Travel - 24 month rule two clients in central London
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Posts 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11
    eek
    eek is offline

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    22,718
    Thanks (Given)
    271
    Thanks (Received)
    1296
    Likes (Given)
    1084
    Likes (Received)
    3761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladyuk View Post
    https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim32280

    Grey area I would say. I would continue claiming (if no longer need to and actually taking tube).
    I would suspect a lot of people to call that level of grey actually white.

    The idea that you catch a train into central London and no longer take the tube is a different journey isnít going to wash if actually asked - itís just slightly shorter.

    The actual gamble is how likely are you to be asked
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  2. #12

    Fingers like lightning


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    500
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    26
    Likes (Given)
    207
    Likes (Received)
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    The actual gamble is how likely are you to be asked
    Somewhere between 0 and 0 I would think.

    Can anyone find anyone else (apart from the footballer who's case was dropped after 2 years) that has been asked ?


  3. #13

    Old Greg is my bitch's bitch

    northernladyuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Working the streets of your imagination
    Posts
    8,562
    Thanks (Given)
    1192
    Thanks (Received)
    653
    Likes (Given)
    442
    Likes (Received)
    2421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    I would suspect a lot of people to call that level of grey actually white.

    The idea that you catch a train into central London and no longer take the tube is a different journey isnít going to wash if actually asked - itís just slightly shorter.

    The actual gamble is how likely are you to be asked
    Wouldn't you say that a change in cost between £454 and £327 is substantial?
    Where there's muck there's brass.

  4. #14

    TripleIronDad


    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    100,000
    Thanks (Given)
    25551
    Thanks (Received)
    6811
    Likes (Given)
    25551
    Likes (Received)
    11319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladyuk View Post
    Wouldn't you say that a change in cost between £454 and £327 is substantial?
    Isn't it what HMRC thinks that counts?

    I think you are right though....

  5. #15

    Double Godlike!

    malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Walking in the garden, dreaming of Olivia...
    Posts
    10,549
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    249
    Likes (Given)
    8
    Likes (Received)
    854

    Default

    It's the City of London. As far as Hector is concerned, that is one location. Get a gig in Reading, or even Canary Wharf, and you might have a case.
    Blog? What blog...?

  6. #16

    Old Greg is my bitch's bitch

    northernladyuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Working the streets of your imagination
    Posts
    8,562
    Thanks (Given)
    1192
    Thanks (Received)
    653
    Likes (Given)
    442
    Likes (Received)
    2421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Isn't it what HMRC thinks that counts?

    I think you are right though....
    I think it is important to differentiate between what is allowed and what HMRC wants you to do. The BET was a good example of the HMRC taking a different view (on IR35 in this case) from what the law states (and intends). HMRC as we all know is not a neutral arbiter on this. They are on the other side and the law is the arbiter.

    In this case (a hypothetical case as we don't actually know the OP travels into Liverpool St) we need to look at an example HMRC gives around the square mile (with IIRC no statement about change in method and cost of journey) against another HMRC statement:

    If a change of workplace does not have any substantial effect on the employee’s journey, or the expense of that journey, the change is ignored

    In this case there is substantial effect on the expense of the journey so the change is not ignored. It is actually clear. The only reason I say is is a grey area is because HMRC will disagree.



    Edit: and her is the example:

    https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim32089

    Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: example
    A computer consultant is the only employee of a company that she controls. She is a specialist in banking systems. She spends 18 months working full-time at the headquarters of a merchant bank in Lombard Street in the City of London. She then moves next door to design a new computer system for a different bank where she expects to stay working full-time for 22 months. After that assignment she moves to a bank close by on Cheapside for 17 months. The employee expects to work continuously in the City of London albeit on the premises of different banks. Her travel from home to work will be broadly the same every day. No deduction is due for the cost of travel between her home and any of these workplaces.

    This example illustrates the effect of the rule in Section 339(7) ITEPA 2003 that requires us to ignore a change of workplace if that change does not have any significant effect on the employee’s journey to work, see EIM32280.
    Relevant part is in bold. If you were to expand it to encompass the broader HMRC understanding of change so it said:

    This example illustrates the effect of the rule in Section 339(7) ITEPA 2003 that requires us to ignore a change of workplace if that change does not have any significant effect on the employee’s journey to work or the expense of that journey, see EIM32280.

    ...then in the example I give, there is a clear and significant decrease in the expense of the journey.
    Last edited by northernladyuk; 13th November 2017 at 15:20.
    Where there's muck there's brass.

  7. #17

    Contractor Among Contractors

    Batcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,862
    Thanks (Given)
    116
    Thanks (Received)
    35
    Likes (Given)
    1109
    Likes (Received)
    227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by radish2008 View Post
    Somewhere between 0 and 0 I would think.

    Can anyone find anyone else (apart from the footballer who's case was dropped after 2 years) that has been asked ?

    Yes, me

    I worked in Edinburgh at two different clients. The route from my home office to their offices were different, I had 3 months off between contracts and driving from one client office to the other was just over 4 miles.

    In my mind that was enough of a break and a difference in location but HMRC (during my IR35 investigation) insisted the Square Mile Rule applied and therefore I should have stopped claiming travel after 24 months.

    My investigation went on for 4 years and I eventually, with the help of PCG, got them to drop it so I didn't pay anything back.

    The general rule though is the direction of travel is what they will judge you on.

  8. #18

    Old Greg is my bitch's bitch

    northernladyuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Working the streets of your imagination
    Posts
    8,562
    Thanks (Given)
    1192
    Thanks (Received)
    653
    Likes (Given)
    442
    Likes (Received)
    2421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcher View Post
    Yes, me

    I worked in Edinburgh at two different clients. The route from my home office to their offices were different, I had 3 months off between contracts and driving from one client office to the other was just over 4 miles.

    In my mind that was enough of a break and a difference in location but HMRC (during my IR35 investigation) insisted the Square Mile Rule applied and therefore I should have stopped claiming travel after 24 months.

    My investigation went on for 4 years and I eventually, with the help of PCG, got them to drop it so I didn't pay anything back.

    The general rule though is the direction of travel is what they will judge you on.
    I bet they even called it the' Square Mile Rule' instead of the 'Square Mile Example' to illustrate the Rule.
    Where there's muck there's brass.

  9. #19

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    34,503
    Thanks (Given)
    144
    Thanks (Received)
    1566
    Likes (Given)
    1842
    Likes (Received)
    6307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batcher View Post
    Yes, me

    I worked in Edinburgh at two different clients. The route from my home office to their offices were different , I had 3 months off between contracts and driving from one client office to the other was just over 4 miles.

    In my mind that was enough of a break and a difference in location but HMRC (during my IR35 investigation) insisted the Square Mile Rule applied and therefore I should have stopped claiming travel after 24 months.
    .
    Isn't that what the 40% rule is for?
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  10. #20

    Old Greg is my bitch's bitch

    northernladyuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Working the streets of your imagination
    Posts
    8,562
    Thanks (Given)
    1192
    Thanks (Received)
    653
    Likes (Given)
    442
    Likes (Received)
    2421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladuk View Post
    Isn't that what the 40% rule is for?
    Quite. The break will be no defence, but the 4 miles difference may (or may not) be.
    Where there's muck there's brass.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.