The phrase specialist kit is interesting.
I doubt that “Scout” leaders do a walk in their slippers and those involved in sport training/coaching do it with something they knocked up in the garage.
No one has to buy MTP and to be honest for the majority of walking etc we do in the ATC boots are so much cheaper than they have been.
I won’t buy MTP or DPM before that. The DPM I have has come out of the bags we get from stores, if there has been big boy sizes.
I think that using the VA argument while valid as a way of acquiring kit, mine goes into my bank account and gets spent.
I’ve got a Trangia and pare of Scapa Atak I bought over 30 years ago and save a new O ring for the burner and laces, they are as bought, except I cut a hole in the Trangia to take gas.
I don’t buy or wear special clothing for AT.
I still feel HQAC chuck all sorts of rubbish into the mix and say VA can be claimed as a bribe or lure to do it. They could say just do it and start chucking teddies if we don’t and people will still do the rubbish.
this is a very simply and straightforward example but is also not very black and white.
Most who take part in a “day walk” with the Cadets will also have sufficient interest in walking without Cadets and thus opens the question, when is “specialist equipment” personal or not?
I would not expect RAFAC to pay for my walking boots, even if I only ever used them on RAFAC duty.
Those who use “specialist equipment” tend to have a “specialist interest” - the CFAVs I know who have climbing quals, all climb “privately” away from the RAFAC and have their own kit.
likewise for those who go canoeing/kayaking
and for camping - tents, cookers, sleeping bags are all kit they use when not on RAFAC duty
The exception to the rule is shooting, but even then I and many others have our own ear defenders, although confess of all those interested in shooting i know, less than 1% actually do any civilian shooting (and those who do are shotgun shooters)
ironically those I know who are keenest on civilian target shooting are generally uninterested in getting involved in RAFAC shooting as it is too restrictive in what they can do. I know one individual who has a small collection of impressive rifles and regularly makes a weekend visit to Bisley firing 300-600m and has little interest in getting involved in 5.5m air rifle or 25m 0.22 rim fire shooting!
As a member of the RBL I can claim mileage on my volunteering. Now that doesn’t necessarily cover a HTD for monthly meetings (although in theory it could) but if i attended training courses or conferences then it would be no bother.
I represent my Branch at the County Conference each year and request that my lunch (£10) is paid for, I don’t claim the mileage to drive there although could.
More organisations will offer a mileage rate than you think, but as an expense for a Charity many won’t be quick at offering it!
So in 95% of cases it is, and also by default unless otherwise stated?
Was just a bit puzzled by the previous post making out it was an honesty based declaration system by default, rather than the tax being taken automatically unless otherwise arranged.
Read what the government actually says in tax law, you cannot be paid anything except out of pocket expenses for which you must obtain receipts. One day HMRC are going to have a field day with this.
the “get around” I would assume MOD are working on is this isn’t “pay” but an “allowance” - the Volunteer Allowance.
how that title changes the legal side of things I agree HMRC will determine, but as it is not “pay” or to be considered a “wage” - despite everything pointing at a wage given we have a “payslip” in the form of a VA “receipt”, a P60 each year, it is taxed, is based on a grade (ie rank held) and thus can increase with greater “responsibility” - the MOD wash their hands of the situation
As Bob says … you need a careful read as this is another area of RAFAC that teeters on the brink.
A P-60 is defined as an end of year certificate declaring the tax that HMRC understands you have or have not paid. Also your national insurance contribution. As a document, it is wholly under the mechanism of PAYE (Pay As You Earn) which is confined to employment.
In tax law there is nothing that currently permits such a thing as an ‘allowance’ as a permanent means of recompense unless the employer can demonstrate their satisfaction to HMRC that the allowance would equate to out of pocket expenses. Prior to 2016, it was possible to agree ‘dispensations’ with HMRC whereby small sums or at least agreed areas would be untaxed or at least uniformly declared en-bloc . But since 2016 all new and existing dispensations were voided in favour of actual recompense. As a volunteer there are no special arrangements and the rules have tightened.
As ever, ATC-HQ will be behind the curve, but the knock on effect should be clear enough. Certainly it should no longer be a route to allowing differing allowances based on rank or status - the price of equipment is the same for everyone as required. If you receive VA what is it actually for other than compensation for time? In which case you are not a volunteer.
It is a mess, but yet again one that everyone receiving VA is personally liable for.
Tax law and employment law differ in their interpretations of ‘employed’. Now it may be possible to argue that we are workers (which is different from being an employee) under employment law but even that a major grey area. Its also possible that we could be classed as having some form of status on some activities (where we get VA) but not in other activities (such ss a parade night where we don’t get paid). I know @Rumpole and @Aries (who are probably the same person) like to make out that everything is black and white but it really isn’t.
I’m not really sure why everyone thinks that HMRC are going to have an issue with the status quo - given that uniformed CFAVs are on PAYE it’s hard to see where their objections would lie.
Employment law might be another matter, but only really relevant if someone complains.