aop
ad

VAT ruling affects salary sacrifice schemes

by Jaimie Kaffash

More from this author

02 Aug 2011

European Court of Justice

SALARY SACRIFICED by employees in exchange for a benefit will be treated as consideration for VAT purposes following a HM Revenue & Customs briefing paper clarifying its position.

In 2010, in a case involving pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that salary sacrificed by employees, in exchange for retail vouchers provided by their employer, was consideration for VAT purposes. This would affect employers that operated flexible benefits, such as the cycle to work scheme.

An HMRC update confirmed that the taxman would treat the salary sacrificed as consideration for VAT from 1 January 2012. Where the benefit is liable to VAT, then input VAT is recoverable as under normal rules but output tax will be due on the amount of salary sacrificed. According to the brief, if the benefit is of higher value to the salary sacrificed, the higher amount will be subject to VAT.

Mark Groom, tax partner at Deloitte, said that employers would have to make decisions about whether they or their employers would have to bear the cost. He added: "If the employer is not prepared to bear this cost: [it must]: review scheme design and amend terms to cover the increased VAT cost going forward; and review existing agreements with employees and decide whether benefits and/or salary sacrifice amounts should and can be amended for the balance of the period of any existing agreements."

Visitor comments Add your comment

Unfair and ill thought out

I signed up to the Ride2Work scheme in July this year, and signed a contract agreeing to 12 fixed monthly payments. The scheme was attractive to me as it was tax free, and provided a cheaper alternative to travel to work each day. I budgeted carefully to allow for the 'salary sacrifice' and accepted that the payments wouldnt change.

Yesterday we were told that our payments would increase from Jan 2012 until the contract term was up, because the HMRC had changed tax rules. I think this is unfair to existing scheme users who signed up expecting to pay 12 fixed installments - and now face a sudden increase in payments.

They should have applied this more thoughfully to include new contracts only, and not be forcing people to pay unexpected tax without allowing them to consider what they are entering into.

Posted by: Gareth Baron, 22 Sep 2011 | 15:44

Add your comment
display:none

Add your comment

We won't publish your address


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions

Your comment will be moderated before publication

Submit

Search thousands of financial jobs:

Information currently unavailable.

Search thousands of financial jobs:

Newsletters

Get the latest financial news sent directly to your inbox

  • Best Practice
  • Business
  • Daily Newsletter
  • Essentials

Careers

Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles

Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you

Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you

Briefings

Supplier Statement Reconciliations cover

Supplier statement reconciliations: Manual chore or critical value adding process?

By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.

7 Building Blocks cover

7 building blocks for business growth

Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities