The global situation is still making us look at each other through a screen, and we have come to think of this as everyday life. A business trip is now more about connecting to another online call than boarding a coach or plane to attend a client meeting or a professional training course. Introducing a brief series of articles on payroll taxation, this one explores the tax treatment and obligations of an employer sending a worker on a business trip and paying for their accommodation and meals. We will be writing about other tax law interpretations we have received from the tax authority after we asked questions relevant to our clients preparing for the income tax filing season.
Accordingly, if the employer provides accommodation and meals, no daily allowance can be paid unless the employer issues an order to that effect. Based on such an order, however, only 30% of the daily allowance rate can be paid, with payroll taxes due on any excess.
To make sure we are applying the law correctly, we asked the tax authority to interpret the above clause and answer this question:
If a worker is provided with free accommodation and three meals, the law imposes no limit on the cost of accommodation and catering. It is treated as the employer’s tax-free business expense.
If a worker is sent on a business trip to Lithuania, the employer is allowed to pay for a high-class hotel room and three restaurant meals a day, plus a daily allowance of up to 10 euros.
So the employer is free to choose between paying the full daily allowance but no meals, or paying for both the accommodation and meals.
Information on daily allowances and hotel rates in 92 countries is available at MindLink.lv - Useful - Business trips.
If you have any comments on this article please email them to lv_mindlink@pwc.com
Ask questionOn 8 November 2021 Liepaja District Administrative Court heard a petition (case A42-02059-21) to overturn a State Revenue Service (SRS) decision assessing X (the petitioner) to extra personal income tax (PIT), a late fee and a penalty for undeclared income from person Y, who actually lives with X as they take care of each other and their child without entering into a marriage.
On 7 January 2022 the Constitutional Court ruled on case No. 2021‑06‑01, in which the Ombudsman claimed provisions of the Personal Income Tax (PIT) Act for determining traders’ taxable income are inconsistent with section 105 of the Constitution. This article explores why those provisions were challenged and what the ruling found.
We use cookies to make our site work well for you and so we can continually improve it. The cookies that keep the site functioning are always on. We use analytics and marketing cookies to help us understand what content is of most interest and to personalise your user experience.
It’s your choice to accept these or not. You can either click the 'I accept all’ button below or use the switches to choose and save your choices.
For detailed information on how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please visit our cookies information page.
These cookies are necessary for the website to operate. Our website cannot function without these cookies and they can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.
These cookies allow us to measure and report on website activity by tracking page visits, visitor locations and how visitors move around the site. The information collected does not directly identify visitors. We drop these cookies and use Adobe to help us analyse the data.
These cookies help us provide you with personalised and relevant services or advertising, and track the effectiveness of our digital marketing activities.