24 Month Rule - Paying Back of Claimed Expenses

[northernladuk]

I once did a contract for 23 months which involved driving to Coventry, getting train to Euston and getting tube North. I then got a new contract which meant walking to my local train station, getting train to Marylebone and then tube to Waterloo. I treated this as a change in location and continued claiming, although my accountant was dubious.

If it's a significant change then you are OK. Significant is a grey area in London but it sounds like the morning commute makes the entire journey significantly different so you are OK.

One if HMRC's example is a bridge builder. Once he'd done one side of the bridge he has to take a long detour to work at the other side. Although the two locations were technically on the same site the journey there changed significantly so they say it's OK.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Am I reading the OP wrong? It looks to me like he has claimed <24 months (until he knew he would be there >24 months) and he is now being advised he needs to pay that back.

Yes, there's a rule separate to the 24 month rule (which OP seems to have observed correctly) that states that if you only work at a single location for the duration of your employment then it cannot be treated as a temporary workplace.

As mal says, that's why if you do a single contract with an umbrella then you can't reclaim travel expenses regardless of duration.

[northernladyuk]

Yes, there's a rule separate to the 24 month rule (which OP seems to have observed correctly) that states that if you only work at a single location for the duration of your employment then it cannot be treated as a temporary workplace.

As mal says, that's why if you do a single contract with an umbrella then you can't reclaim travel expenses regardless of duration.

Well I never! I didn't know that. Thanks, everyone (not that I'm in UK anymore but nice to learn something.)

[northernladuk]

I wish people would stop using the term employment.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

I wish people would stop using the term employment.

It's accurate in the context of this discussion. In OPs case his employment would be the one with TheirCo.

[northernladyuk]

I wish people would stop using the term employment.

[northernladuk]

It's accurate in the context of this discussion. In OPs case his employment would be the one with TheirCo.

Which is more luck than design in some instances.

[northernladyuk]

If it's a significant change then you are OK. Significant is a grey area in London but it sounds like the morning commute makes the entire journey significantly different so you are OK.

One if HMRC's example is a bridge builder. Once he'd done one side of the bridge he has to take a long detour to work at the other side. Although the two locations were technically on the same site the journey there changed significantly so they say it's OK.

I was about to swap back to the original North London journey after a further 23 months but that didn't work out.

[TheFaQQer]

As mal says, that's why if you do a single contract with an umbrella then you can't reclaim travel expenses regardless of duration.

I thought that had changed - I'm sure that I've posted that before and either Lucy or Lisa at CU said that they had had different guidance from HMRC about being able to claim for travel if you were working for only one contract under an umbrella company.

That may have changed since then though.

[northernladuk]

I thought that had changed - I'm sure that I've posted that before and either Lucy or Lisa at CU said that they had had different guidance from HMRC about being able to claim for travel if you were working for only one contract under an umbrella company.

That may have changed since then though.

Yeah. I saw that thread when I was searching. Wish I'd saved the link now... But it's a moot point now surely?