Few industries or professions will find it quite so easy to lose ones medical nor so hard to find alternative employment as an airline pilot. (I accept there are a few - like deep sea divers - I think they should be equally exempt from taxation on similar insurances)
However, I fully accept that this is the likely outcome of any approach made to the Inland Revenue. I also accept that this could be a likely response from any tax inspector analysing the law.
However, the point that I am making is that - as I have given in the arguments above - it is an unreasonable interpretation.
Where is common sense disappearing to these days. This insurance used not to be insured in this fashion and it has been common practice for larger airlines to provide this type of insurance in addition to their terms and conditions of employment. This tax gives no consideration to the specialised nature of our occupation.
It is yet another example of Stealth taxing. And this is a very big one that sees pilots choosing between keeping their income the same or reducing their conditions and protection. If one does not accept any cover (incidentally, saving the airline a lot in premiums!) one will end up with no protection and a significant reduction in terms and conditions of employment. If one accepts cover one will end up with between a 3- 15% (depending on age) reduction in take-home pay.
Pilots have a right to be annoyed and to question this unreasonable approach by the Inland Revenue.
The airline industry is coveniently exempted from various laws and EU directives - like the working time directive - due to the specialised nature of the industry, so why is consideration not given to this?
Come on BALPA get stuck in for us!