I can not understand why a logbook is assigned to a car, rather than to an employee.
Eg Salesperson uses car for 6mths 90% business, then admin person uses same car for 6mths at 10% business.
Why do we not simply address the provision of each benefit to each employee based on the actual %?
By having to apportion/average the % it is unfair to the salesperson/inappropriate for admin person.
Then it gets more crazy, as the salesperson/admin does not mind as there will be no RFBT as it is now shared/pooled car.
In contrast if they drove it the whole year, there would be RBFT.
There is great opportunity to rort the system - i.e. share the car for one day in the FBT year and then no RFBT? (this affects Centrelink, CSA etc etc).
Both these issues should be addressed - i.e. FBT should be calculated on benefits provided to the employee.
Hi Anita, thank you for sharing your idea. As you may be aware the Board recently conducted a review of the compliance costs associated with fringe benefits tax. Your idea was passed on to our project working group. Further information about this project may be found at: http://taxboard.gov.au/consultation/fringe-benefits-tax-compliance-cost-review/ .
http://taxboard.gov.au/consultation/fringe-benefits-tax-compliance-cost-review
Fringe Benefits Tax Compliance Cost Review | Board of TaxationBackground In February 2018, the Australian Government wrote to the Board of Taxation requesting that the Board conduct a comprehensive review of the compliance costs associated with obligations under Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) legislation. The Board will also examine the approach in comparable countries to the taxation of fringe benefits provided by employers to their employees. As part of the review, a number of research initiatives have been conducted as outlined below to estimate and identify reasons for compliance costs.