C2W Scheme - Proof of 50% worth of commuting??

[MisterStan]

Thanks. I didn't include the one that isn't that nice at the moment, which is my Benotto Paris-Roubaix 'project':

It does now have a back wheel but still has a stuck seatpost and I've given up with it tbh. I can see why the previous owner was going to set fire to it so the Benotto's being left in storage until September - 3 weeks away from the carbon-bonded-to-steel Italian and I'll probably want to tackle it again. Or burn it

Chain's a bit slack!

 

[DCLane]

Chain's a bit slack!

Blame the previous owner; a stoned prog rock musician. It's now sorted

 

[dexter101]

definitely looks like a 'unique' ride, could probably decend if your balance is good.... long old reach on those handle bars, maybe you could use C2W scheme to get some new parts....

 

[Big Nick]

Is someone going to keep score each day at his work of which days he's come by bike?

I actually do commute to work on my c2w bike at the moment but come the crappy weather/salty roads I'll revert back to my rusty...sorry trusty old mtb instead

The scheme is massively abused but that's not helped by the fact there's no laid down checking procedure in the terms and conditions. If I was your mate I'd risk it as as long as he can show he does use it for work when he can I can't see an issue.

 

[PK99]

I

The scheme is massively abused but that's not helped by the fact there's no laid down checking procedure in the terms and conditions. If I was your mate I'd risk it as as long as he can show he does use it for work when he can I can't see an issue.

Precisely the logic used by the promoters of film investment tax avoidance schemes to footballers and comedians.... do I take it you are ok with that too?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I actually do commute to work on my c2w bike at the moment but come the crappy weather/salty roads I'll revert back to my rusty...sorry trusty old mtb instead.

I do the same, although both my 'main' bikes being c2w ones helps that :-) I'm considering getting a (t)rusty MTB for the bad winter bits to help protect my/there c2w investment, maybe I should ask for brownie points for that :-)

 

[Big Nick]

Precisely the logic used by the promoters of film investment tax avoidance schemes to footballers and comedians.... do I take it you are ok with that too?

Absolutely

I don't know anyone who likes paying tax and who wouldn't like to pay less if 'legally' they could

Easy for people on here to take the moral high ground when no one actually knows if they practice what they are so ready to preach

 

[CopperBrompton]

Ah that must be what my accountant was talking about. I assumed it was all one scheme but I guess there are more options?

Yes, it's slightly different, in that the company owns the bike throughout and there is no rental element. However, HMRC says bikes depreciate by 20% per year, so the company can sell the bike to you for a quid after five years.

 

[KneesUp]

Yes, it's slightly different, in that the company owns the bike throughout and there is no rental element. However, HMRC says bikes depreciate by 20% per year, so the company can sell the bike to you for a quid after five years.

Only if it was worth £2.44 to start with.

year 1 - £2.44
year 2 (£2.44-20%) = £1.93
year 3 (£1.93-20%) = £1.56
year 4 (£1.56-20%) = £1.25
year 5 (£!.25 - 20%) = £1

 

[User33236]

Only if it was worth £2.44 to start with.

year 1 - £2.44
year 2 (£2.44-20%) = £1.93
year 3 (£1.93-20%) = £1.56
year 4 (£1.56-20%) = £1.25
year 5 (£!.25 - 20%) = £1

When capital purchases get written down over a period of time (in this instance 5 years) the value of the item depreciates by 20% of the initial purchase price per annum and not in the manner you describe. A nominal fee, say £1, then transfers legal title to a new owner after that time. The HRC prescribes write down on second hand bikes and these can be found on their site.

 

[CopperCyclist]

The HMRC guidelines state:

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 .

​

That's not the same as '50% of his commutes must be by bike'. He only has to make sure that of the total use he makes of the bike, at least 50% of the journeys be qualifying ones. So, if he commutes on it even just one day a week and only rides it for fun one day of a weekend, he is complying with the terms.

I hope the difference is clear.

GC

Ha, love it! So technically for a while, I was commuting everyday (72 miles in six days) but doing a couple of 40 milers on two out of four of my rest days (80 miles) and thus breaking the rules =0 I never knew...

What about if I commute an extended distance in - I. E. 20 miles instead of 6? Is that a commute or leisure, or both!

Bloody hell, can open, worms everywhere I tell you. Glad my scheme finished without issue ages ago!

 

[NorvernRob]

Half the shops don't even care, a guy I work with used his CTW voucher to buy his kid a bike for Christmas. Also, many shops will let you spend as much as you want over and above the value of the voucher and fudge the paperwork, even though the schemes say that isn't allowed.

Personally I think any scheme that gets people on a bike (even if it's just at weekends and they never commute on it) is a good thing. No it's not supposed to be for that, but who really cares.

 

[CopperBrompton]

Only if it was worth £2.44 to start with.

I'm assuming that was for comic effect and not because you actually misunderstood that badly ...

It works as SG describes, so after five years HMRC says it is worth nothing.

 

[CopperBrompton]

The suggested write down is more generous than that.

I think you're talking about the C2W scheme there, not the company purchase scheme, which is different.

 

[kevin_cambs_uk]

I've searched but there's a gazzillion threads and life's too short TBH

I'm asking for a friend who's employer has just started the C2W scheme.

Long story short - he saw it as an easy way for n+1, but now says he'd have to prove at least 50% of his commutes were made by bike, and if he can't then he'd have to repay the full amount.

He has a company car and his position means that commuting by bike is not always possible.

I've never heard of this proof thing myself, but then again I've never had the chance to use C2W, or even know anyone directly who has.

So is this true, and if so how on earth can you prove, (or they disprove), that you have used it enough?

All replies will be passed on, thanks

Just show them your muscly thighs!