The Fizz! Blog

Travel and subsistence scale rates are an estimating technique, not an allowance!

Although the rules around the tax-free reimbursement of travel and subsistence costs to employees and directors are complicated, it’s often very appropriate for an employer to pay such expenses. When it is, it’s common for the individual to make an expense claim for the costs they’ve incurred, backed up by receipts (though if it’s your own company it’s easier for the company to just pay the costs in the first place, of course).

There’s an alternative system - fixed “scale rate” expenses, based on typical costs in the place being visited. HMRC are content for these to be used instead of actual costs, as long as there’s some reasonable review process in place before the expenses are paid out. There are costs for accommodation, along with the costs of meals, drinks and travel within the city (the total of those last three things being known as the “residual” costs.

However, this is a shortcut to making a reasonable but admin-light reimbursement of costs that really were incurred. It’s an estimating technique that HMRC are content with, not a flat-rate allowance. If no costs have been incurred, there’s nothing to estimate!

There are only a couple of exceptions to this.

If the individual is having their accommodation and meals provided for them by a customer, HMRC will permit a payment of 10% of the residual costs. It’s the same if they’re staying with a friend.
If the individual is being provided with self-catering accommodation, then they can claim 80% of the residual costs for the first week, and 50% thereafter.

HMRC have a bunch of other examples, which are quite helpful if you’re dealing with these situations.

If you’re not paying for your own accommodation and meals, you cannot legitimately be paid the full scale rates tax-free! The daily scale rate for someone paying for their own accommodation and meals in New York is $318.50. If you’re not paying for your own accommodation and meals, then the 10% of the residual costs that you’re allowed to claim is $10.25. Quite a difference! Be careful.

www.fizzhq.com

I've been told my contract is inside IR35 - but what does that mean in practical terms?

Previously on IR35:

• The legislation informally known as IR35 was introduced 23 years ago.  It aimed to prevent those billing via a limited company whilst performing an employee-style role for a customer from benefiting from any of a limited company’s tax advantages; instead they were to pay full employment taxes.
• It didn’t work, because it was self-assessed, and turkeys rarely vote for Christmas.
• In 2017, as a result, the responsibility for making the call changed - if you worked for a public body, the public body would decide if IR35 applied.  If it did, full employment taxes would apply and you’d just be paid the net.
• In 2021 (having been postponed for one year due to COVID), this was extended to large customers - similarly, it became their call on IR35 and their risk if they decided not to account for employment taxes.

If you’re a contractor or freelancer working longish projects with big or public sector customers, it’s therefore quite likely you’ll encounter IR35 these days.  But, if a customer or agency tells you that a contract is inside IR35, what does this mean to you in practice?   This isn’t necessarily a simple question, as there are a number of routes that the customer may take, with the literal implementation of the IR35 rules being the least common by far:

1. They might just put you on PAYE.
2. They might pay you via an umbrella company (from your point of view, this is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as PAYE).
3. They just might actually implement the IR35 process - we don’t see it often, but we do see it occasionally.  If they do, then you’ll send them invoices from your limited company as normal, but they’ll pay the invoices net of tax and National Insurance relating to you personally.  This is obviously a very weird concept, and since all three routes are designed to get to the same split of the money between you and HMRC, the well-worn road of PAYE/umbrella generally looks much more appealing to all concerned.

If you get the choice, your accountant will thank you for picking #1 or #2!  We don’t need the hassle of #3 either.

Here are three practical points to be aware of:

1. Make sure you know whether a contract is inside or outside IR35 before you sign it!
2. Be aware that an inside IR35 contract will leave you with less money in your pocket than an outside IR35 one.  How much less?  That will vary depending on the bigger picture of your whole situation, but as a rule of thumb you might consider that you’d need a 25% day rate hike to stand still.
3. You should talk to your accountant at the outset of the new gig, not later on down the line - as well as the decision on whether to accept the contract, there will very likely be other actions to take too.  It might well be appropriate to pause salary or dividends from your own company whilst working on an inside IR35 contract, and that can’t legitimately be done retrospectively.

It’d be nice if everyone had a common understanding of what inside IR35 means, and the steps we’ll all take when that’s the case.  Until then, you’ll always need to press until you find out what’s actually going to happen in practical terms.

www.fizzhq.com

Is there a cap on holding investments through your company?

Company owners are fairly frequently under the impression that there’s some cap on the proportion of their company’s assets that can be held in investments, as opposed to cash.  This isn’t the case, although we know why the misapprehension exists.

It’s to do with Business Asset Disposal Relief (the relief previously known as Entrepreneurs’ Relief).  When originally introduced, Entrepreneurs’ Relief was fairly exciting.  It could reduce the tax you paid when you sold (or liquidated) your company from 40% to 10%!  At one point, that could apply to profits of up to £10m - in theory someone could save £3m tax if they qualified for the relief.

There were some conditions.  One was that the company had to be wholly or mainly a trading company; non-trading activities couldn’t be substantial.  One such activity is investment.  HMRC ended up issuing the guideline that they might consider 20% as a proxy for substantial.  But was that 20% of income?  20% of assets?  20% of management time being spent on investments?  They were non-committal.  There were various verdicts in tax tribunals over the years that clarified things a bit - generally suggesting that you were probably OK to have quite a lot of company funds invested as long as you weren’t very actively managing them - but if someone wanted complete certainty on the relief they’d generally tread pretty carefully if they were hoping for savings at the upper end of the scale.

Things are very different now.  The top rate of Capital Gains Tax on a company sale or liquidation isn’t 40%, it’s 20%.  And you can’t claim the relief on £10m of income, only £1m at most.  Back in the day you could theoretically save £3m.  Now the maximum benefit is £100,000.  The maximum benefit of the relief is only 3.33% of what it once was!  On top of that, the majority of company owners will probably not arrive at a point where the relief needs to be claimed anyway - and who knows if the relief will even exist at a future point when you come to sell or liquidate.

So, it’s true that for some company owners there was a strong incentive to err on the side of caution with investing funds, in case the effort to generate a bit more profit in the short term meant the loss of a massive tax benefit in the medium to long term.  But it seems to have morphed into a generally held belief that there’s an absolute cap on what a company *can* invest, which isn’t true at all.  Whether you *should* invest company funds is another matter!  But generally perceptions of some big tax disincentive are misplaced.

www.fizzhq.com

It's party time! Tax at Christmas 2022

After a party-free 2020 and a party-light 2021 perhaps it's going to be a party hard 2022!  If you're hoping to get the party started, here's a reminder about the tax rules around work Christmas parties and gifts.

If an employer provides a Christmas party that's available to all of its staff (note that this really applies to PAYE employees, as opposed to, say, freelancers), where the cost is less than £150 per head, then it can reclaim all of the VAT and deduct the entire remaining cost from its profits before working out its tax bill - effectively, if a normal VAT-registered limited company holds its party at a normal VAT-registered venue, every £100 spent on the party ends up costing the company £67 in the long run, once they've got the VAT back and saved corporation tax on what's left.  Actually, those allowances apply to annual events, not specifically Christmas ones - so you could have, say, a summer barbecue *and* a Christmas party costing less than £150 a head in total and still reclaim all of the VAT and get tax relief on the balance.

If you want to give a Christmas gift to staff, then in practice HMRC consider a relatively small item like a turkey or a fairly normal bottle of wine to be trivial, and won't try to tax the employee on the value of the gift (as we've written before, sporadic gifts and benefits each valued at £50 or less are explicitly considered trivial by HMRC). Assuming there's VAT on the gift when you buy it, then once more the ultimate cost of £100 of staff gifts to a normal VAT-registered limited company employer will be £67. Anything more valuable the employees will have to pay tax on - and you'll have to pay National Insurance too.

If you give gifts to customers, then they'll only save you tax in full if:

• The total value of gifts in a year to the customer is less than £50,
• The gift has a clear advert for your business on it, and
• You can't eat, drink or smoke it!

If you want to give a customer, say, a bottle of whisky then that's still completely fine, and may well make great business sense! But a) you can only claim the VAT back on the gift if it costs less than £50 and b) you won't save corporation tax on it however much it costs. So a £49 bottle will cost a company £41 in the end (it can get the VAT back but can't save any corporation tax) and a £100 bottle will cost it £100 - it can't reclaim any VAT or reduce your corporation tax or income tax bill at all.

www.fizzhq.com

Should my company buy stuff before 31 March 2023, or after?

At present, companies buying plant and machinery (computers, machinery, furniture, vans, that kind of thing - not cars, though) can claim the Super-deduction.  This means that for every £1 they spend, they save tax as if they’ve spent £1.30.  Since corporation tax is currently 19%, this means they effectively save tax at 24.7% on those purchases this year.

This was put in place because corporation tax is going up in April 2023, and if nothing was done then companies would have deferred those purchases until then.  The Super-deduction was designed to put companies in a broadly similar position whenever they bought stuff, so as not to discourage investment.

So, with corporation tax going up in April, and the Super-deduction being withdrawn, does that mean it’s not worth thinking about when you buy new assets?  Not necessarily!  There are actually going to be three corporation tax rates in place:

• Companies with profits under £50,000 will still pay tax at 19%.  If you know your company will have profits of less than £50,000 each year, you should invest before the end of March.  You’re effectively saving 24.7% this year, not 19% next year, a big saving.
• Companies with profits over £250,000 will pay tax at 25%. If you know your company will have profits of more than £250,000 each year, it doesn’t really matter when you invest.  A 24.7% tax deduction this year and a 25% tax deduction a year later are more or less the same.
• Profits in between £50,000 and £250,000 will effectively be taxed at 26.5% - a “catch up” rate to go from 19% to 25%.  If you know a purchase will reduce your profits from less than £250,000 to more than £50,000, arguably you might want to wait until next year to invest, as saving 26.5% is better than saving 24.7%.  But it’s only a bit better, so you might as well just buy whatever it is as soon as it’ll be useful to you!

(Things are a bit more nuanced for companies that don't have a 31 March year-end, who won't get the full 130% deduction - but they'll still get more than 100%).

Of course, you should never buy anything solely to save tax!  You buy things to ultimately pay MORE tax, not less.  But if you’re going to buy something, the good news is that you’re not going to go far wrong by just getting it as soon as your company needs it.

www.fizzhq.com

What can you claim for charging your electric company car at home?

Thanks to the incredibly generous tax rules that apply to them, the vast majority of new company cars now are electric.  Most of them are probably charged at home.  If you’re charging your electric company car at home, how much can you claim back from your employer to cover the cost?

HMRC’s guidance from the outset has been that you can claim back the cost of electricity relating to business miles but not private miles.  You could do that by trying to figure out the actual cost, but most normal people are going to use the shortcut of HMRC’s approved rate; 5p a mile (a recent increase from 4p a mile).  Using that kind of basis with an approved HMRC rate has always been the way it’s been done with traditional fuels.

However, a cat has recently been put amongst the pigeons.  The ICAEW has pointed out that, per the legislation, electricity *isn’t* fuel, so treating it as such is wrong.  It’s just one of the general costs of running the car.  That being the case, it’s legitimate for the employer to pay for *all* the electricity that goes into the car, not just the business part (just as it can pay for all the servicing, all the insurance and so on).  And at this moment, there seems to be general agreement that HMRC’s guidance on this is wrong.

There are a few things to say about this:

• We’re only talking about fairly modest amounts here!  A driver who was going to claim back 5p a mile for her 2,000 business miles but not her 8,000 private ones can now be reimbursed £500 by her employer, not just £100.  Nice, but not life-changing.
• Employers may not actually pay an employee the whole lot; in fact, they probably won’t on the whole.  Just because an employer *could* reimburse an employee for the cost of her private motoring doesn’t mean they will.  They’ll probably quite reasonably think that the employee can pay for their own life themselves.  Who is going to be reimbursed?  Company owners themselves, that’s who.  They’ll definitely claim as much as they can tax-free!
• It’s possible HMRC might be bloody minded and try to cling on to their guidance!  In any case, it’s pretty likely the government will legislate to close what’s perilously close to being a loophole - let’s be honest, electricity really is analogous to fuel in every way.

For now, though, the advice for directors with an electric company car is going to be - claim 5p a mile for all mileage from your company until HMRC slam the door again!

www.fizzhq.com

Can my limited company pay for my counselling or therapy sessions?

As ever with these questions, the "can" is a red herring that tempts a literal but unhelpful answer.  Your company can pay for anything, the real question is whether there will be knock-on tax consequences that make it a bad idea.

In this case, perhaps surprisingly, there probably aren't any adverse consequences.  The rules, HMRC's guidance about them and HMRC's internal manuals are clear - an employer can pay for counselling for employees with no tax consequences for the employee, and though HMRC say the exemption is tightly drawn it actually covers a lot of areas.

Now, this exemption is plainly not intended for owner-managed businesses.  For a big employer, claiming that they're only providing the therapy because of their needs as an employer, and that long-term personal benefit to the employee may well be created as well but it's not the reason for their footing the bill, is a reasonable assertion.  If it's your own business, then that dividing line between employer and employee is not so clear.  But HMRC are pretty unambiguous about it, so if you’re comfortable that the counselling you’re contemplating falls within HMRC's guidance as tax-free, then you should feel confident going ahead.  Your company must provide the therapy, so should contract with the therapist itself - it's no good arranging it yourself and claiming the costs back if you want the setup to be robust.

If you're a sole trader or a partner in a partnership, then this doesn't apply; these are employment tax rules.  A sole trader or partner will probably find it difficult to impossible to sustain the argument that the cost is tax-deductible - it's have to be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of their trade.

www.fizzhq.com

Trivial benefits revisited

Some years ago now, HMRC surprised everyone by quantifying the level at which they considered a non-cash benefit given to an employee to be trivial and disregarded for tax purposes.  £50 was much higher than everyone had imagined up to that point.

It doesn't represent carte blanche to give people an onslaught of things worth £50 in lieu of taxable pay!  If the provision of benefits becomes regular enough that it's effectively become just part of the deal with the employee and therefore contractual, it'd just be taxable as normal.  So a £50 John Lewis voucher every Friday or every month isn't going to work.  But sporadic £50 vouchers are fine.

The rules are tighter for directors - there's also a tax year cap of £300.  But that's still six £50 vouchers!  Or, if you're particularly prone to getting the wrong card out of your wallet and accidentally using the company one from time to time, the trivial benefits allowance can be used as a backstop so that you don't have to repay the company when that happens.

A small win perhaps, but small wins at the expense of HMRC can be disproportionately satisfying!

www.fizzhq.com

Should I put my Buy To Let property into a company?

Owners of rental properties pay tax on the profits, and often the biggest cost associated with the property is mortgage interest. Over the last few years, the tax relief on that interest has gradually been tapered down for those with higher income, and people who might once have saved tax at 40% (or more) on that interest now save tax at a maximum of 20%.

As a result, the idea of putting a Buy To Let property into a limited company is often floated as a possibility. Is it a good idea? For most people, on balance it’s unlikely to be. Here are a few significant factors:

• If it’s a property that you already own, then transferring it to a limited company will be taxed as if you’d sold it at market value. If it’s gone up materially in value since you bought it, you’ll probably pay some Capital Gains Tax.
• There’ll also be Stamp Duty to pay on such a transfer; Stamp Duty on the transfer of a property from an individual to a company is calculated on the basis of market value, not the amount paid.
• Although the tax-efficiency of the rental income in the company might be a bit better, it’s quite likely that the tax position when you come to sell the property might be worse. An individual has a tax-free allowance for capital gains and only has to pay tax on profits above that Annual Exemption. A company pays tax on every penny. And then, as the owner, you’re likely to want to get the profits out of the company - and you’re likely to pay tax then as well. That kind of double taxation is always an issue when appreciating assets are held within a company.
• The professional fees you’ll incur in having a company’s accounts and taxes properly looked after are greater than those for an individual, so a bit of the year-on-year tax efficiency is absorbed by that anyway.
• It’s often the case that it’s more expensive for limited companies to borrow than it is for individuals.
• Fundamentally, it’s a big punt on the tax regime remaining stable for a long time, and such punts are pretty risky. It’s easy to imagine the rules changing to eat away at tax efficiency for the company ownership route - and you’ll still have paid the switching costs if you used to own the property personally, and you’ll still be stuck with double taxation on exit!

A limited company is more likely to be indicated where there are multiple properties and where there’s a really long term vision for the business. If it’s intended that a rental business will have multiple properties and it might be contemplated that it might even last generations, a limited company could well be indicated. But in 90% of situations, our view is that personal ownership is still more appropriate.

www.fizzhq.com

Can I pay for private medical insurance through my limited company?

Yes you can.  It’s unlikely to make much of a difference to you financially though, so don’t get too excited!

If a company pays for private medical insurance on behalf of an employee (including a director) then it’ll save corporation tax on the cost – currently at 19%, though it could be at as much as 26.5% if corporation tax goes up as planned in 2023.

Great!  But, although there’s that tax saving, it creates two further liabilities.

1. The company has to tell HMRC the amount paid for the director’s cover (and, if applicable, their family’s) each tax year – the Benefit in Kind - on a form called a P11D.  The company has to pay Class 1A National Insurance on the cost at 13.8%.  It’s going to save corporation tax on that payment, but it’s already wiped out more than half of the tax saved. 
2. Then the director has to pay income tax on that Benefit in Kind too.  The rate depends upon how the person’s income is made up, but though it’s just about possible that it could fit into their 0% tax band without shifting anything else up into a higher rate of tax, it’s far more likely that it’s going to effectively be taxed at 7.5%, 20%, 25%, or maybe some other rate.

 So it’s actually pretty unlikely that the arrangement is going to save any tax overall (and it’s also likely to involve paying your accountant to do the paperwork, or be implied in whatever overall fee you’re paying them).  If you can get a much better deal if the company pays, fine.  Otherwise it’s not going to make much difference to you whether you pay personally or through your company.  In practice, it’s really quite rare to see an owner-managed company paying for medical cover for its directors – most people keep it simple and pay for themselves.

www.fizzhq.com