BIK on N1 Commercial 5 Seater

Casati

jiggajt wrote: »

See comments below: really getting technical now...:D

Originally Posted by jiggajt View Post
Ok, so here is the definition of a VAN for BIK purposes as per revenue themselves. Please correct me if i am wrong in my analysis:


Meaning of “van”
A van means a mechanically propelled vehicle which –
· Is designed or constructed solely or mainly for the carriage of goods or other burden, and
· Has a roofed area or areas to the rear of the driver’s seat, and
· Has no side windows or seating fitted in that roofed area or areas.
Where a crew cab or other similar type of vehicle meets all of these criteria it would be regarded as a van rather than a car.

So if i purchase a twin cab hilux such as this one:

http://www.utecanopies.com.au/Images...x_05_gse-s.jpg

Is it a mechanically propelled vehicle??? YES

Is it designed or constructed solely or mainly for the carriage of good or other burden???....... It has firm rear suspension so that it can carry 1100Kg of payload in the back so i would argue YES

NO , its has both purposes , the carriage of people and goods, Hence it is not solely constructed or designed for the carriage of goods

It says solely OR mainly

Does it have a roofed area or areas to the rear of the driver’s seat??? Not directly behind the drivers seat but as the one in the picture has a canopy over the rear then YES

The canopy is over the load bed, thats irrelevant, the areas behind the driver has side windows

It just says to the rear of the drivers seat. It doesn't say directly to the rear.

Has no windows or seats in this area??? the one in the picture has tinted windows in the canopy but you can get ones that dont so...... YES

The area being referred to is the area immediately behind the driver , i.e. the back seats

Where does it say that?

"Where a crew cab or other similar type of vehicle meets all of these criteria it would be regarded as a van rather than a car." YES

But it doesnt

What am i missing here???

What miles do you do?

BoatMad

jiggajt wrote: »

I hear you my friend. How many people do you see driving around in and X5 or a Range Rover with blackened rear windows on sites. You just know they are paying the lower BIK rate if they are paying it at ALL??? This appears to be widespread and part of me just wants to go ahead and do it as even if they do crack down on it surely the problem is too rife for them to fine everyone???

What i find weird is that if you buy such a vehicle you CAN register it as a commercial for VRT and MotorTax but NOT for BIK... How does that work???:mad:

I genuinely need a twin cab 4 X 4 with goods carriage in the back for this job i am doing.

just a comment here, the vast vast majority of these people are paying BIK correctly

BIK is now the responsibility of the company not just the person using the vehicle .

Your auditors and/or your accountant would have to participate in a fraud to allow you to claim so.

very very stupid thing to do , very easy for Revenue to audit and find you have a full BIK vehicle, penalties will double or more the final tax bill you will mist likely subject you company to a full audit (and your own personal income etc)

it will be the most expensive BIK ever

PS if you have serious business mileage, then the BIK is considerably reduced

jiggajt

Casati wrote: »

What miles do you do?

I did 14000km last year business mileage and i would do about the same for personal use.

what ever about fiddling BIK you can be sure most people are claiming 95% of their mileage as business use.

I don't think there would be that much people claiming the 5% rate on crew cabs or 5 seat commercials. Having them down as pooled vehicles so 0% BIK is far more likely, there is plenty doing that.

That being said a lot of lads on building sites will be contractors working for themselves so most likely own the vehicle rather than it being a company vehicle so BIK wouldn't be applicable.

BoatMad

jiggajt wrote: »

I did 14000km last year business mileage and i would do about the same for personal use.

you have to exceed 24,000Km to begin to see reductions on BIK]

however in the absence of other documents, Revenue will accept 8000 kn as personal use.

Hence for BIK purposes you have ( or could claim to have ) a business mileage of 6,000 + 14,000 , i.e. 20,000 but still a good bit from a BIK reduction

Note Revenue is very hot on inappropriate claims on milage and payments therein, having seriously cracked down on such recently in Cork ( pharma consultants with own companies )

my own view is that if you want one of these , then buy it privately and charge civil service mileage rates .

The only snag can be getting commercial tax on a privately owned vehicle
(Im presuming you are in a company structure )

BoatMad

Opal Sticky Mermaid wrote: »

what ever about fiddling BIK you can be sure most people are claiming 95% of their mileage as business use.

they can claim all milage less 8000km , Revenue will "accept" that

Casati

With 14000km business miles you can claim approx 6000 tax free using civil service mileage rates - I.e where you own the crew cab yourself. This is probably the most tax effective option for you.

BoatMad

Casati wrote: »

With 14000km business miles you can claim approx 6000 tax free using civil service mileage rates - I.e where you own the crew cab yourself. This is probably the most tax effective option for you.

as long as you can tax it commercially , thats the rub, otherwise you get stuck for a big motor tax bill every year. The other issue is getting commercial insurance, again this can be tricky

for example if you are wrapped up in a company , then the motor tax office will not allow you personally to tax it commercially , yet if the Company owns it , you cant charge civil service rates etc

Personally Id buy a two door pickup and remove all the issues , too many people think they can pull a fast one with crew cabs and the dealers will tell you the market for them has collapsed in recent years

Mc-BigE

Just on a side note, if you buy say a 2 seater bmw x5 that's newer than 2010 ( i think ) you can be done for full 30% bik. Because the vehicle was not originally constructed as a 2 seater and the back seat where just removed and Windows blackened .This on the revenues website somewhere, if i find it I'll add it in. Added : here it is : What is the position if the vehicle is adapted? If I have a car and I take out the backs seats and black out the rear side windows, is the vehicle now a van?

No. A car is defined as any mechanically propelled road vehicle designed, constructed or adapted for the carriage of the driver or the driver and one or more persons other than (a) a motorcycle, (b) a van or (c) a vehicle not commonly used as a private vehicle and unsuitable to be so used. Subsequent adaptation of the vehicle does not alter the fact that the vehicle was designed, constructed for the carriage of one or more persons.

Casati

How many seats does the op need? Would a Caddy or Transporter 4 Motion with three seats meet the requirements?

BoatMad

Mc-BigE wrote: »

Just on a side note, if you buy say a 2 seater bmw x5 that's newer than 2010 ( i think ) you can be done for full 30% bik. Because the vehicle was not originally constructed as a 2 seater and the back seat where just removed and Windows blackened .This on the revenues website somewhere, if i find it I'll add it in. Added : here it is : What is the position if the vehicle is adapted? If I have a car and I take out the backs seats and black out the rear side windows, is the vehicle now a van?

No. A car is defined as any mechanically propelled road vehicle designed, constructed or adapted for the carriage of the driver or the driver and one or more persons other than (a) a motorcycle, (b) a van or (c) a vehicle not commonly used as a private vehicle and unsuitable to be so used. Subsequent adaptation of the vehicle does not alter the fact that the vehicle was designed, constructed for the carriage of one or more persons.

This was specifically added to deal with the spate of people converting high end 4x4s to claim VRT and BIK exemptions. i.e. you cant retrospectively convert a car to a van

jiggajt

Casati wrote: »

How many seats does the op need? Would a Caddy or Transporter 4 Motion with three seats meet the requirements?

No unfortunately not. Needs to be a pickup for the offroad capability.

Casati

jiggajt wrote: »

No unfortunately not. Needs to be a pickup for the offroad capability.

You might have to pay the full BIK then - along with tens of thousands of others who's company provide them with a car for use in their work too

Mc-BigE

You can order a Ford Ranger or Hilux 4x4 in single cab form (although quick look on carzone and not one is single cab. interesting....)

jiggajt wrote: »

No unfortunately not. Needs to be a pickup for the offroad capability.

Mc-BigE

Mc-BigE wrote: »

You can order a Ford Ranger or Hilux 4x4 in single cab form (although quick look on carzone and not one is single cab. interesting....)

No good for the family though which I assume he wants it for also.

A good few of the people I know with crew cabs had 2 seater landcrusiers etc until kids came along then they changed to crew cab picks ups as they have back seats for bringing the family/having a baby seat and are commercially taxable, VAT reclaimable on purchase (only applicable to VAT registered people obviously), and meet the requirement of load space, towing ability etc. A lot of these people would end up with 3 cars in a house hold of two adults and all the extra cost and hassle if it wasn't for 5 seat commercial vehicles (3 cars being 1x commercial, 1x car as commercial only has two seats, 1 x wives car).

Mc-BigE

you cant really blame some director in a small limited company for taking advantage on a system that is truely messed up.
Im sure the likes of Land Rover etc would be out of this country if the revenue stopped people road taxing 5 seater commercials at 333 per year.

jiggajt

jiggajt wrote: »

I hear you my friend. How many people do you see driving around in and X5 or a Range Rover with blackened rear windows on sites. You just know they are paying the lower BIK rate if they are paying it at ALL??? This appears to be widespread and part of me just wants to go ahead and do it as even if they do crack down on it surely the problem is too rife for them to fine everyone???.............

If it's not a company owned vehicle than no BIK is applicable.

Opal Sticky Mermaid

Opal Sticky Mermaid wrote: »

...............Having them down as pooled vehicles so 0% BIK is far more likely, there is plenty doing that.............

There's some paying 0% even though there are no other employees, they claim they are transporting clients etc.

Mc-BigE

Mc-BigE wrote: »

you cant really blame some director in a small limited company for taking advantage on a system that is truely messed up.
Im sure the likes of Land Rover etc would be out of this country if the revenue stopped people road taxing 5 seater commercials at 333 per year.

The new discovery is not available in 5 seat commercial, I expect sales to be almost non existent compared to the previous model which is everywhere in 5 seat commercial guise.

jiggajt

Opal Sticky Mermaid wrote: »

No good for the family though which I assume he wants it for also.

A good few of the people I know with crew cabs had 2 seater landcrusiers etc until kids came along then they changed to crew cab picks ups as they have back seats for bringing the family/having a baby seat and are commercially taxable, VAT reclaimable on purchase (only applicable to VAT registered people obviously), and meet the requirement of load space, towing ability etc. A lot of these people would end up with 3 cars in a house hold of two adults and all the extra cost and hassle if it wasn't for 5 seat commercial vehicles (3 cars being 1x commercial, 1x car as commercial only has two seats, 1 x wives car).

That is exactly my situation but its the BIK im worried about not the VRT or Tax.

jiggajt

jiggajt wrote: »

I am a one man band consultant engineer looking to buy a crew cab pickup.............. it is not feasible for me to do nothing as i will lose a valuable contract..............

jiggajt wrote: »

No unfortunately not. Needs to be a pickup for the offroad capability.

jiggajt wrote: »

That is exactly my situation but its the BIK im worried about not the VRT or Tax.

A consultant engineer will lose a valuable contract unless they have a crew cab pick up?

Smell of horsesh1t is strong tbh.

For every 4WD on a site there's a Caddy or Scudo type thing managing away.

jiggajt

Augeo wrote: »

A consultant engineer will lose a valuable contract unless they have a crew cab pick up?

Smell of horsesh1t is strong tbh.

For every 4WD on a site there's a Caddy or Scudo type thing managing away.

Ha! I guess losing the contract is probably an exaggeration but it would go a hell of a lot smoother and safer and in the environment that i work in a Caddy or a Scudo would not last very long.

If the 14k kms/annum business use you mention is genuine that the best option to buy whatever suits you privately and claim mileage expenses.

It's a completely legit €6k/annum out of the company into your pocket

jiggajt

Augeo wrote: »

If the 14k kms/annum business use you mention is genuine that the best option to buy whatever suits you privately and claim mileage expenses.

It's a completely legit €6k/annum out of the company into your pocket

I think i'm beginning to come to that realisation alright. Still the system with revenue seems to be all screwed up.

Augeo

Augeo wrote: »

A consultant engineer will lose a valuable contract unless they have a crew cab pick up?

Smell of horsesh1t is strong tbh.

For every 4WD on a site there's a Caddy or Scudo type thing managing away.

Who wants to be driving around in a caddy or scudo though rather than a nice Hilux or Amarok etc if they are an option they are 10 times the vehicle too if you need to travel on rough terrain or pull a trailor. Image can mean a lot too in many games, pulling up in a van just doesn't have the same impact as a pick up.

Opal Sticky Mermaid

Opal Sticky Mermaid wrote: »

Who wants to be driving around in a caddy or scudo though rather than a nice Hilux or Amarok etc if they are an option they are 10 times the vehicle too if you need to travel on rough terrain or pull a trailor. Image can mean a lot too in many games, pulling up in a van just doesn't have the same impact as a pick up.

I have no problem with that.
The chap doesn't want to pay car BIK rates though.

Want & Nice attract higher BIK
the compromise would be a 2 seat Landcruiser etc but that doesn't suit him either.

It seem the mileage route might

jiggajt wrote: »

I think i'm beginning to come to that realisation alright. Still the system with revenue seems to be all screwed up.

Not really, two rows of seats means car BIK rates (pooled use applies of course as with a car where applicable), front row only and only load space behind means van BIK rates. Really simple.

The thing with the €6k mileage though, pay yourself that as wages and you'd get €3k of it anyway. Still under €2k will diesel 14k kms at 30mpg so the mileage route isn't to be sneezed at if it's all valid business miles.

BoatMad

Mc-BigE wrote: »

you cant really blame some director in a small limited company for taking advantage on a system that is truely messed up.
Im sure the likes of Land Rover etc would be out of this country if the revenue stopped people road taxing 5 seater commercials at 333 per year.

how does a director get any break per se

if the commercial is owned by a company and is regarded as commercial for the purposes of motor tax, any company is fully entitled to therefore register it.

One presume that the use of the vehicle remains within the definition of commercial tax usage. !! .

BIK is an entirely different matter

BoatMad

at the end of the day folks, the rules are the rules, anything else is just breaking the law and trying to justify it to your selves