HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) will taking a risk-based approach to dealing with health advantages taxation – putting a greater focus on benefits and reward professionals to watch taxable benefits.
It is also typically attracting company Vans iPhone cover and subsistence allowances when auditing company records.
Kirkland and Williamson partner Paul Tucker explained that benefits professionals were being more likely to find themselves the subject of HMRC problems and that "allowances and Vans iPhone5 are perhaps easy targets for the taxman to be challenge".
Speaking at the Chartered Initiate for Personnel and Development (CIPD) Reward Conference, Tucker said: "If the taxman visits your enterprise there's a fair chance they will spending plan ask you some questions a large number of what they tend to do now is check things on a risk basis.
"They will want to make sure that you have these types of procedures in place, those policies are being tried and you can demonstrate that they are being tried. And if they need to pose questions info, they'll want to pose questions to those who are operating them and perhaps designed these kinds of. "
Tucker added that the Revenue's approach had changed over the last four years, noting that firms used to be in a expect a visit every five or six prolonged time.
"But they've cut back on staff which are being much more scientific about how companies approach things, for example over the last four years they looked at the restaurant devastation and they're always looking at construction devastation, " he said.
"They seem at certain industries and swimming pool their knowledge for this risk created approach. And if something high profile is announced in your organisation (such for being big batch of redundancies), may ask if you are doing that adequate. "
He also highlighted 4 examples where employers could cast a significant unpaid tax bill through the sequel of subsistence allowances or the unmonitored use of company vans.
Tucker cautioned that these were two areas that comes under particularly high scrutiny due to HMRC.
"If you do pay subsistence allowances to your employees they should be submissive as part of your dispensation with the Revenue, inches he said.
"You need to be in a demonstrate to the revenue why they can be being paid, that they comply with one of the dispensation got from the Revenue and the employee is actually incurring an expense.
"If an employer pays £10 for lunch meal (instead of HMRC's recommended £5) but not monitored it, they will aim you to demonstrate why you are giving that the majority of expense, that it is being policed and a reasonable amount. "
Regarding opportunity} vans, Tucker warned that many establishments had not monitored the exemption for being taxable benefit since it was delivered in 2005.
"I've got just a handful of clients where the Revenue has gone into and the first question asked regarding the employer was ‘have you got very seriously vans? '
"The employer says ‘We think they qualify for one of the exemption because they are only used for to your house to work and business use, automobile not used privately'.
"So the best method you can demonstrate that? Do you have a fact signed by the employee or fuel consumption rate records? "
Failing to do this effectively leave a significant liability, and Tucker noted that although this taxable benefit liability should be held in front of the employee, employers typically picked-up the check as it was often their mistake about P11D submissions.
Tucker added that the majority of being pro-active and admitting very seriously errors to HMRC was the most well-liked approach for employers as this effectively prevent any penalties being coated.
It is also typically attracting company Vans iPhone cover and subsistence allowances when auditing company records.
Kirkland and Williamson partner Paul Tucker explained that benefits professionals were being more likely to find themselves the subject of HMRC problems and that "allowances and Vans iPhone5 are perhaps easy targets for the taxman to be challenge".
Speaking at the Chartered Initiate for Personnel and Development (CIPD) Reward Conference, Tucker said: "If the taxman visits your enterprise there's a fair chance they will spending plan ask you some questions a large number of what they tend to do now is check things on a risk basis.
"They will want to make sure that you have these types of procedures in place, those policies are being tried and you can demonstrate that they are being tried. And if they need to pose questions info, they'll want to pose questions to those who are operating them and perhaps designed these kinds of. "
Tucker added that the Revenue's approach had changed over the last four years, noting that firms used to be in a expect a visit every five or six prolonged time.
"But they've cut back on staff which are being much more scientific about how companies approach things, for example over the last four years they looked at the restaurant devastation and they're always looking at construction devastation, " he said.
"They seem at certain industries and swimming pool their knowledge for this risk created approach. And if something high profile is announced in your organisation (such for being big batch of redundancies), may ask if you are doing that adequate. "
He also highlighted 4 examples where employers could cast a significant unpaid tax bill through the sequel of subsistence allowances or the unmonitored use of company vans.
Tucker cautioned that these were two areas that comes under particularly high scrutiny due to HMRC.
"If you do pay subsistence allowances to your employees they should be submissive as part of your dispensation with the Revenue, inches he said.
"You need to be in a demonstrate to the revenue why they can be being paid, that they comply with one of the dispensation got from the Revenue and the employee is actually incurring an expense.
"If an employer pays £10 for lunch meal (instead of HMRC's recommended £5) but not monitored it, they will aim you to demonstrate why you are giving that the majority of expense, that it is being policed and a reasonable amount. "
Regarding opportunity} vans, Tucker warned that many establishments had not monitored the exemption for being taxable benefit since it was delivered in 2005.
"I've got just a handful of clients where the Revenue has gone into and the first question asked regarding the employer was ‘have you got very seriously vans? '
"The employer says ‘We think they qualify for one of the exemption because they are only used for to your house to work and business use, automobile not used privately'.
"So the best method you can demonstrate that? Do you have a fact signed by the employee or fuel consumption rate records? "
Failing to do this effectively leave a significant liability, and Tucker noted that although this taxable benefit liability should be held in front of the employee, employers typically picked-up the check as it was often their mistake about P11D submissions.
Tucker added that the majority of being pro-active and admitting very seriously errors to HMRC was the most well-liked approach for employers as this effectively prevent any penalties being coated.