Remote Working From Home

C

cmtc01

Registered User
Messages
9
Hi, Have been working from home since 18 March 2020 and will continue working from home for 2021.

My employer did not pay through payroll on the grounds that it was going to be a cost incurred by the company.
Is this correct. I would have thought that there is some way of reclaiming this in month end returns to Revenue.

It would seem inequitable that if it is paid through the company that the company bears the cost, and if it is claimed by individual that Revenue bears the cost.
I don't know how to discuss with our Accounts Dept. Can anyone help?

thank you very much.
Carolyne
 
Are you talking about the work from home allowance? Some companies pay staff an allowance to work from home, the limit is set by revenue.

If your company does not do this (and I am guessing this is the majority) you can claim for some of the costs relating to light, heat & broadband. The revenue has rules for this too.

One does not replace the other. There is no fairness issue. You just can’t get both allowances at the same time. And your company is fully entitled to decline to pay a wfh allowance.
 
HI Clamball. Thank you for your reply. I do know that I could not claim both ways. My question (and maybe I didnt express it correctly) is that my company have declined to pay it as they would bear the full cost of the amount. Say eg I could claim the full €3.20 pd. If my company pay me - they are saying that they bear the full cost of this. Whereas if I claim that amount through ROS anytime it is Revenue who are bearing the cost. I just didn't understand the logic they are using. Thank you.
 
What you will be entitled to from Revenue as a tax credit refund will work out at far less than 3.20 a day.
Not even 3.20 a week...

If your company pays it they bear full cost but it is tax free.
 
Thanks odyssey06.
So it is correct. There is a disadvantage to the employer if they pay. I just did my calculation and it works out at about €150 in total for Mar to Dec (less than .90c pd). Do you know if that is a credit or is applied at the lower tax rate?
 
cmtc01 said:
Thanks odyssey06.
So it is correct. There is a disadvantage to the employer if they pay. I just did my calculation and it works out at about €150 in total for Mar to Dec (less than .90c pd). Do you know if that is a credit or is applied at the lower tax rate?
Click to expand...

One thing to watch out for on the calc - it is your total utility bills for the year divided by your number of eworking days from March - December.

Based on this it appears to be a credit...
At the end of the year, Niamh completes her Income Tax return for 2020. She claims €61.30 Remote Working Relief under Tax Credits and Reliefs - 'Your Job' tab. Niamh pays tax at the higher tax rate (40%) and she will receive €24.52 as tax relief. She retains the utility bills that relate to her claim for six years.

Remotely working from home

This page explains remotely working from home (eWorking)
www.revenue.ie www.revenue.ie
 
WFH since the start of all this.

So got my Gas, Electricity and Broadband bills from the suppliers as company not paying the daily rate.

So totalled these up and logged into Revenue and inserted the figures and got a tax deduction of a massive €100 then got my P 21 Balancing statement PAYE/USC statement of liability for the tax year.

I did not upload the utility bill statements.

So net amount is €40 just the price of half of my monthly BB bill:confused:

So wonder if Leaky Leo & Paschal will bring something better in for those WFH to make it worthwhile or am I missing something:(
 
worthwhile to stay home and stay safe?
Worthwhile to have extra hours at home?
How much did you save on transport fees?
 
No you're not missing anything,if you worked 200 days at home this year and you are a higher rate tax payer,it works out at about 2% of your gas/electric bills and 6% of your broadband bill.
For standard rate taxpayer,halve the above.
 
IrishGunner said:
So net amount is €40 just the price of half of my monthly BB bill:confused:

So wonder if Leaky Leo & Paschal will bring something better in for those WFH to make it worthwhile or am I missing something:(
Click to expand...

This attitude baffles me TBH and I'm WFH since last March too.

I can't wait to get back to the office for at least some of the time, but from my perspective a blended arrangement would be great, and that's the sentiment I get from most of my colleagues, and friends working in a range of jobs. There'll be no €3.20 a day (not a penny in fact, per DPER), and my attitude wouldn't change a jot even if no tax relief was due, as the benefits to me, financial and otherwise, far outweigh the costs.

So you may use slightly more of your own electricity and heat to WFH (do many computer literate people not have high data / unlimited internet at home already?!). If you're being objective, how much additional light and heat is actually necessary for you to WFH (as opposed to the fact that due to the pandemic you've been stuck at home for huge swathes of the last year). Lighting in your workspace for X hours a week, power to run a computer etc for X hours a week. Heating your workspace (NB. not your whole house) for X hours a week. I don't really see how that's going to be substantial in the majority of cases.

On the other hand, you save both time and money on a commute. Depending on an individual's commute, this can be a huge benefit, both financially and from a quality of life perspective.

The reality is that the €3.20 a day rate that is concessionally allowed tax free, is extremely generous. People should be going to their employees and looking for a contribution, since it's the employer who benefits from lower electricity, heating, wear & tear (and in the longer term potentially lower property related costs - rent, rates, insurance etc). The €3.20 is the MAXIMUM, so most people, if they could even get half that from the employer, would be well ahead of where they are presently.
 
Don't get me wrong I just thought the benefits would be similar to the €3.20 (i know very generous amount) I cycle to work and time at home has been good and when we all come out of this I will be looking at a Hybrid Model. Prior to all this I could WFH and was beneficial. I feel as now companies see that it can work and more employees will want to WFH the cynic in me feels Employers will use this to their advantage, and they have every right to.

I was not expecting millions but if bills are getting higher while people WFH I just feel that the employer is making the savings short and long term and needs to be addressed which it possible will

Just my 2c
 
It seems a very minor amount to get back from revenue for all the effort of collecting the bills etc. But the benefits of WFH are great and I hope to do it in a blended way when the pandemic ends. Having said that the companies pay an awful lot to build, decorate and furnish offices so I cannot see them both creating a work space and giving staff €3.60 a day to WFH. But I have heard of companies not wanting to rent office space for their whole staff, say a staff of 80 but only renting a space for 40 as they expect a large amount of WFH. I could see those companies parting with the €3.60 per day.
 
I don't understand why the 3.20 a day is such a big issue for people. I think most companies would prefer to have their people in the office (where they have one) and why should they pay for the privilege of letting people work from home. Particularly this year when there is a global pandemic, I think people should cut their employers some slack and be happy that they have been able to continue working when so many others haven't. Companies still have rent/rates etc to pay regardless of if there are employees on site. Yes I understand some people may have marginally higher electricity/heating bills but surely costs have reduced in other areas over the same period. If blended wfh/office continues after the pandemic is over it will be a great help to many families. How many people would refuse the option to work 1/2 days per week from home over the 3.20 per day?
 
Nutso said:
I don't understand why the 3.20 a day is such a big issue for people.
Click to expand...

Some people had to upgrade their broadband package to support WFH, I think that's the most significant expense.

More trivially, some of us miss out on freebies in work such as coffee, fruit, occasional lunches...

But yes, for the majority there is significant savings in commuting expenses (time and money)
 
odyssey06 said:
But yes, for the majority there is significant savings in commuting expenses (time and money
Click to expand...
Most people regard working from home as a big perk that they want to continue with, they love it. Therefore why should the government be granting tax advantages to those who by and large are spending less money and have improved lilifestyles. Surely the tax advantages should be going to those workers like the nurses, supermarket and factory workers who have no choice but to continue to travel to work aswell as working unsociable hours and are now regarded as essential workers.
 
joe sod said:
Most people regard working from home as a big perk that they want to continue with, they love it. Therefore why should the government be granting tax advantages to those who by and large are spending less money and have improved lilifestyles. Surely the tax advantages should be going to those workers like the nurses, supermarket and factory workers who have no choice but to continue to travel to work aswell as working unsociable hours and are now regarded as essential workers.
Click to expand...

I guess the rationale is that the government is already spending a lot of money on those people almost subsidising the transit to work - through road network, public transport network, bus passes, bike to work schemes etc & then there's carbon missions to consider.
No need for huge, costly expansion of existing network if we can just move a significant chunk of people WFH.

If the tax credit isn't needed to achieve people working from home then I have no problem scrapping it.
But it's a very low cost 'nudge', and fairness is a secondary priority when it comes to such 'nudges' versus an outcome considered in the general public interest.

I don't think the tax system is the way to try to balance unsociable hours, that's for employers.
 
odyssey06 said:
guess the rationale is that the government is already spending a lot of money on those people almost subsidising the transit to work - through road network, public transport network, bus passes, bike to work schemes etc & then there's carbon missions to consider.
Click to expand...
Normally your posts are pretty good but this is pretty lame. Are you seriously suggesting that roads and public transport are just there for essential workers that have no choice anyway and therefore only they should pay for it but that the WFH people should still get a tax break. !!!!
That's a bit like marie antoinette "let them eat cake"
Let's be honest the only reason Leo is suggesting these tax breaks is naked populism and to gain kudos with the people that would vote for him and his colleagues.
Why is Germany doing the opposite looking for tax breaks for essential workers to be paid by increasing taxes on the WFH workers because they recognise the disparity
 
joe sod said:
Normally your posts are pretty good but this is pretty lame. Are you seriously suggesting that roads and public transport are just there for essential workers that have no choice anyway and therefore only they should pay for it but that the WFH people should still get a tax break. !!!!
That's a bit like marie antoinette "let them eat cake"
Let's be honest the only reason Leo is suggesting these tax breaks is naked populism and to gain kudos with the people that would vote for him and his colleagues.
Why is Germany doing the opposite looking for tax breaks for essential workers to be paid by increasing taxes on the WFH workers because they recognise the disparity
Click to expand...

I think this one has gone far off its original post so before I exit it, I suggest you have a re-read of what I actually wrote because I don't recognise it from the strawman view you just presented.
 
I did re read your post @odyssey06 and I havn't changed my view on it , its not off topic either as it is perfectly valid to question why WFH workers should be tax advantaged while workers that have no choice but to travel to work are not . The "strawman" is not actually made from straw but is real he is the guy out at 5am this morning emptying the bins or baking the bread or yes stuck at dublin port with a truck full of groceries .
 
odyssey06 said:
What you will be entitled to from Revenue as a tax credit refund will work out at far less than 3.20 a day.
Not even 3.20 a week...

If your company pays it they bear full cost but it is tax free.
Click to expand...
Hi @odyssey06. Prior to the pandemic, several of the employers who have a lot of home-based workers such as Apple and Amazon recognised the problem and paid a flat amount specifically to cover broadband costs monthly through payroll, rather than the WFH €3.20, . I don't know what it is now, but it used to be around €50/month. It's worth helping smaller employers realise this is an option?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top