.png)
.png)
17 September 2000
The August edition of the ICAEW 'Medical Group News' included an article which expressed an opinion that it is generally accepted that doctors need to have a second vehicle at their disposal, so it is acceptable to claim for the road fund licence and insurance for that second vehicle. It went on to state that to claim a proportion of the full expenses for two or even three cars is dangerous.
Our practice is to include the full running costs of the second car and then have a high private use element.
Our practice is to include the full running costs of the second car and then have a high private use element.
The August edition of the ICAEW 'Medical Group News' included an article which expressed an opinion that it is generally accepted that doctors need to have a second vehicle at their disposal, so it is acceptable to claim for the road fund licence and insurance for that second vehicle. It went on to state that to claim a proportion of the full expenses for two or even three cars is dangerous.
Our practice is to include the full running costs of the second car and then have a high private use element.
If the logic is to claim relief for the standing costs of having a second vehicle available in the event that the first car breaks down, why stop at the road fund licence and insurance? The initial costs of purchase, together with the annual service, have to be paid irrespective of mileage, business or otherwise.
Doctors now commonly use 'out of hours' cover. Does not the availability of this service render the 'second car' argument void?
Also, many doctors like to spread their car usage over two vehicles. If there is actual business use of two cars (say 80 per cent of the main car and 50 per cent of the second, based on mileage) is it reasonable to claim for both vehicles in these proportions because they have been used for business purposes, even though there is an element of personal choice in doing so?
(Query T15,689) Hippocrates.
Our practice is to include the full running costs of the second car and then have a high private use element.
If the logic is to claim relief for the standing costs of having a second vehicle available in the event that the first car breaks down, why stop at the road fund licence and insurance? The initial costs of purchase, together with the annual service, have to be paid irrespective of mileage, business or otherwise.
Doctors now commonly use 'out of hours' cover. Does not the availability of this service render the 'second car' argument void?
Also, many doctors like to spread their car usage over two vehicles. If there is actual business use of two cars (say 80 per cent of the main car and 50 per cent of the second, based on mileage) is it reasonable to claim for both vehicles in these proportions because they have been used for business purposes, even though there is an element of personal choice in doing so?
(Query T15,689) Hippocrates.
