24 month rule - This is different!

[eek]

Once it becomes a no it remains a no until you leave for a bit. Then you need to look on your return regarding the 40% bit.

So
15 no you've passed the 24 month bit
18 contract renewal already not claiming expenses
21 snap

I'm sure you could restart claiming expenses at 18 months but I'm sure HMRC would be happy to push the case a long way to get an answer if legal precedent does not exist because frankly reclaiming expenses once you've stopped claiming is taking the Mickey

[SueEllen]

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.

You can claim up until the point you as an employee know you will be working in the same location for more than 24 months full time.

[psychocandy]

Once it becomes a no it remains a no until you leave for a bit. Then you need to look on your return regarding the 40% bit.

So
15 no you've passed the 24 month bit
18 contract renewal already not claiming expenses
21 snap

I'm sure you could restart claiming expenses at 18 months but I'm sure HMRC would be happy to push the case a long way to get an answer if legal precedent does not exist because frankly reclaiming expenses once you've stopped claiming is taking the Mickey

To be honest, I think you're right. Personally, I'm not 100% sure I should be stopping after 12 months. Short contract, long break could be argued as reseting I think. HMRC examples show wheres its not allowed where there is a long period then a short break then a return. This is different.

[psychocandy]

You can claim up until the point you as an employee know you will be working in the same location for more than 24 months full time.

Yes aware of that. As I said, accountant has said I should stop after 12 months, despite the 8 month gap, because of the previous 3 months. I think I've got a strong argument that this is not what HMRC have in mind. All their examples show long stay, short gap, then return which I think is a competely different thing. Reasonably I'd say what I did is not what HMRC are describing.

Yes the reclaiming after 18 months is not going to fly. Im not doing that. Its just an example that the rules are badly defined, incorrect, and even contradict themselves in some cases.

[sociopath]

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.

Did you work in london before you went to timbuctoo?

[sociopath]

Yes same employer different clients.

How does that matter? Are you saying the rules are client based?

[psychocandy]

How does that matter? Are you saying the rules are client based?

NO!!!!!!!

[sociopath]

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

Is that not down to the fact you would have chosen to work there and so could it be considered a temporary workplace?

I'm sure I read on here or somewhere that the rules were originally brought in to protect employees such that if a company relocated the employee had increased travel expenses paid for a period whilst they considered whether to commute to place, relocate or find new job and then evolved over time?

[psychocandy]

Did you work in london before you went to timbuctoo?

Doesnt matter. Lets say outer mongolia for 12 months before that.

You've still been in london for over 40% of the last 24 months...

[psychocandy]

Is that not down to the fact you would have chosen to work there and so could it be considered a temporary workplace?

I'm sure I read on here or somewhere that the rules were originally brought in to protect employees such that if a company relocated the employee had increased travel expenses paid for a period whilst they considered whether to commute to place, relocate or find new job and then evolved over time?

think you've got the wrong end of the stick here.

I think the 24 month rule was brought in to stop people forever claiming a temporary workplace. Also, some of the rules also appear to be in place to stop companies giving permies a short break like a week or so and then expecting the period to be reset again.