24 month rule - This is different!

[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.

From NW website - not the same. Anders hasnt worked 24 months but HAS started over 24 months ago with a non-resetting break in the middle.

This is different to what others (including myself) understand. If this is wrong then fair enough, but if not, it seems to contradict the commonly held believe that 40% doesnt matter until you get to 24 months anyway.

This is not just me harping on about something I dont understand. BUT can anyone explain this interpretation?

[dx4100]

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.

From NW website - not the same. Anders hasnt worked 24 months but HAS started over 24 months ago with a non-resetting break in the middle.

This is different to what others (including myself) understand. If this is wrong then fair enough, but if not, it seems to contradict the commonly held believe that 40% doesnt matter until you get to 24 months anyway.

This is not just me harping on about something I dont understand. BUT can anyone explain this interpretation?

Well what you quoted makes sense to me following on from the debate the other day. Are you saying others don't see it this way still ?

[pr1]

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.

From NW website - not the same. Anders hasnt worked 24 months but HAS started over 24 months ago with a non-resetting break in the middle.

This is different to what others (including myself) understand. If this is wrong then fair enough, but if not, it seems to contradict the commonly held believe that 40% doesnt matter until you get to 24 months anyway.

This is not just me harping on about something I dont understand. BUT can anyone explain this interpretation?

I think it's wrong - following the logic of the last sentence, everyone should stop claiming after 9.6 months in the same place (40% of 24months)

[psychocandy]

Well what you quoted makes sense to me following on from the debate the other day. Are you saying others don't see it this way still ?

Site A 17 months, then Site B 3 months, then Site A 6 more months (for which it states claim is not allowed).

Total time at Site A is less than 24 months (17+6 = 23). HOWEVER, if you count back 24 months from end of it all, you've got 21 months site A, 3 months site B - which, I think is being argued is more than 40% of the last 24 months.

Which I think is crap. 24 months timbuctoor, then 10 months London. Count back 24 months. You've now spend 10/24 which is more than 40% of your time in London so should be disallowed.

[psychocandy]

I think it's wrong - following the logic of the last sentence, everyone should stop claiming after 9.6 months in the same place (40% of 24months)

PR1 - YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

Someone is with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats what I've been trying to determine. I agree with recent posts about this especially malvolios sticky but, as you say, this completely contradicts.

Not my example here BTW but Im in a similar situation of:-

3 months A
8 months B
18 months A

Using Anders examples I should have stopped claiming after 6 months of 2nd stint.
Personally, I think its crap and an 8 month break on a 3 monther is enough to reset.

What if I'd done 1 day contract at A instead of 3 months. Nonsensical to determine this may disallow 18 months of expenses further down the line....

[kaiser78]

PR1 - YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

Someone is with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats what I've been trying to determine. I agree with recent posts about this especially malvolios sticky but, as you say, this completely contradicts.

Not my example here BTW but Im in a similar situation of:-

3 months A
8 months B
18 months A

Using Anders examples I should have stopped claiming after 6 months of 2nd stint.
Personally, I think its crap and an 8 month break on a 3 monther is enough to reset.

What if I'd done 1 day contract at A instead of 3 months. Nonsensical to determine this may disallow 18 months of expenses further down the line....

Has no-one (LKUN) asked what your accountant says ? If not, what does your account say ? This thread (in conjunction with the other one) seems to be going round in circles !

[dx4100]

I would ask my accountant but the quote is from their site

[pr1]

Has no-one (LKUN) asked what your accountant says ? If not, what does your account say ? This thread (in conjunction with the other one) seems to be going round in circles !

this is what his accountant says (NW = nixon williams)

[psychocandy]

Has no-one (LKUN) asked what your accountant says ? If not, what does your account say ? This thread (in conjunction with the other one) seems to be going round in circles !

Waiting for accountant to come back to me. This is an example off their website - Nixon Williams.

To be honest, NW are brilliant, and, generally, I'm happy to go with whatever they say. BUT, as everyone always points out, its my company so I need to understand why it works this way.

Maybe it is a mistake or maybe I'm interpreting things incorrectly. We'll see...
Yes I know its probably been done to death but this example does seem to thow up a completely different interpretation regarding breaks in location.

Anyone else been in similar situation? I assume so if you've worked in the City especially. i.e. short contract, short break somewhere, back to original location. How did you handle the break?

[dx4100]

Its because its the same client....

The 24 month rule starts when the first contract starts....

17 + 3 + 6 = 26 months ago

17 allowed as its under 24 month
3 allowed has it is a new site
6 not allowed as he is now expecting to do more than 24 months from the start of the original contract at the site so he is going to breach 24 months.

It makes sense