That's Office of Tax Simplification for those that don't already know.

Their report is linked from he

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ots_taxreliefsreview.htm

and they have asked for comments upon their methodology for a number of
"test" cases.

The one that concerns me (just in the general sense, not because I have an
interest in it) is "Exemption from benefit charge for late night taxis"
which they have slated for abolition on the (if I read it right) grounds of:

1) relatively complex administrative procedure (for the claimants)
2) lack of availability to people who "normally" work unsociable hours.

ISTM that they have grossly overestimated the administrative burden on
employers by implying that the company will have to make difficult decisions
about what qualifies and keep detailed records. I doubt that any company
bother with any aggro over record keeping. They will just pay this expense
out of petty cash and forget about it. And the decision will be a simple
switch - "Has the last train/bus gone"? For those companies that use this
relief it seems that there will be a greater administrative burden on
companies by its abolition that by keeping it

As to their (contrived) example about the benefit not being available to a
person whose shift finishes at 2am they have neglected to take into account
that someone who does this will have rearranged their life to fit. If a
normal 9-5 person works until 2am one day they will still (often) be
expected to be back in their office at 9 the next morning, but the person
who works regular night shifts will have rearranged their life so that they
do not have morning commitments. Thus there is a greater imperative for the
occasion late worker to get home in a timely manner whereas the shift worker
can go home by whatever public transport is available with the resultant
arrival time not affecting them unduly.

What do others think?

As I said, I'm not the slightest bit interested in this relief, but I am
concerned that they may continue to use what I see as flawed examples" to
abolish a relief that I am interested in. So do others think that this
analysis is flawed?

tim

"tim...." wrote in message
...
That's Office of Tax Simplification for those that don't already
know.

Their report is linked from he

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ots_taxreliefsreview.htm

and they have asked for comments upon their methodology for a number
of "test" cases.

The one that concerns me (just in the general sense, not because I
have an interest in it) is "Exemption from benefit charge for late
night taxis" which they have slated for abolition on the (if I read
it right) grounds of:

1) relatively complex administrative procedure (for the claimants)
2) lack of availability to people who "normally" work unsociable
hours.

ISTM that they have grossly overestimated the administrative burden
on employers by implying that the company will have to make
difficult decisions about what qualifies and keep detailed records.
I doubt that any company bother with any aggro over record keeping.
They will just pay this expense out of petty cash and forget about
it. And the decision will be a simple switch - "Has the last
train/bus gone"? For those companies that use this relief it seems
that there will be a greater administrative burden on companies by
its abolition that by keeping it

Most companies will have a "taxable expenses" claim procedure - for
example it'd be used if an employee comes in at the weekend on
overtime, as the travel to work is an additional expense to the
employee but is not tax deductable. The claim will usually be paid in
salary grossed up by the employee's marginal tax/NI rate.

As to their (contrived) example about the benefit not being
available to a person whose shift finishes at 2am they have
neglected to take into account that someone who does this will have
rearranged their life to fit. If a normal 9-5 person works until
2am one day they will still (often) be expected to be back in their
office at 9 the next morning,

No they wouldn't - it would be illegal for the employer to expect this
as it would contravene the working time directive (minimum of 11 hours
off each working day).

but the person who works regular night shifts will have rearranged
their life so that they do not have morning commitments. Thus there
is a greater imperative for the occasion late worker to get home in
a timely manner whereas the shift worker can go home by whatever
public transport is available with the resultant arrival time not
affecting them unduly.

How much public transport runs at 2am?

What do others think?

As I said, I'm not the slightest bit interested in this relief, but
I am concerned that they may continue to use what I see as flawed
examples" to abolish a relief that I am interested in. So do others
think that this analysis is flawed?

Not really. Employers are free to pay for such things via salary as
above.

--
Andy

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

"tim...." wrote in message
...
That's Office of Tax Simplification for those that don't already know.

Their report is linked from he

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ots_taxreliefsreview.htm

and they have asked for comments upon their methodology for a number of
"test" cases.

The one that concerns me (just in the general sense, not because I have
an interest in it) is "Exemption from benefit charge for late night
taxis" which they have slated for abolition on the (if I read it right)
grounds of:

1) relatively complex administrative procedure (for the claimants)
2) lack of availability to people who "normally" work unsociable hours.

ISTM that they have grossly overestimated the administrative burden on
employers by implying that the company will have to make difficult
decisions about what qualifies and keep detailed records. I doubt that
any company bother with any aggro over record keeping. They will just pay
this expense out of petty cash and forget about it. And the decision
will be a simple switch - "Has the last train/bus gone"? For those
companies that use this relief it seems that there will be a greater
administrative burden on companies by its abolition that by keeping it

Most companies will have a "taxable expenses" claim procedure - for
example it'd be used if an employee comes in at the weekend on overtime,
as the travel to work is an additional expense to the employee but is not
tax deductable. The claim will usually be paid in salary grossed up by the
employee's marginal tax/NI rate.

You work in some strange companies.

I have never worked for one who will refund my fares in this instance.

As to their (contrived) example about the benefit not being available to
a person whose shift finishes at 2am they have neglected to take into
account that someone who does this will have rearranged their life to
fit. If a normal 9-5 person works until 2am one day they will still
(often) be expected to be back in their office at 9 the next morning,

No they wouldn't - it would be illegal for the employer to expect this as
it would contravene the working time directive (minimum of 11 hours off
each working day).

I know what the WTD says about this, but the reality is that for a one-off
you will be expected back in work (to "present" the work that necessitated
you staying until 2 in the morning in the first place).


but the person who works regular night shifts will have rearranged their
life so that they do not have morning commitments. Thus there is a
greater imperative for the occasion late worker to get home in a timely
manner whereas the shift worker can go home by whatever public transport
is available with the resultant arrival time not affecting them unduly.

How much public transport runs at 2am?

There's a perfectly usable night bus network in London - you just have to
wait a bit longer at the stop than you might like.

ISTM that London is the only place where this comparison applies because for
most other places your "overnight" NMW workers will likely live close enough
to make other arrangements.


What do others think?

As I said, I'm not the slightest bit interested in this relief, but I am
concerned that they may continue to use what I see as flawed examples" to
abolish a relief that I am interested in. So do others think that this
analysis is flawed?

Not really. Employers are free to pay for such things via salary as above.

I know that they are, but that misses the point completely

tim

"tim...." wrote in message
...

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

"tim...." wrote in message
...
That's Office of Tax Simplification for those that don't already
know.

Their report is linked from he

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ots_taxreliefsreview.htm

and they have asked for comments upon their methodology for a
number of "test" cases.

The one that concerns me (just in the general sense, not because I
have an interest in it) is "Exemption from benefit charge for late
night taxis" which they have slated for abolition on the (if I
read it right) grounds of:

1) relatively complex administrative procedure (for the claimants)
2) lack of availability to people who "normally" work unsociable
hours.

ISTM that they have grossly overestimated the administrative
burden on employers by implying that the company will have to make
difficult decisions about what qualifies and keep detailed
records. I doubt that any company bother with any aggro over
record keeping. They will just pay this expense out of petty cash
and forget about it. And the decision will be a simple switch -
"Has the last train/bus gone"? For those companies that use this
relief it seems that there will be a greater administrative burden
on companies by its abolition that by keeping it

Most companies will have a "taxable expenses" claim procedure - for
example it'd be used if an employee comes in at the weekend on
overtime, as the travel to work is an additional expense to the
employee but is not tax deductable. The claim will usually be paid
in salary grossed up by the employee's marginal tax/NI rate.

You work in some strange companies.

I have never worked for one who will refund my fares in this
instance.

I've worked for companies that generally treat employees fairly and I
would expect that if I come in on overtime at the request of the
company, and incur additional cost in doing so, then the company
should reimburse me. Why do you think this is "strange"?

As to their (contrived) example about the benefit not being
available to a person whose shift finishes at 2am they have
neglected to take into account that someone who does this will
have rearranged their life to fit. If a normal 9-5 person works
until 2am one day they will still (often) be expected to be back
in their office at 9 the next morning,

No they wouldn't - it would be illegal for the employer to expect
this as it would contravene the working time directive (minimum of
11 hours off each working day).

I know what the WTD says about this, but the reality is that for a
one-off you will be expected back in work

The reality is that it would just as illegal for the company to expect
this as it would be to pay the taxi fare out of petty cash and falsely
account for it.

It seems it's *you* who've worked for some strange, dodgy companies
who want to ignore the law.

(to "present" the work that necessitated you staying until 2 in the
morning in the first place).

The work wouldn't necessarily need "presenting". It could be an urgent
support issue, it could be anything like a report which simply needed
to be ready by first thing and could be emailed etc.

but the person who works regular night shifts will have rearranged
their life so that they do not have morning commitments. Thus
there is a greater imperative for the occasion late worker to get
home in a timely manner whereas the shift worker can go home by
whatever public transport is available with the resultant arrival
time not affecting them unduly.

How much public transport runs at 2am?

There's a perfectly usable night bus network in London - you just
have to wait a bit longer at the stop than you might like.

Which runs to everywhere London office works live? Say a village 20
miles outside London?

ISTM that London is the only place where this comparison applies
because for most other places your "overnight" NMW workers will
likely live close enough to make other arrangements.

I work in Manchester and most of my colleagues travel 20-30 miles to
get to work. They'd have no chance of getting home by public transport
at 2am.

What do others think?

As I said, I'm not the slightest bit interested in this relief,
but I am concerned that they may continue to use what I see as
flawed examples" to abolish a relief that I am interested in. So
do others think that this analysis is flawed?

Not really. Employers are free to pay for such things via salary as
above.

I know that they are, but that misses the point completely

The point being that tax breaks should exist for companies who act
illegally?

--
Andy

On Dec 15, 9:50*am, "tim...." wrote:
If a normal 9-5 person works until 2am one day they will still
(often) be expected to be back in their office at 9 the next morning

Indeed.

Ex #1.
Person works to 2am to get benchmarking tests to USA (time difference
remember). Company buys them pizza, expected to be in at 9am the
following morning. Door locked behind them at 2am, "your problem".
(Citrix).

Ex #2.
Person interviewed for position, told they will be expected to work
unpaid most weekends, when asked about how they get home & sleep they
are told to just bring a sleeping bag. When they ask clarification on
what actual hours are worked the interview ends, when they complain to
the university they get a "your references are inadequate" by a
different company (BT) handed to them by the head of department rather
than through the post. The head of department was a director of the
company they complained about and ex BT! Even better is when they
challenged the head of department he replied "you are not supposed to
figure that out". (LSI & Loughborough).

Ex #3.
Person lands from USA at 2am, reminded to be at their desk at 9am by
text and expected to entertain staff that evening. Hilariously
"entertain staff" blew up in the companies face when the client met by
a staggering young woman demanded furiously to see where they were
living after they refused to take the client home, lets say the
sleeping bag gives a clue. The person ended up with over £6,000 in
unrecovered expenses when they left and had £5 notes thrown at them on
the railway station as pocket money. She got of lightly, others told
there were 2 people, 1 job and a weekly score on hours overtime etc,
with the result that brake lines were cut to make the competitor late
for meetings. (Arthur Andersen, defunct).

Ex #4.
Person works 7am - 9pm M-Sat with some Sunday, only if they do this
for 2 years are they promoted onto the graduate training scheme which
they found out was the same work. They must sign that they worked
9am-5:30pm. You are expected to arrive on a bike, live in a sleeping
bag. (BAe, who else).

Ex #5.
Person collected by manager on Saturday, sacked if they refuse to come
into work Sat & Sun to do their accounts, live in a manager owned
house at full rent with 1yr contract in an area where finding another
job able to cover the rent is not easy. (BAA).

Ex #6.
The company who boasted about what it could get away with, to unknown
to them the son of a Schroder's IB, and paid the price for doing so.
The Lotus Elise became a very popular choice for those who escaped
from it and wanted to put as much distance from it as possible.
(Logica, who else).

Ex #7.
Employees at life insurance, investment bank & car insurance told
training is outside working hours and sleeping bags provided. At the
life insurer training turned out to be the exact same job as during
the day, oddly enough, unpaid 5pm to midnight and a nice new jag for
the trainer & another property in the managers portfolio full of
company graduates of course. Fire Officer investigating hence not
named.

That is colleagues, put together we could list about 100 from other
people we know. Working Time Directive (after Arthur Anderson
incident) is a squirt from windscreen wipers on Buncastle. It covers
universities, civil service, charities, private schools (charitable
trusts) and small to major companies.

Are years out included?
Unpaid, unlimited hours, expenses refunded only at end of period, thus
far the diploma of professional studies can not be awarded because the
project is of an "insufficient academic value". That is what happens
when the employee's credit card is used for the private spending of
the employer and "we will refund you later" (Bournemouth).

Employers will sink to the lowest level when they know staff have
nowhere else to go.
The problem is, the UK sinks to the lowest level when global recovery
brings staff an alternative & plane ticket.

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

"tim...." wrote in message
...

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

"tim...." wrote in message
...
That's Office of Tax Simplification for those that don't already know.

Their report is linked from he

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ots_taxreliefsreview.htm

and they have asked for comments upon their methodology for a number of
"test" cases.

The one that concerns me (just in the general sense, not because I have
an interest in it) is "Exemption from benefit charge for late night
taxis" which they have slated for abolition on the (if I read it right)
grounds of:

1) relatively complex administrative procedure (for the claimants)
2) lack of availability to people who "normally" work unsociable hours.

ISTM that they have grossly overestimated the administrative burden on
employers by implying that the company will have to make difficult
decisions about what qualifies and keep detailed records. I doubt that
any company bother with any aggro over record keeping. They will just
pay this expense out of petty cash and forget about it. And the
decision will be a simple switch - "Has the last train/bus gone"? For
those companies that use this relief it seems that there will be a
greater administrative burden on companies by its abolition that by
keeping it

Most companies will have a "taxable expenses" claim procedure - for
example it'd be used if an employee comes in at the weekend on overtime,
as the travel to work is an additional expense to the employee but is
not tax deductable. The claim will usually be paid in salary grossed up
by the employee's marginal tax/NI rate.

You work in some strange companies.

I have never worked for one who will refund my fares in this instance.

I've worked for companies that generally treat employees fairly and I
would expect that if I come in on overtime at the request of the company,
and incur additional cost in doing so, then the company should reimburse
me. Why do you think this is "strange"?

Because most companies would expect you to take "today's" travel costs out
of "today's" pay.

That's how it works M-F, why should Saturday be any different

As to their (contrived) example about the benefit not being available
to a person whose shift finishes at 2am they have neglected to take
into account that someone who does this will have rearranged their life
to fit. If a normal 9-5 person works until 2am one day they will still
(often) be expected to be back in their office at 9 the next morning,

No they wouldn't - it would be illegal for the employer to expect this
as it would contravene the working time directive (minimum of 11 hours
off each working day).

I know what the WTD says about this, but the reality is that for a
one-off you will be expected back in work

The reality is that it would just as illegal for the company to expect
this as it would be to pay the taxi fare out of petty cash and falsely
account for it.

It seems it's *you* who've worked for some strange, dodgy companies who
want to ignore the law.

Perhaps. They are usually called American or Japanese companies :-(.

I'm only telling you how it is, IME. And we are talking professional
people, who could reasonably be expected to "know their rights". The sort
of people who will see their career progression come to an abrupt end if
they refuse to work the hours requested, law or no law.


(to "present" the work that necessitated you staying until 2 in the
morning in the first place).

The work wouldn't necessarily need "presenting". It could be an urgent
support issue, it could be anything like a report which simply needed to
be ready by first thing and could be emailed etc.

It could, be it might not be.


but the person who works regular night shifts will have rearranged
their life so that they do not have morning commitments. Thus there is
a greater imperative for the occasion late worker to get home in a
timely manner whereas the shift worker can go home by whatever public
transport is available with the resultant arrival time not affecting
them unduly.

How much public transport runs at 2am?

There's a perfectly usable night bus network in London - you just have to
wait a bit longer at the stop than you might like.
Which runs to everywhere London office works live? Say a village 20
miles outside London?

ISTM that London is the only place where this comparison applies because
for most other places your "overnight" NMW workers will likely live close
enough to make other arrangements.

I work in Manchester and most of my colleagues travel 20-30 miles to get
to work. They'd have no chance of getting home by public transport at 2am.

QED. So why should they have too pay for a taxi out of earned income if
they are forced to work that late?

Which IS what will happen if this relief is withdrawn.

What do others think?

As I said, I'm not the slightest bit interested in this relief, but I
am concerned that they may continue to use what I see as flawed
examples" to abolish a relief that I am interested in. So do others
think that this analysis is flawed?

Not really. Employers are free to pay for such things via salary as
above.

I know that they are, but that misses the point completely

The point being that tax breaks should exist for companies who act
illegally?

Not at all.

That the withdrawal of the relief should be based upon the criteria that the
OTS set down.

I don't believe that they have done that and I don't think that your replies
addressed that point at all

tim

"tim...." wrote in message
...

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

"tim...." wrote in message
...

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

"tim...." wrote in message
...
That's Office of Tax Simplification for those that don't already
know.

Their report is linked from he

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ots_taxreliefsreview.htm

and they have asked for comments upon their methodology for a
number of "test" cases.

The one that concerns me (just in the general sense, not because
I have an interest in it) is "Exemption from benefit charge for
late night taxis" which they have slated for abolition on the
(if I read it right) grounds of:

1) relatively complex administrative procedure (for the
claimants)
2) lack of availability to people who "normally" work unsociable
hours.

ISTM that they have grossly overestimated the administrative
burden on employers by implying that the company will have to
make difficult decisions about what qualifies and keep detailed
records. I doubt that any company bother with any aggro over
record keeping. They will just pay this expense out of petty
cash and forget about it. And the decision will be a simple
switch - "Has the last train/bus gone"? For those companies
that use this relief it seems that there will be a greater
administrative burden on companies by its abolition that by
keeping it

Most companies will have a "taxable expenses" claim procedure -
for example it'd be used if an employee comes in at the weekend
on overtime, as the travel to work is an additional expense to
the employee but is not tax deductable. The claim will usually be
paid in salary grossed up by the employee's marginal tax/NI rate.

You work in some strange companies.

I have never worked for one who will refund my fares in this
instance.

I've worked for companies that generally treat employees fairly and
I would expect that if I come in on overtime at the request of the
company, and incur additional cost in doing so, then the company
should reimburse me. Why do you think this is "strange"?

Because most companies would expect you to take "today's" travel
costs out of "today's" pay.

That's how it works M-F, why should Saturday be any different

For similar reasons to your "occasional" late night worker. People
make arrangements for their normal working hours transport, for
instance they may share a lift with colleagues, their spouse may drop
them off on the way to their work etc. Public transport may be
different at weekends, I used to live in a village where there's no
trains on Sundays for instance, without a car the only option would be
a taxi (or a very long walk).

As to their (contrived) example about the benefit not being
available to a person whose shift finishes at 2am they have
neglected to take into account that someone who does this will
have rearranged their life to fit. If a normal 9-5 person works
until 2am one day they will still (often) be expected to be back
in their office at 9 the next morning,

No they wouldn't - it would be illegal for the employer to expect
this as it would contravene the working time directive (minimum
of 11 hours off each working day).

I know what the WTD says about this, but the reality is that for a
one-off you will be expected back in work

The reality is that it would just as illegal for the company to
expect this as it would be to pay the taxi fare out of petty cash
and falsely account for it.

It seems it's *you* who've worked for some strange, dodgy companies
who want to ignore the law.

Perhaps. They are usually called American or Japanese companies
:-(.

I'm only telling you how it is, IME. And we are talking
professional people, who could reasonably be expected to "know their
rights". The sort of people who will see their career progression
come to an abrupt end if they refuse to work the hours requested,
law or no law.

And in some careers you might not get anywhere unless you sleep with
the boss. Does that provide a justification for tax relief on condoms?

It's ridiculous to use the fact that some companies think the law of
the land doesn't apply to them to justify tax reliefs.

(to "present" the work that necessitated you staying until 2 in
the morning in the first place).

The work wouldn't necessarily need "presenting". It could be an
urgent support issue, it could be anything like a report which
simply needed to be ready by first thing and could be emailed etc.

It could, be it might not be.


but the person who works regular night shifts will have
rearranged their life so that they do not have morning
commitments. Thus there is a greater imperative for the
occasion late worker to get home in a timely manner whereas the
shift worker can go home by whatever public transport is
available with the resultant arrival time not affecting them
unduly.

How much public transport runs at 2am?

There's a perfectly usable night bus network in London - you just
have to wait a bit longer at the stop than you might like.
Which runs to everywhere London office works live? Say a village
20
miles outside London?

ISTM that London is the only place where this comparison applies
because for most other places your "overnight" NMW workers will
likely live close enough to make other arrangements.

I work in Manchester and most of my colleagues travel 20-30 miles
to get to work. They'd have no chance of getting home by public
transport at 2am.

QED. So why should they have too pay for a taxi out of earned
income if they are forced to work that late?

Which IS what will happen if this relief is withdrawn.

Not in my company. We'd claim it as taxable expenses as above, and the
company would more than willingly pay it in gratitude for such
dedication.

What do others think?

As I said, I'm not the slightest bit interested in this relief,
but I am concerned that they may continue to use what I see as
flawed examples" to abolish a relief that I am interested in.
So do others think that this analysis is flawed?

Not really. Employers are free to pay for such things via salary
as above.

I know that they are, but that misses the point completely

The point being that tax breaks should exist for companies who act
illegally?

Not at all.

That the withdrawal of the relief should be based upon the criteria
that the OTS set down.

I don't believe that they have done that and I don't think that your
replies addressed that point at all

One of the criteria is "complex to administer". Clearly it's far
simpler to have a rule that travel to usual place of work is not tax
deductible, period, than it is to have a rule that for some people, in
some circumstances, travel is tax deductible, eg depending on whether
the last bus has gone or not. For a company with an expenses
dispensation, whoever signs it off would need to check the bus/train
timetables against the timed taxi receipt, or risk signing off a
ineligible claim and putting the company's expenses dispensation at
risk.

--
Andy

tim.... wrote:

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

I work in Manchester and most of my colleagues travel 20-30 miles to get
to work. They'd have no chance of getting home by public transport at
2am.

QED. So why should they have too pay for a taxi out of earned income if
they are forced to work that late?

Because it's their own choice that they live so far away from work, and
because they knew what they signed up for, and because the normal tax rule
is that commuting does not qualify as an expense.

Which IS what will happen if this relief is withdrawn.

It might not. The employer might, in addition to whatever bonus payment
has been agreed for the overtime (which of course is also taxable - would
you argue that it should not be?), boost it by enough that the *net* amount
after tax and NI would cover the taxi fare.

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

I work in Manchester and most of my colleagues travel 20-30 miles to get
to work. They'd have no chance of getting home by public transport at
2am.

QED. So why should they have too pay for a taxi out of earned income if
they are forced to work that late?

Which IS what will happen if this relief is withdrawn.

Not in my company. We'd claim it as taxable expenses as above, and the
company would more than willingly pay it in gratitude for such dedication.

I think you are very lucky.

Every company that I have worked for have the policy of: it an expense isn't
available as "non taxable" then it "isn't allowed".

What do others think?

As I said, I'm not the slightest bit interested in this relief, but I
am concerned that they may continue to use what I see as flawed
examples" to abolish a relief that I am interested in. So do others
think that this analysis is flawed?

Not really. Employers are free to pay for such things via salary as
above.

I know that they are, but that misses the point completely

The point being that tax breaks should exist for companies who act
illegally?

Not at all.

That the withdrawal of the relief should be based upon the criteria that
the OTS set down.

I don't believe that they have done that and I don't think that your
replies addressed that point at all

One of the criteria is "complex to administer". Clearly it's far simpler
to have a rule that travel to usual place of work is not tax deductible,
period, than it is to have a rule that for some people, in some
circumstances, travel is tax deductible, eg depending on whether the last
bus has gone or not. For a company with an expenses dispensation, whoever
signs it off would need to check the bus/train timetables against the
timed taxi receipt, or risk signing off a ineligible claim and putting the
company's expenses dispensation at risk.

But you aren't making it less complex to administer if you move it from:
"fill in a self created form and it is available without affecting anyone's
tax status" to "if we pay this expense, we are going to have to enter the
world of 'paying the tax charge on it'" for a company that never otherwise
makes payments to staff on which they (the company) pay the tax charge.

tim

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
...
tim.... wrote:

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message
...

I work in Manchester and most of my colleagues travel 20-30 miles to get
to work. They'd have no chance of getting home by public transport at
2am.

QED. So why should they have too pay for a taxi out of earned income if
they are forced to work that late?

Because it's their own choice that they live so far away from work, and
because they knew what they signed up for, and because the normal tax rule
is that commuting does not qualify as an expense.

But it's not normal commuting if you go home by train (normally) at 5
o'clock and you are forced to stay at work until midnight after the last
train has gone.

In any case, as I (hope) I have stated this is not a criteria upon which
they are assessing reliefs.

Which IS what will happen if this relief is withdrawn.

It might not. The employer might, in addition to whatever bonus payment
has been agreed for the overtime (which of course is also taxable - would
you argue that it should not be?)

of course not :-(

, boost it by enough that the *net* amount
after tax and NI would cover the taxi fare.

The sort of company that I work for wouldn't even consider this.

tim