24 month rule - This is different!

[psychocandy]

WOW, That is a LOT of pain if ever caught...

And of course here you're ignoring the rules rather than interpreting them differently.

[sociopath]

Me 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.

Did you find it any clearer in 390? Is the issue down to interpretation of the 40% rule?

[psychocandy]

Did you find it any clearer in 390? Is the issue down to interpretation of the 40% rule?

Still not clear totally because there is also an opinion that, when you start a new gig in a location that you've been before then its reset if, in the last 24 months, you've spent less than 40% at that location.

In my case, when I started back here it was 3 months, 8 months ago.

[psychocandy]

Well this is a turn up for the books!

Just spoken to IPSE tax helpline.

If you remember it was 3 months, then 8 months somewhere else, then 18 months same location. My accountant was of the opinion, that after 12 months (when an extension to 15 was offered), I should have stopped (3+15 = 18), in last 26 months is more than 40%.

However, in the opinion of the lady on the helpline, there is no way that the two periods should be linked. Since the 8 months was definitely a completely different gig/journey etc it is unreasonable to suggest that the 3 months before this should be linked.

To be fair, after the initial call, she went went away and came back to me 24 hours later, so it appears things have been considered.

[pr1]

Good luck getting it in writing though

[northernladuk]

Different gig has nothing to do with it and I'd argue the journey option. What did she say about geographic location? There must be more detail but just what you said in the post I'm not quite convinced.

'Considered' could mean no one knows so they've taken a stab at it and come back to you. I wouldn't say the delay adds any credibility at all.

But.... If you keep looking hard enough I'm sure you'll find enough people on average that says yes so you can happily ignore your accounts t.

So much for you realising the loss just wasn't worth the risk. I don't know why we bother reply. You aren't going to listen until you get the answer you want to here so you can be 1k better off...

Dunno why you just claim it. I'm sure nearly everyone on here doesn't give a tulip anymore and all you want to do is keep it so why not just keep it and move on.

[LondonManc]

Different gig has nothing to do with it and I'd argue the journey option. What did she say about geographic location? There must be more detail but just what you said in the post I'm not quite convinced.

'Considered' could mean no one knows so they've taken a stab at it and come back to you. I wouldn't say the delay adds any credibility at all.

But.... If you keep looking hard enough I'm sure you'll find enough people on average that says yes so you can happily ignore your accounts t.

So much for you realising the loss just wasn't worth the risk. I don't know why we bother reply. You aren't going to listen until you get the answer you want to here so you can be 1k better off...

Dunno why you just claim it. I'm sure nearly everyone on here doesn't give a tulip anymore and all you want to do is keep it so why not just keep it and move on.

This stuff writes itself.

[psychocandy]

Different gig has nothing to do with it and I'd argue the journey option. What did she say about geographic location? There must be more detail but just what you said in the post I'm not quite convinced.

'Considered' could mean no one knows so they've taken a stab at it and come back to you. I wouldn't say the delay adds any credibility at all.

But.... If you keep looking hard enough I'm sure you'll find enough people on average that says yes so you can happily ignore your accounts t.

So much for you realising the loss just wasn't worth the risk. I don't know why we bother reply. You aren't going to listen until you get the answer you want to here so you can be 1k better off...

Dunno why you just claim it. I'm sure nearly everyone on here doesn't give a tulip anymore and all you want to do is keep it so why not just keep it and move on.

NLUK - you're being a complete bellend now...

YES I know different gig means nothing. And I know that this is just another OPINION. But its a valid OPINION from an organisation who should know what they're talking about.
But of course, you seem to think only your opinion counts on this forum and if anyone disagrees you shout them down.

Its not just about me. If I decide to claim or not thats not relevant. As you say, no-one cares.

BUT this interpretation is maybe very interesting to a lot of people in the same situation.

So please stop acting as if you own this forum. You don't.

[psychocandy]

Good luck getting it in writing though

Impossible of course.

[eek]

Different gig has nothing to do with it and I'd argue the journey option. What did she say about geographic location? There must be more detail but just what you said in the post I'm not quite convinced.

'Considered' could mean no one knows so they've taken a stab at it and come back to you. I wouldn't say the delay adds any credibility at all.

But.... If you keep looking hard enough I'm sure you'll find enough people on average that says yes so you can happily ignore your accounts t.

So much for you realising the loss just wasn't worth the risk. I don't know why we bother reply. You aren't going to listen until you get the answer you want to here so you can be 1k better off...

Dunno why you just claim it. I'm sure nearly everyone on here doesn't give a tulip anymore and all you want to do is keep it so why not just keep it and move on.

To be honest there has been 1 decent comment elsewhere (IPSE) which is of value and not mentioned here.

Its was the reduction down to ridiculous approach of 1 day in London, 12 months -1 day in Bristol (say) and 12 months in London. Given the renewal date you would hit the 24 month rule and because you are over 50% can no longer claim... Clearly that's not the case so claiming would make sense.

But I think the question is how easily can you argue the case and would you feel stupid doing so? 3 months at A, 8 months at B then back to A is something I could argue. I think 6 months at A, 6 months at B and then back to A wouldn't be such an easy / comfortable argument.