Well this should be enough..I didn't think they were sufficiently close enough, could you detail which example(s) you mean pls (though I appreciate you said 'from memory').
EIM32080 - Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: limited duration, the 24 month rule
But there is an example about a new base in London which is
Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: example
Doesn't that answer your question? Two bases in London covered. Check. 40% rule covered Check.
Completely wrong. You've not read a single thing have you?I thought a change of client would be sufficient but my accountant suggested otherwise.
I guess I thought that as it was a new company, that would be sufficient. It seems not?
It would appear so.So I looked at the examples and various wordings and thought perhaps there was sufficient justification to allow claiming again based on the location of work.
But perhaps I'm just hoping.
That should be a flat no. No leaning, swerving, heading towards. It's a brickwall no.So things seem to be leaning towards "no you cant" but wondered if anyone had been in a similar situation and could share their thoughts.
As above with all the relevant legislation attached. That should just about cover it?Happy to hear opinion on the above.