Travel - 24 month rule two clients in central London

[Batcher]

I bet they even called it the' Square Mile Rule' instead of the 'Square Mile Example' to illustrate the Rule.

Yes, they did. I explained that the 4 miles between offices would be hard to fit into a square mile

[northernladuk]

Yes, they did. I explained that the 4 miles between offices would be hard to fit into a square mile

Bet you looked really good making that argument....

[Batcher]

Isn't that what the 40% rule is for?

You would think. 18 months at client 1, 3 months off then started at client 2. They said the clock started ticking when I started at client 1 and the 3 month break wasn't long enough.

There was no mention of the 40% rule either by PCG or HMRC. This was in the early 2000s so it may not have been in place at the time? I can't recall it being mentioned otherwise I would have used it in my defence.

[Batcher]

Bet you looked really good making that argument....

Just as good as they looked to me

[malvolio]

You would think. 18 months at client 1, 3 months off then started at client 2. They said the clock started ticking when I started at client 1 and the 3 month break wasn't long enough.

There was no mention of the 40% rule either by PCG or HMRC. This was in the early 2000s so it may not have been in place at the time? I can't recall it being mentioned otherwise I would have used it in my defence.

Have you read the first post in the relevant sticky? Start at the anticipated end of the current engagement and work backwards. Your example doesn't do that.

[radish2008]

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.

Ok cool. This was part of another investigation though right ? They didn't pull you because you claimed expenses after the 24 month rule. And HMRC lost. So is this not a legal precedent and shouldn't we be quoting your case when queries like this are raised ?

[northernladyuk]

Ok cool. This was part of another investigation though right ? They didn't pull you because you claimed expenses after the 24 month rule. And HMRC lost. So is this not a legal precedent and shouldn't we be quoting your case when queries like this are raised ?

It won't be a legal precedent if it didn't go to court (I would think).

[northernladuk]

Ok cool. This was part of another investigation though right ? They didn't pull you because you claimed expenses after the 24 month rule. And HMRC lost. So is this not a legal precedent and shouldn't we be quoting your case when queries like this are raised ?

What would you be using the quote for? To show claiming it in this case is right or wrong?

[Batcher]

Ok cool. This was part of another investigation though right ? They didn't pull you because you claimed expenses after the 24 month rule. And HMRC lost. So is this not a legal precedent and shouldn't we be quoting your case when queries like this are raised ?

If they investigate you they will investigate everything that you've done going back the previous 24 months and then before that as they'll have found the excuse to do it. They won't just have an investigation into your 24 month status