News 

News stories surfaced suggesting that BlackBerry and personal digital assistant (PDA) users who send too many non-work emails could be hit financially by the tax man.

But HMRC has hit back at the assumptions, claiming the reports contain a number of inaccuracies.

'They're all garbage, complete nonsense. It's completely preposterous,' said a spokesman for HMRC.

'If you're given an item to carry out work, in almost every case there will be no tax implications. The idea that we are going to be trawling through records of peoples' email or effectively counting telephone calls is preposterous. We have far more important things to do.'

As more and more users become more reliant

ADVERTISEMENT

on these devices for other purposes, including both professional and personal email, some drew the conclusion that HMRC wanted to cash in.

But the tax office spokesman told our sister site IT PRO that it has published clear guidance on its website regarding the legal implications of loaning devices to employees.

It says this clarity was necessary as, previously, some companies were handing out iPods and large screen TVs as tax free incentives.

'It is not our job to interfere in relations between the employer and employee we are only concerned with tax implications,' added the spokesman.

'Work is work and when people are given these items they remain the property of their employer. They're given them so that the employer can get maximum productivity from the employee.'

The reasoning behind the current hubbub is believed to stem from a recently updated version of the HMRC's employee benefits manual, which claims: 'Technology has developed to such an extent that PDAs and BlackBerrys [sic] now have additional functions more typically associated with a computer.

'Consequently where before 6 April 2006 an employer provided an employee with a PDA it was exempt as a computer under Section 320. Following the abolition of the computer exemption, from 6 April 2006 the provision by an employer to an employee of a PDA represents a benefit, unless the exemption in Section 316 applies (see EIM21611).'