I’ve never seen such a claim made (let alone rejected), presumably because none of my colleagues would have advised it.


The BIK system is designed to catch and tax benefits or perks and stop employers from remunerating their employees outside of the tax system. Whether or not something is a BIK depends on whether or not the provision of the goods/services to the employee is necessary for business purposes. Therfore a car provided to an individual for personal use is a BIK. But if an employee arrives at work on public transport and then uses a pool car to visit a client but returns the car to the office car park in the evening there is no personal use and no taxable benefit. Similarly residential accommodation provided by an employer is a BIK unless that accommodation is necessary for the performance of their duties, e.g. a lighthouse keeper.

Where an employee is required to travel on business, the travel itself does not confer a benefit to that individual, irrespective of the travel class. The benefit of sending an executive in J, F or even on a private jet accrues to the company: the expensively remunerated employee arrrives at their destination better rested and therefore better able to perform their job and thereby better able to generate shareholder value. That the individual is more comfortable does not mean that they have received a benefit of any monetary value - their increased personal comfort is merely incidental to the business purpose of the trip.



As is often the case with tax, that’s just the way it is!