Payroll
commuting journey.” It then refers to a ‘ten-mile rule’ which must be the most misunderstood aspect of the 1998 travel rules. Essentially, when suspecting that an employee has tried to convert a private journey, i.e. commuting, into a business journey, namely, travel to a temporary workplace followed by travel to the normal workplace, this rule may have application. However, HMRC states that it will not seek to challenge any scenario where the journey to a temporary workplace is ten (or more) miles longer than the ordinary commuting journey. It appears that employers are prone to the misinterpretation that, unless a journey to a temporary workplace is at least ten miles longer than the ordinary commute, then no claim should be permitted. This would clearly be an inaccurate reading of the rules relating to ‘broadly equivalent’ journeys. Where HMRC stipulates a ‘safeguard against abuse’ rule, it means that it reserves the right to investigate further and recover any falsely claimed tax relief. However, where an employee is clearly acting in good faith in making a claim based on a clear and accurate travel policy, then a ten-mile rule becomes
irrelevant. In determining whether any journey could be broadly equivalent to the ordinary commute, the claimant must take account of where they start the journey, how many miles they need to travel to get to the temporary workplace and whether the temporary workplace is situated in the vicinity of the normal workplace. The example of Keith, as described above, is
journey was made with the intention of abusing the travel rules; in other words, the journey to Long Eaton was not necessary and the claimant had merely been seeking tax relief on an ordinary commuting journey. Returning to the changes to mileage policy as set out by the Police Consultative Forum’s Memorandum of Understanding and accompanying Appendix B, unfortunately it appears that the ‘broadly equivalent’ rules may have been misunderstood. As a result, Forces must now introduce a revised travel policy, for a 1 June 2020 implementation, based on an overly onerous interpretation or else ignore the examples in Appendix B and set about the policy revisions based on a more commonsense approach. This second option would seem to be preferable, especially in a sector where clearly defined and straightforward rules are part of everyday working life and ‘abuse’ of them shouldn’t be a feature. A concise and clear policy based on an accurate interpretation of the tax travel rules equals timely and accurate claims by staff, and an easier life in human resources and payroll. n
...introduce a revised travel
self-explanatory. Had Keith been travelling from home in Leicester to Long Eaton, a temporary workplace, his employer would be quite correct in paying his claim for mileage tax/NICs free, irrespective of the fact that Long Eaton is around seven miles from Nottingham (and the journey is shorter than his normal commute). The only exception to this position would be if the policy, for a 1 June 2020 implementation...
PAYROLL AND HR LEGISLATION UPDATE 50% DISCOUNT FOR CIPP MEMBERS *
Currently being delivered
via virtual classroom
One day
Updated every seven days ** 7
This focused course represents the single best opportunity to be briefed and updated on changes affecting payroll.
This course covers: ● The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) and other developments as a result of Covid-19 ● Tax and NI contributions ● Operating Pay As You Earn (PAYE)
● Statutory pay and leave ● Statutory deductions ● Expenses and benefits ● Pension ● Employment rights and other matters
Book online at cipp.org.uk/training or email enquiries@cipp.org.uk for more information.
cipp.org.uk @CIPP_UK
cipp.org.uk CIPP_UK
* Terms and conditions apply. ** Correct at time of publication. Course materials checked and updated every seven days.
35
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward |
Issue 62 | July/August 2020
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker