Split bill rule can avoid benefit in kind for smartphones

Whenever an employer provides an employee with a free tablet, mobile telephone, telephone or data subscription that may be used for private purposes, this is considered a taxable benefit in kind. Since the beginning of this year there are fixed charges for such benefits, but in some cases it is possible for a benefit to be avoided.

Fixed benefits in kind as from 2018

A fixed amount has been established for most such benefits in kind. However, until recently, there was no fixed fee for the free provision of a tablet, mobile telephone, or telephone or data subscription. Such benefits therefore needed to be evaluated on the basis of their ‘true value’ to the recipient. This changed, thanks to the Royal Decree dated 2 November 2017, establishing the following fixed annual costs, applicable as from 1 January 2018:

  • Free provision of a tablet or mobile telephone: 36 euros
  • Free telephone subscription (land line or mobile): 48 euros
  • Free internet connection (fixed or mobile): 60 euros

The latter amount of 60 euros per year shall apply, regardless of how many devices are able to utilise the internet connection. 

Changes were necessary as the existing fixed fees (particularly with regard to social security) could not always be considered to be aligned with the market, were no longer realistic and harmonisation was lacking between the various authorities (e.g. between the tax and social security authorities. The above amendment, together with a number of new (lower) fixed fees applicable as from 1 January 2018, now harmonise and clarify the existing rules. 

An important remark is that, in some cases, the amounts must be combined. Therefore, the free provision of a smartphone with a data and telephone subscription will incur a total benefit in kind of 144 euros.

Sometimes no benefit in kind at all

Naturally, if the permitted use of the tools provided by the employer is strictly professional, no benefit in kind should be incurred. Where a system exists whereby the employee pays all private use (registered in a realistic system), then it is not necessary to declare benefit in kind. In the event of such split billing, the employer will only fund the costs as long as these do not exceed a clear limit. Any amount above the limit is then charged directly to the person receiving the benefit.

The latter point has recently been confirmed in a response from the Minister of Finance to a question raised in parliament. Furthermore, the minister not only confirmed that, in such cases, there is no taxable benefit in kind on the subscription and internet connection, but also that no benefit should be charged for the device supplied. This has also been confirmed in the past by the ruling committee – before the creation of fixed fees. It is argued that, in the aforementioned case, as the employer is no longer funding any private use of the smartphone, there should also be no taxable benefit on the device itself

This is a somewhat surprising, but clear confirmation, which is certainly to the advantage of the tax payer and therefore can only be celebrated. 

The amount beyond which any use is considered to be private (6.5 euros call costs and 1.5 gigabytes per month in the case that was submitted to the minister) does still need to be established in accordance with serious standards and criteria and, as such, must be confirmed as realistic. Indeed, in the past, the ruling committee have already determined the contrary, that a particular law could not be considered as ‘realistic’, when the facts demonstrated that in the past year the set amounts were not exceeded by the employees and therefore no charge was made for private use.

The requirement to register gets a broader scope
More entrepreneurs must register with the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises (CBE)
Under the aim of creating a more attractive business climate, changes were made to the existing company law. In that context, the legislator has done away with the ‘trader’ concept, replacing it with the umbrella term ‘enterprise. Besides forming the basis for the rules of the Code of Economic Law, the Judicial Code and the Civil Code, the new enterprise concept also has consequences for reg
More specific: matrimonial property law
A new compensation obligation in the legal system
What if a spouse practices his profession in a company whose shares all form part of his separate property? The Act of 22 July 2018 has introduced considerable changes to matrimonial property law. This article addresses a specific addition to that law, namely the possible disadvantage incurred by the matrimonial property when a spouse practices their profession through their own company1. 
Changes in the cary proxy and usufruct
Estate planning: recent developments
Over the last few months, we have regularly reported on the important changes in estate planning and inheritance planning. Below is an update of some of those changes.   The care proxy: secure your estate for later The classic example is a person who, due to a physical or mental limitation (e.g. coma, dementia), is – temporarily or permanently – unable to manage their assets properly.
Happy Brexmas?
How to prepare your company for Brexit?
On 10 December 2018, the British Prime Minister decided to postpone the vote on the Brexit deal in the House of Commons. The risk of a ‘no deal’ disaster scenario is increasing. What are the important dates? On 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom formally informed the European Council of its intention to leave the EU (according to the procedure provided in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty). C
A popular control structure
The all-powerful manager of a civil-law partnership: was it always a fiction?
The civil-law partnership has long been a popular control structure among wealth planners. In many cases, donors do not want to give up their assets entirely, and still want to retain some control over what they donate. Definitely in cases of transfers of family companies, the donors (often parents or family members) still want to retain control over the course of the business.  The advant
The tax framework
Company subsidies: exempted or not?
Various subsidies were briefly described in the article by our colleagues from Strategy and Operations. They explained that they can assist you and your company with guidance on subsidies, from A to Z.1 In this context, we would like to discuss the tax framework for subsidies: how are awarded subsidies treated tax-wise within companies? Are these subsidies exempt from corporation tax and, if
Right to deduct VAT possible for costs incurred during the purchase of shares
The Ryanair ruling
Right to deduct VAT also possible for costs incurred during the purchase of shares, if the purchase ultimately does not (fully) go ahead The European Court of Justice recently confirmed that VAT on costs incurred during the purchase of shares may be deductible even if the purchase ultimately does not (fully) go ahead. As such, the Court of Justice has upheld the principle that the preparatory t
What are the options?
The deduction for investment: an illustration of the options
The deduction for investment allows companies and natural persons who earn profits or benefits to reduce their taxable profits by placing part of the acquisition or investment value of investments in new tangible and intangible fixed assets. Depending on the size of your business and the nature of your activities, you can generally apply the regular, one-off deduction for investment of 20% (tem
Valuation of usufruct
Now also a witch hunt when usufruct is sold?
In previous editions, we have already written about the valuation of usufruct when purchasing property, but recently there have also been regular reports of checks on the valuation of usufruct when reselling. However, up until now, the case law has followed the viewpoint of the taxpayer. Brief description For several years, there has been a lot of controversy regarding the valuation of usufruc
Vlabel is using conciliatory language
Has the decrease in Flemish sales duty led to an increase in the costs for purchases of usufruct?
The decrease in sales duty: also for split purchase usufruct-bare ownership The recent drop in the rate (to 7.00%) for purchases of family homes comes with a number of conditions. For example, the purchaser must be a natural person. Following some uncertainty, it was subsequently confirmed that, in the event of a split purchase of such a property by a company for the usufruct and the bare owner f

Subscribe to our newsletter