Hi,

Reimbursement of PIE is not taxable if within the £5 / £10 limit.

However, if an employee has a company mobile and uses it to phone home (not 
itself a taxable BIK) does this nevertheless count as [part of] a PIE 
reimbursement?

TIA

-- 
Martin

Martin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Reimbursement of PIE is not taxable if within the £5 / £10 limit.
> 
> However, if an employee has a company mobile and uses it to phone home (not 
> itself a taxable BIK) does this nevertheless count as [part of] a PIE 
> reimbursement?
> 
> TIA
> 
No

"Simon"  wrote in message
news:49mdnQ8z_bfvlr_VRVnyjgA@plusnet...
> Martin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Reimbursement of PIE is not taxable if within the £5 / £10 limit.
>>
>> However, if an employee has a company mobile and uses it to phone home
>> (not itself a taxable BIK) does this nevertheless count as [part of] a
>> PIE reimbursement?
>>
>> TIA
>>
> No


Thanks, Simon.  I'll go with that!

AAMOI, is there any documentary confirmation of this, or is it just accepted 
practice?


-- 
Martin

Martin wrote:
> "Simon"  wrote in message
> news:49mdnQ8z_bfvlr_VRVnyjgA@plusnet...
>> Martin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Reimbursement of PIE is not taxable if within the £5 / £10 limit.
>>>
>>> However, if an employee has a company mobile and uses it to phone home
>>> (not itself a taxable BIK) does this nevertheless count as [part of] a
>>> PIE reimbursement?
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>> No
> 
> 
> Thanks, Simon.  I'll go with that!
> 
> AAMOI, is there any documentary confirmation of this, or is it just accepted 
> practice?
> 
> 

There is no tax issues on the private use of a company phone provided 
the employee is only provided with a single phone.

PIE's are not an allowance. You cant just pay £5 or £10. You have to 
incur an expense of a private of a private nature that is not already 
exempted from other legislation.

But be careful. If you are away for three nights in the UK and spend £4 
on night one, £6 on night two and £5 on night three you are ok, but 
spend £6 on night three and the whole £16 is taxable.

"Simon" wrote
> But be careful. If you are away for three nights in the UK and
> spend £4 on night one, £6 on night two and £5 on night three you
> are ok, but spend £6 on night three and the whole £16 is taxable.

What if you pop home between night 2 and night 3?
Is the £10 from nights 1 & 2 then allowed against tax?  ;-)

"Simon"  wrote in message 
news:Q4ydnXTNM7iV_r7VnZ2dnUVZ8sCknZ2d@plusnet...
> Martin wrote:
>> "Simon"  wrote in message
>> news:49mdnQ8z_bfvlr_VRVnyjgA@plusnet...
>>> Martin wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Reimbursement of PIE is not taxable if within the £5 / £10 limit.
>>>>
>>>> However, if an employee has a company mobile and uses it to phone home
>>>> (not itself a taxable BIK) does this nevertheless count as [part of] a
>>>> PIE reimbursement?
>>>>
>>>> TIA
>>>>
>>> No
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Simon.  I'll go with that!
>>
>> AAMOI, is there any documentary confirmation of this, or is it just 
>> accepted practice?
>>
>>
>
> There is no tax issues on the private use of a company phone provided the 
> employee is only provided with a single phone.

Thanks.  My concern was that this appears to be defined by HMRC as a BIK, 
albeit not taxable, and I wondered if it would be caught by the BIK bit in 
SE02710.

> PIE's are not an allowance. You cant just pay £5 or £10. You have to incur 
> an expense of a private of a private nature that is not already exempted 
> from other legislation.

Agreed - although my understanding has always been that such expenses may 
well not be receipted (eg newspaper, laundrette) and hence a £5 PIE 
reimbursement would not, in practice, be disallowed.

> But be careful. If you are away for three nights in the UK and spend £4 on 
> night one, £6 on night two and £5 on night three you are ok, but spend £6 
> on night three and the whole £16 is taxable.

Agreed - though it's the claim, not the expenditure, which is capped :-))

Many thanks again for your help.


-- 
Martin

Martin wrote:
> "Simon"  wrote in message 
> news:Q4ydnXTNM7iV_r7VnZ2dnUVZ8sCknZ2d@plusnet...
>> Martin wrote:
>>> "Simon"  wrote in message
>>> news:49mdnQ8z_bfvlr_VRVnyjgA@plusnet...
>>>> Martin wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Reimbursement of PIE is not taxable if within the £5 / £10 limit.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, if an employee has a company mobile and uses it to phone home
>>>>> (not itself a taxable BIK) does this nevertheless count as [part of] a
>>>>> PIE reimbursement?
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA
>>>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>> Thanks, Simon.  I'll go with that!
>>>
>>> AAMOI, is there any documentary confirmation of this, or is it just 
>>> accepted practice?
>>>
>>>
>> There is no tax issues on the private use of a company phone provided the 
>> employee is only provided with a single phone.
> 
> Thanks.  My concern was that this appears to be defined by HMRC as a BIK, 
> albeit not taxable, and I wondered if it would be caught by the BIK bit in 
> SE02710.
> 
>> PIE's are not an allowance. You cant just pay £5 or £10. You have to incur 
>> an expense of a private of a private nature that is not already exempted 
>> from other legislation.
> 
> Agreed - although my understanding has always been that such expenses may 
> well not be receipted (eg newspaper, laundrette) and hence a £5 PIE 
> reimbursement would not, in practice, be disallowed.
> 
>> But be careful. If you are away for three nights in the UK and spend £4 on 
>> night one, £6 on night two and £5 on night three you are ok, but spend £6 
>> on night three and the whole £16 is taxable.
> 
> Agreed - though it's the claim, not the expenditure, which is capped :-))
> 
> Many thanks again for your help.
> 
> 

Its what we refer to as a Cliff edge allowance. You may spend up to the 
allowance and whilst it is a taxable BIK, it is exempted. But go over 
the limit and the whole thing attracts a tax charge.

Tim wrote:
> "Simon" wrote
>> But be careful. If you are away for three nights in the UK and
>> spend £4 on night one, £6 on night two and £5 on night three you
>> are ok, but spend £6 on night three and the whole £16 is taxable.
> 
> What if you pop home between night 2 and night 3?
> Is the £10 from nights 1 & 2 then allowed against tax?  ;-)
> 
> 
If you return home then each absence is treated seperately. Bit of a sod 
if you spend £11 over two nights and then only £4 on another absence.

>> "Simon" wrote
>>> But be careful. If you are away for three nights in the UK and
>>> spend £4 on night one, £6 on night two and £5 on night three you
>>> are ok, but spend £6 on night three and the whole £16 is taxable.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> What if you pop home between night 2 and night 3?
>> Is the £10 from nights 1 & 2 then allowed against tax?  ;-)
>>
"Simon" wrote
> If you return home then each absence is treated seperately.

How long do you have to be at home
for?  Is a two minute visit sufficient?   ;-)
Seems like a strange rule!

"Simon" wrote
> Bit of a sod if you spend £11 over two
> nights and then only £4 on another absence.

Unless you just pop home after spending £4.99 each time...?!

Tim wrote:
>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>> But be careful. If you are away for three nights in the UK and
>>>> spend £4 on night one, £6 on night two and £5 on night three you
>>>> are ok, but spend £6 on night three and the whole £16 is taxable.
>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> What if you pop home between night 2 and night 3?
>>> Is the £10 from nights 1 & 2 then allowed against tax?  ;-)
>>>
> "Simon" wrote
>> If you return home then each absence is treated seperately.
> 
> How long do you have to be at home
> for?  Is a two minute visit sufficient?   ;-)
> Seems like a strange rule!
> 
> "Simon" wrote
>> Bit of a sod if you spend £11 over two
>> nights and then only £4 on another absence.
> 
> Unless you just pop home after spending £4.99 each time...?!
> 
> 

I dont see why, but then, I doubt that employers would actually tell us 
that. In practice, if the worker is absent for three consecutive nights, 
they would only make one single expenses claim.

Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence from ther normal 
place of work, to the extent that an overnight stay is necessary. in 
those circumstances, why would the employee just pop home?

"Simon" wrote
> Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence
> from ther normal place of work, to the extent that
> an overnight stay is necessary. in those circumstances,
> why would the employee just pop home?

They might realise that they've forgotten something
they need, so then just pop back to get it?

It just seems strange that the act of popping back for
2 minutes changes the tax treatment of the expenses...

Tim wrote:
> "Simon" wrote
>> Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence
>> from ther normal place of work, to the extent that
>> an overnight stay is necessary. in those circumstances,
>> why would the employee just pop home?
> 
> They might realise that they've forgotten something
> they need, so then just pop back to get it?
> 
> It just seems strange that the act of popping back for
> 2 minutes changes the tax treatment of the expenses...
> 
> 

If you have travelled far enough away from home and work to make an 
overnight stay necessary, then what on earth is going to make the 
journey home for two minutes, either necessary or cost effective. Just 
buy another bloody toothbrush.

>> "Simon" wrote
>>> Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence
>>> from ther normal place of work, to the extent that
>>> an overnight stay is necessary. in those circumstances,
>>> why would the employee just pop home?
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> They might realise that they've forgotten something
>> they need, so then just pop back to get it?
>>
>> It just seems strange that the act of popping back for
>> 2 minutes changes the tax treatment of the expenses...
>
"Simon" wrote
> If you have travelled far enough away from home and work to
> make an overnight stay necessary, then what on earth is going
> to make the journey home for two minutes, either necessary
> or cost effective. Just buy another bloody toothbrush.

Come on -- it might be a *business* item that was forgotten
(a required Report, or other document, for instance).

You wouldn't be returning home just to be
able to claim a few extra quid expenses!

But, given that a valid reason does arise to pop
back for two minutes, don't you think it seems
strange that the tax treatment is different?

Tim wrote:
>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>> Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence
>>>> from ther normal place of work, to the extent that
>>>> an overnight stay is necessary. in those circumstances,
>>>> why would the employee just pop home?
>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> They might realise that they've forgotten something
>>> they need, so then just pop back to get it?
>>>
>>> It just seems strange that the act of popping back for
>>> 2 minutes changes the tax treatment of the expenses...
> "Simon" wrote
>> If you have travelled far enough away from home and work to
>> make an overnight stay necessary, then what on earth is going
>> to make the journey home for two minutes, either necessary
>> or cost effective. Just buy another bloody toothbrush.
> 
> Come on -- it might be a *business* item that was forgotten
> (a required Report, or other document, for instance).
> 
> You wouldn't be returning home just to be
> able to claim a few extra quid expenses!
> 
> But, given that a valid reason does arise to pop
> back for two minutes, don't you think it seems
> strange that the tax treatment is different?
> 
> 
Dont hotels or conference facilities have fax or email facilities?

I am not suggesting that the reason to return is to claim expenses, as 
they would not be able to profit from it, they can only claim costs they 
actually incur.

The problem is the ability to foresee what is going to happen when 
legislation is drafted. I dont think they actually had in mind the 
hapless idiot who travels to a business event, is there for two days 
then has the time time to make un-necessary journeys over 100 miles to 
fetch it, especially when it is possible, more practical and cheaper to 
get whatever is needed courriered to the location.

So is the journey therefore likely to be wholly, necessarily incurred in 
the performance of the duties.

>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>> Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence
>>>>> from ther normal place of work, to the extent that
>>>>> an overnight stay is necessary. in those circumstances,
>>>>> why would the employee just pop home?
>>>>
>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>> They might realise that they've forgotten something
>>>> they need, so then just pop back to get it?
>>>>
>>>> It just seems strange that the act of popping back for
>>>> 2 minutes changes the tax treatment of the expenses...
>>>
>> "Simon" wrote
>>> If you have travelled far enough away from home and work to
>>> make an overnight stay necessary, then what on earth is going
>>> to make the journey home for two minutes, either necessary
>>> or cost effective. Just buy another bloody toothbrush.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Come on -- it might be a *business* item that was forgotten
>> (a required Report, or other document, for instance).
>>
>> You wouldn't be returning home just to be
>> able to claim a few extra quid expenses!
>>
>> But, given that a valid reason does arise to pop
>> back for two minutes, don't you think it seems
>> strange that the tax treatment is different?
>>
"Simon" wrote
> Dont hotels or conference facilities have fax or email facilities?

Who is going to fax/email the document, that is
sitting in your home, alone, because you forgot it?

"Simon" wrote
> I am not suggesting that the reason to return is to
> claim expenses, as they would not be able to profit
> from it, they can only claim costs they actually incur.
>
> The problem is the ability to foresee what is going to happen
> when legislation is drafted. I dont think they actually had in mind
> the hapless idiot who travels to a business event, is there for two
> days then has the time time to make un-necessary journeys ...

No, I'm not considering *unnecessary* journeys,
I'm just thinking about possible *necessary* ones.

"Simon" wrote
> ... over 100 miles to fetch it, especially when
> it is possible, more practical and cheaper to get
> whatever is needed courriered to the location.

How would a courier get the document -- break into your home?

"Simon" wrote
> So is the journey therefore likely to be wholly,
> necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties.

I guess so.  Does that make a difference to
the "personal incidental expenses" claim?

Tim wrote:
>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>> Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence
>>>>>> from ther normal place of work, to the extent that
>>>>>> an overnight stay is necessary. in those circumstances,
>>>>>> why would the employee just pop home?
>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>> They might realise that they've forgotten something
>>>>> they need, so then just pop back to get it?
>>>>>
>>>>> It just seems strange that the act of popping back for
>>>>> 2 minutes changes the tax treatment of the expenses...
>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>> If you have travelled far enough away from home and work to
>>>> make an overnight stay necessary, then what on earth is going
>>>> to make the journey home for two minutes, either necessary
>>>> or cost effective. Just buy another bloody toothbrush.
>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> Come on -- it might be a *business* item that was forgotten
>>> (a required Report, or other document, for instance).
>>>
>>> You wouldn't be returning home just to be
>>> able to claim a few extra quid expenses!
>>>
>>> But, given that a valid reason does arise to pop
>>> back for two minutes, don't you think it seems
>>> strange that the tax treatment is different?
>>>
> "Simon" wrote
>> Dont hotels or conference facilities have fax or email facilities?
> 
> Who is going to fax/email the document, that is
> sitting in your home, alone, because you forgot it?
> 
> "Simon" wrote
>> I am not suggesting that the reason to return is to
>> claim expenses, as they would not be able to profit
>> from it, they can only claim costs they actually incur.
>>
>> The problem is the ability to foresee what is going to happen
>> when legislation is drafted. I dont think they actually had in mind
>> the hapless idiot who travels to a business event, is there for two
>> days then has the time time to make un-necessary journeys ...
> 
> No, I'm not considering *unnecessary* journeys,
> I'm just thinking about possible *necessary* ones.
> 
> "Simon" wrote
>> ... over 100 miles to fetch it, especially when
>> it is possible, more practical and cheaper to get
>> whatever is needed courriered to the location.
> 
> How would a courier get the document -- break into your home?
> 
> "Simon" wrote
>> So is the journey therefore likely to be wholly,
>> necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties.
> 
> I guess so.  Does that make a difference to
> the "personal incidental expenses" claim?
> 
> 
My point was that you can't legislate for every eventuallity. They wrote 
this to cver whole journeys. That way it is as fair as can be planned 
allowing for an average over a period. The journey starts when you leave 
and finishs when you return. You then divid the private expenditure over 
the nights absent to get the average expenditure and if its over the 
limit, the the whole amount is taxable. Its fair for most but does'nt 
cover the person who does not plan ahead and has to make un-necessary 
journeys home.

>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>> Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence
>>>>>>> from ther normal place of work, to the extent that
>>>>>>> an overnight stay is necessary. in those circumstances,
>>>>>>> why would the employee just pop home?
>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>> They might realise that they've forgotten something
>>>>>> they need, so then just pop back to get it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It just seems strange that the act of popping back for
>>>>>> 2 minutes changes the tax treatment of the expenses...
>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>> If you have travelled far enough away from home and work to
>>>>> make an overnight stay necessary, then what on earth is going
>>>>> to make the journey home for two minutes, either necessary
>>>>> or cost effective. Just buy another bloody toothbrush.
>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>> Come on -- it might be a *business* item that was forgotten
>>>> (a required Report, or other document, for instance).
>>>>
>>>> You wouldn't be returning home just to be
>>>> able to claim a few extra quid expenses!
>>>>
>>>> But, given that a valid reason does arise to pop
>>>> back for two minutes, don't you think it seems
>>>> strange that the tax treatment is different?
>>>>
>> "Simon" wrote
>>> Dont hotels or conference facilities have fax or email facilities?
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Who is going to fax/email the document, that is
>> sitting in your home, alone, because you forgot it?
>>
>> "Simon" wrote
>>> I am not suggesting that the reason to return is to
>>> claim expenses, as they would not be able to profit
>>> from it, they can only claim costs they actually incur.
>>>
>>> The problem is the ability to foresee what is going to happen
>>> when legislation is drafted. I dont think they actually had in mind
>>> the hapless idiot who travels to a business event, is there for two
>>> days then has the time time to make un-necessary journeys ...
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> No, I'm not considering *unnecessary* journeys,
>> I'm just thinking about possible *necessary* ones.
>>
>> "Simon" wrote
>>> ... over 100 miles to fetch it, especially when
>>> it is possible, more practical and cheaper to get
>>> whatever is needed courriered to the location.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> How would a courier get the document -- break into your home?
>>
>> "Simon" wrote
>>> So is the journey therefore likely to be wholly,
>>> necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> I guess so.  Does that make a difference to
>> the "personal incidental expenses" claim?
>>
>>
"Simon" wrote
> My point was that you can't legislate for every eventuallity. They
> wrote this to cver whole journeys. That way it is as fair as can be
> planned allowing for an average over a period. The journey starts
> when you leave and finishs when you return. You then divid the
> private expenditure over the nights absent to get the average
> expenditure and if its over the limit, the the whole amount is taxable...

My point was that it isn't equivalent between one long trip, or two
short trips (which have the same business effect as the one long one).

Just seems strange...

For instance, do you think that people should be taxed
different amounts (overall) if they receive £10,000pa from each
of two part-time jobs, or £20,000pa from one full-time job?
Those *are* currently taxed the same, and quite rightly so...

Tim wrote:
>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>> Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence
>>>>>>>> from ther normal place of work, to the extent that
>>>>>>>> an overnight stay is necessary. in those circumstances,
>>>>>>>> why would the employee just pop home?
>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>> They might realise that they've forgotten something
>>>>>>> they need, so then just pop back to get it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It just seems strange that the act of popping back for
>>>>>>> 2 minutes changes the tax treatment of the expenses...
>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>> If you have travelled far enough away from home and work to
>>>>>> make an overnight stay necessary, then what on earth is going
>>>>>> to make the journey home for two minutes, either necessary
>>>>>> or cost effective. Just buy another bloody toothbrush.
>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>> Come on -- it might be a *business* item that was forgotten
>>>>> (a required Report, or other document, for instance).
>>>>>
>>>>> You wouldn't be returning home just to be
>>>>> able to claim a few extra quid expenses!
>>>>>
>>>>> But, given that a valid reason does arise to pop
>>>>> back for two minutes, don't you think it seems
>>>>> strange that the tax treatment is different?
>>>>>
>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>> Dont hotels or conference facilities have fax or email facilities?
>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> Who is going to fax/email the document, that is
>>> sitting in your home, alone, because you forgot it?
>>>
>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>> I am not suggesting that the reason to return is to
>>>> claim expenses, as they would not be able to profit
>>>> from it, they can only claim costs they actually incur.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is the ability to foresee what is going to happen
>>>> when legislation is drafted. I dont think they actually had in mind
>>>> the hapless idiot who travels to a business event, is there for two
>>>> days then has the time time to make un-necessary journeys ...
>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> No, I'm not considering *unnecessary* journeys,
>>> I'm just thinking about possible *necessary* ones.
>>>
>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>> ... over 100 miles to fetch it, especially when
>>>> it is possible, more practical and cheaper to get
>>>> whatever is needed courriered to the location.
>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> How would a courier get the document -- break into your home?
>>>
>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>> So is the journey therefore likely to be wholly,
>>>> necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties.
>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> I guess so.  Does that make a difference to
>>> the "personal incidental expenses" claim?
>>>
>>>
> "Simon" wrote
>> My point was that you can't legislate for every eventuallity. They
>> wrote this to cver whole journeys. That way it is as fair as can be
>> planned allowing for an average over a period. The journey starts
>> when you leave and finishs when you return. You then divid the
>> private expenditure over the nights absent to get the average
>> expenditure and if its over the limit, the the whole amount is taxable...
> 
> My point was that it isn't equivalent between one long trip, or two
> short trips (which have the same business effect as the one long one).
> 
> Just seems strange...
> 
> For instance, do you think that people should be taxed
> different amounts (overall) if they receive £10,000pa from each
> of two part-time jobs, or £20,000pa from one full-time job?
> Those *are* currently taxed the same, and quite rightly so...
> 
> 
> 
Completely different and irrelevant topic.

>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>> Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence
>>>>>>>>> from ther normal place of work, to the extent that
>>>>>>>>> an overnight stay is necessary. in those circumstances,
>>>>>>>>> why would the employee just pop home?
>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>> They might realise that they've forgotten something
>>>>>>>> they need, so then just pop back to get it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It just seems strange that the act of popping back for
>>>>>>>> 2 minutes changes the tax treatment of the expenses...
>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>> If you have travelled far enough away from home and work to
>>>>>>> make an overnight stay necessary, then what on earth is going
>>>>>>> to make the journey home for two minutes, either necessary
>>>>>>> or cost effective. Just buy another bloody toothbrush.
>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>> Come on -- it might be a *business* item that was forgotten
>>>>>> (a required Report, or other document, for instance).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You wouldn't be returning home just to be
>>>>>> able to claim a few extra quid expenses!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, given that a valid reason does arise to pop
>>>>>> back for two minutes, don't you think it seems
>>>>>> strange that the tax treatment is different?
>>>>>>
>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>> Dont hotels or conference facilities have fax or email facilities?
>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>> Who is going to fax/email the document, that is
>>>> sitting in your home, alone, because you forgot it?
>>>>
>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>> I am not suggesting that the reason to return is to
>>>>> claim expenses, as they would not be able to profit
>>>>> from it, they can only claim costs they actually incur.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is the ability to foresee what is going to happen
>>>>> when legislation is drafted. I dont think they actually had in mind
>>>>> the hapless idiot who travels to a business event, is there for two
>>>>> days then has the time time to make un-necessary journeys ...
>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>> No, I'm not considering *unnecessary* journeys,
>>>> I'm just thinking about possible *necessary* ones.
>>>>
>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>> ... over 100 miles to fetch it, especially when
>>>>> it is possible, more practical and cheaper to get
>>>>> whatever is needed courriered to the location.
>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>> How would a courier get the document -- break into your home?
>>>>
>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>> So is the journey therefore likely to be wholly,
>>>>> necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties.
>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>> I guess so.  Does that make a difference to
>>>> the "personal incidental expenses" claim?
>>>>
>>>>
>> "Simon" wrote
>>> My point was that you can't legislate for every eventuallity. They
>>> wrote this to cver whole journeys. That way it is as fair as can be
>>> planned allowing for an average over a period. The journey starts
>>> when you leave and finishs when you return. You then divid the
>>> private expenditure over the nights absent to get the average
>>> expenditure and if its over the limit, the the whole amount is 
>>> taxable...
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> My point was that it isn't equivalent between one long trip, or two
>> short trips (which have the same business effect as the one long one).
>>
>> Just seems strange...
>>
>> For instance, do you think that people should be taxed
>> different amounts (overall) if they receive £10,000pa from each
>> of two part-time jobs, or £20,000pa from one full-time job?
>> Those *are* currently taxed the same, and quite rightly so...
>>
"Simon" wrote
> Completely different and irrelevant topic.

Can you elaborate on how you think it's different?
Under both, two small things (two short trips
or two p/t jobs) are being compared to one,
equivalent, big thing (the long trip or the f/t job).

I actually think it's a very fair comparison!

Tim wrote:

> For instance, do you think that people should be taxed
> different amounts (overall) if they receive £10,000pa from each
> of two part-time jobs, or £20,000pa from one full-time job?
> Those *are* currently taxed the same,

Actually the overall tax for the two £10k jobs is about £700pa less
than for the one £20k job, assuming, of course, that you include
NI in what counts as a "tax", as you should.

Tim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence
>>>>>>>>>> from ther normal place of work, to the extent that
>>>>>>>>>> an overnight stay is necessary. in those circumstances,
>>>>>>>>>> why would the employee just pop home?
>>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> They might realise that they've forgotten something
>>>>>>>>> they need, so then just pop back to get it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It just seems strange that the act of popping back for
>>>>>>>>> 2 minutes changes the tax treatment of the expenses...
>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>> If you have travelled far enough away from home and work to
>>>>>>>> make an overnight stay necessary, then what on earth is going
>>>>>>>> to make the journey home for two minutes, either necessary
>>>>>>>> or cost effective. Just buy another bloody toothbrush.
>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>> Come on -- it might be a *business* item that was forgotten
>>>>>>> (a required Report, or other document, for instance).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You wouldn't be returning home just to be
>>>>>>> able to claim a few extra quid expenses!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, given that a valid reason does arise to pop
>>>>>>> back for two minutes, don't you think it seems
>>>>>>> strange that the tax treatment is different?
>>>>>>>
>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>> Dont hotels or conference facilities have fax or email facilities?
>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>> Who is going to fax/email the document, that is
>>>>> sitting in your home, alone, because you forgot it?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>> I am not suggesting that the reason to return is to
>>>>>> claim expenses, as they would not be able to profit
>>>>>> from it, they can only claim costs they actually incur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is the ability to foresee what is going to happen
>>>>>> when legislation is drafted. I dont think they actually had in mind
>>>>>> the hapless idiot who travels to a business event, is there for two
>>>>>> days then has the time time to make un-necessary journeys ...
>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>> No, I'm not considering *unnecessary* journeys,
>>>>> I'm just thinking about possible *necessary* ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>> ... over 100 miles to fetch it, especially when
>>>>>> it is possible, more practical and cheaper to get
>>>>>> whatever is needed courriered to the location.
>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>> How would a courier get the document -- break into your home?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>> So is the journey therefore likely to be wholly,
>>>>>> necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties.
>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>> I guess so.  Does that make a difference to
>>>>> the "personal incidental expenses" claim?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>> My point was that you can't legislate for every eventuallity. They
>>>> wrote this to cver whole journeys. That way it is as fair as can be
>>>> planned allowing for an average over a period. The journey starts
>>>> when you leave and finishs when you return. You then divid the
>>>> private expenditure over the nights absent to get the average
>>>> expenditure and if its over the limit, the the whole amount is 
>>>> taxable...
>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> My point was that it isn't equivalent between one long trip, or two
>>> short trips (which have the same business effect as the one long one).
>>>
>>> Just seems strange...
>>>
>>> For instance, do you think that people should be taxed
>>> different amounts (overall) if they receive £10,000pa from each
>>> of two part-time jobs, or £20,000pa from one full-time job?
>>> Those *are* currently taxed the same, and quite rightly so...
>>>
> "Simon" wrote
>> Completely different and irrelevant topic.
> 
> Can you elaborate on how you think it's different?
> Under both, two small things (two short trips
> or two p/t jobs) are being compared to one,
> equivalent, big thing (the long trip or the f/t job).
> 
> I actually think it's a very fair comparison!
> 
> 
Because both employments are taxable under the basic chargeing 
provisions, as are the expenses in the first place.

PIES's are exempt by virtue of Section 240 of the Income Tax (Earnings 
and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) which is secondary to the chargeing 
provision and hurdles have to be crossed to achieve the exemption.

Section 240(4) ITEPA 2003 is outlned in the EIM at 2700 et seq A 
qualifying period is a continuous period throughout which an employee 
has to stay away from home, including at least one overnight stay away 
from home, and where the expense of travelling qualifies for tax relief 
under the normal rules.

The operative word here is continues. When you return home, or to your 
place of employment, the period is broken and a new period would 
commence when the b=next qualifying period commences.

However, as I said earlier, these circumstances are likely to be rare, 
it is unlikely that these would be reported by the employer, and under 
Risk Based Systems Audit's, this is unlikely to be considered as a 
material failure.

> "Tim" wrote:
>> For instance, do you think that people should be taxed
>> different amounts (overall) if they receive £10,000pa from each
>> of two part-time jobs, or £20,000pa from one full-time job?
>> Those *are* currently taxed the same,
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> Actually the overall tax for the two £10k jobs is about
> £700pa less than for the one £20k job, assuming, of course,
> that you include NI in what counts as a "tax", as you should.

Ah, you got me there!
But, as everyone knows that NI is often inconsistent, and many
people think it should be abolished, perhaps it's fairer to ignore it?

>>>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence
>>>>>>>>>>> from ther normal place of work, to the extent that
>>>>>>>>>>> an overnight stay is necessary. in those circumstances,
>>>>>>>>>>> why would the employee just pop home?
>>>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> They might realise that they've forgotten something
>>>>>>>>>> they need, so then just pop back to get it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It just seems strange that the act of popping back for
>>>>>>>>>> 2 minutes changes the tax treatment of the expenses...
>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>> If you have travelled far enough away from home and work to
>>>>>>>>> make an overnight stay necessary, then what on earth is going
>>>>>>>>> to make the journey home for two minutes, either necessary
>>>>>>>>> or cost effective. Just buy another bloody toothbrush.
>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Come on -- it might be a *business* item that was forgotten
>>>>>>>> (a required Report, or other document, for instance).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You wouldn't be returning home just to be
>>>>>>>> able to claim a few extra quid expenses!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, given that a valid reason does arise to pop
>>>>>>>> back for two minutes, don't you think it seems
>>>>>>>> strange that the tax treatment is different?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>> Dont hotels or conference facilities have fax or email facilities?
>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>> Who is going to fax/email the document, that is
>>>>>> sitting in your home, alone, because you forgot it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>> I am not suggesting that the reason to return is to
>>>>>>> claim expenses, as they would not be able to profit
>>>>>>> from it, they can only claim costs they actually incur.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is the ability to foresee what is going to happen
>>>>>>> when legislation is drafted. I dont think they actually had in mind
>>>>>>> the hapless idiot who travels to a business event, is there for two
>>>>>>> days then has the time time to make un-necessary journeys ...
>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>> No, I'm not considering *unnecessary* journeys,
>>>>>> I'm just thinking about possible *necessary* ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>> ... over 100 miles to fetch it, especially when
>>>>>>> it is possible, more practical and cheaper to get
>>>>>>> whatever is needed courriered to the location.
>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>> How would a courier get the document -- break into your home?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>> So is the journey therefore likely to be wholly,
>>>>>>> necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties.
>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>> I guess so.  Does that make a difference to
>>>>>> the "personal incidental expenses" claim?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>> My point was that you can't legislate for every eventuallity. They
>>>>> wrote this to cver whole journeys. That way it is as fair as can be
>>>>> planned allowing for an average over a period. The journey starts
>>>>> when you leave and finishs when you return. You then divid the
>>>>> private expenditure over the nights absent to get the average
>>>>> expenditure and if its over the limit, the the whole amount is 
>>>>> taxable...
>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>> My point was that it isn't equivalent between one long trip, or two
>>>> short trips (which have the same business effect as the one long one).
>>>>
>>>> Just seems strange...
>>>>
>>>> For instance, do you think that people should be taxed
>>>> different amounts (overall) if they receive £10,000pa from each
>>>> of two part-time jobs, or £20,000pa from one full-time job?
>>>> Those *are* currently taxed the same, and quite rightly so...
>>>>
>> "Simon" wrote
>>> Completely different and irrelevant topic.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Can you elaborate on how you think it's different?
>> Under both, two small things (two short trips
>> or two p/t jobs) are being compared to one,
>> equivalent, big thing (the long trip or the f/t job).
>>
>> I actually think it's a very fair comparison!
>>

"Simon" wrote
> Because both employments are taxable under the basic
> chargeing provisions, as are the expenses in the first place.
>
> PIES's are exempt by virtue of Section 240 of the Income Tax (Earnings and 
> Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) which is secondary to the chargeing 
> provision and hurdles have to be crossed to achieve the exemption.
>
> Section 240(4) ITEPA 2003 is outlned in the EIM at 2700 et seq A 
> qualifying period is a continuous period throughout which an employee has 
> to stay away from home, including at least one overnight stay away from 
> home, and where the expense of travelling qualifies for tax relief under 
> the normal rules.
>
> The operative word here is continues. When you return home, or to your 
> place of employment, the period is broken and a new period would commence 
> when the b=next qualifying period commences.
>
> However, as I said earlier, these circumstances are likely to be rare, it 
> is unlikely that these would be reported by the employer, and under Risk 
> Based Systems Audit's, this is unlikely to be considered as a material 
> failure.

That is just a (very comprehensive!) description of current legislation.
What I was after, is *why* do you think the current legislation should
differ like that between the two cases, when in fact they are quite similar?

Tim wrote:

>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> For instance, do you think that people should be taxed
>>> different amounts (overall) if they receive £10,000pa from each
>>> of two part-time jobs, or £20,000pa from one full-time job?
>>> Those *are* currently taxed the same,
>>
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> Actually the overall tax for the two £10k jobs is about
>> £700pa less than for the one £20k job, assuming, of course,
>> that you include NI in what counts as a "tax", as you should.
> 
> Ah, you got me there!
> But, as everyone knows that NI is often inconsistent,

In what way inconsistent?  Do you just mean because it happens to
be treated on a per-employment basis, and that self-employment is
handled differently, or had you something more sinister in mind?

> and many
> people think it should be abolished, perhaps it's fairer to ignore it?

I think it would be fairer to abolish it and increase the basic
income tax rate instead.  But until that happens, it's not fairer
to ignore it.  Of course there would be problems, e.g. would the
increased rate apply to types of income not currently subject to
NI, like savings interest and pensions?

"Tim"  wrote in message 
news:_aKdnba-ufA7i7XVnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence
>>>>>>>>>>>> from ther normal place of work, to the extent that
>>>>>>>>>>>> an overnight stay is necessary. in those circumstances,
>>>>>>>>>>>> why would the employee just pop home?
>>>>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> They might realise that they've forgotten something
>>>>>>>>>>> they need, so then just pop back to get it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It just seems strange that the act of popping back for
>>>>>>>>>>> 2 minutes changes the tax treatment of the expenses...
>>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>>> If you have travelled far enough away from home and work to
>>>>>>>>>> make an overnight stay necessary, then what on earth is going
>>>>>>>>>> to make the journey home for two minutes, either necessary
>>>>>>>>>> or cost effective. Just buy another bloody toothbrush.
>>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Come on -- it might be a *business* item that was forgotten
>>>>>>>>> (a required Report, or other document, for instance).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't be returning home just to be
>>>>>>>>> able to claim a few extra quid expenses!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, given that a valid reason does arise to pop
>>>>>>>>> back for two minutes, don't you think it seems
>>>>>>>>> strange that the tax treatment is different?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>> Dont hotels or conference facilities have fax or email facilities?
>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>> Who is going to fax/email the document, that is
>>>>>>> sitting in your home, alone, because you forgot it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>> I am not suggesting that the reason to return is to
>>>>>>>> claim expenses, as they would not be able to profit
>>>>>>>> from it, they can only claim costs they actually incur.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is the ability to foresee what is going to happen
>>>>>>>> when legislation is drafted. I dont think they actually had in mind
>>>>>>>> the hapless idiot who travels to a business event, is there for two
>>>>>>>> days then has the time time to make un-necessary journeys ...
>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>> No, I'm not considering *unnecessary* journeys,
>>>>>>> I'm just thinking about possible *necessary* ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>> ... over 100 miles to fetch it, especially when
>>>>>>>> it is possible, more practical and cheaper to get
>>>>>>>> whatever is needed courriered to the location.
>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>> How would a courier get the document -- break into your home?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>> So is the journey therefore likely to be wholly,
>>>>>>>> necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties.
>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>> I guess so.  Does that make a difference to
>>>>>>> the "personal incidental expenses" claim?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>> My point was that you can't legislate for every eventuallity. They
>>>>>> wrote this to cver whole journeys. That way it is as fair as can be
>>>>>> planned allowing for an average over a period. The journey starts
>>>>>> when you leave and finishs when you return. You then divid the
>>>>>> private expenditure over the nights absent to get the average
>>>>>> expenditure and if its over the limit, the the whole amount is 
>>>>>> taxable...
>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>> My point was that it isn't equivalent between one long trip, or two
>>>>> short trips (which have the same business effect as the one long one).
>>>>>
>>>>> Just seems strange...
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, do you think that people should be taxed
>>>>> different amounts (overall) if they receive £10,000pa from each
>>>>> of two part-time jobs, or £20,000pa from one full-time job?
>>>>> Those *are* currently taxed the same, and quite rightly so...
>>>>>
>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>> Completely different and irrelevant topic.
>>>
>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> Can you elaborate on how you think it's different?
>>> Under both, two small things (two short trips
>>> or two p/t jobs) are being compared to one,
>>> equivalent, big thing (the long trip or the f/t job).
>>>
>>> I actually think it's a very fair comparison!
>>>
>
> "Simon" wrote
>> Because both employments are taxable under the basic
>> chargeing provisions, as are the expenses in the first place.
>>
>> PIES's are exempt by virtue of Section 240 of the Income Tax (Earnings 
>> and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) which is secondary to the chargeing 
>> provision and hurdles have to be crossed to achieve the exemption.
>>
>> Section 240(4) ITEPA 2003 is outlned in the EIM at 2700 et seq A 
>> qualifying period is a continuous period throughout which an employee has 
>> to stay away from home, including at least one overnight stay away from 
>> home, and where the expense of travelling qualifies for tax relief under 
>> the normal rules.
>>
>> The operative word here is continues. When you return home, or to your 
>> place of employment, the period is broken and a new period would commence 
>> when the b=next qualifying period commences.
>>
>> However, as I said earlier, these circumstances are likely to be rare, it 
>> is unlikely that these would be reported by the employer, and under Risk 
>> Based Systems Audit's, this is unlikely to be considered as a material 
>> failure.
>
> That is just a (very comprehensive!) description of current legislation.
> What I was after, is *why* do you think the current legislation should
> differ like that between the two cases, when in fact they are quite 
> similar?
>
 I thought I was quite specific, because one falls within the main and 
general charging provision and the other is a specific exemption that 
requires a very limited set of circumstances to be met.

On 12 May, 11:06, "Tim"  wrote:
> > "Tim" wrote:
> >> For instance, do you think that people should be taxed
> >> different amounts (overall) if they receive £10,000pa from each
> >> of two part-time jobs, or £20,000pa from one full-time job?
> >> Those *are* currently taxed the same,
>
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>
> > Actually the overall tax for the two £10k jobs is about
> > £700pa less than for the one £20k job, assuming, of course,
> > that you include NI in what counts as a "tax", as you should.
>
> Ah, you got me there!
> But, as everyone knows that NI is often inconsistent, and many
> people think it should be abolished, perhaps it's fairer to ignore it?

You mean not pay it? Or not include it in the argument because you'll
lose? :-)

>> > "Tim" wrote:
>> >> For instance, do you think that people should be taxed
>> >> different amounts (overall) if they receive £10,000pa from each
>> >> of two part-time jobs, or £20,000pa from one full-time job?
>> >> Those *are* currently taxed the same,
>>
>> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> > Actually the overall tax for the two £10k jobs is about
>> > £700pa less than for the one £20k job, assuming, of course,
>> > that you include NI in what counts as a "tax", as you should.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Ah, you got me there!
>> But, as everyone knows that NI is often inconsistent, and many
>> people think it should be abolished, perhaps it's fairer to ignore it?
>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> You mean not pay it?

No, of course I don't mean that.

"PeterSaxton" wrote
> Or not include it in the argument...

Exactly.

"PeterSaxton" wrote
> ... because you'll lose? :-)

No, because it is not strictly a *tax* !
If it *were* incorporated within income tax, then (it is
highly likely that) it would then behave in the normal
way, and so I'd still win the argument.  Happy now?

>>>>>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from ther normal place of work, to the extent that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an overnight stay is necessary. in those circumstances,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why would the employee just pop home?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> They might realise that they've forgotten something
>>>>>>>>>>>> they need, so then just pop back to get it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It just seems strange that the act of popping back for
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 minutes changes the tax treatment of the expenses...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> If you have travelled far enough away from home and work to
>>>>>>>>>>> make an overnight stay necessary, then what on earth is going
>>>>>>>>>>> to make the journey home for two minutes, either necessary
>>>>>>>>>>> or cost effective. Just buy another bloody toothbrush.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Come on -- it might be a *business* item that was forgotten
>>>>>>>>>> (a required Report, or other document, for instance).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't be returning home just to be
>>>>>>>>>> able to claim a few extra quid expenses!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But, given that a valid reason does arise to pop
>>>>>>>>>> back for two minutes, don't you think it seems
>>>>>>>>>> strange that the tax treatment is different?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>> Dont hotels or conference facilities have fax or email facilities?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Who is going to fax/email the document, that is
>>>>>>>> sitting in your home, alone, because you forgot it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>> I am not suggesting that the reason to return is to
>>>>>>>>> claim expenses, as they would not be able to profit
>>>>>>>>> from it, they can only claim costs they actually incur.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is the ability to foresee what is going to
>>>>>>>>> happen when legislation is drafted. I dont think they
>>>>>>>>> actually had in mind the hapless idiot who travels
>>>>>>>>> to a business event, is there for two days then has
>>>>>>>>> the time time to make un-necessary journeys ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>> No, I'm not considering *unnecessary* journeys,
>>>>>>>> I'm just thinking about possible *necessary* ones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>> ... over 100 miles to fetch it, especially when
>>>>>>>>> it is possible, more practical and cheaper to get
>>>>>>>>> whatever is needed courriered to the location.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>> How would a courier get the document -- break into your home?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>> So is the journey therefore likely to be wholly,
>>>>>>>>> necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>> I guess so.  Does that make a difference to
>>>>>>>> the "personal incidental expenses" claim?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>> My point was that you can't legislate for every eventuallity.
>>>>>>> They wrote this to cver whole journeys. That way it is
>>>>>>> as fair as can be planned allowing for an average over
>>>>>>> a period. The journey starts when you leave and finishs
>>>>>>> when you return. You then divid the private expenditure
>>>>>>> over the nights absent to get the average expenditure and
>>>>>>> if its over the limit, the the whole amount is  taxable...
>>>>>>
>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>> My point was that it isn't equivalent between
>>>>>> one long trip, or two short trips (which have
>>>>>> the same business effect as the one long one).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just seems strange...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance, do you think that people should be taxed
>>>>>> different amounts (overall) if they receive £10,000pa from each
>>>>>> of two part-time jobs, or £20,000pa from one full-time job?
>>>>>> Those *are* currently taxed the same, and quite rightly so...
>>>>>>
>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>> Completely different and irrelevant topic.
>>>>
>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>> Can you elaborate on how you think it's different?
>>>> Under both, two small things (two short trips
>>>> or two p/t jobs) are being compared to one,
>>>> equivalent, big thing (the long trip or the f/t job).
>>>>
>>>> I actually think it's a very fair comparison!
>>>
>> "Simon" wrote
>>> Because both employments are taxable under the basic
>>> chargeing provisions, as are the expenses in the first place.
>>>
>>> PIES's are exempt by virtue of Section 240 of the Income
>>> Tax (Earnings  and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003)
>>> which is secondary to the chargeing  provision and
>>> hurdles have to be crossed to achieve the exemption.
>>>
>>> Section 240(4) ITEPA 2003 is outlned in the EIM at 2700
>>> et seq A qualifying period is a continuous period throughout
>>> which an employee has to stay away from home, including
>>> at least one overnight stay away from home, and where the
>>> expense of travelling qualifies for tax relief under the normal rules.
>>>
>>> The operative word here is continues. When you
>>> return home, or to your place of employment, the
>>> period is broken and a new period would commence
>>> when the b=next qualifying period commences.
>>>
>>> However, as I said earlier, these circumstances are likely
>>> to be rare, it is unlikely that these would be reported by
>>> the employer, and under Risk Based Systems Audit's,
>>> this is unlikely to be considered as a material failure.
>>
> "Tim" wrote
>> That is just a (very comprehensive!) description of current
>> legislation. What I was after, is *why* do you think
>> the current legislation should differ like that between
>> the two cases, when in fact they are quite similar?
>>
"Simon" wrote
> I thought I was quite specific, because one falls within the main and
> general charging provision and the other is a specific exemption
> that requires a very limited set of circumstances to be met.

I'm sorry, I'm still having trouble understanding your reason.
Why should that mean that the "two smaller compared to one
bigger" comparison should apply to one but not the other?

>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>> For instance, do you think that people should be taxed
>>>> different amounts (overall) if they receive £10,000pa from each
>>>> of two part-time jobs, or £20,000pa from one full-time job?
>>>> Those *are* currently taxed the same, ...
>>>
>> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>>> Actually the overall tax for the two £10k jobs is about
>>> £700pa less than for the one £20k job, assuming, of course,
>>> that you include NI in what counts as a "tax", as you should.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Ah, you got me there!
>> But, as everyone knows that NI is often inconsistent, ...
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> In what way inconsistent?  Do you just mean because it happens to
> be treated on a per-employment basis, and that self-employment is
> handled differently, or had you something more sinister in mind?

Mainly I meant because it's inconsistent between
self-employment & regular employment,
between earned & unearned income,
between those before & after age (about) 65,
between directors & non-directors, ....

> "Tim" wrote:
>> ... and many people think it should be
>> abolished, perhaps it's fairer to ignore it?
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> I think it would be fairer to abolish it and
> increase the basic income tax rate instead.

That would certainly make things a *lot* simpler!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> But until that happens, it's not fairer to ignore it...

I think it *is* fair to ignore it here.  As people often consider
NI "unfair", it seems right to ignore it when considering
the question I asked, which was: "do you think that
people should be taxed different amounts (overall) if ...".

The "do you think ... should be" requires the scenario to be "fair"!

"Tim"  wrote in message 
news:C_idnRB9ya4c67TVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aalso, you have to remember that this is for absence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from ther normal place of work, to the extent that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an overnight stay is necessary. in those circumstances,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why would the employee just pop home?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They might realise that they've forgotten something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they need, so then just pop back to get it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just seems strange that the act of popping back for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 minutes changes the tax treatment of the expenses...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have travelled far enough away from home and work to
>>>>>>>>>>>> make an overnight stay necessary, then what on earth is going
>>>>>>>>>>>> to make the journey home for two minutes, either necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>> or cost effective. Just buy another bloody toothbrush.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Come on -- it might be a *business* item that was forgotten
>>>>>>>>>>> (a required Report, or other document, for instance).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't be returning home just to be
>>>>>>>>>>> able to claim a few extra quid expenses!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, given that a valid reason does arise to pop
>>>>>>>>>>> back for two minutes, don't you think it seems
>>>>>>>>>>> strange that the tax treatment is different?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Dont hotels or conference facilities have fax or email 
>>>>>>>>>> facilities?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Who is going to fax/email the document, that is
>>>>>>>>> sitting in your home, alone, because you forgot it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>>> I am not suggesting that the reason to return is to
>>>>>>>>>> claim expenses, as they would not be able to profit
>>>>>>>>>> from it, they can only claim costs they actually incur.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The problem is the ability to foresee what is going to
>>>>>>>>>> happen when legislation is drafted. I dont think they
>>>>>>>>>> actually had in mind the hapless idiot who travels
>>>>>>>>>> to a business event, is there for two days then has
>>>>>>>>>> the time time to make un-necessary journeys ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not considering *unnecessary* journeys,
>>>>>>>>> I'm just thinking about possible *necessary* ones.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>>> ... over 100 miles to fetch it, especially when
>>>>>>>>>> it is possible, more practical and cheaper to get
>>>>>>>>>> whatever is needed courriered to the location.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> How would a courier get the document -- break into your home?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>>>> So is the journey therefore likely to be wholly,
>>>>>>>>>> necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I guess so.  Does that make a difference to
>>>>>>>>> the "personal incidental expenses" claim?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>>>> My point was that you can't legislate for every eventuallity.
>>>>>>>> They wrote this to cver whole journeys. That way it is
>>>>>>>> as fair as can be planned allowing for an average over
>>>>>>>> a period. The journey starts when you leave and finishs
>>>>>>>> when you return. You then divid the private expenditure
>>>>>>>> over the nights absent to get the average expenditure and
>>>>>>>> if its over the limit, the the whole amount is  taxable...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>>>> My point was that it isn't equivalent between
>>>>>>> one long trip, or two short trips (which have
>>>>>>> the same business effect as the one long one).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just seems strange...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For instance, do you think that people should be taxed
>>>>>>> different amounts (overall) if they receive £10,000pa from each
>>>>>>> of two part-time jobs, or £20,000pa from one full-time job?
>>>>>>> Those *are* currently taxed the same, and quite rightly so...
>>>>>>>
>>>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>>>> Completely different and irrelevant topic.
>>>>>
>>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>>> Can you elaborate on how you think it's different?
>>>>> Under both, two small things (two short trips
>>>>> or two p/t jobs) are being compared to one,
>>>>> equivalent, big thing (the long trip or the f/t job).
>>>>>
>>>>> I actually think it's a very fair comparison!
>>>>
>>> "Simon" wrote
>>>> Because both employments are taxable under the basic
>>>> chargeing provisions, as are the expenses in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> PIES's are exempt by virtue of Section 240 of the Income
>>>> Tax (Earnings  and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003)
>>>> which is secondary to the chargeing  provision and
>>>> hurdles have to be crossed to achieve the exemption.
>>>>
>>>> Section 240(4) ITEPA 2003 is outlned in the EIM at 2700
>>>> et seq A qualifying period is a continuous period throughout
>>>> which an employee has to stay away from home, including
>>>> at least one overnight stay away from home, and where the
>>>> expense of travelling qualifies for tax relief under the normal rules.
>>>>
>>>> The operative word here is continues. When you
>>>> return home, or to your place of employment, the
>>>> period is broken and a new period would commence
>>>> when the b=next qualifying period commences.
>>>>
>>>> However, as I said earlier, these circumstances are likely
>>>> to be rare, it is unlikely that these would be reported by
>>>> the employer, and under Risk Based Systems Audit's,
>>>> this is unlikely to be considered as a material failure.
>>>
>> "Tim" wrote
>>> That is just a (very comprehensive!) description of current
>>> legislation. What I was after, is *why* do you think
>>> the current legislation should differ like that between
>>> the two cases, when in fact they are quite similar?
>>>
> "Simon" wrote
>> I thought I was quite specific, because one falls within the main and
>> general charging provision and the other is a specific exemption
>> that requires a very limited set of circumstances to be met.
>
> I'm sorry, I'm still having trouble understanding your reason.
> Why should that mean that the "two smaller compared to one
> bigger" comparison should apply to one but not the other?
>
>
Because there is no comparison. The motivation behind a PIE is simply to 
provide an exemption for a cost that is incurred as a result of business 
travel but is not likely to satisfy S336 etc

Your scenario is simply someone getting two different taxable incomes from 
different sources.