Can I start claiming expenses again?

[danthomas25]

Hi all,
my home/office is in Brighton, my clients tend to be in London.

My previous contract was in London and was for 4 years in the end, stopped claiming on it a long while ago.

I have just started a new contract, also based in London, but for a different client company.

I cannot work out if I am now allowed once again to claim travel expenses etc or indeed if I ever can again given the majority of my travel to a client site is the same, i.e. a train into London.

To further flavour the conundrum, for the last 18 months of my previous contract, due to client office space restrictions I was 'required' to work from home on average 3 days a week (i.e. 60% of my time was NOT spent working at a London location).

I now am required to travel in 5 days a week.

So... can I claim travel expenses again?

Detailed explanations most welcome!

Thanks

[WTFH]

How long is your new contract for?

[danthomas25]

New contract is until end of this year (so 10.5 months)

[eman]

This is probably worth a read....

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...-nutshell.html

But:

Are you operating via a Ltd Co or an Umbrella?

If the later then you will be unable to claim expenses from April.

If the former and you are outside IR35, you can claim expenses - subject to the rules outlined in the thread linked above - for the time being at least.

[mudskipper]

I would say 'no'. Counting back from the end of your new contract, you will have spent more than 40% of your time in London over the 24 month period.

Other opinions will be available

What does your accountant say?

[northernladuk]

So you've read the sticky thread on 24 months rule? You've read the HMRC guidance including the examples, two of which I seem to remember are pretty close to yours?

After that tell us what your thinking is and what bit do you think might be a problem or means you can claim again?

How about yours give us the detailed answer and we will tell you if it's right?

[TheFaQQer]

I would say 'no'. Counting back from the end of your new contract, you will have spent more than 40% of your time in London over the 24 month period.

Other opinions will be available

What does your accountant say?

I concur - it's the same location, and over 40% of the past two years have been spent there. No travel claiming until that period has passed.

[northernladuk]

Or some helpful. Do gooders will spoon feed the answer and no one is any the wiser..

For the OP.... The first post of the 24 month rule sticky would have answered your question...

a) It's about the journey, not the client and not why you are there

b) Go to the known (or anticipated) end date of your current gig.

c) Count back 24 months by the calendar.

d) If between those two dates you have spent less than 40% of your time at that location, the 24 month rule doesn't apply.

e) Reassess it weekly in case it changes to over 40%. As soon as it does the 24 month rules will apply.

[danthomas25]

It's through a limited company.

So you've read the sticky thread on 24 months rule?

Yes

You've read the HMRC guidance including the examples, two of which I seem to remember are pretty close to yours?

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').

After that tell us what your thinking is and what bit do you think might be a problem or means you can claim again?

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?

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.

The comment above about count-back from end of contract didnt marry with the example covering "changing % of work at differing locations" example I saw, which suggested it could be valid up to a certain point in time.
Then again, how much proof of various aspects of this would be necessary to have it hold up to scrutiny.

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.

Happy to hear opinion on the above.

Thnx for your time guys

[TheFaQQer]

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?

Nothing to do with the client, or even what company you work through to do it (or if you went permie there, or were a sole trader, or anything else) - it's you the individual going to the same location for a certain amount of time.

Anything else is irrelevant.