order
to join their scheme, but that doesn't affect the tax treatment.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainabl...mplementat5732

See section 4: Scope of tax exemption.

Tim.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Duncan Smith wrote:

After joining the cycle to work scheme earlier this year, my HR
department has recently fired out a couple of warnings that all
bikes purchased 'must be used for 50% of all of your journeys (or
part journeys) to work', or the tax breaks of the scheme will no
longer be eligible.seems

Whilst I think they have merely interpreted the rules in an unusual
way, and policing this seems impossible, it would still be nice to
prove de-jure one way or the other. Letter to the CTC or the
contract to the CAB?

There used to be guidance saying that either 50% of your journeys to
work had to be by the bike, or 50% of the usage of the bike had to be
journeys to work. Somewhere along the line (a couple of years ago,
I'd guess) the former got dropped. Seems your HR department is living
in the past (not uncommon, I believe).

Your HR department (in concert with the rest of management) can
presumably set a condition such as this on participation in the
scheme. However, it's ******** to claim that you wouldn't be
eligible for the the tax break - HMRC makes no such requirement, only
that the 'main use' of the bike be for journeys to work. Since it's
HMRC that provides the tax break, not the company, this ought to be
what governs.

The only fly in the ointment would be that your company might decide
that it will only provide the scheme to those who will commit to
making 50% of their journeys by bike. I would guess that they can
choose to do that if they want. What does the terms you signed
up for say?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

In ,
Ian Smith tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Duncan Smith wrote:

After joining the cycle to work scheme earlier this year, my HR
department has recently fired out a couple of warnings that all
bikes purchased 'must be used for 50% of all of your journeys (or
part journeys) to work', or the tax breaks of the scheme will no
longer be eligible.seems

Whilst I think they have merely interpreted the rules in an unusual
way, and policing this seems impossible, it would still be nice to
prove de-jure one way or the other. Letter to the CTC or the
contract to the CAB?

There used to be guidance saying that either 50% of your journeys to
work had to be by the bike, or 50% of the usage of the bike had to be
journeys to work. Somewhere along the line (a couple of years ago,
I'd guess) the former got dropped. Seems your HR department is living
in the past (not uncommon, I believe).

Ours says:

"On joining the plan you are confirming that at least 50% of the bike’s use
will be for eligible work use. Eligible use includes cycling from home to
the train station, cycling from the station to work, cycling from home to
work, cycling from one office to another (return journeys are also
eligible), and cycling during your lunch break. You are not expected to keep
detailed records of time spent cycling or miles travelled."

However, a mate of mine recently bought a full-sus XC bike through his
scheme in spite of his round-trip commute being damn near a hundred miles.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger
Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger
Badger Badger

On Aug 29, 7:52*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 29, 6:12 am, Duncan Smith wrote: After joining the cycle to work scheme earlier this year, my HR
department has recently fired out a couple of warnings that all bikes
purchased 'must be used for 50% of all of your journeys (or part
journeys) to work', or the tax breaks of the scheme will no longer be
eligible.seems

Whilst I think they have merely interpreted the rules in an unusual
way, and policing this seems impossible, it would still be nice to
prove de-jure one way or the other. *Letter to the CTC or the contract
to the CAB?

That's not correct. The main use of the bike must be for commuting
(qualifying journeys).

I'd expect your company could set an additional condition that you
must use the bike for the majority of your journeys to work in order
to join their scheme, but that doesn't affect the tax treatment.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainabl...rkschemeimplem...

See section 4: Scope of tax exemption.

Tim.

Thanks Tim, seems to be worded pretty clearly to me.

On Aug 29, 9:19 am, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:
k,
Ian Smith tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:



On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Duncan Smith wrote:

After joining the cycle to work scheme earlier this year, my HR
department has recently fired out a couple of warnings that all
bikes purchased 'must be used for 50% of all of your journeys (or
part journeys) to work', or the tax breaks of the scheme will no
longer be eligible.seems

Whilst I think they have merely interpreted the rules in an unusual
way, and policing this seems impossible, it would still be nice to
prove de-jure one way or the other. Letter to the CTC or the
contract to the CAB?

There used to be guidance saying that either 50% of your journeys to
work had to be by the bike, or 50% of the usage of the bike had to be
journeys to work. Somewhere along the line (a couple of years ago,
I'd guess) the former got dropped. Seems your HR department is living
in the past (not uncommon, I believe).

Ours says:

"On joining the plan you are confirming that at least 50% of the bike’s use
will be for eligible work use. Eligible use includes cycling from home to
the train station, cycling from the station to work, cycling from home to
work, cycling from one office to another (return journeys are also
eligible), and cycling during your lunch break. You are not expected to keep
detailed records of time spent cycling or miles travelled."

However, a mate of mine recently bought a full-sus XC bike through his
scheme in spite of his round-trip commute being damn near a hundred miles..

I think that's what is commonly known as "taking the ****" although,
provided he uses it at least once to go to work and doesn't otherwise
use it until the year is up then it would appear to be ok.

However, and why I suspect the company of Duncan is concerned, it's
only got to take one aggrieved employee to decide to shop him and the
company and someone could end up with a nasty tax bill and NI
payments. IIUC, initially the company is liable, even for the
employees underpaid tax, although I think they can then reclaim it
from the employee.

In theory, I think the employee could be charged with the criminal
offense of tax evasion. In practice, unless he was getting the bikes
and immediately selling them on, for multiple years, I doubt that any
criminal prosecution would be brought.

Tim.

" writes:

On Aug 29, 9:19 am, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

However, a mate of mine recently bought a full-sus XC bike through his
scheme in spite of his round-trip commute being damn near a hundred miles.

I think that's what is commonly known as "taking the ****" although,
provided he uses it at least once to go to work and doesn't otherwise
use it until the year is up then it would appear to be ok.

Well, or just do the commute occasionally on the bike. Recreational mtb
miles tend to be much less that recreational roady miles, so you
wouldn't need to do it that often to keep up with the purely
recreational use of the bike.

I'm thinking about doing somthing similar - it's not really that hard to
get the qualifying milage up if try.

On Aug 29, 9:19*am, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

However, a mate of mine recently bought a full-sus XC bike through his
scheme in spite of his round-trip commute being damn near a hundred miles..

.... but not all of that commute need be by bike.

Whilst it would still count as TTP, he could commute 49.9 miles in by
car, park up and cycle the last .1 mile to work... and then fdo the
reverse at the end of the day.

He's till using said bike as a means of getting to and from work.

didds

"...and cycling during your lunch break"
There you go, a wee spin every other lunchtime and you're sorted!

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:12:25 -0700 (PDT), Duncan Smith
wrote:

After joining the cycle to work scheme earlier this year, my HR
department has recently fired out a couple of warnings that all bikes
purchased 'must be used for 50% of all of your journeys (or part
journeys) to work', or the tax breaks of the scheme will no longer be
eligible.seems

Whilst I think they have merely interpreted the rules in an unusual
way, and policing this seems impossible, it would still be nice to
prove de-jure one way or the other. Letter to the CTC or the contract
to the CAB?

Regards,

Duncan

I would say that it is their scheme (I assume that they still own the
bikes which is what my employer does ) and they can police it - make
rules - how they like - as long as it at least satisfies the tax/NI
requirements - and they treat everyone equally.