there is a lack of clarity about what constitutes living accommodation, and when and how the exemptions apply; the exemptions are outdated: newer professions are not represented while it is hard to see why exemptions for some occupations still exist; as well as being outdated the exemptions appear arbitrary and can result in different tax treatment for employees in very similar jobs which creates complexity and unfairness; and calculating the value of the benefit is inherently difficult – requiring different systems depending on whether the accommodation was owned or rented by the employer and, if the accommodation is owned, there are a number of other variables which affect the taxable value of the accommodation. However, the OTS acknowledged that there was no easy solution and that simplification would best be achieved by reviewing the policy and all exemptions through public consultation. The government believes that the tax system should be fair, easy to understand (for both employers and employees) and simple to administer, but recognises that the complexity within the current rules means that this may not be the case for employer provided accommodation.
This call for evidence is therefore being published in response to the findings of the OTS and is intended to help the government understand:
the complexities employers currently face; who receives accommodation benefit and on what terms; what, if any, simplification could be delivered; and who may be impacted if steps were taken to make the system simpler and the treatment of employees in similar circumstances fairer.
The government will use the information gathered from this call for evidence when considering whether there is a case for making changes to deliver simplification in this area.
Closing date for comments is 3 February 2016.
CIPP comment The Policy Team will be reviewing this call for evidence and will issue a survey if appropriate in due course.
CIPP response to the HMT Travel and Subsistence: discussion paper 18 December 2015
The CIPP has submitted a written response to HM Treasury on the issues raised and proposed framework for the tax rules for travel and subsistence.
The submission looked to provide survey responses and commentary from a wide range of stakeholders within the Payroll Industry that will influence the policy development of the Tax rules for travel and subsistence costs that arise and that are reimbursed to employees by their employers as they travel within the course of their work.
Summary of key findings
The CIPP policy & research team ran a survey from 21 October through to 19 November 2015. The survey results can be found in appendix 1. From the survey we can see that support for the framework and principles discussed within this paper is evident, but, and as we would expect from members of our industry, we look forward to seeing the detail that will yet follow. The ongoing need for clear and detailed guidance is evident from many of the survey responses. Guidance needs to be produced that addresses the needs of different users such as employees, employers, software developers and technical writers. Different users also work to different timetables with software developers and technical writers/education sector requiring the longer lead in time. There is evidence that different industries/sectors have widely different decision making processes when it comes to the administration of their travel and subsistence policies. What is apparent from the survey responses is in certain sectors the employee has little choice but to comply. The decision to make a workplace within the home is not a matter of personal convenience or tax advantage for the employee.
Recommendations
CIPP Policy News Journal
25/04/2016, Page 150 of 453
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker