April 24, 2015 – The iPad is not communication, but, according to Advocate General Niessen more the function of a computer. He finds the previous ruling of the Amsterdam Court incomprehensible. Does the Supreme Court this advice, and you have under the old rules of untaxed allowances and benefits provided an iPad to your employees, you will need to demonstrate that they use 90% or more business.
Under the old rules for compensation and benefits was possible to compensate a communication load or provide as business use 10% or more. Compensate for the load or providing a computer golden much stricter requirements because the business use 90% or more should be. The message “Een iPad is not a computer could read that the iPad, according to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal was not a computer but a means of communication, because the display and input capabilities were too limited for long term use as a computer.
A iPad is not primarily as a communication tool in use
The Advocate General, however, did not agree with the Court. He found that the court should have more to look at the functions of an iPad. The employee can use the iPad for communication because it it can email, call and send messages through social media. In addition, an iPad features that traditionally come with a computer such as editing photos and videos, play games, creating and giving presentations and processing texts. This concluded the Advocate General that the iPad is not primarily as a communication tool. Various studies have shown that even people use the iPad but to a limited extent as a communication tool.
Employee could also connect a wireless keyboard
The judgment of the court, according to the Advocate General, therefore, incomprehensible, because in the judgment had only looked at the office function of the iPad. There was no account of the possibility that the employee for the typing of long texts could connect a wireless keyboard on the iPad. The communication function was thus subordinated to the other functions and tasks of the iPad. Business use of the iPad was less than 90%, so it was not a tax-free provision. The example was thus, according to the Advocate General tax payable on the supply. It is now up to the Supreme Court to rule on the matter
Conclusion Attorney General, March 31, 2015, ECLI (shortened). 398
View theme pages: Social media Business equipment Media iPhone Internal communication