24 month rule - This is different!

[sociopath]

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.

490 states "This means that where the employee has spent, or is likely to spend, 40% or more of their working time at that particular workplace over a period of more than 24 months, it will be a permanent workplace"

[sociopath]

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...

Do you expect to spend more than 24 months at London?

[mudskipper]

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.

No, because you haven't spent >= 24 months in London from day 1 to day end, so 24 month rule doesn't apply.

[mudskipper]

OK - so here's a question

If you (any of you) were HMRC, how would you word the rule to capture the spirit and intention of the legislation, but not unintentional edge cases?

[sociopath]

OK - so here's a question

If you (any of you) were HMRC, how would you word the rule to capture the spirit and intention of the legislation, but not unintentional edge cases?

the clock only resets when you have left the location long enough that when you return the period you were there before is not more than 40% of the time over the last 24 months

[SueEllen]

the clock only resets when you have left the location long enough that when you return the period you were there before is not more than 40% of the time over the last 24 months

This isn't what she is saying.

Basically you are being an awarkward bas*****

The aim of the rules is to stop an employee who works in an area the majority of their time e.g. 60% claiming it's a temporary work place.

Employees go on holiday and get seconded for a few months so while people talk of the clock resetting you have to bear in mind that if the gap is a short one you just look like that.

[missinggreenfields]

Yourco is the employer

No they aren't. If they were, the company would have to consider employment law and paying a higher salary.

[SueEllen]

No they aren't. If they were, the company would have to consider employment law and paying a higher salary.

Officers of a company are exempt from minimum wage legislation if they don't have an employment contract with that company.

You can be an employee of a company and an officer of that company. You don't need to have a written contract if you have a majority shareholding as you control the company.

Employment laws do actually apply to us. The Equality Act has been specifically written to include people like us while older laws use terms like "worker" or have other ways to include us e.g. Health and Safety legislation. On a more practical level if you only employ yourself, or yourself and family members, how likely are you to get sued for breach of these laws?

[sociopath]

This isn't what she is saying.

Basically you are being an awarkward bas*****

.

Just because you don't like what is said there is no need to start name calling and learn how to spell awkward!

I was only answering Mudskippers question with a quote from another source to further the debate but I guess whatever you says gospel!

So I guess instead of saying "have you asked your accountant?" we should be saying "have you asked SueEllen?"

[sociopath]

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...517266/490.pdf

You probably have all read but useful read for those that haven't.

Apologies if link doesn't work.