Welcome to The Forum SA. As a visitor you have read only access to the public content areas of this website. You will have to register as a member to access all content, post messages and network with our members. Membership is free and registering is quick and easy. You can click here to register now and become a member within minutes.
Hi Dave - I would think not ... as he was not engaged in business activity at the time. If he had gone on an errand for the business, then I imagine that it could be claimed.
No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted. - Aesop "The Lion and the Mouse"
I guess that would depend on whether he was doing them a favour - at their request - or if he had been instructed - not merely given permission - to do so by his employer?
Dave you have a super bike which is used for deliveries? The new Yamaha R1 will be available from around march for about R240 000. I am sure you can also claim the vat back Then at least the employee would be covered for IOD.
Comments are based on opinion...not always facts....that's why people use an alias.
If not an official errand, then shouldn't be an IOD.
We had an incident wherein an employee was injured by a company bus, that was transporting only employees, and it happened at the entrance gate to our premises, but because the injury didn't occur with the employee during the course of actual work, it wasn't accepted it as an IOD. In my view, our employee should have still been able to claim - but nonetheless...
In the case that you've presented, it is my view that they most certainly would exclude the possibility of an IOD claim.
Remember when dealing with IOD's of such nature, the question to be asked, Is he under instruction by he's employer (which includes he's managers, supervisors etc)?
If not , IT would not be accepted as an IOD.
Just to add to your case , when transport is provided free of charge to employees and in control by employer, there is strong grounds for that claim to be accepted.
We have to bear in mind its not the employers call to make , it should be the Funds/Mutual organisations decision, unless its a very clear cut case.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Then at least the employee would be covered for IOD.
Comment