With regard to a car made available to an employee, the following applies in respect of private use wages in kind be taken into account. This benefit in kind is equal to a flat-rate percentage of the car’s list price. Only where it is proven that fewer than 500 kilometres were driven for private purposes in a calendar year may the additional tax liability for remuneration in kind be waived for that year.
Also for delivery vans
All of this applies not only to a passenger car, but also for a delivery van. However, there are a number of specific options available for delivery vans to prove that fewer than 500 kilometres have been driven for private purposes. For example, no additional kilometres need to be added if it can be demonstrated that the vehicle is parked at the employer’s premises outside the employee’s working hours.
A delivery van is a vehicle that is (primarily) fitted out and used for the transport of goods, but which does not qualify as a lorry. This document explains exactly what constitutes a delivery van schedule.
Continuous and varied
In addition, a special rule applies to delivery vans used on a continuous, alternating basis by two or more employees, where, due to the nature of their use, it is difficult to determine to which of the employees the van has been made available for private use. For such vans, no remuneration in kind needs to be taken into account, but the employer must pay income tax in the form of a flat-rate levy of €300 per van.
Court in The Hague was recently called upon to rule on the question of when ‘continuous alternating use’ applies. This Court begins by ruling that the burden of proof regarding continuous alternating use rests with the employer, for whom payment of the €300 final levy is sufficient. The Court then found that, in the case before it, the employer had not provided any documentary evidence to show that there had been continuous alternating use of the delivery vans. It added that the journey logs also did not indicate continuous alternating use.
The Court ruled that the Tax and Customs Administration was right to impose an additional assessment of the employer’s payroll tax on the basis of the flat-rate allowance.