Having to pay for gym membership when you work there

BurnsieUK

whitewing wrote: »

Just being nosy rather than being able to offer assistance: do/did all employees of the uni get it free, or just those who actually worked in the gym?

no, it was just those employed by the sports department

zfrl

BurnsieUK wrote: »

we are not... think most will take a membership at a different gym. but then the management team will start moaning when we are not great at using the equipment in our gym due to not being able to use it "properly"

Don't you have training on how to use the equipment.

BurnsieUK

zfrl wrote: »

Don't you have training on how to use the equipment.

hahaha, no. But you have to have qualifications to work there. Most of the equipment is the same...a dumbbell is just a dumbbell for example. Again, its more about using the equipment in the real world, feel how a circuit is working etc

Don’t get me wrong, the whole point of this thread is not that we shouldn’t have to pay, its that we don’t want to pay.

Pennywise

I'm not sure there is a taxable benefit at all.

It's not costing the employer anything to provide it so on a "marginal cost" basis, there's no cost, so therefore no taxable benefit.

I'd liken it to staff meals in a cafe or restaurant. They don't get taxed on the normal selling price - they get taxed on the "marginal cost" - i.e. the cost of the food or drink to the employer. If the staff eat the leftovers etc there's no cost as the food would be destroyed, so no taxable benefit.

In the case of a gym, it costs the employer nothing for a member of staff to use it, so no taxable benefit in kind.

I think the the employer is simply blaming HMRC rules so that they can make the staff pay to use the gym. Not HMRC rules, but rather the employer wanting to get more income and not wanting to take the blame.

Look on the HMRC webpage re the Pepper V Hart case:-

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim21110.htm

BurnsieUK

also, as the deaprtment makes up the prices for membership (for different levels of member ie staff of uni, student of uni, general public) could it not set a new "low cost" one for the department staff?

getmore4less

If you are employed by the university and only gym personel get the free ride then that could be taxable.


Just work over time for no pay when you want to use the equipment.

System

getmore4less wrote: »

If you are employed by the university and only gym personel get the free ride then that could be taxable.

That's the key I think - to be non-taxable it has to be available to all employees. If you were employed by the gym it would be different.

But there must be special rules for large organisations with lots of branches?
It would be absurd if thousands of employees across the UK all turned up at one branch canteen.

CTA_2

getmore4less wrote: »

If you are employed by the university and only gym personel get the free ride then that could be taxable.


Just work over time for no pay when you want to use the equipment.

HMRC's stated opinion on this is that an employee providing additional services in lieu of a benefit is not "making good".

The overtime would have to go through payroll and then subtracted to cover the cost of the gym benefits.

But pennywise does have a good point on Pepper v Hart. Ultimately, it doesn't change much as your employer has made the decision. Unless you are contractually obliged to the use of the equipment.

princeofpounds

Why do you need to have the status of member at all, if you work in the gym?

Holidays would be a taxable benefit, but tour reps don't have to book as a customer to join the trip!

Ditto restaurant meals, but I don't see the waiting staff making reservations to sit front-of-house for staff meals.