Greetings Trashcanit (Is that a telling name?),
This is a free comment, not an "answer" to your question, which only a
G-A Researcher can post. Their names appear in blue.
And I am no expert, so this will be disorganized, but it may induce
someone with better information to pick it apart - to your benefit.
I think it will be better for the company to rent the flats:
1) because a company is an easy tenant for a landlord, no credit
problem, making it easier to get leases;
2) this will be more efficient than having the employee have to sign
the contract and cancelation notice (I am assuming the company locates
the flats, and pays the security deposit, since it seems unlikely that
it can demand that the employee do so), and will give the company
simpler control (what if an employee "forgets" to give notice, tying
up the deposit?);
3) bookkeeping for the security deposits for rent contracts in the
name of an employee might be messy: individual account for each
deposit, perhaps tax questions about the deposits being interest free
loans that could result in calculation of the theoretical interest as
a taxable benefit for the employee, BUT perhaps it is possible for the
company to give a guarantee instead of a cash deposit to avoid this,
but maybe it would still be considered a benefit by the tax
authorties;
4) it is possible that landlords would accept the company's guarantee
in lieu of a cash deposit (need someone with hands-on experience for
this and tax);
I am assuming that there is no problem with setting up a lease
contract that specifies that the company may have a named or unnamed
employee reside.
The downside risk would be problems with the employees as tenants in
the flats; even good employees can spill coffee on the rug, or worse,
that could affect repayment of the security deposit.
I should think that this could be covered by an agreement between the
company and employee to have him cover or share the expense, whereby
in such a situation, the company would be in a stronger position to
deal with the matter, let's say, a better position to deal with a
greedy landlord.
In the same situation with the employee on the contract, yes, it is
his personal responsibility, but it will take time from his work,
maybe make him feel bad towards the company. I can even imagine a
situation in some places, where the employee could claim that the
expense was still the responsibility of the company, since it had
obligated him to take the lease.
Hmm, these are all arguments against your proposal to shift the leases
to the name of the employee, and my arguments are just personal
opinions so I hope someone can add some support or tear them apart, as
appropriate.
In a personal aside: As a new employee, yourself, finding a better
way for the company to handle the matter is great - if it holds water
- but it is just as good if you can demonstrate that the present
system is better and support it with points that may not have been
heretofor considered in detail. Managers like to hear that they made
the right decision.
Now let's see what happens here.
Good luck, Myoarin |
