Section 316 — Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003: Accommodation, supplies and services used in employment duties
Text of the provision Official document
Accommodation, supplies and services used in employment duties 316 1 No liability to income tax arises by virtue of Chapter 10 of Part 3 (taxable benefits: residual liability to charge) in respect of the provision for an employee of accommodation, supplies or services used by the employee in performing duties of the employment if conditions A and B are met.
2 Condition A is that any use of the accommodation, supplies or services for private purposes by the employee or members of the employee’s family or household is not significant.
3 For this purpose, use “ for private purposes ” means—
a use that is not use in performing the duties of the employee’s employment, and b use that is at the same time both use in performing the duties of an employee’s employment and other use.
4 Condition B is that where the provision is otherwise than on premises occupied by the person making it—
a its sole purpose is to enable the employee to perform the duties of the employee’s employment, and b what is provided is not an excluded benefit.
5 The following are excluded benefits unless regulations under subsection (6) provide otherwise—
a a motor vehicle, boat or aircraft, and b a benefit that involves—
i the extension, conversion or alteration of living accommodation, or ii the construction, extension, conversion or alteration of a building or other structure on land adjacent to and enjoyed with such accommodation.
6 The Treasury may make provision by regulations as to what is an excluded benefit for the purposes of subsection (4)(b).
7 The regulations may provide that a benefit is an excluded benefit only if such conditions as may be prescribed are met as to the terms on which, and persons to whom, it is provided.
Official source: legislation.gov.uk
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from UK courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →