This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more about cookies on this website and how to delete cookies, see our Cookie Policy.
Analytics

Tools which collect anonymous data to enable us to see how visitors use our site and how it performs. We use this to improve our products, services and user experience.

Essential

Tools that enable essential services and functionality, including identity verification, service continuity and site security.

Where Taxpayers and Advisers Meet
Is it a Phone or is it a Computer?
16/04/2015, by Ray Chidell, Tax Articles - Business Tax
5467 views
0
Rate:
Rating: 0/5 from 0 people

Ray Chidell and Dave Jennings look at the benefit in kind exemption for mobile phones and the difference between mobiles and other devices such as tablets, laptops, etc.

The provision by employers of mobile phones for employees is today very common. Employers want to be able to contact their employees throughout the working day and a full tax exemption makes it an attractive perk for the employee. Typically, employers will allow their staff to use the phone for sending and receiving private calls, as long as the employee is not running up significant extra costs in the process.

Mobile phones are evolving very rapidly, however, and the first step in considering the tax treatment is to be sure that the item in question is in fact a mobile phone rather than, for example, a personal computer. In the past, it was usually clear cut but, as technology advances, the distinction between a phone and a mobile computer is becoming less clear. The iPhone, for example, is in reality a powerful computer, though its name and the way it is sold both tend to indicate that it is still primarily a telephone.

Logically enough, the legislation defines a mobile phone by identifying two key features: it must be mobile, and it must constitute telephone apparatus.

The “mobility” part is relatively straightforward. It must not be physically connected to a landline, and must not be used only as a wireless extension to a landline phone.

It is the definition of “telephone apparatus” that is potentially more problematic. The technical definition is that the term covers “telegraphy apparatus designed or adapted for the primary purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages and used in connection with a public electronic communications service”.

Two key points emerge from this definition. First, the test is how the item is “designed or adapted” rather than how it is used. So if two employees are provided with identical smartphones, then in principle the tax treatment will be the same, even if one uses it only for calls and the other uses it almost exclusively for surfing the internet.

The test then is the “primary purpose” for which the item has been made. Smartphones, while having additional functions to the sharing of spoken information, continue for now to be classed as mobile phones, because the primary purpose for which they are made is still that of spoken communication. This, at least, would appear to be the correct outcome, though it seems likely that the matter will become even less clear cut over the coming years.

Equipment whose primary purpose is not that of sharing spoken messages, such as iPads or laptop computers, are not classed as mobile phones, even though they may use the internet to send spoken information. A device using Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) systems to send and receive voice messages, which is not connected to a public electronic communications network, is unlikely to satisfy the “primary purpose” requirement in order to be classed as a mobile phone.

Satellite navigation devices (“sat navs”) are another area of developing technology, but would not be classed as mobile phones as their primary purpose is clearly different, even if they have built-in speaking options.

Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) would not in the past have been classed as mobile phones, but many modern PDAs have now evolved into smartphones, which would therefore be classed as such.

If in doubt, employers should contact their PAYE tax office to clear the matter up.

This article has been adapted by Ray Chidell from Employee Benefits & Expenses, written by Ray and by Dave Jennings and published by Claritax Books. Dave Jennings CTA worked at HMRC for over 20 years. A fully trained tax inspector, he was latterly a PAYE and NIC specialist in the North West, investigating hundreds of businesses and employers. 11Dave joined Grant Thornton in 2006 and later moved to Mazars LLP, where he currently leads the Tax Investigations & Employer Solutions service in the North and Scotland.

About The Author

Ray Chidell MA (Cantab), CTA (Fellow) originally qualified as a “fully trained” tax inspector, before working in the accounting profession for 14 years, including six as a tax partner with Mazars. He also worked as a senior technical author for CCH for eight years, writing much of their top level tax commentary before leaving to launch Claritax Books. Ray is recognised as one of the UK’s leading authorities on capital allowances. He writes frequently on the topic, gives lectures for the Chartered Institute of Taxation and is presenter of a series of online training videos on capital allowances. 

Ray launched Claritax Books in 2011, publishing a range of practical tax books written by some of the UK’s top tax authors (solicitors, barristers, accountants and other tax specialists). In the field of capital allowances, Claritax Books publishes two main titles: a substantial annual volume Capital Allowances and a very practical A-Z of Plant & Machinery. Different topics covered in other publications include, among others, trusts, residence, pensions, and employment status.

(W) www.claritaxbooks.com

Back to Tax Articles
Comments

Please register or log in to add comments.

There are not comments added