24 month rule - This is different!

[psychocandy]

An anomaly, for sure. From a non-accountant point of view, I can see why either argument could be used. The 17+3 are a given for claiming but then after that, I can understand why an accountant would give either direction. Is it any different to working in, say, Nottingham for 20 months, Newcastle for 6 months with A.N. Other client then back in Nottingham?

Which is very similar to my situation. Albeit 3 - 8 - 18.

Using the example, it could be argued, that after 7 months of my second stint, in the previous 24 months I'd worked 10 months at that location, and 14 months elsewhere (8 plus an unmentioned 6 months at the beginning) which is more than 40%.

What happens after 16 months of 2nd stint. Who knows? Counting back 24 months the initial 3 is now out of focus? So start claiming again? lol.

[psychocandy]

Correct. And what I have bene saying all along. Heigh ho...

b) Go to the known (or anticipated) end date of your current gig.

c) Count back 24 months by the calendar.

But you are saying now go back further to than 24 months to when the 1st contract started (which is more than 24 months in the past).

17-3-6 = 26 months.

[psychocandy]

Jeez. Trying to get clarification but accountant is saying the example is correct and that you go back more than 24 months to last start date. and then see if you've been there more than 40% of the time.

Im sorry it just doesnt add up for me. Total crap legislation. Like I said, I could work someone one day, have a large break and it still be linked because the total is over 40%. No way.

[missinggreenfields]

Correct. And what I have bene saying all along. Heigh ho...

So let's run some slightly different figures to Anders in the OP.

Anders spends 10 months at site A for client A
He then spends 13 months at site B for client A
He then returns to site A for client A for 3 months

Can he claim travel and subsistence expenses or not?

[psychocandy]

So let's run some slightly different figures to Anders in the OP.

Anders spends 10 months at site A for client A
He then spends 13 months at site B for client A
He then returns to site A for client A for 3 months

Can he claim travel and subsistence expenses or not?

No according to my accountant. Because, at the point of starting new contract, 11 months of the past 24 would have been at site A. Which is more than 40%.

Even worse, 1 day at site A, 13 months at site B, 3 months at site A again, you're ok. But get to 10 months and you have to stop claiming - 10/24 > 40% of your time.

And also I dont see how it works for non-linked locations. 14 months timbuctoo, 10 months london. You've still spend more than 40% of the last 24 months in london!

[psychocandy]

Have a look at this - https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim32108

My accountant is telling me (based on 3-8) that after 12 months when I got the extension to 15 I should have stopped claiming. Because at this point it was 18/24 at location A AND it was at least 24 months since the beginning of the shenanigans. Before this it was less than 24 months since the first gig started.

Still think its crap and totally unworkable. 1 day at site A, 11 months site B, after 12 months back at site A, following the same argument, its now 24 months since it all started and I've not spent more than 40% of time at site A. This one day would prevent a possible further 12 months expenses claims.

In reality, I would argue its fair to argue that a short contract, followed by a much longer contract would cancel out or reset the clock. HMRC examples are just one showing a long working duration with a much smaller break.

All in all though = total bummer for me. Potentially, paying back 6 months of expenses (plus not claiming up until month 21 - another 3 months). So CT on this lot and we're talking probably a few K.

Got a bit of a decision to make now. Do this or stick to my argument (which I still think is right BTW). All about appetite for risk I guess because if HMRC rule against I'm guessing there'd be interest on top?

Another thing - 15 months into current contact, get an extension to 18. First three monther is now out of scope of the 24 months previous so can I claim again now lol? How far do you go back lol....

Also, 14 month timbuctoo, 10 months london is still 40% + of time in london in last 24 months.

[teapot418]

Remember HMRC guidance != law.

AFAIK this hasn't been tested in court.

[psychocandy]

With hindsight, if I'd known then better not to pay those expenses first time around. The horse has probably bolted on that one now but if you could do this - and have no expenses claimed for this then you'd be sorted from a straight 24 months as if it never existed maybe ;-)

Or would HMRC still count it even though you claimed nothing?

[psychocandy]

Remember HMRC guidance != law.

AFAIK this hasn't been tested in court.

Very interesting situation I must admit. I can see HMRCs point of view and what this example is trying to show. They dont want people to work somewhere for, say, 18 months, then get put somewhere else for a month, and then reset the whole thing back to zero. This would be an obvious loophole. Especially so if you're a permie, where you know you 'might' end up back at original location.

In my case, I worked in city A for 3 months. Never worked this city before and never had any plans to come back. So I worked for 8 months at one closer to home. Then, co-incidentally Im back in original city.

According to HMRC I can only claim for a year now not 24 months because of this previous 3 months. Personally, I think it should be a case of if the break is considerably longer than he original period it should reset.

So what to do. Take the hit on losing a years expenses or argue my case if it comes to it that I was behaving reasonably and that HMRC guidelines were slightly different for my case.

[sociopath]

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.