Bike to Work scheme - the Megathread - Read post #1 before posting

TychoCaine

CramCycle wrote: »

I have done this and had no issues, there is discussion elsewhere in the forum/thread about this and the wording appears IMO to suggest once every five years per employment, ie new employment means an opportunity to use the scheme again. Probably not the intention of the scheme but that's my opinion on it.

No offence but the Revenue Commissioner's opinion is the one that counts. The wording is pretty clear. There's no mention of changing employer making any difference. There's no central registry of people who've used the scheme, so there's no easy way for your employer (or the tax man) to find out, but technically this is tax evasion with stiff penalties in the unlikely event you were caught by way of a future audit.

Beasty

TychoCaine wrote: »

The wording is pretty clear.

Well that depends on how you define "employee". If they had used the word individual (or taxpayer) I would agree, but an employee is defined by reference to an employment. Hence my own interpretation is it's once every 5 years per employment. An addional factor is that it's the employer that must operate the scheme but has no way of verifying one way or other if an employee has availed under a different employment. I actually believe the wording that was adopted (employee rather than individual) recognised this situation.

I acknowledge is not absolutely clearcut, ane the issue has been covered a number of times already in this thread with different individauls who I know to be tax experts expressing differing opinions

dogsears

Beasty wrote: »

Well that depends on how you define "employee". If they had used the word individual (or taxpayer) I would agree, but an employee is defined by reference to an employment. Hence my own interpretation is it's once every 5 years per employment. An addional factor is that it's the employer that must operate the scheme but has no way of verifying one way or other if an employee has availed under a different employment. I actually believe the wording that was adopted (employee rather than individual) recognised this situation.

I acknowledge is not absolutely clearcut, ane the issue has been covered a number of times already in this thread with different individauls who I know to be tax experts expressing differing opinions

Agree with all this. I have a few years experience in a former life with preparation and drafting of tax legislation (albeit in the UK) and would be amazed if specific attention was not paid to which word to use. And the reason suggested for why the ultimate decision was to go with the word "employee" is very plausible i.e. its exactly the kind of reason that would have been considered in trying to work out how to frame the scheme.

I can see good arguments the other way as well though and we may some day find out if the Revenue agree with it or not but at present based on the legislation this is a perfectly valid approach to take, and I don't think its remotely close to tax evasion to avail of it.

TychoCaine

The wording is "employee", not "employee of company X". After you switch jobs you're still an employee, so there's a strong argument that the 5 year rule carries over to the new job. Also, it is tax evasion/fraud (on a small scale anyway), as you're under paying PAYE, PRSI, USC etc. by claiming a benefit you're not entitled to.

dogsears

TychoCaine wrote: »

The wording is "employee", not "employee of company X". After you switch jobs you're still an employee.

Not necessarily. After you leave one job you could be self employed, out of work, employed in another country etc.

However, I do think there is quite a lot in the argument you make. For myself, I don't actually agree with the point made by CramCycle and Beasty for reasons that are, perhaps, too "inside baseball" for the thread, but that doesn't matter, I very much feel that its plausible and may well be right.

And

wrote:

Also, it is tax evasion/fraud (on a small scale anyway), as you're under paying PAYE, PRSI, USC etc. by claiming a benefit you're not entitled to.

No. Fraud involves deception. The point we're debating here is based on differing interpretations. Again, I feel this too much tax-nerd detail for the thread but its not a benefit you're "not entitled to" until that point becomes beyond doubt i.e. the kind of doubt well enunciated by Beasty and Cramcycle above.

wrote:

No offence but the Revenue Commissioner's opinion is the one that counts.

Its one, but its not the only one. (I'd be out of a job otherwise!!!:eek:)

CramCycle

dogsears wrote: »

Its one, but its not the only one. (I'd be out of a job otherwise!!!:eek:)

I worked for a government department (temporarily), I fully disclosed it to them (that I had used the scheme before). I have said it before that it could be wrong, and if I am I will pay the monies owed. Deception or Fraud imply intent, i have been forthcoming, even though I did not have to be, with everyone, just in case ignorance was not an excuse.

BigDog101

I've a question, couldn't find the answer through search. My missus has her eye on a new bike that she wants to get thru the BTW scheme, the thing is its a mens bike, she said it's a much better spec than the equivalent ladies one.
Anyone know if this is allowed in the scheme?

Cee-Jay-Cee

Yes thats no problem. I got my first bike on the BTW scheme but it wasn't the one I got an invoice for as I changed my mind after applying for the scheme through my work. The shop wont care, they will give you an invoice for whatever bike you want, it doesnt make any difference whether its a male/female bike so long as its a bike.

couerdelion

BigDog101 wrote: »

I've a question, couldn't find the answer through search. My missus has her eye on a new bike that she wants to get thru the BTW scheme, the thing is its a mens bike, she said it's a much better spec than the equivalent ladies one.
Anyone know if this is allowed in the scheme?

Yes, it's fine as long as it's for her use. She might want to get the shop to switch the saddle to a womens specific though when she buys.

BigDog101

Great stuff, thanks for the quick replies

Salmonman

I bought a bike through the scheme back in 2009-10 and I am thinking of upgrading now to a carbon.
I'm i able to buy through scheme again or do I have to wait so many years before I can do so

ZiabR

Scheme is every 5 years if I remember right.

dogsears

Salmonman wrote: »

I bought a bike through the scheme back in 2009-10 and I am thinking of upgrading now to a carbon.
I'm i able to buy through scheme again or do I have to wait so many years before I can do so

If you bought in 09, you can go again from now. If you bought in 2010, you can't go again till Jan 15

mossym

dogsears wrote: »

If you bought in 09, you can go again from now. If you bought in 2010, you can't go again till Jan 15

Jan 2015 as opposed to 2 days time..:)

Mercian Pro

doyler442 wrote: »

Hi

Thanks for you replies - the employer in this case is the department of education, but as I mentioned they supply a link to a page that is suppose to contain the retailers that they support but that page no longer exists so its extremely annoying.

I just wanted to see if anyone in here had gone through the department when buying a bike from Canyon - I'll have a look round and see if I can figure something out and it might benefit others in the future.

For Civil Servants the OPW used to maintain the list of approved suppliers but their procurement section has moved to the Office of Government Procurement. http://www.procurement.ie/sites/default/files/bicycle_suppliers_1_-_30.12.13.pdf is where the list now resides. I see that Canyon, Ribble, Evans, Chainreaction and Planet X (Westmeath & Yorkshire) are all there together with hundreds of LBSs. If you go with Canyon I'd be interested to know how it works out as I am eyeing up the Ultimate CF SL 7.0.

king_of_inismac

How long do applications for the cycle to work scheme typically take in state bodies? I submitting an applications and invoice but haveyet to receive any reply.

Obviously it varies between organisations but is is typically weeks or.months?

dahat

I have decided to get a road bike after intially getting a Giant Roam 2 on my first use of the scheme a few years ago.

I will be using most of the grant to get a bike as i already have helmet etc but i was wondering about shoes. Would 1000 get me a bike for 3/4 years of good spec with decent shoes as i would rather try get them now as opposed to cycling around with runners on my flash new road bike.

Beasty

Shoes don't qualify under the scheme - see the first few posts in the thread for what does

TouchingVirus

Beasty wrote: »

Bike parts or frames do not qualify – it must be a complete bike plus the safety equipment identified above

Is it an option to purchase everything needed and build the bike yourself? I've got my eye on a particular frame (Surly LHT) and it would appear to make financial sense to buy online and build it myself. The pre-built models from Cycleways etc are coming in over budget.

Beasty

TouchingVirus wrote: »

Is it an option to purchase everything needed and build the bike yourself? I've got my eye on a particular frame (Surly LHT) and it would appear to make financial sense to buy online and build it myself. The pre-built models from Cycleways etc are coming in over budget.

No - must be bought as a complete bike

kendragon

Quick question, apologies if this was answered before... 44 pages is too many to go through. I didn't see it specifically answered in the front page or on any of the, many, tax free bike websites I've checked. Thanks.

I purchased a bike in July of 2009 through the scheme. Its now five years later but I had assumed that I would have to wait till July of this year to purchase a new bike through the scheme. A friend of mine says that I can get it now because its within the tax year. Anyone know if that is true? Can I use the scheme again now or do I have to wait till after July?

nerraw1111

Yes. You can get a bike now. No need to wait until July. I've seen some bike shops tweet about it.

route66

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Yes. You can get a bike now. No need to wait until July. I've seen some bike shops tweet about it.

+1

I was in exactly the same situation and checked it with the Tax Office. They confirmed that the various references to 5 years are "Tax Years". I.E. You could have bought a bike on the 31st December 2009 and buy again on the 1st January 2014.

kendragon

Lads, thanks a million for your replies. When I heard this might be the case I was mad to jump on it but couldn't get confirmation. I'll be into my LBS first thing.

butrasgali

Beasty wrote: »

Shoes don't qualify under the scheme - see the first few posts in the thread for what does

I used the scheme 2years ago..600 euro..can I use the remaining 400 now to get more bike gear, does any one know please

Hunterbiker

butrasgali wrote: »

I used the scheme 2years ago..600 euro..can I use the remaining 400 now to get more bike gear, does any one know please

No. You had up to € 1,000 to spend but it had to be spent in 1 transaction. You can't use the scheme again until the 5 years are up.

sullzz

king_of_inismac wrote: »

How long do applications for the cycle to work scheme typically take in state bodies? I submitting an applications and invoice but haveyet to receive any reply.

Obviously it varies between organisations but is is typically weeks or.months?

It took my missus 6 weeks from application to receiving the bike through the dept of education

Beasty

butrasgali wrote: »

I used the scheme 2years ago..600 euro..can I use the remaining 400 now to get more bike gear, does any one know please

Most of the recent questions in this thread are answered on the first page. Can I request posters check there before submitting what they may think is a new query as it is likely to be covered there

wirelessdude01

sullzz wrote: »

It took my missus 6 weeks from application to receiving the bike through the dept of education

Mine was approximately the same timeframe as well from the Dept.

kendragon

I've just been informed by HR that they only allow us to purchase bikes from bike shops of their choosing. I feel this is wrong and against the rules of the scheme as set out by revenue. Can they pick and choose the bike shops?