# Bike to work scheme



## jasdpace@gmail. (28 Sep 2022)

How does this work - if at all - for those working from home?!


----------



## Rasputin (28 Sep 2022)

jasdpace@gmail. said:


> How does this work - if at all - for those working from home?!



The scheme does require that the bike is mainly used by you to travel to work, however, if the bicycle is used for work related journeys, for example trips to the post office or to collect office supplies, that should also suffice. Whether your employer will be on board with that is another thing as they may not want to risk falling foul of revenue. Let us know what they say.


----------



## Leo (10 Oct 2022)

Trips to pick up supplies etc. are not covered. From Revenue:



> You must mainly use the bicycle and safety equipment for qualifying journeys. This means the whole or part of a journey between your home and your normal place of work.



Essentially, if you work from home, you aren't eligible for a tax benefit designed to encourage people to ditch the car for the daily commute.


----------



## LS400 (10 Oct 2022)

I really doubt that many of the bike to work scheme participants who avail of the perk, actually use it for the purpose it was intended.

I say that, because of all the individuals I know of who availed, dont cycle to work.


----------



## Allpartied (10 Oct 2022)

I would say there is widespread abuse of this scheme. 
Loads of people, with a compliant employer, can get the forms signed. 
Then they go to a , similarly, compliant bike shop.   
Buy a load of bikes for the kids and get the tax relief.  
Its no biggy, in my eyes, as the essential aim of the scheme is to get people out of cars and using bikes.


----------



## michaelm (10 Oct 2022)

Allpartied said:


> Loads of people, with a compliant employer, can get the forms signed.


I don't think that's necessary, just that the employer supports the scheme. [edit: reading it again maybe you're specifically referring to those working exclusively from home].

No doubt Leo is correct but for the less scrupulous it's straightforward . . they get a quote for whatever amount up to the Revenue limit, their employer will turn that into a credit voucher paid for by way of salary deduction, go back to the bike shop and buy whatever.


----------



## Cervelo (10 Oct 2022)

From the Revenue 
"Home-based employees can take part in the scheme if the bicycle is used for work-related journeys"


----------



## Savvy (10 Oct 2022)

This could include cycling to get  :
- Beer and/or take away food for Remote team meet ups.
- Tea/Coffee/Sugar/Milk for your morning tea break
- Batteries for your cordless mouse/keyboard/etc..

Am I missing anything?


----------



## cremeegg (10 Oct 2022)

Savvy said:


> This could include cycling to get  :
> - Beer and/or take away food for Remote team meet ups.
> - Tea/Coffee/Sugar/Milk for your morning tea break
> - Batteries for your cordless mouse/keyboard/etc..
> ...


Wellbeing journeys !


----------



## messyleo (10 Oct 2022)

I would argue that if people who work remotely are using it mainly for normal day to day (non work) transport instead of a car (cycling to the supermarket, into town etc as well as the occasional meeting in the office) it's still a positive benefit for society that is worth the tax break! 

Using it for kids bikes is a different story and shocking if a bike shop stands over that imo


----------



## Cervelo (11 Oct 2022)

gravitygirl said:


> Using it for kids bikes is a different story and shocking if a bike shop stands over that imo


I think it's a little unfair to single out the bike shop alone after all there could be up to four entities involved in the transaction
The person buying the bike(s), the employer, the bike shop and the voucher company if one is used

From my experience in working in a bike shop, if the shop is not willing to "bend the rules" they will loose the sale as the customer will go down the road to the next bike shop who will gladly accommodate the customer in their wishes 
I've seen people from all walks of life from the person in the street, accountants, solicitors, Garda, Government employees including some from Revenue and even a Judge come into the shop to use their voucher for something else than what it was designed for   
I'm not saying it's right but nobody "seems" to care what the voucher/cheque is used for as long as it's bike related and after all it's not just a bonus to the individual and increased sales to the bike shop, it's also a little money spinner for the government as well


----------



## michaelm (11 Oct 2022)

Cervelo said:


> I'm not saying it's right but nobody "seems" to care what the voucher/cheque is used for as long as it's bike related


There seems to be an element of don't ask don't tell to it.


----------



## T McGibney (11 Oct 2022)

michaelm said:


> There seems to be an element of don't ask don't tell to it.


Some might say that here it's _the right kind of people_ who are doing the tax evading and the false accounting.

Not like those dirty tradesmen, farmers, developers etc...


----------



## fayf (11 Oct 2022)

No one ever checks this, 
in reality, to avail of the scheme, you just have to be:

1) an employee
2) have an employer, that participates in the scheme

3) to maximise the tax saving, be paying tax @ 40 %


----------



## Cavanbhoy (12 Oct 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Some might say that here it's _the right kind of people_ who are doing the tax evading and the false accounting.
> 
> Not like those dirty tradesmen, farmers, developers etc...


Exactly, but in reality its no different.


----------



## jasdpace@gmail. (12 Oct 2022)

OP here - it's a gas country. So, it seems that for some tax reliefs, the qualifying conditions are, well, the qualifying conditions whilst for other reliefs, these conditions don't matter much. I particularly liked one of the earlier posts whereby we even got into one form of tax evasion being grand but another form being beyond the pale.


----------



## seamless (12 Oct 2022)

Why isn't the scheme post purchase ? i.e. claim your tax relief after purchase with supporting invoice, bike serial number and photo. It may encourage a higher level of compliance.


----------



## T McGibney (12 Oct 2022)

seamless said:


> Why isn't the scheme post purchase ? i.e. claim your tax relief after purchase with supporting invoice, bike serial number and photo. It may encourage a higher level of compliance.


The motivation behind the scheme is to sell more bikes and to make bike shops viable.  The stuff about cycling to work is window dressing. They don't really care about it being abused by people who don't cycle to work.


----------



## shweeney (12 Oct 2022)

there's also an element of having more people cycling is good from a population health and climate change perspective. It's not something they're likely to "crack down on". 


seamless said:


> Why isn't the scheme post purchase ? i.e. claim your tax relief after purchase with supporting invoice, bike serial number and photo. It may encourage a higher level of compliance.



that sounds like more admin from Revenue's POV which is probably also the reason why the scheme is currently PAYE only. 
Ultimately provided people are using the scheme to buy bikes, and aren't taking the piss, they don't care any more than that.


----------



## STEINER (12 Oct 2022)

Where I work it’s obvious that some people use the BTW scheme to buy bikes for their kids.  They drive to work! There are some genuine bike commuters also.  I work in public sector.


----------



## Cavanbhoy (13 Oct 2022)

Why not do away with the scheme.
And if they want to make cycling more attractive remove the Vat element of the cost of a bike


----------



## ryaner (13 Oct 2022)

The scheme has been shown to work in multiple cases. I personally know more than few people who never cycled to work and now cycle to work most days - covid messed with a lot of schedules and cycling to the office downstairs isn't really a runner 

I know the scheme in my current place has checks in place around the purchases. It goes as far as checking the quote and the receipt after the fact and both need to have the bike model listed. There was enough hoops that I didn't end up using it.

Schemes like this can be shown to pretty much pay for themselves through other health benefits across the population.


			https://assets.gov.ie/205027/7834435b-7997-4c58-886f-6809e9f3fde0.pdf
		



> The report also found only a modest increase in cycling achieved by a small proportion of participants was required to generate social benefits whose value would exceed estimated cost of the scheme.


We could cherry pick figures from that report to show how effective it is too, but really things like this can't be looked at in isolation. Yes the numbers of people cycling has increased, but we'd have seen that without the scheme given other parallel efforts. IMO the scheme has gotten others who wouldn't have cycled to try it, and definitely some to cycle to work.


----------



## ryaner (13 Oct 2022)

Cavanbhoy said:


> Why not do away with the scheme.
> And if they want to make cycling more attractive remove the Vat element of the cost of a bike


This would actually be way way way more expensive than the scheme. High end estimates peg the cost of the scheme around 4M a year. Vat from bikes is a lot more than that. High end bikes are really expensive these days and popular with the weekend warrior types.


----------



## dereko1969 (13 Oct 2022)

Cavanbhoy said:


> Why not do away with the scheme.
> And if they want to make cycling more attractive remove the Vat element of the cost of a bike


You can't remove VAT from bikes due to EU rules, VAT rate could be reduced though.


----------



## ashambles (13 Oct 2022)

4m relief relative to the income tax of 20B+ from the same group is trivial. It's simply not worth getting worked up about. There's plenty of other more expensive reliefs even more prone to misuse.

One side benefit of the scheme is finding out if a possible employer has the scheme or not. Why wouldn't any employer not set it up - it's usually out of laziness, if they can't do that then there's a lot more they won't be doing for their employees.


----------



## T McGibney (13 Oct 2022)

ashambles said:


> One side benefit of the scheme is finding out if a possible employer has the scheme or not. Why wouldn't any employer not set it up - it's usually out of laziness, if they can't do that then there's a lot more they won't be doing for their employees.


That sounds unfair. I can't imagine any employer would refuse to accommodate an employee who wishes to avail of it in a bona fide manner.  Then again, employers would be well advised not to accommodate suspected abuses of the scheme as there are serious penalties for aiding and abetting tax evasion.

If the lists of participating employers are being mined to draw inferences such as the one you've made here, that is reason enough on its own why they should not be published.


----------



## Cervelo (13 Oct 2022)

Cavanbhoy said:


> Why not do away with the scheme.


While I never availed of the scheme I did help countless people avail of it from your genuine bike to worker to the parent using the the scheme to buy their kids their first bikes and of all the sales I used to make it was the latter that brought me the biggest joy

While I do agree with you, I would rather see the scheme changed and enlarged to take in all sports and outdoor activities 
Where a person could claim back 50% on a single purchase up to the value of €1k once every 3 years through a revenue return
I just feel the knock on effects not just physical and mentally for the end user but for the general industry could be huge


----------



## ashambles (13 Oct 2022)

T McGibney said:


> That sounds unfair. I can't imagine any employer would refuse to accommodate an employee who wishes to avail of it in a bona fide manner.  Then again, employers would be well advised not to accommodate suspected abuses of the scheme as there are serious penalties for aiding and abetting tax evasion.
> 
> If the lists of participating employers are being mined to draw inferences such as the one you've made here, that is reason enough on its own why they should not be published.


It's up to the company to make the scheme available and some companies refuse to give it to staff (I used work for one - though for all I know maybe they were unique), the main cost to the company is extra paperwork for HR - since only a handful of employees would use it each year HR can find it hard to bother.

I'd not expect anyone to mine for that sort of information, they'll mention perks during the interview (that's what the perks are there for), also you might know people who work or have worked there.


----------



## T McGibney (13 Oct 2022)

ashambles said:


> It's up to the company to make the scheme available and some companies refuse to give it to staff (I used work for one - though for all I know maybe they were unique), the main cost to the company is extra paperwork for HR - since only a handful of employees would use it each year HR can find it hard to bother.


You're assuming every employer is big enough to have a HR unit.


ashambles said:


> I'd not expect anyone to mine for that sort of information, they'll mention perks during the interview (that's what the perks are there for), also you might know people who work or have worked there.


Fair enough. But it's not a perk as such.


----------



## elcato (13 Oct 2022)

I think the employers are not party to any hooky goings on here. I was asked to sign to say you are using the bike for work and produce a written quote and that the quote given is for your bike. They can't be really blamed if the employee and the bike shop owner are in cahoots and that the order is going to be differant.


----------

