Originally posted by dx4100
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
24 month rule - This is different!
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
My point EXACTLY. Its vague.Originally posted by dx4100 View PostQuote from the HMRC
So you can carry on claiming... You haven't had a 24 month stint at location A yet...
EDIT: Yet the Nixon Williams website says its a rolling window.... So who knows...
24 Month Rule for Tax Free Travel Expenses Relief | Nixon Williams
My accountants are NW. They've said, 3 at A, 8 at B, 12 at A = stop claiming. Because at that point in the past 24 months more than 40% at location A.
But as you say its arguable IMHO.Rhyddid i lofnod psychocandy!!!!Comment
-
Don;t get me wrong NW are brilliant as is my accountant. Couldnt be happier. BUT they need to take the cautious approach.Originally posted by pr1 View Postin PC's case, that could be a £2000 decision, I hope NW are right!
If they don't and it ends up wrong, they get it in the neck from a multitude of clients when HMRC come calling. So, be mega cautious and save yourself the grief. After all, its not their £2000 either.Rhyddid i lofnod psychocandy!!!!Comment
-
Yes but after 12 months completed you're about to accept an extension to 15 months, so 3+12+15.Originally posted by mudskipper View Post3+8+12=23
18/26 months at location A so more than 40%.
Still not a total of 24 at location A but more than 40%.Rhyddid i lofnod psychocandy!!!!Comment
-
It baffles me how some posters here scream until they are red in the face that it is really simple when it is clearly confusingOriginally posted by psychocandy View PostMy point EXACTLY. Its vague.
My accountants are NW. They've said, 3 at A, 8 at B, 12 at A = stop claiming. Because at that point in the past 24 months more than 40% at location A.
But as you say its arguable IMHO.
Comment
-
Me too. I expect grief though ;-)Originally posted by pr1 View PostPersonally I'd say the rules are sufficiently vague that I'd reset the clock and go up to 24months at A in stint 2 (but would be prepared to pay up if proven otherwise). I don't think they could put a penalty on it as it is quite subjective so it's only interest (which is very low) that you'd end up losing out on, and that's IF it gets picked up - others' views may vary!
£2000 now. Or slim chance of £2000+interest. Even assuming HMRC pick it up, I still think there is sufficient greyness for me to be right anyway. What I dont want to do is to be deemed to be taking the piss.
Personally, also, in my mind, what I'm doing and interpreting is reasonable. The rule is there to prevent deliberate short breaks reseting the clock.
The fact that it was a short gig, followed by a much longer did, if you're being sensible, should reset the clock.Rhyddid i lofnod psychocandy!!!!Comment
-
Yep none of the regulars who have shouted me down and said its simple and you're stupid have commented on my situation.Originally posted by dx4100 View PostIt baffles me how some posters here scream until they are red in the face that it is really simple when it is clearly confusing
Because they dont want to be shown to be wrong in case it is.Rhyddid i lofnod psychocandy!!!!Comment
-
As long as you stop at 24 months in stint 2 (assuming you're staying there for a while) you'll be doing it more to the book than most - there's people who work in zone 1 in London for 15 years and keep claiming itOriginally posted by psychocandy View PostMe too. I expect grief though ;-)
£2000 now. Or slim chance of £2000+interest. Even assuming HMRC pick it up, I still think there is sufficient greyness for me to be right anyway. What I dont want to do is to be deemed to be taking the piss.
Personally, also, in my mind, what I'm doing and interpreting is reasonable. The rule is there to prevent deliberate short breaks reseting the clock.
The fact that it was a short gig, followed by a much longer did, if you're being sensible, should reset the clock.Comment
-
WOW, That is a LOT of pain if ever caught...Originally posted by pr1 View PostAs long as you stop at 24 months in stint 2 (assuming you're staying there for a while) you'll be doing it more to the book than most - there's people who work in zone 1 in London for 15 years and keep claiming itComment
-
Thats one plan. One way to think of it - like you say.Originally posted by pr1 View PostAs long as you stop at 24 months in stint 2 (assuming you're staying there for a while) you'll be doing it more to the book than most - there's people who work in zone 1 in London for 15 years and keep claiming itRhyddid i lofnod psychocandy!!!!Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers

Comment