[bikes]

I can’t find any articles questioning the UK’s (and maybe other countries’?) tax incentives for buying these vehicles. The pick ups I see aren’t being used for carrying building materials, they just look like they’re being used as company cars. I’m surprised there isn’t more questioning of the policy, unless I’ve missed something? 

Thanks to AidanR for this summary under the Road.cc article “SUVs more dangerous […] “

“The tax benefits are threefold when purchased as a company vehicle:

1) Much lower benefit in kind rates for employees and employers than cars, which aren’t linked to CO2 emissions.

2) Ability to recover VAT paid, unlike cars. In theory VAT recovery for a doublecab pick-up should be apportioned for private use, although how often that happens in practice I don’t know.

3) 100% relief against corporation tax in the year of purchase, rather than 18% or 8% per year for a car.”

    

Topic

[Hirsute]

Surely you have come across

Surely you have come across wtjs posting about the number of vehicles in his area with none of the above and the police do nothing despite repeated reports to them.

The one in the photo – ved ran out 30 11 17 and mot 6 6 17

[wycombewheeler]

wtjs wrote:

Can anyone make an argument in favour of the policy?

The beneficiaries of the policy certainly can! Apparently, these vehicles are exempt from MOT, insurance and VED although I think you still have to pay for the petrol

Really? I thought it was just about VAT or benefit in kind company car tax

[mattw]

And safety rules are far

And safety rules are far worse for ‘light trucks’.

The Tesla Cybertruck does not meet the basic European rules, which is why it is staying in Yankland.

[andystow]

Hirsute wrote:

From 1 July, HRMC will abandon the payload-based definition and deem any pick-up with a second row of seats as suitable for private use and therefore a car.

That reminds me of the US loophole, where Ford used to import (to the US) Transit vans built in Turkey with rear seats installed, then strip them before selling them as work vans. That’s because there is a 25% tariff on cargo vans, but only 2.5% on passenger vans.

[don simon fbpe]

It’s a weird one, car

It’s a weird one, car manufacturers cottoned on to the loophole and started manufacturing the 4 door, luxury trim with a useless tray and muppets were content driving pick up trucks on leaf springs with no payload.

One of the most pointless trucks out there, stick to a 2 door or extracab.

[wtjs]

From 1 July, HRMC will

From 1 July, HRMC will abandon the payload-based definition and deem any pick-up with a second row of seats as suitable for private use and therefore a car

Hope it’s true, but it won’t have any effect in Lancashire where the pickups like WU59 UMH have gone completely ‘off-grid’ with the agreement of Lancashire Constabulary

[ktache]

Excellent.
Excellent.

[Hirsute]

Loophole to be closed from

Loophole to be closed from July 24

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/consumer/pick-ups-face-huge-tax-hike-they-lose-commercial-vehicle-status

From 1 July, HRMC will abandon the payload-based definition and deem any pick-up with a second row of seats as suitable for private use and therefore a car.

[mark1a]

Bigtwin wrote:

Just make it so that if it’s owned/leased by a company, it’s a company car.  That way people can have estate cars instead of enviornment wrecking trucks, which they have because if you don’t have a 1 tonne plus LCV you lose money.  More government stupidity in action.

How would you propose the difference in BIK tax between company cars and commercial vehicles?

[Bigtwin]

Just make it so that if it’s

Just make it so that if it’s owned/leased by a company, it’s a company car.  That way people can have estate cars instead of enviornment wrecking trucks, which they have because if you don’t have a 1 tonne plus LCV you lose money.  More government stupidity in action.

[Bigtwin]

I worked for a guy who had

I worked for a guy who had one of these.  He wanted a plain estate car, but the idiot tax rules make this a no-no.  Someone needs to get a grip.

[Eton Rifle]

It’s not uncommon to see the
It’s not uncommon to see the blokes doing the actual work rocking up in a battered white Transit with the tools, materials etc. An hour later, the boss rocks up in a spotless, shiny “pick-up” wankpanzer.

Baffingly, the driver of each vehicle pays the same “van” benefit-in-kind for any private use.
It’s bonkers.

[bikes]

Ok, thanks. I’m getting a

Ok, thanks. I’m getting a better understanding. An Autoexpress article (2021) seemed to have a good explanation as well. It includes this: “Increasing numbers of company drivers are cottoning-on to the tax advantages of running a cool-looking double-cab pick-up instead of a traditional family car or SUV. So naturally manufacturers who make juicy margins on ‘luxury’ versions of cheap to develop commercial vehicles are doing everything possible to fan the flames of desire.” And this table.  

How can this loophole be closed?

[mark1a]

bikes wrote:

Can anyone make an argument in favour of the policy? Did the government ever reveal the  reasoning behind it? Would a petition questioning the policy likely get enough traction for 10,000 signatures?

The government “policy” as such is just a way of defining commercial vehicles for tax purposes, which is the correct thing to do, otherwise it would be free-for-all on VAT reclaim on ordinary cars. The issue with crew-cab pick-ups being used instead of company cars is what’s known as a “loophole”. Over the years, the government has sought to discourage this by raising the BIK, it’s currently nearly £4k, back in the mid 2000s when the manufacturers started putting more comfortable interiors in them, the BIK was only £500. 

[wtjs]

Can anyone make an argument

Can anyone make an argument in favour of the policy?

The beneficiaries of the policy certainly can! Apparently, these vehicles are exempt from MOT, insurance and VED although I think you still have to pay for the petrol

[Author]

Replies