Cycle to Work Sceme Cheats

CiB

I just can't help thinking that DDD had a good time on Monday. Just the way his posts are going. No such luck here mind. Had to settle for thinking of ways to break errr improve Stats now that the PC is back up & running.

Everybody should be given state-bike for free, a big heavy hybrid, and face a 3 month spell inside if found not to be using it for 51% of their journeys, regardless of destination. Would that solve the problem?

sketchley

clarkey cat wrote:

I do!

is that because you are notifying HMRC to get the full 40% rebate on your pension contributions at the same time?

Of course doesn't everyone do this?

Wallace1492

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally I think the OP threw down some shark bait which was quite savagely bitten into. Especially since he hasn't contributed since...

However, I still think this thread points out clearly who enjoyed Valentines day and who didn't...

Just saying...

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

Right now and probably forever more I could care less if someone had the nerve to take advantage of a payment scheme that allowed them to pay less tax for a bicycle. I subsidised it? Keep the change mate.

Big deal.

The only issue I would have is the £1000 limit and the effect it has on bike pricing. I can never make up my mind if it's raising prices to £999 or keeps them below £999


Rambled there, but you know what I mean

Wallace1492

To be honest, it was a question I had, just been extremely busy thsi afternoon and have not been able to loo till now.

My opinion is that yes, it encourages cycling, but should only be used in the spirit it is intended - where the person is serious about cycling to work.

In the case I know it is a very well paid senior person with no intention of cycling to work.

sketchley

CiB wrote:

I just can't help thinking that DDD had a good time on Monday. Just the way his posts are going. No such luck here mind. Had to settle for thinking of ways to break errr improve Stats now that the PC is back up & running.

Everybody should be given state-bike for free, a big heavy hybrid, and face a 3 month spell inside if found not to be using it for 51% of their journeys, regardless of destination. Would that solve the problem?

I'm not sure there is a problem. I couldn't give toss if people abuse the scheme, providing it doesn't result it the scheme being withdrawn so I can't use it any more (See tax free laptop scheme). The point I was making was simply that if you don't qualify for the excemption then legally you should declare the benefit on your tax form, failing to do so is tax evasion. The fact that you are very unlikely to be caught doing this as no one is going to check doesn't make it legal, but ff you chose to brake the law and there are no consquences in doing then no problem.

DonDaddyD

CiB wrote:

I just can't help thinking that DDD had a good time on Monday. Just the way his posts are going. No such luck here mind. Had to settle for thinking of ways to break errr improve Stats now that the PC is back up & running.

You would think so wouldn't you.

MyValentinesDayConsisted:

Raced back to Liverpool street after work. I forgot to buy a card, chocolates or flowers. Stormed Thortons and got a 20quid box of chocolates.

Got home, changed, went to the Curzon (that's the posh Wimbledon theatre) to watch Breakfast at Tiffany's (romantic).

Got home sitting in the living room ready to make my 'move' and a fecking mouse darts across the floor.

We laid on the bed fully clothed...

Headhuunter

Sketchley wrote:

CiB wrote:

I just can't help thinking that DDD had a good time on Monday. Just the way his posts are going. No such luck here mind. Had to settle for thinking of ways to break errr improve Stats now that the PC is back up & running.

Everybody should be given state-bike for free, a big heavy hybrid, and face a 3 month spell inside if found not to be using it for 51% of their journeys, regardless of destination. Would that solve the problem?

I'm not sure there is a problem. I couldn't give toss if people abuse the scheme, providing it doesn't result it the scheme being withdrawn so I can't use it any more (See tax free laptop scheme). The point I was making was simply that if you don't qualify for the excemption then legally you should declare the benefit on your tax form, failing to do so is tax evasion. The fact that you are very unlikely to be caught doing this as no one is going to check doesn't make it legal, but ff you chose to brake the law and there are no consquences in doing then no problem.

Are you sure that's why the lap top scheme was withdrawn? I'm sure these schemes just get withdrawn whatever once the govt decides that enough people have bought laptops/bikes...

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Right now and probably forever more I could care less if someone had the nerve to take advantage of a payment scheme that allowed them to pay less tax for a bicycle. I subsidised it? Keep the change mate.

Big deal.

The only issue I would have is the £1000 limit and the effect it has on bike pricing. I can never make up my mind if it's raising prices to £999 or keeps them below £999


Rambled there, but you know what I mean

Nope I have the same thoughts, yes there are other circumstances involved in increasing costs but I can't help thinking C2W is a contributing factor.

When I bought my bike, I was offered the same bike with Shimano 105 for £650 (Full price £850). I've seen my spec (sora) bike being sold for £850 now. I can't help feeling there is an element of greed involved with the costs.

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Right now and probably forever more I could care less if someone had the nerve to take advantage of a payment scheme that allowed them to pay less tax for a bicycle. I subsidised it? Keep the change mate.

Big deal.

The only issue I would have is the £1000 limit and the effect it has on bike pricing. I can never make up my mind if it's raising prices to £999 or keeps them below £999


Rambled there, but you know what I mean

Nope I have the same thoughts, yes there are other circumstances involved in increasing costs but I can't help thinking C2W is a contributing factor.

When I bought my bike, I was offered the same bike with Shimano 105 for £650 (Full price £850). I've seen my spec (sora) bike being sold for £850 now. I can't help feeling there is an element of greed involved with the costs.

Yes, I wonder if C2W hasn't pushed demand and prices up. I bought my Focus Cayo in late 07, full carbon frame, 105 groupset, £700, now the same bike is £1200 (I think, without checking the Wiggle site)...

W1

Just to be clear - I think the C2W scheme is great, and I don't really care whether people use it correctly or not (bit like HMRC in that respect). What is perhaps slightly objectionable is that someone who said here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=16749761

That:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

It's run by a tax dodger....

....appears to be guilty of the same.

Before DDD thinks me any more miserable than he already does....!

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Right now and probably forever more I could care less if someone had the nerve to take advantage of a payment scheme that allowed them to pay less tax for a bicycle. I subsidised it? Keep the change mate.

Big deal.

The only issue I would have is the £1000 limit and the effect it has on bike pricing. I can never make up my mind if it's raising prices to £999 or keeps them below £999


Rambled there, but you know what I mean

Nope I have the same thoughts, yes there are other circumstances involved in increasing costs but I can't help thinking C2W is a contributing factor.

When I bought my bike, I was offered the same bike with Shimano 105 for £650 (Full price £850). I've seen my spec (sora) bike being sold for £850 now. I can't help feeling there is an element of greed involved with the costs.

Yes, I wonder if C2W hasn't pushed demand and prices up. I bought my Focus Cayo in late 07, full carbon frame, 105 groupset, £700, now the same bike is £1200 (I think, without checking the Wiggle site)...

I also recall a thread discussing higher "buying outright" figures which appear to negate much of the saving anyway, which is a shame.

marksteven

a mate of mine bought a tt bike from halfords he's never ridden it to work in the 2 yrs he's owned it ( by the way he's a sarge in the plod would you adam n eve it :roll: )

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Just to be clear - I think the C2W scheme is great, and I don't really care whether people use it correctly or not (bit like HMRC in that respect). What is perhaps slightly objectionable is that someone who said here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=16749761

That:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

It's run by a tax dodger....

....appears to be guilty of the same.

Before DDD thinks me any more miserable than he already does....!

Yeah, it was clear what you meant by the post. Its just such a shame you apparently view the world in such stark primary colours that you see equivalence between billions of pounds of corporate tax avoidance, and a scheme like C2W. Either that, or it was just a cheap shot. :P

dhope

I did actually commute on my C2W roadie before some git drove into me, now changed to commuting fixed and will save the road bike for nice weather. Apparently carbon melts when it rains (or when it's hit by a 4x4).
Considering cheating this year though.

dilemna

Sketchley wrote:

CiB wrote:

Let's be realistic.

The govt doesn't want to get involved in the minutia of how many times you ride the bike to work. They wanted to encourage cycling, but needed it to have some element of worthiness to it.

There is absolutely zero to be gained by the govt by insisting the the scheme be strictly adhered to. For a start, they lose tax revenue anyway by cars being left on drives instead of using fuel, so there's one disincentive. There would also need to be some kind of sanity checking going on if there really was a need to make sure that scheme users really were using the bike for half of their journeys to work - how about you can only have a bike if you live within 25 miles of your regular work place {higher, higher, no lower cries the audience) - and kindly define regular - OR the distance is further AND there is a station at each / either end that generates a total mileage of no more than 25 cycling miles (make it 30. No I do 45 make it 50...).

Like my earlier post, the C2W scheme is a means [let's be honest here] of getting a largely unfit and idle population doing some kind of exercise. We've all argued till we're blue in the face about how cycling at population level decreases heart attacks, increases life expectancy, decreases NHS dependency etc, so the minor trade-off in lost revenue against the greater benefits derived from a healthier population are worth it, when compared to the alternative which is to have government insisting that you ride to work at least half of the time on your state-sponsored bike.

I wish I'd had one now.

It’s not 50% of your journeys to work. It’s 50% of the bike’s use.

Errr ........ I think if you re-read the guidance again you will find it is. The presumption is that you are in work. For example if over the period of one month say 4 weeks, 28 days, you have 20 working days, in this period you would have to use your bicycle for at least 10 of the 20 working days. Over a period of 12 months it would be a minimum of 120 days not including holidays, etc. But the underlying presumption is that you are working and need to travel to work. This is why it is called the Cycle to Work Scheme. What we need is a test case. I hope the Revenue are watching this thread .

Perhaps as employers have to check a prospective employee's eligibility to workin the UK, employers should be penalised for not making adequate checks on whether their staff are actually cycling to work as the scheme intends. Perhaps bikes should have a microchip on/in the frame so when they pass the entrance and exit of the employer's premises this is registered.

Agent57

I bought my RockHopper Pro Disc with no intention of commuting on it. Then I left that employer after a few months so ended up paying full price anyway.

I know people who've bought TT frames or components for racing bikes (e.g. higher end wheels, and a power meter in one case) on C2W, let alone whole bikes.

dilemna

robz400 wrote:

It seems very obvious that this scheme is there to encourage cycling.... and that it clearly does.

By definition this scheme allows members of the working public to have a small tax break of a couple of hundred pounds at most, not alot compared to the tax many people here and in reality anyone who qualifies to use the scheme pays every month!

And for that tax break, the govenment supports the cycling industry and also encourages a healthy lifestyle!

Really suprises me that people have an issue with this!! Although it does seem to be coming from people who are unable to participate...........

I for one would support any scheme that gets more people out on bikes, surely this benefits every person on this site......

But the adnecdotal evidence is that many are buying bicycles and never using them to cycle to work.. Many are using the scheme to increase their fleet of bikes. These people are presumably already cycling, so C2W or not, they would still be doing so. I think the scheme was set up to get those who have never cycled or gave up years ago and who may have become really unhealthy or obese to take up cycling, not those who are already cyclists :roll: . But how you would administer this I don't know. Perhaps everyone should be entitled to a one off once only voucher that covers the VAT and tax you would pay on a bike if buying with your income net of tax.

dhope

dilemna wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

CiB wrote:

It’s not 50% of your journeys to work. It’s 50% of the bike’s use.

Errr ........ I think if you re-read the guidance again you will find it is.

From
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/c ... df/518054/

4) Scope of tax exemption
The exemption removes the tax charge that would otherwise apply to cycles and cyclists' safety equipment loaned to employees provided the following conditions are met
Ownership of the equipment is not transferred to the employee during the loan period;
Employees use the equipment mainly for qualifying journeys; i.e. for journeys made between the employee’s home and workplace, or part of those journeys (for example, to the station), or for journeys between one workplace and another.
The offer of the use of a loaned or provided cycle (i.e. one for which ownership is not transferred to the employee) is available across the whole workforce, with no groups of employees being excluded.This does not necessarily have to be through a Cycle to Work salary sacrifice arrangement.
The tax exemption only applies when an employee mainly uses the cycle and cyclists' safety equipment for qualifying journeys. A qualifying journey for an employee means a journey, or part of a journey, between his or her home and workplace, or
between one workplace and another, in connection with the performance of their duties of employment. So, for example, cycling to and from the station to get to work would qualify. In this case, 'mainly' means that more than 50% of use of the cycle and safety equipment must involve a qualifying journey.
Employees are not expected to keep mileage logs but employers should make clear to them that if they do not use the cycle mainly for qualifying journeys, they may lose the benefit of the tax exemption. In that event the employer would have to report the benefit in kind on form P11D, and account for Class 1A NICs, in the normal way. The employee would be liable for the tax due on the benefit in kind.

It says nothing about how often you should cycle to work, just that 50% or more of the bike's use should be part of a journey to or from work.
Otherwise anyone that only cycled 2 days a week (people that live 25 miles from work?) would be excluded.

rolf_f

OK, lets see.

2008. I decide, if work runs C2W that year, I will get a bike and get back into cycling. They do - I buy an Orange P7 and have probably done about 5000 commuting miles on it.

2009. I decide, if work runs C2W that year, that I will get a nice road bike for commuting/weekends. They do. I spend months trying to sort out a Viner before eventually getting a Look about 7 months after getting my voucher. Those of you who know how much Looks cost, will know that they start slightly above the voucher maximum. And mine has some Record on it....... Having more than tripled my budget, there was no way that I would ever commute on this bike. However, had it not been for C2W I would never have considered spending that kind of money in the first place. So, at the cost of the tax for 1k, the chancellor gained the tax for the remainder.

2010. Not long after receiving the Look, I became eligible for another voucher and bought a carbon Ribble. This will be used for commuting.

Since the scheme started, I have probably ridden 13,000 miles. I have spent a fortune on all sorts of other bits and pieces that I wouldn't have had the scheme not run thus earning the Chancellor yet more. Whilst the Look might offend a number of people on here, overall the chancellor still did rather well out of the deal. In the meantime, I was still cycling to work on my Orange P7 and my old Dawes.

If anyone is feeling guilty that they haven't done as many commute miles as leisure miles on their C2W bikes, they are welcome to PM me and I'll give them some of my surplus. I reckon the P7 has a good 3000 miles to spare.

rolf_f

dhope wrote:

It says nothing about how often you should cycle to work, just that 50% or more of the bike's use should be part of a journey to or from work.

Exactly - 1 mile commuting allows 1 mile leisure. You could get the bike on the scheme, stick it in your shed for a year, unused, and you'd still be complying with the rules!

suzyb

Out of curiosity.

If a C2W bike was used, instead of for commuting to work but to go pick up something for lunch instead, would that annoy those who are annoyed at the non commuting use of C2W bikes.

clarkey cat

no you can use it for going to pick up lunch.

dilemna

Rolf F wrote:

dhope wrote:

It says nothing about how often you should cycle to work, just that 50% or more of the bike's use should be part of a journey to or from work.

Exactly - 1 mile commuting allows 1 mile leisure. You could get the bike on the scheme, stick it in your shed for a year, unused, and you'd still be complying with the rules!

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the guidance. You are selecting which parts you will comply with. If you choose NOT to use your C2W bike to get to work then how do you get there? Car? If your bike remains in your shed, garage, spare room or in the other half of your bed while you are polluting your way to work by car then the score/tally is : bike 0, car/other 1. If you used your bike only once to ride to work during the year then your use of it to get to work would not fulfil the criteria. The bike would therefore become a benefit in kind which is clearly stated several paragraphs below the ones you have spattered with bold to fit your selective interpretation. It is the same with company cars. If you get a company car as a perk of your job, ie it is not essential for your role, you are hammered on tax as it is a BIK. However if a company car is a fundamental requirement for you to be able to carry out your work then you pay less tax as it is not viewed as a BIK. It is a little more complicated than this but this the essance of it.

The Revenue/Government has extended tax relief to cover purchases of bicycles such that employees can buy bicycles net of tax but ONLY on the basis that they then use that bike to cycle to work. If you don't do this according to the criteria then the bike becomes a BIK as you DON'T use it which you and your employer then have to declare to the Revenue and pay the tax on. It is that simple. People who are buying bikes with no intention of riding them to work or who subsequently decide not to, are commiting tax evasion. I am sure there must be a duty to inform where you know the critereia of the scheme are not being met and that failure to declare this is a criminal offence similar to the duties on benefit claimants. Given the difficult economic climate, the pressures on the public purse, maybe the government might close the scheme as too many people are taking the pi$$.

clarkey cat

the duty falls on the employer to notify of the BIK.
they are committing the offence if they dont notify - and they cant notify as they have no means to quantify what percentage of your bike's use is qua work.
maybe ask HMRC for a FOI request as to how many C2W BIK declarations have been made since the scheme's inception. I'm guessing zero.

prj45

I got my cannondale caad9 on the cycle scheme with no intention at all of using it to ride to work; I wanted to save it for Sunday best.

However I loved riding it so much I'm practically glued to it, doing over 100 commuting miles a week on it, the poor thing.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Just to be clear - I think the C2W scheme is great, and I don't really care whether people use it correctly or not (bit like HMRC in that respect). What is perhaps slightly objectionable is that someone who said here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=16749761

That:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

It's run by a tax dodger....

....appears to be guilty of the same.

Before DDD thinks me any more miserable than he already does....!

Yeah, it was clear what you meant by the post. Its just such a shame you apparently view the world in such stark primary colours that you see equivalence between billions of pounds of corporate tax avoidance, and a scheme like C2W. Either that, or it was just a cheap shot. :P

No, as I explained one is avoidance and one is evasion. One is legal the other is illegal.

I was also enjoying the hypocricy, obviouly.

Headhuunter

dilemna wrote:

robz400 wrote:

It seems very obvious that this scheme is there to encourage cycling.... and that it clearly does.

By definition this scheme allows members of the working public to have a small tax break of a couple of hundred pounds at most, not alot compared to the tax many people here and in reality anyone who qualifies to use the scheme pays every month!

And for that tax break, the govenment supports the cycling industry and also encourages a healthy lifestyle!

Really suprises me that people have an issue with this!! Although it does seem to be coming from people who are unable to participate...........

I for one would support any scheme that gets more people out on bikes, surely this benefits every person on this site......

But the adnecdotal evidence is that many are buying bicycles and never using them to cycle to work.. Many are using the scheme to increase their fleet of bikes. These people are presumably already cycling, so C2W or not, they would still be doing so. I think the scheme was set up to get those who have never cycled or gave up years ago and who may have become really unhealthy or obese to take up cycling, not those who are already cyclists :roll: . But how you would administer this I don't know. Perhaps everyone should be entitled to a one off once only voucher that covers the VAT and tax you would pay on a bike if buying with your income net of tax.

I'm sure some people do increase their fleets through C2W however I'm sure that most people buying on C2W are people who otherwise would not be buying bikes. Of bike owners I know in London, the majority of them have bought through C2W an did not previously own a "fleet"

mudcow007

just to make people feel a bit better i used my stinky to ride home and an came back in on it this morning....how wrong does it look with a saddle bag!!!





ive just realised i did use my stinky to commute as i didnt have my Trek when i bought my "Bona" so therefore im legal woohoo (first time ive said that in a while)

sketchley

@dilemna

You are wrong. If you used the bike only once in the whole year and that was for riding to to work. The majority of the bike's use would of been for computing therefor you would be entitled on tax relief on the rental of the bike.

However, as the bike has only been ridden once in a whole year, if you then purchase the bike for 25% of the original purchase price from you employer as per the HMRC "guidelines" table for FMR then you are likely to be in reciept of a benefit in kind becuase the HMRC table assumes an amount of commuting use and therefor reduction in value over the rental period. Clearly when buying a 2nd hand bike you would pay more for a "only ridden once" bike than a "ex commuter".

All this is completly pointless discussion in real life because as we all know who is going to bother checking. The only time I would be concerned about it is if you were in dispute with the tax office and under investigation for something else or you had upset your employer to the point they might want to report you.