Private Car Mileage Allowance - Review Needed

gjd0496

Thanks for your input Lisyloo. To be honest the car is thirsty and I am in the process of getting a diesel to reduce my costs. At the moment I struggle to get 30MpG (Petrol). I do less than 10,000 a year, typically around the 5-6,000 mark, also the car is now 14 years old so its not what it was, if you know what I mean.
But I still go back to my original post which concerns the fact that the allowance needs to be reviewed. Sure it was generous to start with (as someone else pointed out) but now its borderline, or seems so in my case.

MrRedundant

The problem is people expect HMRC to offer generous rates to help support their luxury vehicles.
The AA have an area which analyses costs of owning a car and the mileage rates easily cover a car with a small engine etc.

The HMRC only reimburse wholly; exclusively and necessary expenses. The majority of people whinging about reimbursement rates in my view would struggle to prove any need for a large thirsty car and instead opt for these; in this instance why therefore should the HMRC; or their employers be forced to pay out higher rates than necessary.

If staff dont like the rates then use public transport or insist on the company sorting it out.

I have a 1.4 and my 40p a mile more than covers the running costs when I use it.

Putting up the rate would send out the wrong message.

BoGoF

There is no way the rate is going to go up, it would mean less tax receipts and the Government don't want that.

As has been said if you don't like it then don't use your car.

CLAPTON

gjd0496 wrote: »

Thanks for your input Lisyloo. To be honest the car is thirsty and I am in the process of getting a diesel to reduce my costs. At the moment I struggle to get 30MpG (Petrol). I do less than 10,000 a year, typically around the 5-6,000 mark, also the car is now 14 years old so its not what it was, if you know what I mean.
But I still go back to my original post which concerns the fact that the allowance needs to be reviewed. Sure it was generous to start with (as someone else pointed out) but now its borderline, or seems so in my case.

well you say you do 6,000 miles on business in a 14 year old car

so 40p at 6,000 = £2,400 HMRC allowance

you do 30mpg so thats 200 gallons at (say) £6.2pgallon = £1,250 approx

with a 14 old car depreciation must be zero
so you have £1,150 allowance to pay a SHARE of your tax, insurance and MOT

basically 40ppm is much more that it's costing you

once again your complaint is that your employer is only paying 25ppm; the taxpayer is treating you very well indeed.

chrismac1

I knew someone who was peeved at a stingy mileage system. So she started taking public transport to meetings - if they were early doors she was booking hotels which were perfectly claimable under her contract. This was a small company, but the result was that they started paying her a decent mileage rate because her late arrivals to meetings due to "wrong kind of snow" and the costs of her overnight bills - which, needless to say, she was maxxing out on - were just not worth the hassle. (Only try this method if you have been there more than 12 months!)

MrRedundant

chrismac1 wrote: »

I knew someone who was peeved at a stingy mileage system. So she started taking public transport to meetings - if they were early doors she was booking hotels which were perfectly claimable under her contract. This was a small company, but the result was that they started paying her a decent mileage rate because her late arrivals to meetings due to "wrong kind of snow" and the costs of her overnight bills - which, needless to say, she was maxxing out on - were just not worth the hassle. (Only try this method if you have been there more than 12 months!)

We have a few staff members like that. We are capable of managing them though.

It's very easily done. Meetings organised for 10am/11am giving time for travel; lateness a discliplinary offence and so on.

Clearly your friends employers where just too soft on deliberate misconduct.

CLAPTON

MrRedundant wrote: »

The problem is people expect HMRC to offer generous rates to help support their luxury vehicles.
The AA have an area which analyses costs of owning a car and the mileage rates easily cover a car with a small engine etc.

The HMRC only reimburse wholly; exclusively and necessary expenses. The majority of people whinging about reimbursement rates in my view would struggle to prove any need for a large thirsty car and instead opt for these; in this instance why therefore should the HMRC; or their employers be forced to pay out higher rates than necessary.

If staff dont like the rates then use public transport or insist on the company sorting it out.

I have a 1.4 and my 40p a mile more than covers the running costs when I use it.

Putting up the rate would send out the wrong message.

the HMRC don't reinburse 'wholly, exclusivley and necessary expenses'

in general they simply allow expenses to be offset against income for tax purposes

in the case of car mileage the test is whether the mileage is necessary and NOT the expenses themselves (i.e one of the many exceptions to their general rule)

lisyloo

The HMRC only reimburse wholly; exclusively and necessary expenses. The majority of people whinging about reimbursement rates in my view would struggle to prove any need for a large thirsty car and instead opt for these; in this instance why therefore should the HMRC; or their employers be forced to pay out higher rates than necessary.

If staff dont like the rates then use public transport or insist on the company sorting it out.

This is pretty much spot on.

or their employers be forced to pay out higher rates than necessary

Well there is an argument here that the employer is asking to use YOUR car, not one they are providing.
I used to have a Subaru for hot air ballooning. It needed to be 4x4 and be able to tow a trailer for MY purposes.
If a company want to use MY car which was not deisgned or purchased as a company car then they should compensate me for MY costs or supply a different vehicle.
I've never had an issue as my employers have always been reasonable and now I don't have a car anyway.
The people in my company who don't have cars or have a wife that needs the car, don't have an issue.
We either get the train, get chaffeured (if out of train hours and jetlagged) or hire a car. It's not that difficult and often not more expensive.

opinions4u

I have a habit of buying brand new medium sized family cars.

1994 I paid £11,995
1997 I paid £10,999
2000 I paid £12,020
2007 I paid £10,995

Very similar cars each time.

I think it's fair to say that one key capital cost of motoring hasn't change greatly over the last few years - the depreciation costs are very similar.

Gas_Powered_Toothbrush

gjd0496 wrote: »

(Just a thought but perhaps I should charge HMRC interest until they pay me back, as they would certainly charge me if I owed them money?)

Just a small point, but you'll automatically get interest added if the refund's paid after 31st January following the end of the tax year in question. Which is the same time cutoff after which HMRC charge interest if you owe them.