• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Travel - 24 month rule two clients in central London

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by northernladyuk View Post
    https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim32280

    Grey area I would say. I would continue claiming (if no longer need to and actually taking tube).
    I would suspect a lot of people to call that level of grey actually white.

    The idea that you catch a train into central London and no longer take the tube is a different journey isn’t going to wash if actually asked - it’s just slightly shorter.

    The actual gamble is how likely are you to be asked
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by eek View Post
      The actual gamble is how likely are you to be asked
      Somewhere between 0 and 0 I would think.

      Can anyone find anyone else (apart from the footballer who's case was dropped after 2 years) that has been asked ?

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by eek View Post
        I would suspect a lot of people to call that level of grey actually white.

        The idea that you catch a train into central London and no longer take the tube is a different journey isn’t going to wash if actually asked - it’s just slightly shorter.

        The actual gamble is how likely are you to be asked
        Wouldn't you say that a change in cost between £454 and £327 is substantial?

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by northernladyuk View Post
          Wouldn't you say that a change in cost between £454 and £327 is substantial?
          Isn't it what HMRC thinks that counts?

          I think you are right though....

          Comment


            #15
            It's the City of London. As far as Hector is concerned, that is one location. Get a gig in Reading, or even Canary Wharf, and you might have a case.
            Blog? What blog...?

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
              Isn't it what HMRC thinks that counts?

              I think you are right though....
              I think it is important to differentiate between what is allowed and what HMRC wants you to do. The BET was a good example of the HMRC taking a different view (on IR35 in this case) from what the law states (and intends). HMRC as we all know is not a neutral arbiter on this. They are on the other side and the law is the arbiter.

              In this case (a hypothetical case as we don't actually know the OP travels into Liverpool St) we need to look at an example HMRC gives around the square mile (with IIRC no statement about change in method and cost of journey) against another HMRC statement:

              If a change of workplace does not have any substantial effect on the employee’s journey, or the expense of that journey, the change is ignored

              In this case there is substantial effect on the expense of the journey so the change is not ignored. It is actually clear. The only reason I say is is a grey area is because HMRC will disagree.



              Edit: and her is the example:

              https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim32089

              Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: example
              A computer consultant is the only employee of a company that she controls. She is a specialist in banking systems. She spends 18 months working full-time at the headquarters of a merchant bank in Lombard Street in the City of London. She then moves next door to design a new computer system for a different bank where she expects to stay working full-time for 22 months. After that assignment she moves to a bank close by on Cheapside for 17 months. The employee expects to work continuously in the City of London albeit on the premises of different banks. Her travel from home to work will be broadly the same every day. No deduction is due for the cost of travel between her home and any of these workplaces.

              This example illustrates the effect of the rule in Section 339(7) ITEPA 2003 that requires us to ignore a change of workplace if that change does not have any significant effect on the employee’s journey to work, see EIM32280.
              Relevant part is in bold. If you were to expand it to encompass the broader HMRC understanding of change so it said:

              This example illustrates the effect of the rule in Section 339(7) ITEPA 2003 that requires us to ignore a change of workplace if that change does not have any significant effect on the employee’s journey to work or the expense of that journey, see EIM32280.

              ...then in the example I give, there is a clear and significant decrease in the expense of the journey.
              Last edited by northernladyuk; 13 November 2017, 15:20.

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by radish2008 View Post
                Somewhere between 0 and 0 I would think.

                Can anyone find anyone else (apart from the footballer who's case was dropped after 2 years) that has been asked ?

                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.

                Comment


                  #18
                  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.
                  I bet they even called it the' Square Mile Rule' instead of the 'Square Mile Example' to illustrate the Rule.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    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.
                    .
                    Isn't that what the 40% rule is for?
                    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                      Isn't that what the 40% rule is for?
                      Quite. The break will be no defence, but the 4 miles difference may (or may not) be.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X