1. The car is on loan to the office of Chancellor, not to Gordon Brown. Big difference.
2. It's a loan, not part of GB's employment package.
3. It would make us look just great if our Ministers turned up at world summits in rusty old Austin Metros. So they use rusty new Jags and Rovers instead.
4. Gordon Brown could do much better in car and cash terms if he was director of a bank.
5. Cabinet Ministers get official cars, but not a company car that they can use as they see fit.
6. This whole thread is starting to display signs of the British disease in which we bicker about anyone in authority or in a position of influence on our behalf, and then mutter about disloyalty when they clear off to work for someone else who treats them better. Watch Sven go.
|
This is a complicated area but basically the position is as follows:
Generally the provision of an asset or a service to an employee is taxable on that employee, the fact that the car is loaned to the employees employer rather than to him personally is irrelevant, if he uses it and gets to use it because of his employment then it is taxable on him.
However, employees are not taxable where the provision of an asset or service is related to security requirements that arise due to their employment. For example GB has special branch agents to accompany him on his travels and the cost of this service is not regarded as a taxable benefit, similarly GB lives in 10 Downing Street rent free (secure accomodation). Presumably the arguement is made that the Chancellor must use secure transport (ie a car with guards in it) and therefore the cost of such is not taxable on him.
Certainly I can not see the Inland Revenue taking up the issue!
|
|
Thanks for clearing that up Thommo. But are they employees in the conventional sense (i.e. in the same sense as the civil servants)?
|
"But are they employees in the conventional sense"
We pay them, we employ them. Tax the dogs!
If you follow your line to its conclusion, they shouldn't pay income tax.
I make no apology for calling them dogs. If you or I obtain money by deception, we end up in jail. Yet said dogs can deceive us all they like to justify taxation.
Bark.
Bark, again............
|
|
As far as I know they do pay tax on their income. What I was getting at was that the ministerial cars may not be linked to their "employment" in the same way as if you or I (heaven forbid) apply for a job and the negotiated salary is "30K OTE plus car." The cars carry them on government business, but are not really anything to do with them. They can't say, "Bring my car round, I'm off down the pub for a half, and a sandwich, and a game of arrows," for instance, in the same way as Company Vectra Man can. Finally I don't think there's any evidence at all that Gordon Brown has obtained money or favours by deception or in any way illegally.
|
"I don't think there's any evidence at all that Gordon Brown has obtained money or favours by deception or in any way illegally."
That's my point. It's legalised theft.
If you want an example, industry and motorists lumbered with environmental taxes because they're vital to save the planet.
No they're not. Lie used to justify tax. Obtaining money by deception. Jail the lot of them.
Bark again...............
|
|
|
|
We are probably doing this to death but to cover off the point:
Any employee can claim this exemption (and GB is an employee of HM's Government) but they need to prove a TERRORIST threat. I set out the details below.
The security asset or service is provided for or used by the employee to meet a special threat to his personal physical security.
That threat arises wholly or mainly by virtue of the particular employment he holds.
The person providing the security measures (or reimbursing their cost) has the meeting of that threat as his sole object.
In the case of a security service, the benefit to the employee consists wholly or mainly of an improvement of his personal physical security.
In the case of a security asset (ie a car), the provider intends it to be used solely to improve the employee’s personal physical security.
These conditions are tightly drawn. The deduction is intended for people whose work exposes them to a very real threat to their physical safety from terrorists, extremists and others who may resort to violence. It follows that a deduction cannot be given for:
security measures against the kind of general criminal threat which all citizens may face to a greater or lesser degree, for example, when travelling home late from work or expenditure incurred primarily to meet a threat to property (including cash and other personal belongings) or security measures taken against a threat unconnected with a person’s employment.
|
|
Whilst Grabbing Gordon is hardly very popular with the man on the Clapham omnibus, I would hesitate to class him as a prime terrorist target.
|
|
|
|
|
"...GB lives in 10 Downing Street...."
I thought TB and GB didn't get on??
Yes yes I know it's a typo...
|
|
No it's not. GB really does live in No.10, which has tiny accommodation and a lot of office space. No.11 is a family house.
|
|
|
|
|
I quite like the idea of ministers using cars of this vintage as official transport. Make a change from an anonymous modern day Rover.
They could go back to wearing top hats and tails as well.
But a French car?
I think a Bentley or Rolls Royce of the same age would be much more suitable.
|
"But a French car?
I think a Bentley or Rolls Royce of the same age would be much more suitable."
Nah, we're all part of the Union now, haven't you noticed?
|
|
|
French?
Last time I checked Bugatti was Italian.
|
Bentley and Rolls Royce are both German for those of you still living in the past...:-)
madf
|
|
Jonathan - Ettore Bugatti, the founder of Bugatti, was Italian, but the Bugatti company was French.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The chauffeur-driven limo is still the ministerial perk that is most sought after by those who haven't got it (and mourned by those who once had it)...
|
|
|
|
