Well you know what I meant…
1 Like
No, I wouldn’t, but they are doing a full time job. What we are doing is helping to run a youth organisation. Tax allowances are there to be set against pay if your job has a requirement (protective clothing?) that the rest of the working population doesn’t have. As you have already said, you are not paid, so any tax allowance would be against your salary for doing something else for another organisation.
Please, do what you like, it just seemed a bit money-grabbing for everyone to be getting upset about it here.
Exactly, and getting paid for it. I’m not sure why you feel that people who aren’t getting paid for things should be less worthy of tax breaks…
1 Like
If you are not getting paid there is nothing to tax.
Curious logic there.
I am getting money from the government - just not the maximum amount. So as long as I’m paying tax somewhere, then I can claim the difference back.
I think you’re reading a bit much into this.
I think your argument about having full time jobs falls down when you remember that nearly all of us have full time jobs on top of the 12 hours a month minimum we give to the organisation. I’m not trying to say we do the same job as any regular or reservist in uniform - that would clearly be insane. What I’m saying is that if my “employer” (and given all the arguments elsewhere about if we’re employed or not I won’t go in to them here) requires me to wear a uniform and doesn’t provide me the facilities to clean it, I like people all over the country in public service and elsewhere are entitled to claim a small cost back each year. I didn’t make the rule, I’m merely highlighting and asking if anyone has used it.
1 Like
It’s not as simple as that. It (from my limited and declining memory) is that is has to be unusual cleaning. Everyone is expected to have to wash clothes they use for work. However those who have to wash them more, for example those working in a dirty or dangerous environment, can claim some tax back. It usually goes to police, drainage contractors and the like.
Not permitted. This is what the uniform upkeep allowance is for.
“In general, no allowance for income tax purposes should be made to officers of the Army, Navy or Air Force reserves for the cost of maintaining their uniform. The annual tax-free cash allowance that they receive for that purpose should, taking one year with another, normally cover the expenditure so incurred.”
EIM 50120 refers:
Tax treatment of armed forces: reserve and auxiliary forces: expenses
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim50120
1 Like
Nope - it just needs to be clothing that cannot reasonably be worn outside of the work environment. Generally this means specialist clothing, or clothing with a logo on. A lawyer took this up as a test case: she tried to claim back not only on her gown and wig, but also on business suits, arguing that she didn’t wear suits outside of work, and they were required uniform for court appearances. She was denied on the suits, as you could reasonably wear them outside of work, but the gown and wig are claimable as they cannot reasonably be worn outside of work.
https://www.taxation.co.uk/articles/2004/04/15/19591/suits-you-madam
1 Like
Thank you!
CFAV’s don’t get a Tax Free Bounty because we aren’t reserves.
It is definitely worth querying with HMRC, after all I know people who have claimed the tax back on cadet mileage to the 45ppm limit.
Officers do get a uniform upkeep allowance, although of course SNCOs and WOs don’t.
Be interesting to see how that works when we are all under the one title.
Will Officers get this? If so why not SNCOs? Or why should either get it and we all just get uniform from stores on a replacement basis or beg/borrow/steal.
It makes you wonder if at the 11th hour someone looking closely at the commission change, realised that actually there were two groups (ATC Officers and SNCOs) that had been treated different for years, but would now effectively be the same and still want to treat them the differently.
I also wonder if the dichotomy between VRT and ACF and SCC officers was discovered, as I believe they have to purchase “N°1s” and VRT are issued. If someone said to me I HAD to buy a N°1 the answer might not be as they expect, especially with all the faff of going to an RAF tailor and the cost. I know a number of ACF and SCC Officers who wear their standard dress to all parades.
Both of these situations could create a real mess for the MoD to sort out.
I’d guess it would stay the same - the difference at the moment is due to the commission, not the fact that officers are RAFVR(T) and SNCOs/WOs are ATC.
But why? If we are to all be badged the same, why not remove all the differences?
I still feel the differences between ATC, ACF and SCC Officers are a little more difficult to brush away with a blanket statement.
Considering the SCC is an organisation not even under the control of the MoD and not funded by them may have come as a surprise especially when they thought they had some control of the SCC.
The could say thanks for the recognition of our officers with the CFC now but-out and leave us leave us alone to carry on like we have for the last 150 or so years.
The annual tax-free allowance talked about here ISN’T the reservist training bounty - it’s the uniform upkeep allowance of £22.50 (male)/£32 (female) you get automatically every November (hence the ‘for that purpose’).
Mileage is entirely different: you can claim back the tax on the 20ppm difference between the 25ppm HQAC give and the 45ppm HMRC maximum.
HMRC are clamping down on the Milage Assistance Relief. I bunged a recent claim in and they wanted inside leg measurements of Finance branch, tasking reports for the journeys, other silly documents that don’t exist and something else. I wrote back saying we don’t have that stuff and the reply pretty much said, “unlucky son”.