Bike to Work scheme - the Megathread - Read post #1 before posting

Stallingrad

Can a company purchase a bike for by the company employees? We (small Ltd company) could certainly use one for trips to the shops, bank, etc. and the BTW scheme does not really suit.

CramCycle

Stallingrad wrote: »

Can a company purchase a bike for by the company employees? We (small Ltd company) could certainly use one for trips to the shops, bank, etc. and the BTW scheme does not really suit.

I presume if you can justify the bike as a company asset, much like a company car.

Kintarō Hattori

Hey Folks,

Filling out the details on www.cyclescheme.ie and it doesn't recognise/find the model of Cube bike I'm after. Is the detail here important or can I put down something close to it?

CramCycle

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Hey Folks,

Filling out the details on www.cyclescheme.ie and it doesn't recognise/find the model of Cube bike I'm after. Is the detail here important or can I put down something close to it?

Just make sure the bike shop know which bike you want and that they can get it in stock for you. What you fill out on that site is really unimportant after that.

danko82

I would like to share what happened to me with a bike shop.

I went there in the shop, I chose a bike, they give me a invoice, and they told me was ready my size.
After one week it arrived the voucher from my company, I wrote them and then I call them.
They told me to wait, etc etc
The day after, they said to me that the bike is not avaiable any more and they propose me another bike cheaper, and a voucher in that shop for the difference.

I don't think it is right ...
I asked if was avaiable that bike, and it was. I don't need a voucher for that shop..
What should I do?

Kintarō Hattori

Folks,

I signed up for the bike scheme a few months ago only to have been made redundant two weeks ago.
The chap handling the redundancy sent me on a mail asking if they could deduct €1000 from my payment..... highlighting a term that if the employee ceases employment with the company it can be deducted in full.

Do I have a leg to stand on in looking for them to not go ahead with that as I've been made redundant rather than leaving the company to go elsewhere? I haven't received the bike yet as it's still not in stock with the shop.

Many thanks.

iwillhtfu

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Folks,

I signed up for the bike scheme a few months ago only to have been made redundant two weeks ago.
The chap handling the redundancy sent me on a mail asking if they could deduct €1000 from my payment..... highlighting a term that if the employee ceases employment with the company it can be deducted in full.

Do I have a leg to stand on in looking for them to not go ahead with that as I've been made redundant rather than leaving the company to go elsewhere? I haven't received the bike yet as it's still not in stock with the shop.

Many thanks.

They'll more than likely take part payment from holidays due and then I guess if you're stuck sell the bike/voucher.

I doubt there's a way around it as you're no longer an employee.

Good Luck finding another job.

have2flushtwice

If he asked say no. If he said otherwise he might have been able to get it off you. The letter he gave you is binding.

iwillhtfu

have2flushtwice wrote: »

If he asked say no. If he said otherwise he might have been able to get it off you. The letter he gave you is binding.

If OP doesn't make the payment from his final wage then OP will not be able to pay from his gross payment losing any saving.

OP I doubt they can touch your redundancy payment.

I couldn't find any official terms but most schemes reference payment in full if leaving a job or being made redundant.

Seve OB

Dont let them take it from your redundancy cause you get that tax free

Kinda defeats the purpose really

Kaisr Sose

Sorry to hear you loosing your job.
Do you know if the company has paid the money over to the shop? Most likely not as companies pay on receipt of goods/service normally. If this is the case, now your circumstances have changed, see if they can cancel the purchase for you.

Otherwise, they have the right to deduct €1,000. Worst case is you could either try to do a deal with the shop to sell it on for you "unused" or sell it on yourself here for somewhere between the full price and your "true" cost with tax relief. That way, you are not out of pocket.

Remember, when you get back working, you can purchase again as, while the scheme says every "5 years" a new employment starts the clock again. Best to try and stop the purchase ASAP if you can though.

Good luck!!

Unknown Soldier

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Remember, when you get back working, you can purchase again as, while the scheme says every "5 years" a new employment starts the clock again. Best to try and stop the purchase ASAP if you can though.

Good luck!!

I don't think a new Job resets the clock, so to speak. It's a personal Tax relief, available every five years.

A new job doesn't mean you can avail of the BTW scheme again.

Kaisr Sose

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I don't think a new Job resets the clock, so to speak. It's a personal Tax relief, available every five years.

A new job doesn't mean you can avail of the BTW scheme again.

Incorrect. This has come up before;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056234651

The key wording is "per employment". It does not say "once every 5 tax years", in which case it would cover multiple employments over tax 5 yrs.

Revenue don't know you have availed of the scheme and don't ask to know. They are happy for employers to work this scheme within the normal BIK rules/exemptions. The forms filled in are just for employer records. It's not a personal tax credit, it's salary forfeiture that you receive the tax benefit (saving) on.

CramCycle

I wouldn't let them touch my redundancy. They should take any remaining payment from your last wage packet.

Depending on the redundancy and the amount, may you suggest that they can add it on top of the redundancy, as a parting gesture? I don't know your circumstances but many companies are flexible in regards redundancy so that they don't sour their reputation or the employee any more than absolutely necessary.

Kaisr Sose

Good point on Redundancy. The employer probably did say 'take it from final salary' and this may also include the redundancy settlement. Taking it from redundancy is not salary deduction and not allowed.

As the Poster said they had not got the bike, it's best to try and stop the purchase if they can.

OP, tell your employer that without a job to go to, you can no longer comply with the terms of the scheme !!!!

What can the employer say to that? Here's your bike for cycling to work - and your P45! You owe me €1,000?

cython

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Incorrect. This has come up before;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056234651

The key wording is "per employment". It does not say "once every 5 tax years", in which case it would cover multiple employments over tax 5 yrs.

Revenue don't know you have availed of the scheme and don't ask to know. They are happy for employers to work this scheme within the normal BIK rules/exemptions. The forms filled in are just for employer records. It's not a personal tax credit, it's salary forfeiture that you receive the tax benefit (saving) on.

Nowhere in the Taxes Consolidation Act does it mention "per employment". The relevant part of the act outlining the restriction states:

TCA wrote:

A director or employee shall not, by virtue of this subsection, be relieved from a charge to income tax under subsection (1) more than once in any period of 5 consecutive years of assessment, commencing with the year of assessment in which the director or employee concerned is first provided with a bicycle or bicycle safety equipment.

This puts the onus on the employee/director not to use the exemption to relieve themselves of tax more than once every 5 years. It is not clearly stated whether or not a change in employment has the effect that they are now a different employee by some means, and to be honest unless someone were switching jobs every year and availing of it once a year, I don't think a litmus test of the legislation is apt to be cost effective, and thus likely to happen.

Beasty

cython wrote: »

This puts the onus on the employee/director not to use the exemption to relieve themselves of tax more than once every 5 years. It is not clearly stated whether or not a change in employment has the effect that they are now a different employee by some means, and to be honest unless someone were switching jobs every year and availing of it once a year, I don't think a litmus test of the legislation is apt to be cost effective, and thus likely to happen.

The reference is to "employee" not "taxpayer"

That certainly leaves scope to interpret as referring to each employment, and in my view, in the absence of any Revenue guidance to the contrary, is an entirely reasonable interpretation

Kaisr Sose

Beasty wrote: »

The reference is to "employee" not "taxpayer"

I would agree!
Employee/director/employer and employment are very key words in all this. The section (in the TCA) is drafted very much along the lines of the relationship between both parties remaining constant over a period of 5 tax years. Had they wished to cover more than one period of employment in a qualifying 5 year period, they could easily have added that.

velo.2010

My gawd, Canyon are away the CF SL 7 for e1269. That's a 7.6kg carbon bike with full 105/Mavic. Obviously, a new updated version based on the CF Slx must be on the way soon, but still... some deal!

Beasty

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I would agree!
Employee/director/employer and employment are very key words in all this. The section (in the TCA) is drafted very much along the lines of the relationship between both parties remaining constant over a period of 5 tax years. Had they wished to cover more than one period of employment in a qualifying 5 year period, they could easily have added that.

Actually there is very good reason for them doing it this way. This never appears on an individual's tax return and the Revenue are pretty much dependent on the employer to police it applying the relevant rules. However an employer will have no knowledge if any benefit provided by a previous employer and hence in practice the rules can only be applied by reference to individual employments

cython

Beasty wrote: »

The reference is to "employee" not "taxpayer"

That certainly leaves scope to interpret as referring to each employment, and in my view, in the absence of any Revenue guidance to the contrary, is an entirely reasonable interpretation

I fully agree that there is scope for interpretation in that wording, and I can see where the interpretation of an employment change resetting the clock comes from. However I took issue with the quotation of a particular phrase which appears nowhere in the legislation ("per employment") as if it made a clear distinction. In reality that phrase is part of someone's interpretation of the TCA, and should not be cited in relation to this, never mind called "key wording".

An extension of this interpretation, however, would be that someone who is a director of two companies concurrently (certainly not unheard of, but more likely than a double jobbing employee seeking to avail of it) is entitled to two reliefs in a 5 year period, by virtue of them being separate directorships (in the same way as there being separate employments when changing jobs). It may be valid (I genuinely don't know or sure one way or the other), but I'm sceptical of this being an intended usage/interpretation.

Beasty

cython wrote: »

An extension of this interpretation, however, would be that someone who is a director of two companies concurrently (certainly not unheard of, but more likely than a double jobbing employee seeking to avail of it) is entitled to two reliefs in a 5 year period, by virtue of them being separate directorships (in the same way as there being separate employments when changing jobs). It may be valid (I genuinely don't know or sure one way or the other), but I'm sceptical of this being an intended usage/interpretation.

Well the good news is I currently have over 100 directorships....

....alas only one "employment" though (by virtue of Revenue and PAYE rules)

I do think it was intended that way as I explained in my post immediately prior to your own

I would also add that anyone with multiple employments by reference to different directorships would probably find it quite challenging to use separate bikes to be used "mainly" for commuting to each

Kaisr Sose

@cython
Slightly picky to focus on two words in my post! :-)

When I said "per employment" I was referring to the vast majority of people who have one employment at a time, and not multiple employments concurrently. For the per employment covers how the scheme works currently.

Of course, if somebody has concurrent employments, they could hardly argue they needed a different bike for each job.

Before you say it, I know the same argument holds if someone with only one employment gets a bike from one employer and then after leaving that job, they apply again.

However, there is no central record at Revenue to alert them to a second claim within the qualifying 5 year period by that employee. If there was, I would certainly not have said "per employment"

Kintarō Hattori

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Folks,

I signed up for the bike scheme a few months ago only to have been made redundant two weeks ago.
The chap handling the redundancy sent me on a mail asking if they could deduct €1000 from my payment..... highlighting a term that if the employee ceases employment with the company it can be deducted in full.

Do I have a leg to stand on in looking for them to not go ahead with that as I've been made redundant rather than leaving the company to go elsewhere? I haven't received the bike yet as it's still not in stock with the shop.

Many thanks.

Thanks for the replies folks. I was looking for advice as I was somewhat annoyed with the company (London headquarters). Since January I had been asking HR/finance if I could avail of the travel to work scheme and was getting no firm confirmation about it, being told it was a HR issue, then a finance one etc. That had been dragging on for a few months.
Several of us then asked HR if we could avail of the bike to work scheme which we were given the green light on..... only to be made redundant about a month later. I was miffed that one thing was being dragged out, while the other happened quickly and with the knowledge there that redundancies were going to happen.

Anywho. I replied back that I didn't particularly want to avail of the scheme as I now had no job to cycle to. I also mentioned that the bike wasn't in stock so I didn't in fact have anything. The reply came back that no deductions would be made and they'd seek a refund from the scheme....... is that possible?

CramCycle

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Anywho. I replied back that I didn't particularly want to avail of the scheme as I now had no job to cycle to. I also mentioned that the bike wasn't in stock so I didn't in fact have anything. The reply came back that no deductions would be made and they'd seek a refund from the scheme....... is that possible?

Yes, depending on how they ran it, they either have not handed the money over yet, ie no problems or if its one of those middle men annoyances, then they simply ask for a refund as they don't release the money until the shop gets the voucher that you supply them with so the middle man should simply refund it and that is that.

Cee-Jay-Cee

danko82 wrote: »

I would like to share what happened to me with a bike shop.

I went there in the shop, I chose a bike, they give me a invoice, and they told me was ready my size.
After one week it arrived the voucher from my company, I wrote them and then I call them.
They told me to wait, etc etc
The day after, they said to me that the bike is not avaiable any more and they propose me another bike cheaper, and a voucher in that shop for the difference.

I don't think it is right ...
I asked if was avaiable that bike, and it was. I don't need a voucher for that shop..
What should I do?

So you picked out a bike and the shop told you it was available and then when you went to give them the voucher they told you it was no longer available and gave you a voucher for another shop? And I'm presuming they kept the voucher you gave them?

I would get the voucher back, give it back to your company, tell them the deal fell through when the bike shop could no longer get you the correct size bike and go to another shop that has the bike in your size and start again. If need be give the bike shop a small deposit to hold the bike for you and they can refund it when you get your voucher.

floorpie

Is there any chance of a turbo trainer qualifying, under any category of accessory or otherwise?

Eamonnator

floorpie wrote: »

Is there any chance of a turbo trainer qualifying, under any category of accessory or otherwise?

No.

Beasty

Post 3 details qualifying expenditure:

Beasty wrote: »

The exemption will cover pedal bicycles and tricycles, and pedelecs (an electrically assisted bicycle which requires some effort on the part of the cyclist in order to effect propulsion). It will not cover motorbikes, scooters or mopeds.

The following safety equipment will be covered by the exemption:

• Cycle helmets which conform to European standard EN 1078
• Bells and bulb horns
• Lights, including dynamo packs
• Mirrors and mudguards to ensure riders visibility is not impaired
• Cycle clips and dress guards
• Panniers, luggage carriers and straps to allow luggage to be safely carried
• Locks and chains to ensure cycle can be safely secured
• Pumps, puncture repair kits, cycle tool kits and tyre sealant to allow for minor repairs
• Reflective clothing along with white front reflectors and spoke reflectors

All the expenditure must be incurred in one go. It is not possible to spend part of the allowance on the bike and then at a later time look to spend the balance on safety equipment

Bike parts or frames do not qualify – it must be a complete bike plus the safety equipment identified above

floorpie

Thanks guys