Can someone please clarify rules around subsistence - meal allowance

[northernladuk]

I'd say no as well. The price of the coffee has nothing to do with it. You've just demonstrated you'd have one at home so it's not wholly and exclusively so not allowed. Same for claiming snacks and drink for travelling. Normally I'm all up for claiming what's allowable but buggering around with coffees and snacks...

[GB9]

I'd say no as well. The price of the coffee has nothing to do with it. You've just demonstrated you'd have one at home so it's not wholly and exclusively so not allowed. Same for claiming snacks and drink for travelling. Normally I'm all up for claiming what's allowable but buggering around with coffees and snacks...

I would have had one at home, yes. The increased cost is a result of being at client though. Anyway, rules say no apparently.

[northernladuk]

I would have had one at home, yes. The increased cost is a result of being at client though. Anyway, rules say no apparently.

As I said. It's sod all to do with the cost. It's whether it's wholly and exclusively which you've successfully argued it's not.

You could buy a flask and take it in but I'll let you work out if you can claim the flask as an expense.....

Or just drink corporation pop.

[dx4100]

So I better stop claiming for ciggies on my cig break ?

[GB9]

Or just drink corporation pop.

Tap water!

But the rules say I can claim lunch and parking.


And...... (not to nluk), the cost of ciggies remains the same whether you are on site or not. The cost of my coffee and parking doesn't!

[northernladuk]

I give up....

[FK1]

You put £2k's worth of snacks and coffees while travelling through your company?!??!

Just imagine a case when a contractor commutes Edinburgh - London weekly by a train. 5 hours in one way. He/she will have the lunch in the train.
Personally I prefer to buy food from Nero/Starbucks/Costa on a train station rather than in a train. In a fact that is not a cup of coffee but more like a packed lunch. As a result a lot of "coffee" receipts.

In my £2000 example above I used Starbucks as a food shop working in a remote industrial estate and commuting weekly from Scotland to Merseyside.
During 7.5 months that amount could be archived easily if consider coffee shops as food shops where you buy food (£15-£20) not just coffee (£2-£4) and could buy some food for a few next days.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Where it gets interesting is that accountant says that coffees etc are not claimable but lunch is. So tax rules effectively say I can only have one claimable drink per working day.

Where I am at present if I want a coffee I have to go to one of the coffee shops outside. Average cost £2.50. If I were at home then I would have a cup of instant, but being at the client site results in a £2.50 spend. Twice per day. I argue that as the cost is incurred as a result of work it should be allowable. Accountant says no.

Whilst I've staunchly defended the right to claim meals taken whilst working at a temporary workplace (including lunch), the key thing to remember here is that it has to be "necessarily" incurred.

Easy enough to claim that any regular meals are necessarily incurred, because you have to eat. So IMO, that makes lunch fine if you're there during the day, breakfast fine if you have to leave home early and dinner fine if you stay late.

I'm not sure you can quite so easily make the case that your coffee and muffin habit is "necessarily" incurred in the performance of your duties though so I can see why your accountant is cautious. I'm not saying its black and white but a matter of an interpretation over what is "necessarily" incurred whilst travelling.

As I stated earlier, I always claim lunch, which might be a coffee and a muffin if there's nothing better available, but I've never claimed any coffee or snacks I've bought on the way to or from work, because IMO its my choice to buy them and they certainly aren't necessary.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Just imagine a case when a contractor commutes Edinburgh - London weekly by a train. 5 hours in one way. He/she will have the lunch in the train.
Personally I prefer to buy food from Nero/Starbucks/Costa on a train station rather than in a train. In a fact that is not a cup of coffee but more like a packed lunch. As a result a lot of "coffee" receipts.

In my £2000 example above I used Starbucks as a food shop working in a remote industrial estate and commuting weekly from Scotland to Merseyside.
During 7.5 months that amount could be archived easily if consider coffee shops as food shops where you buy food (£15-£20) not just coffee (£2-£4) and could buy some food for a few next days.

Context is important here. Just because there are cases where buying a coffee and snack whilst travelling is legitimate it doesn't mean all cases are.

If you're on a long business journey then IMO any food and drink purchased while travelling is fine.

If you're commuting an hour into London, have already had breakfast before you left and are just buying a coffee because you like coffee then IMO its not "necessarily" incurred.

Having said that, if somebody wants to interpret it the rules as being "all subsistence purchased whilst on a business journey is OK" then I wouldn't get too worked up about it.

Maybe buy less coffee.

[Contreras]

I waa told that the assumption is that genuine businesses incur expenses, of which T&S is one type.

The approach of someone not putting T&S expenses through sounds to me like thinking they may fall under IR35 but if they don't draw attention to themselves they will get away with it.

This needs to be filed in the myth drawer alongside the one (propagated elsewhere in this thread) about not claiming T&S if travelling from home because being 'commuting' it upsets HMRC and is why they hound us for IR35.