OVERNIGHTS ROW
Page 17
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Is Inland Revenue attitude passing the buck or a logical decision?
VITRIOLIC attack by the mployers' associations on the iland Revenue marked the 1th hour of the Great Subsismce Row last week when it ras accused of passing the uck.
In a joint statement, the reight Transport Association nd the Road Haulage 'Assoiation say that the decision to rithdraw the controversial absistence form is "deplorale".
"Having raised the issue in le first instance the Inland :evenue has now opted out nd passed the buck totally to :le employers," say the Assoiations.
But the TGWU, against the arm since its inception, hailed hie final result. "Logic has revailed," said Mr Jack Ashtell, the union's national rganiser. "This is a onclusion that is very satisactory to the union, especially there the members are conerned."
"No one has won or lost this :attle," said Mr Ashwell. "We tere in a negotiating situation and we were used to negotiating," he conceded.
However, the employers' associations said in a terse statement that they would be issuing advice to their members on how to deal with the situation.
"It's back to square one," said a spokesman for the RHA. "The employers are in the hands of the tax inspectors to deal individually with the forms.
"It was no go with the Inland Revenue, they were not prepared to go beyond their original six proposals" (CM June 25). "Now, if someone wants some expenses that are non-taxable — then the Inland Revenue wants some paper.". In a letter the Inland Revenue has told the employers' associations that "it is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rules. However, in the light of our recent discussions, it is a fair inference that payments at the rate of £4.50 a night would be generally acceptable." This does not take into account the latest demands of the TGWU now asking for subsistence payments in excess of £6 per night.
The Inland Revenue says: "This does not mean that an employer is necessarily tied to £4.50 a night, but if an employer wished to pay more without deducting any tax he would be well advised to obtain the approval of his local tax inspector before doing so — unless the employer was able to prove that he had genuinely incurred a great expense."
But it is made clear that the Inland Revenue comments are no more than a general guide to the situation and any specific needs would have to be considered by a tax inspector.