Inside IR35 expenses vs reasonable adjustments for disability

[northernladyuk]

Or a radical departure from never wanting to engage with HMRC. Phone HMRC and tell them your Ltd is making this reasonable adjustment to accommodate your disability and check it is not a BIK for an inside IR35 contract.

[SimonMac]

However if I were an employee of the client here, they would have to make reasonable adjustments for me and in my situation those may well include the ones I have decided to make i.e. taxis and hotels (they may also get grant help from Access to Work to help fund the cost). My understanding is there may be relief available to the individual so that a Benefit in Kind does not arise. This is under the Income Tax (Benefits in Kind) (Exemption for Employment Costs Resulting from Disability) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/1596.).

This is the crux of most peoples complaints about IR35, you are being TAXED as an employee, but you do not have the rights that am employee would have, in this respect towards the respected disability acts, long story short it sucks

[SueEllen]

@NorthernLadyUK in my post points out if it is expensive or impractical then it can be considered "unreasonable".

There is a difference in providing someone with a special desk chair that can be chosen out of a catalogue to providing flexible working to paying for someone's hotel and travel bills.

If a company refused to provide the first (though some pretend they will and stall) then they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. As providing the chair complies with both equality law and health and safety regulations if the person is a VDU user.

If someone was an apprentice or client facing then a company can argue it is unreasonable to provide flexible working. So the blind people I use to commute with could happily start work early and leave work early because they weren't in these categories, regardless of the fact one had a guide dog who would have been stepped on if the commute was any busier.

The OP is asking for his client to pay for his hotel bills to their main site. However all companies can argue paying for an employees hotel bills unless they are a niche specialist is not cost effective so they won't pay them and easily argue they are unreasonable.

However most people I know who have needed them, have got reasonable adjustments by asking for them. So if the OP can find a legit way of getting his client to pay his hotel bills pre-tax from his salary by asking his accountant then he should just ask the client.

[northernladyuk]

@NorthernLadyUK in my post points out if it is expensive or impractical then it can be considered "unreasonable".

There is a difference in providing someone with a special desk chair that can be chosen out of a catalogue to providing flexible working to paying for someone's hotel and travel bills.

If a company refused to provide the first (though some pretend they will and stall) then they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. As providing the chair complies with both equality law and health and safety regulations if the person is a VDU user.

If someone was an apprentice or client facing then a company can argue it is unreasonable to provide flexible working. So the blind people I use to commute with could happily start work early and leave work early because they weren't in these categories, regardless of the fact one had a guide dog who would have been stepped on if the commute was any busier.

The OP is asking for his client to pay for his hotel bills to their main site. However all companies can argue paying for an employees hotel bills unless they are a niche specialist is not cost effective so they won't pay them and easily argue they are unreasonable.

However most people I know who have needed them, have got reasonable adjustments by asking for them. So if the OP can find a legit way of getting his client to pay his hotel bills pre-tax from his salary by asking his accountant then he should just ask the client.

I think the OP needs to ask their own Ltd Co. to pay for hotel bills, not the client. The Ltd can view this as entirely reasonable as otherwise it is not in business.

[BrilloPad]

Are you claiming DLA?

[SueEllen]

Are you claiming DLA?

All adults have to have PIP now.

And the OP thinks he doesn't need it for some odd reason.

[northernladyuk]

All adults have to have PIP now.

And the OP thinks he doesn't need it for some odd reason.

Not all people with a disability are eligible.

[Glencky]

NLUK and NorthernLady – I’m aware of the subtleties (which are often important even when subtle) as to whether a sole shareholder Company Director of a Limited is or is not an employee. In this case though – as NorthernLady’s link makes clear – I am, and I knew that although I hadn’t seen that link, which was useful thanks.

Very interesting idea re: HMRC and actually I think that’s what I’ll do. I suspect just the phone call will be a soul-sucking experience and I’m not optimistic of getting a good answer – it’ll be an unusual enquiry even for them… But it is a good idea. I’ve nothing to hide from them and if they say no it will only put me back in the position I was in, in the first place. I’m even wondering if it’s worth writing to them in the hope of a more considered answer (and one in writing…) It’s ridiculous but I genuinely hadn’t thought of calling them..! In support of my case, I worked for a year or so in London claiming travel expenses, including mileage, train and London travel. In that time I stayed in a hotel a couple of times but only because I had something particular happening (particularly early start, probably). Then I worked for 6 months post-rule change, still incurring the same mileage, train and travel costs but not claiming them. Again, one or two hotels but rare. So there will demonstrably be a fundamental change in my behaviour post-epilepsy – I will be getting taxis instead of driving and I will have to stay over twice a week(ish) instead of once in a blue moon. It will be demonstrable that I haven’t just decided to try it on suddenly.

SueEllen/ NorthernLady – yes, it’s my limited company I’m (effectively) asking to pay for the bills, not the client – I’m not even contemplating that. Depending how it works out, it’s not out of the question I’ll need to ask the client to accommodate me in working from home more often (the only ‘reasonable, reasonable adjustment’ I feel I can ask them to make under the circumstances – which depending how things work out once I’m in role, may not even feel reasonable in itself). I appreciate that a lot hinges on what constitutes ‘reasonable’ and the legislation is deliberately written that way, which as I’ve said elsewhere has its benefits and downside.

Finally – yes, I deliberately haven’t told you why I’m inside IR35, and I’m not getting into that discussion here. Obviously I realise being outside would resolve this entire expenses-related issue (for now at least… there’s a lot of change in this area, isn’t there…) but that’s not going to happen. Afraid I’m not going to indulge your curiosity on this one.

And SimonMac – yeah, ain’t that the truth! I think it’s interesting (in a ‘wish it wasn’t me finding this out’ kind of a way) that it seems like this might be one situation where I am even more unfairly penalised being inside IR35 than others who are but do not have a disability. But as I said in my OP, c’est la vie! Having belatedly thought of this whole angle I’m pursuing it up to a point because obviously, there’s a fair amount of money at stake so it’s worth it. But even with the useful input from many on this thread, I’m not optimistic of finding a successful route through this. It feels ‘unfair’ but ‘fairness’ doesn’t really come into it, does it? Only what’s allowed and what’s not.

And by the way – I’m female!

P.S. Wouldn't be eligible for PIP. Just as there are many definitions of 'employee', there are many of 'disabled'.

[BrilloPad]

All adults have to have PIP now.

And the OP thinks he doesn't need it for some odd reason.

Then why is he bleating?

Hopefully some mod will move this into general.....

[northernladyuk]

NLUK and NorthernLady – I’m aware of the subtleties (which are often important even when subtle) as to whether a sole shareholder Company Director of a Limited is or is not an employee. In this case though – as NorthernLady’s link makes clear – I am, and I knew that although I hadn’t seen that link, which was useful thanks.

Very interesting idea re: HMRC and actually I think that’s what I’ll do. I suspect just the phone call will be a soul-sucking experience and I’m not optimistic of getting a good answer – it’ll be an unusual enquiry even for them… But it is a good idea. I’ve nothing to hide from them and if they say no it will only put me back in the position I was in, in the first place. I’m even wondering if it’s worth writing to them in the hope of a more considered answer (and one in writing…) It’s ridiculous but I genuinely hadn’t thought of calling them..! In support of my case, I worked for a year or so in London claiming travel expenses, including mileage, train and London travel. In that time I stayed in a hotel a couple of times but only because I had something particular happening (particularly early start, probably). Then I worked for 6 months post-rule change, still incurring the same mileage, train and travel costs but not claiming them. Again, one or two hotels but rare. So there will demonstrably be a fundamental change in my behaviour post-epilepsy – I will be getting taxis instead of driving and I will have to stay over twice a week(ish) instead of once in a blue moon. It will be demonstrable that I haven’t just decided to try it on suddenly.

SueEllen/ NorthernLady – yes, it’s my limited company I’m (effectively) asking to pay for the bills, not the client – I’m not even contemplating that. Depending how it works out, it’s not out of the question I’ll need to ask the client to accommodate me in working from home more often (the only ‘reasonable, reasonable adjustment’ I feel I can ask them to make under the circumstances – which depending how things work out once I’m in role, may not even feel reasonable in itself). I appreciate that a lot hinges on what constitutes ‘reasonable’ and the legislation is deliberately written that way, which as I’ve said elsewhere has its benefits and downside.

Finally – yes, I deliberately haven’t told you why I’m inside IR35, and I’m not getting into that discussion here. Obviously I realise being outside would resolve this entire expenses-related issue (for now at least… there’s a lot of change in this area, isn’t there…) but that’s not going to happen. Afraid I’m not going to indulge your curiosity on this one.

And SimonMac – yeah, ain’t that the truth! I think it’s interesting (in a ‘wish it wasn’t me finding this out’ kind of a way) that it seems like this might be one situation where I am even more unfairly penalised being inside IR35 than others who are but do not have a disability. But as I said in my OP, c’est la vie! Having belatedly thought of this whole angle I’m pursuing it up to a point because obviously, there’s a fair amount of money at stake so it’s worth it. But even with the useful input from many on this thread, I’m not optimistic of finding a successful route through this. It feels ‘unfair’ but ‘fairness’ doesn’t really come into it, does it? Only what’s allowed and what’s not.

And by the way – I’m female!

P.S. Wouldn't be eligible for PIP. Just as there are many definitions of 'employee', there are many of 'disabled'.

Fairness certainly doesn't come into tax. But it ends come into equality legislation and that may trump tax.