Travel - 24 month rule two clients in central London
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Posts 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21

    Contractor Among Contractors

    Batcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,862
    Thanks (Given)
    115
    Thanks (Received)
    35
    Likes (Given)
    1093
    Likes (Received)
    227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladyuk View Post
    I bet they even called it the' Square Mile Rule' instead of the 'Square Mile Example' to illustrate the Rule.
    Yes, they did. I explained that the 4 miles between offices would be hard to fit into a square mile

  2. #22

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    33,825
    Thanks (Given)
    141
    Thanks (Received)
    1472
    Likes (Given)
    1783
    Likes (Received)
    6045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcher View Post
    Yes, they did. I explained that the 4 miles between offices would be hard to fit into a square mile
    Bet you looked really good making that argument....
    'CUK forum personality of 2011' - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  3. #23

    Contractor Among Contractors

    Batcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,862
    Thanks (Given)
    115
    Thanks (Received)
    35
    Likes (Given)
    1093
    Likes (Received)
    227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladuk View Post
    Isn't that what the 40% rule is for?
    You would think. 18 months at client 1, 3 months off then started at client 2. They said the clock started ticking when I started at client 1 and the 3 month break wasn't long enough.

    There was no mention of the 40% rule either by PCG or HMRC. This was in the early 2000s so it may not have been in place at the time? I can't recall it being mentioned otherwise I would have used it in my defence.

  4. #24

    Contractor Among Contractors

    Batcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,862
    Thanks (Given)
    115
    Thanks (Received)
    35
    Likes (Given)
    1093
    Likes (Received)
    227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladuk View Post
    Bet you looked really good making that argument....
    Just as good as they looked to me

  5. #25

    Double Godlike!

    malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Walking in the garden, dreaming of Olivia...
    Posts
    10,343
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    220
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcher View Post
    You would think. 18 months at client 1, 3 months off then started at client 2. They said the clock started ticking when I started at client 1 and the 3 month break wasn't long enough.

    There was no mention of the 40% rule either by PCG or HMRC. This was in the early 2000s so it may not have been in place at the time? I can't recall it being mentioned otherwise I would have used it in my defence.
    Have you read the first post in the relevant sticky? Start at the anticipated end of the current engagement and work backwards. Your example doesn't do that.
    Blog? What blog...?

  6. #26

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    427
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    21
    Likes (Given)
    172
    Likes (Received)
    50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcher View Post
    Yes, me

    I worked in Edinburgh at two different clients. The route from my home office to their offices were different, I had 3 months off between contracts and driving from one client office to the other was just over 4 miles.

    In my mind that was enough of a break and a difference in location but HMRC (during my IR35 investigation) insisted the Square Mile Rule applied and therefore I should have stopped claiming travel after 24 months.

    My investigation went on for 4 years and I eventually, with the help of PCG, got them to drop it so I didn't pay anything back.

    The general rule though is the direction of travel is what they will judge you on.
    Ok cool. This was part of another investigation though right ? They didn't pull you because you claimed expenses after the 24 month rule. And HMRC lost. So is this not a legal precedent and shouldn't we be quoting your case when queries like this are raised ?

  7. #27

    Old Greg is my bitch's bitch

    northernladyuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Working the streets of your imagination
    Posts
    8,025
    Thanks (Given)
    1097
    Thanks (Received)
    586
    Likes (Given)
    398
    Likes (Received)
    2246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by radish2008 View Post
    Ok cool. This was part of another investigation though right ? They didn't pull you because you claimed expenses after the 24 month rule. And HMRC lost. So is this not a legal precedent and shouldn't we be quoting your case when queries like this are raised ?
    It won't be a legal precedent if it didn't go to court (I would think).
    Where there's muck there's brass.

  8. #28

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    33,825
    Thanks (Given)
    141
    Thanks (Received)
    1472
    Likes (Given)
    1783
    Likes (Received)
    6045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by radish2008 View Post
    Ok cool. This was part of another investigation though right ? They didn't pull you because you claimed expenses after the 24 month rule. And HMRC lost. So is this not a legal precedent and shouldn't we be quoting your case when queries like this are raised ?
    What would you be using the quote for? To show claiming it in this case is right or wrong?
    'CUK forum personality of 2011' - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  9. #29

    Contractor Among Contractors

    Batcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,862
    Thanks (Given)
    115
    Thanks (Received)
    35
    Likes (Given)
    1093
    Likes (Received)
    227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by radish2008 View Post
    Ok cool. This was part of another investigation though right ? They didn't pull you because you claimed expenses after the 24 month rule. And HMRC lost. So is this not a legal precedent and shouldn't we be quoting your case when queries like this are raised ?
    If they investigate you they will investigate everything that you've done going back the previous 24 months and then before that as they'll have found the excuse to do it. They won't just have an investigation into your 24 month status

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.