Private phone calls overnight staying

R

Raramuri

Registered User
Messages
8
Hi,
If for work reasons I need to stay away overnight and I make a call home from the hotel, lets say for 15 minutes and the company reimburses me for the cost of the hotel and the phone call. Is there any tax implication for the reimbursement of the phone call for the company?
 
Practical. We are talking about making a change on the Co Policy. I estimate no more than Eur5 per call. But not sure about how many calls per month. We are planning to allow for short calls while before it was not allowable. As long as they are reasonable and nobody abuses the allowance. But not sure if there will be any tax implication - it is a private use at the end of the day. If there were any tax implication we will need to look at that
 

Then ask your accountant. It's difficult to comment meaningfully here without knowing specifics. Revenue are unlikely to worry too much unless the sums involved are sizeable and the advent of personal mobiles with monthly minutes allowances more or less killed this as a live issue 15/20 years ago.
 
PaddyBloggit said:
why?
Click to expand...

They are travelling away for business. Taking away the fact that I don't know why anyone would use a hotel phone, there is no way that a phone call while travelling on business would not be considered a reasonable business expense. It's no different to a meal.

Revenue are not going to question phone calls unless entire bills are being covered.
 
Raramuri said:
- it is a private use at the end of the day
Click to expand...

While the content of the call may be private it is a reasonable business expense. To deny an employee the opportunity to speak to family and friends while away on company business is unreasonable. It is of course acceptable to say, if cheaper please use your company mobile to make calls rather than hotel phones.
 
Hi .. I’ve a different view to others ..to my mind you would be best to leave the company policy as is.

I would view these calls as private and non business related. So therefore, even though small amounts involved a Benefit in Kind would arise if the company pays for them.. it just adds to complication.. from a practical point of view if an employee ran up a bill of €100 ringing somewhere foreign would you just ignore it?? If you allow an allowance of say €10 per hotel stay.. allowances are taxable pay..

You have a policy for a reason .. and in my experience when revenue do an audit they often look for company policies and if something isn’t in line with guidance/ legislation they will look into it or rather someone in the company will be trawling through the nominal code or hard file receipts.,..
 
Mary55555 said:
when revenue do an audit they often look for company policies and if something isn’t in line with guidance/ legislation they will look into it or rather someone in the company will be trawling through the nominal code or hard file receipts.,..
Click to expand...

Why exactly would Revenue bother themselves with such a trifling matter in the course of an audit of a tax return?
 
It wouldn’t arise on a CT audit but rather an all tax head audit or paye audit ..

I find that revenue look at easy options.. so motor/travel/ accommodation would be a standard audit code to examine in the course of an audit.. easy money to them, as would sundry .. well that’s my experience of audits! For example, if there was €1,000 of such expenditure it could amount to over €500 in tax, before interest and penalties.. so soft money if you ask me...

I’m also assuming that given that the company has a policy on the matter .. it seems to me to be a fair sized company.. I doubt you would go to the trouble of a policy for 1 or 2 employees..
 
A call to your husband/wife whilst on a business trip is a legitimate business expense. If you weren’t away on company business, you’d be talking to him/her. No Revenue auditor would go near that as a potential issue; it’s patently ridiculous!
 

I wouldn't be so sure about that; the case law in the area indicates that the "necessarily... in the performance of the duties" part of the statutory test is notoriously difficult to meet.

In effect, in order for the test to be met, the expense must be one which any person carrying out those duties would be necessarily obliged to incur. Not everyone is married, and it's also unlikely you could successfully argue that it's actually necessary to phone home, it's more in the line of a personal choice.

Having said all that, it's unlikely to be picked up on in an audit unless there's a separate bill for the amounts in question and/or the aggregate amount involved is substantial.
 
It is a legitimate business expense because no one would agree to travel for work if they were told they could not make personal calls at the companies expense. It would be the same as being told, for any trip of less than 24 hour duration no meals will be paid by the company as it is not “necessary in the performance of your duty” to eat for at least 24 hours, even if the norm is 3 meals a day.

When I travel for work I behave and act the same as I would if I was not travelling in terms of when and what I eat and drink, and if I always phone Aunty Mary on a Tuesday I will do the same if I am away travelling for work on a Tuesday. If I speak and interact with my spouse, sibling, parent or child daily then I will phone them when I am travelling as well. I will use the cheapest means available to save the company money, but if I need to use the hotel phone I will do so.

There would be very few staff willing to travel if personal calls were not allowed.
 

AFAIK there's no such provision in the civil service (which is where the published flat rates come from), and when they are told to go travel, they travel.

And to reiterate, not everyone has an Aunty Mary (or anyone) whom they call, so that's not a valid argument.

I really don't see how this can actually be much of an issue in practice. Surely most people employed in jobs that involve a material amount of travel have either a work or personal mobile that has a tariff covering such calls... feels like we're dancing on the head of a pin here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register