24 month rule - This is different!

[Pondlife]

I suppose it's a bit like the restriction of trade clauses. What constitutes reasonable? Until we get court cases it's all opinion.

[missinggreenfields]

I suppose it's a bit like the restriction of trade clauses. What constitutes reasonable? Until we get court cases it's all opinion.

Even with a court case, it'll need multiple ones (I guess) to get more guidance on what is reasonable and what isn't. In the siuations described, I'd have no problem with claiming and arguing the case though.

6 months / 6 months / 18 months - I think I'd probably argue that one too.

If HMRC change the rules on IR35 so that they are linked to the travel situation, then I would expect some cases to come up though, which could give a bit of clarity one way or the other.

[psychocandy]

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.

If you use the same argument then, yes, a one day gig like this would count.

[sociopath]

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.

I'd have to concur with NLUK as the response provided states different gigs and journey means its ok. I'd ask them for more detail on how they came to that conclusion.

If it was to come down to it and you had to explain why you went down that route what would you say... You got two independent professional opinions which conflicted... One with some substance and other not as much meat to the bone.... Which do you choose and why?

[MrMarkyMark]

I'd have to concur with NLUK as the response provided states different gigs and journey means its ok. I'd ask them for more detail on how they came to that conclusion.

If it was to come down to it and you had to explain why you went down that route what would you say... You got two independent professional opinions which conflicted... One with some substance and other not as much meat to the bone.... Which do you choose and why?

Do you think saying "It was all about the extra Dollar M'Lud" would be an adequate response?

[psychocandy]

I'd have to concur with NLUK as the response provided states different gigs and journey means its ok. I'd ask them for more detail on how they came to that conclusion.

If it was to come down to it and you had to explain why you went down that route what would you say... You got two independent professional opinions which conflicted... One with some substance and other not as much meat to the bone.... Which do you choose and why?

Fair point. Ok ignore the different gigs thing - thats not really relevant. Just clarifying that the 2nd 8monther was different.

Explanation was yes client doesnt really matter but it helps. 3 months at one site, then 8 months for same client at different site is not as good. 8 months at a completely different client is better.

BUT, the HMRC examples and guidelines all refer to a long gig, short break, next gig. There are no examples for short, long, return so yes its a grey area.

My examples of the one day gig to start highlights that if you apply the examples down the line it gets a bit silly.

Its not clear cut, but IPSE advise that in their opinion, there is no guidelines to cover this but it is REASONABLE to consider 8 months long enough to break it up. Of course, how long is long enough? who knows?

[northernladuk]

Its not clear cut, but IPSE advise that in their opinion, there is no guidelines to cover this but it is REASONABLE to consider 8 months long enough to break it up. Of course, how long is long enough? who knows?

HMRC will but sadly we won't find out until the letter appears on our doorstep.

[psychocandy]

Do you think saying "It was all about the extra Dollar M'Lud" would be an adequate response?

OK MM - what would you do? Cock on the block time.... All well and good telling me I'm looking for the best option. Of course I am.

Accountant tells you "nah we think you can only claim for year but we know its a grey area"
IPSE specialist tells you "We're pretty sure you're ok to claim for two years"

BTW - I didnt tell IPSE what my accountant had said until afterwards because I wanted them to make their own mind up.

Following accountants advice costs you £2000. Following IPSE specialist advice costs you £0 (with a slight chance HMRC will disagree and it might cost you more than that).

Would you consider the 2nd option? To be honest I may still well go for the 1st option anyway (it turns out to be £1000) just to save the hassle. I could still be right but when has that mattered to HMRC? I dont want to be right for the sake of it - I want whats best for me.

Cock on the block..

[psychocandy]

HMRC will but sadly we won't find out until the letter appears on our doorstep.

Same with IR35 of course. You might think you've got the most watertight IR35 gig in the world but if HMRC decided otherwise its a whole lot of pain....

So do we all declare ourselves inside IR35 just in case?

[MrMarkyMark]

OK MM - what would you do? Cock on the block time.... All well and good telling me I'm looking for the best option. Of course I am.

Accountant tells you "nah we think you can only claim for year but we know its a grey area"
IPSE specialist tells you "We're pretty sure you're ok to claim for two years"

BTW - I didnt tell IPSE what my accountant had said until afterwards because I wanted them to make their own mind up.

Following accountants advice costs you £2000. Following IPSE specialist advice costs you £0 (with a slight chance HMRC will disagree and it might cost you more than that).

Would you consider the 2nd option? To be honest I may still well go for the 1st option anyway (it turns out to be £1000) just to save the hassle. I could still be right but when has that mattered to HMRC? I dont want to be right for the sake of it - I want whats best for me.

Cock on the block..

My price, for that service, would be a he'll of a lot more than £2K, ah sorry, in your case, £1K .
Point is, do you really need to squabble for these additional pennies, or are you being plain greedy?