24 month rule again!

[psychocandy]

Still confused about the 24 month thing.

OK going back 24 months. 14 months in timbuctoo, then 10 months in london.
I've now spend over 40% of my time in the last 24 months in london surely? But I can still claim...

[kaiser78]

Dividend Tax Payment Question

apologies, please ignore - started new thread

[teapot418]

Well the truth is, no-one knows. It has not been tested by case law.

The cautious view says that it is 40% of time over last two years.
The less cautious view says a substantial break (another gig in another city) resets the clock.
The optimist says a three week break on JSA is enough to reset the clock.

Personally, I would go with a substantial break, but it depends on your (and your accountant's) attitude to risk.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Also worth bearing in mind how often you're actually on-site - there seems to be assumptions in this discussion that you're 100% on-site but if you're WFH then that should figure into your calculations. I never work on-site more than 2 days a week (at worst) with clients so in theory I need never concern myself with the 24 month rule (which is fortunate as a lot of my clients are based within a few miles of Liverpool Street).

[psychocandy]

Well the truth is, no-one knows. It has not been tested by case law.

The cautious view says that it is 40% of time over last two years.
The less cautious view says a substantial break (another gig in another city) resets the clock.
The optimist says a three week break on JSA is enough to reset the clock.

Personally, I would go with a substantial break, but it depends on your (and your accountant's) attitude to risk.

To be honest, I'm beginning to see that...

Potentially, if you use the 40% thing you could work for 1 day in location A, then work for 12 months in B, then got back to A. After 9 months, if you allow that one day to count, you've, strictly speaking, worked over 40% of the time in last 24months after just 9 months (9 months is over 40% of 24 months). So this one day could be over a years worth of expenses disallowed.

And I dont see how the argument holds true and how it works for new gigs where you've never worked in a location before. After 9 months of a gig, counting back 24 months - this is 40% of the time in the last 24 months. Yet for a new location we dont consider this.

In my case, I had 3 months in location A, 8 months in location B. In my mind this seems sensible to consider it reset. To say that after 6 months in my 2nd claim, I've now worked 9 months location A, 8 months location B, and 7 months wherever which means its not disallowed seems crazy. It'd almost worth cancelling the first claim of 3 months expenses to prevent this!

In my case also, possibly the cautious appraoch would mean a year or so of disallowed expenses. Quite a few £1000 for me.

[malvolio]

You're over thinking this.

do 8 months at A. Do 9 months at B. Go back to A and take on another 6 month contract. From the end of that contract (as it stands now) and working backwards, you have worked 14 months at A, which is 10 months less that 24 months. So why do you think you have fallen foul of the 24 months limit?

Take another 6 months at A as an extension and you will still have 15 months total at A if you include the 9 months in at B, which is part of the 24 month rolling total. Still under 24 months by my sums....

So what, exactly, is the difficulty? And how does it contradict the original nutshell explanation?

[psychocandy]

You're over thinking this.

do 8 months at A. Do 9 months at B. Go back to A and take on another 6 month contract. From the end of that contract (as it stands now) and working backwards, you have worked 14 months at A, which is 10 months less that 24 months. So why do you think you have fallen foul of the 24 months limit?

Take another 6 months at A as an extension and you will still have 15 months total at A if you include the 9 months in at B, which is part of the 24 month rolling total. Still under 24 months by my sums....

So what, exactly, is the difficulty? And how does it contradict the original nutshell explanation?

In example above, you've done 14 out of the last 24 months at A. So its more than 40%.

BUT I can see what you mean, its still not 24 months. Still confusing - by your rationale you can only look back at the previous 24 months. So unless you've been there 24 months you're in the clear?

What about 24 months at A, 1 month at B, then 12 months at A? In the past 24 months, you've worked A for 23, and B for 1 so you're still OK? Not what most people say I dont think.

Similar to my situation then:-

10 months at C
3 months at A
8 months at B
Now 18 months at A

So I'm in the clear until current extension takes me past 24 months THIS time? Since the first stint is more than 24 months ago...

[teapot418]

In example above, you've done 14 out of the last 24 months at A. So its more than 40%.

BUT I can see what you mean, its still not 24 months. Still confusing - by your rationale you can only look back at the previous 24 months. So unless you've been there 24 months you're in the clear?

What about 24 months at A, 1 month at B, then 12 months at A? In the past 24 months, you've worked A for 23, and B for 1 so you're still OK? Not what most people say I dont think.

Similar to my situation then:-

10 months at C
3 months at A
8 months at B
Now 18 months at A

So I'm in the clear until current extension takes me past 24 months THIS time? Since the first stint is more than 24 months ago...

Today - have you spent more than 24 months at A? No
At the end of the gig, have you spent more than 24 months at A? No


Not sure why you're so confused.

[psychocandy]

Today - have you spent more than 24 months at A? No
At the end of the gig, have you spent more than 24 months at A? No


Not sure why you're so confused.

Yes after next extension I will have spent 21 months this time, and 3 months previously.

[psychocandy]

Example two: Anders works in human resources as a consultant and is taken on by a client who wants him to design new systems in a project which lasts 17 months. He is then needed urgently on a project in one of the client’s other offices, before returning to the previous client’s offices for 6 months in order to implement the new system, which was part of the initial contract. Because this additional period was planned from the outset, Anders initially had the expectation of working at the main client site for less than 24 months, so relief can be claimed for the first 17 month stint. He can also claim relief for the 3 months spent at the secondary site as this constitutes a separate site, however, he cannot claim for the final 6 month period as he now has the expectation of working at the same site for more than 40 per cent of his time in a 24 month period.

In this example, 17 months to start with then 3 months somewhere else, then 6 months back. Still less than 24 months total but he cant claim. In the 24 months before (counting back from the end of the 2nd six months) its been 21 months at main site, 3 months new place, But 21 months is way more than 40% of the 24 months BUT HES STILL BEEN THERE LESS THAN 24 MONTHS TOTAL. This is from Nixon Williams website.

Same with me, Site A 3 months, then Site B 8 months, then Site A 21 months. Using the above example above, I would be disallowed from claiming after 7 months of current gig. At that time (7 months into current gig), in the previous 24 months, I'd be 10 months site A, 8 months site B, 6 months unknown. So more than 40% of my time in the past 24 months at site A.

This would indeed be crap and I hope it doesnt work like this but, I still think there are inconsistencies here in how it all works. I agree with how malvolio says it works (or it should) but NW seem to be saying slightly differently here...