What's the problem with electric cars?

[Whippy]

Which is why it's called 'benefit in kind'

[Whippy]

My last company car was an A4, at that time the journey into work didn't count as private mileage if you first went somewhere 'not your normal place of work' guess how many times during the week we would do a 'storecheck' before going into the office? I think we spent more time and energy avoiding tax as actually working. Probably all different now, stricter, my last boss drove an M5, I think he had to get real creative with his tax.

[Kev0607]

Originally Posted by Tannaton

Company cars that are available to the employee for private use are taxed heavily, because they are another form of income. If you don't have private use - i.e. you drive to work in your own car to pick up your van, then you don't need to pay tax.

Have a read of this : https://www.gov.uk/tax-company-benef...n-company-cars

Thanks, that now makes sense. However, your earlier post...

Originally Posted by Tannaton

The problem is there are a lot of people getting pickups as company cars when they would never in a million years buy a pickup with their own money - it's tax evasion. Most pickups sold now are "deluxe" models with leather, etc, they're not moving bricks and plumbing parts around.

Lets be honest, most people with company cars have them because its a perk of having a new vehicle without using their own as much, or they may not have a personal car and travel to work by alternative means... the company car just helps them do their day-to-day stuff in business hours.

The fact of the matter is, company cars are often nice with cool features and maybe even a luxury brand if you're lucky. In saying that, not all company cars are fancy, but there's plenty that are. Why would you use your own if one is provided to you, usually brand new and you have literally zero running costs? Put the miles up on someone else's as they say. If they don't have the money to buy the pickup that the company is offering them, that's like offering sweets to a kid. The company is giving them a perk so to speak and the employee drives around in something that they couldn't buy outright, but will happily drive it because its free so long as its used for business only.

Its a grey area though. The company bought the pickup for business purposes and passed it onto the employee for business purposes. The company would have claimed back the VAT back, the perks of being in business and buying commercial vehicles.

There may not be bricks and plumbing parts in the back of a pick up, but that doesn't mean its not being used for business. It depends on the job that a person does. A Civil Engineer for example may have a pickup because its 4wd and it gets him around on rough terrain like construction sites that are mostly mucky because it never stops raining, but he carries very little equipment.

All the same, the company could have bought him a van (also classed as commercial, so business claims VAT back on it), but a van is no good for the Civil Engineer because its not 4wd. He may also have nothing in the back of that either.

Instead of commercial, the company could have bought this chap a nice off-roader, like a Range Rover... they won't do that though because that's classed as a car. Therefore, it doesn't have the same returns as a commercial vehicle would.

What you're saying (I think) is these pickups aren't being used for business purposes solely because there's nothing in the back of them or because they have fancy interiors and would be too nice to get dirty, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Using another example, a Contracts Manager for a Construction company might just have his laptop, a bit of paperwork and a coffee cup... just because you can't see anything in the back of it doesn't mean he's not using it for business. There's Transit vans with leather seats... its still a van. Why would a pickup be classed as a car and the fancy 40k Transit isn't? I know there's been a u-turn on that, but just for discussion...

A pickup isn't a car, nor is a van a car. Same thing.

[GMcL]

I don't think anyone has a problem with any tool, be it a vehicle or whatever, being bought and used for what it is intended.

The problem with double cab pickups is they have become the next motoring fashion item hence the full leather interiors with all the latest and greatest toys. Some, not all, get about as much commercial use as the SUV in Waitrose car park does off roading. The most mud they get on the tyres is if they misjudge the edge of the carpark at the hockey field and go onto the verge. This is what HMRC were attempting to address in their sledge hammer to crack a nut approach.

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by Kev0607

Thanks, that now makes sense. However, your earlier post...



Lets be honest, most people with company cars have them because its a perk of having a new vehicle without using their own as much, or they may not have a personal car and travel to work by alternative means... the company car just helps them do their day-to-day stuff in business hours.

The fact of the matter is, company cars are often nice with cool features and maybe even a luxury brand if you're lucky. In saying that, not all company cars are fancy, but there's plenty that are. Why would you use your own if one is provided to you, usually brand new and you have literally zero running costs? Put the miles up on someone else's as they say. If they don't have the money to buy the pickup that the company is offering them, that's like offering sweets to a kid. The company is giving them a perk so to speak and the employee drives around in something that they couldn't buy outright, but will happily drive it because its free so long as its used for business only.

Its a grey area though. The company bought the pickup for business purposes and passed it onto the employee for business purposes. The company would have claimed back the VAT back, the perks of being in business and buying commercial vehicles.

There may not be bricks and plumbing parts in the back of a pick up, but that doesn't mean its not being used for business. It depends on the job that a person does. A Civil Engineer for example may have a pickup because its 4wd and it gets him around on rough terrain like construction sites that are mostly mucky because it never stops raining, but he carries very little equipment.

All the same, the company could have bought him a van (also classed as commercial, so business claims VAT back on it), but a van is no good for the Civil Engineer because its not 4wd. He may also have nothing in the back of that either.

Instead of commercial, the company could have bought this chap a nice off-roader, like a Range Rover... they won't do that though because that's classed as a car. Therefore, it doesn't have the same returns as a commercial vehicle would.

What you're saying (I think) is these pickups aren't being used for business purposes solely because there's nothing in the back of them or because they have fancy interiors and would be too nice to get dirty, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Using another example, a Contracts Manager for a Construction company might just have his laptop, a bit of paperwork and a coffee cup... just because you can't see anything in the back of it doesn't mean he's not using it for business. There's Transit vans with leather seats... its still a van. Why would a pickup be classed as a car and the fancy 40k Transit isn't? I know there's been a u-turn on that, but just for discussion...

A pickup isn't a car, nor is a van a car. Same thing.

You make some good points, but contextually I'd add :

- When businesses provide company cars they are usually leased, not purchased, but in all cases (cars, vans, pickups, lorries) regardless of use they can reclaim the VAT for the cost of the car and associated running costs (repairs, maintenance, fuel etc.) - i.e. there is no benefit for the company from their employees having pickups and company cars vs. normal saloons.

- Whilst you rightly point out that there are some jobs that necessitate a more rugged vehicle (e.g. vets, farmers, construction) and it is quite right that the car tax is discounted, there are many people abusing that process (and absuing is the right word) and leasing a pickup through their business where - in the absence of the tax perk - they would never have considered it. This is further compounded by the fact that they are amongst the most polluting vehicles, so the tax break is incentivising that shift.

If you read all of the link I shared (and appreciate it was a long read) company car tax is proportional to the CO2 emissions of the car being provided, so most people choose an efficient car to pay less tax. But with "commercial" vehicles the amount is fixed so there is no tax penalty for say choosing a 3.2L Ford Ranger over say a 2L Hilux.

[tofufi]

Originally Posted by Tannaton

there are many people abusing that process (and absuing is the right word) and leasing a pickup through their business where - in the absence of the tax perk - they would never have considered it. This is further compounded by the fact that they are amongst the most polluting vehicles, so the tax break is incentivising that shift.

This

As part of my work, I meet a lot of people only the once.

One such chap drives a petrol V6 VW Amorak. It's a £50k truck and has every option box ticked. Struggles to achieve 20MPG.

He's openly told me he only had it due to the low BIK - and wouldn't have taken the equivalent value car as a company vehicle due to the higher tax.

It's about time the loophole was closed!

[Whippy]

https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/22/2...-2030-back-off

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by Whippy

https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/22/2...-2030-back-off

And now Benz has stated the obvious, expect the rest to follow suit fairly quickly....

[Fika]

Originally Posted by Kev0607

EV’s would also have to get cheaper for people to be able to afford to buy them. As nice as a Mercedes EV sounds, I bet it costs a fortune.

As mentioned above, I think EV’s are already failing. It was just a pipe dream that we were nowhere near ready for and won’t be for years to come.

I like the idea of low running costs and cheap servicing though.

Some of us poorer folk wouldn't even look at non-EV Mercedes. For the price of the cheapest EV, I could buy a little ICE car from new, cover 50,000 miles via petrol and have the annual tax paid for 10 years and be golden.

EVs only make sense in cities and where electricity is cheap and if we don't have nuclear fusion (since fission is evil) what's the point?

We're only looking at solutions that encourage consumerism, I don't want to have to keep buying newer cars to "save the planet", just make it so I do not need to commute because the housing is such a ripoff.

[Kev0607]

Originally Posted by Tannaton

You make some good points, but contextually I'd add :

- When businesses provide company cars they are usually leased, not purchased, but in all cases (cars, vans, pickups, lorries) regardless of use they can reclaim the VAT for the cost of the car and associated running costs (repairs, maintenance, fuel etc.) - i.e. there is no benefit for the company from their employees having pickups and company cars vs. normal saloons.

- Whilst you rightly point out that there are some jobs that necessitate a more rugged vehicle (e.g. vets, farmers, construction) and it is quite right that the car tax is discounted, there are many people abusing that process (and absuing is the right word) and leasing a pickup through their business where - in the absence of the tax perk - they would never have considered it. This is further compounded by the fact that they are amongst the most polluting vehicles, so the tax break is incentivising that shift.

If you read all of the link I shared (and appreciate it was a long read) company car tax is proportional to the CO2 emissions of the car being provided, so most people choose an efficient car to pay less tax. But with "commercial" vehicles the amount is fixed so there is no tax penalty for say choosing a 3.2L Ford Ranger over say a 2L Hilux.

I may be mistaken, but I don't think that's true. Companies can only claim the VAT back on commercial vehicles, not cars... that's one reason why there's so many pickups on the road. I also heard that less can be claimed back if a vehicle is leased, compared to the same vehicle being purchased. Like I said, I could be mistaken.

Originally Posted by Tannaton

And now Benz has stated the obvious, expect the rest to follow suit fairly quickly....

Yep. An interesting point on that article is "Meanwhile, hybrid sales have increased significantly, as more people see the benefit of hedging their bets while the charging infrastructure gets built out."

I always thought hybrids were a good idea. At least you don't have the range anxiety and worrying about where the next working charger will be, as you still have an engine.

I'm surprised hybrids weren't focused on more. I think hybrid's work better than EV's and there would be no need to have millions spent on infrastructure installing charging points across the country either if hybrids properly took off. I think companies would be better investing into hybrids than EV's to be honest.

In September 2023, Rishi Sunak delayed the ban on new petrol and diesel cars being sold from 2030 to 2035. If more manufacturers back off selling EV's only, I suspect that date Sunak set may be changed again.