24 month rule - This is different!

[mudskipper]

There is no break in continuous work. On the example given it was same employer, two sites. You have to consider both rules. They would have spent more than 40% of their time over a period of more than two years. Read 490.

The point here is that it is the same employer - yourCo.

[missinggreenfields]

There is no break in continuous work. On the example given it was same employer, two sites. You have to consider both rules. They would have spent more than 40% of their time over a period of more than two years. Read 490.

Neither one is an employer.

[sociopath]

Client not location is the relevant bit but all the same. I dont think any distinction is made for same client just same location though.

But you are agreeing to the example here. Others would say no because you're still less than 24 months at location A.

Also, as I said, what about:-

Location A - 1 day
Location B - 23 months
Location A - 12 months

By this argument, the one day almost two years ago would prevent any claim at location A 2nd time around. I'm sorry that is just nuts and totally silly. There MUST be some reasonable reset.

In this example work time spent is greater than 40% at both locations over a period greater than 24 months so I would expect neither can be considered a temporary workplace.

[sociopath]

Neither one is an employer.

Yourco is the employer

[sociopath]

The point here is that it is the same employer - yourCo.

Exactly

[psychocandy]

In this example work time spent is greater than 40% at both locations over a period greater than 24 months so I would expect neither can be considered a temporary workplace.

Going back to something else then. Work in Timbuctoo for 14 months then go and work in London for 10 months. You've now worked in London for 10/24 which is more than 40%. Stop claiming? no of course we dont do that.

[psychocandy]

Exactly

Yes same employer different clients.

[SueEllen]

The point here is that it is the same employer - yourCo.

However if you basically worked in the same location before your company became your employer, you also fall foul of the rules.

[psychocandy]

To confuse things even more. Based on me, which was

A - 3 months
B - 8 months
A - Currently about to sign to take it to 21 months.

Accountant has told me that, 12 months when the 15 month extension was offered I should have stopped claiming. Because,

1) Its now just over 24 months since I first worked in location A (it is 15+8+3 = 26 months ago).
2) I've spent over 40% of this 24 months working in location A.

Seems to make sense to me based on the HMRC guidelines. i.e Wasn't in force before because it was less than 24 months ago that I first stared working in location A.

So, see below based on my extensions

3 Yes claim - less than 2 years
6 Yes as above
9 Yes as above
12 Yes as aboive
15 No - because its now 24 months since first stint (In the last 24 months its 15,8,1 - alas more than 40%
18 Now this is a funny one. Counting back 24 months the first stint was now gone off the radar. The start date, assuming you don't look back past 24 months is 18 months ago. So even though its more than 40% it not 24 months. The 8 month gap has made a difference :-)
21 - Yes As above.
24 - Its no again now because we definitely into 24 months again now.

Pity none of the regulars have not posted on this thread. Would have expected some abuse by now. Maybe because I have a point that its not as clear cut as it seems.

[psychocandy]

Of course, if you decide to pay expenses back because of something like this, then 80% goes to profits, 20% to CT. Out of the 80% profit, of course, theres the 7.5% (minimum) on top so pretty much looking 27.5% of any expenses that get paid back in this way.

In my case, 5 months so far. And current plan (if staying at client) was another 4 months (but then having to stop because of extension up to 24 months. Estimate about £5000 in expenses so looking at an out of pocket cost of around £1350-£1400.

Small change for some of you I'm sure! ;-)