How to apportion advisory mileage rates for EVs
In September, HMRC introduced a new two-tier advisory mileage rate for employees charging electric vehicles. The rate differs depending on whether the vehicle is charged at home or not. But what’s the correct approach if an employee does both?
HMRC’s advisory mileage rates for employer-provided vehicles has included an electric rate for a number of years. However, in September the new two-tier system started with the following rates currently in effect:
- 8p per mile for home charging
- 14p per mile for public charging
The higher rate reflects the higher cost of using commercial chargers, e.g. at a motorway service station. The published guidance has now been updated to cover the situation where a journey is powered by both home and public charging. For example, if an employee charges their car at home overnight, and needs to undertake a business journey the following day. They don’t have sufficient range to make the return leg, so they stop at a service station partway back. The final part of the journey is therefore powered by public charging. The guidance explains that you should apportion based on “how much charging happens at each place” using any fair and reasonable method.
Related Topics
-
Mandatory payrolling of benefits in kind delayed
The government has revised plans to introduce the mandatory payrolling of benefits in kind from 6 April 2027, which will now be limited to company cars, vans, fuel and medical benefits. What's the full story?
-
Personal vs company donation to charity
You’re an owner manager and want to make a £5,000 donation to a local charity. You’ve claimed income tax relief under the gift aid scheme for smaller amounts but could it be more tax efficient to make the donation via the company?
-
Uber loses VAT margin scheme appeal
The Court of Appeal has ruled that Uber cannot use the Tour Operators Margin Scheme (TOMS) when accounting for VAT on its ride-hailing services. The decision could have significant implications for businesses that act as intermediaries when supplying services to consumers. What was the dispute about?