24 month expense rule

[Lance]

It's threads like this that make you wonder why you bother...

Perhaps I should rewrite the sticky in words of one syllable:

If you go to a place where you do work more than three days a week and you do not go there and do work for more than two days a week then you are caught by the two year rule on tax... Ermm, no, CBA, it's already as simple as I can make it

a nice venn diagram would be helpful for the hard of thinking

[CompoundOverload]

After reading this, I'm slightly concerned that my accountant doesn't understand the rules (despite me sending them several links to the legislation), as I still find the rules confusing myself hence raising the initial query with them in the first place.

Current client - was claiming expenses up until I knew I would cross the 24 month mark (this was circa 18 months), when an extension was offered.

I'm now about to start with a new client. Change of direction, so asked whether I could start up again with claiming expenses.

Advice was no problems and I can start claiming expenses for the duration of the contract (6-12 months).

Based on what has been said on here, they appear to have it completely wrong. Aren't we supposed to rely on the advice from these professionals hence the answer always crops up on here "ask your accountant"

If I go along with their advice and it proves wrong later down the line, what compensation is it to me the fact my accountant got it wrong and my arse is flamed, does that mean they can't be trusted with doing the other aspect of their duties? This accountant is one that is on the recommended list on this site as well....

[ladymuck]

After reading this, I'm slightly concerned that my accountant doesn't understand the rules (despite me sending them several links to the legislation), as I still find the rules confusing myself hence raising the initial query with them in the first place.

Current client - was claiming expenses up until I knew I would cross the 24 month mark (this was circa 18 months), when an extension was offered.

I'm now about to start with a new client. Change of direction, so asked whether I could start up again with claiming expenses.

Advice was no problems and I can start claiming expenses for the duration of the contract (6-12 months).

Based on what has been said on here, they appear to have it completely wrong. Aren't we supposed to rely on the advice from these professionals hence the answer always crops up on here "ask your accountant"

If I go along with their advice and it proves wrong later down the line, what compensation is it to me the fact my accountant got it wrong and my arse is flamed, does that mean they can't be trusted with doing the other aspect of their duties? This accountant is one that is on the recommended list on this site as well....

The new contract sounds ok. If the location means a significant change of journey then you're good to start claiming expenses for that contract.

The first example you have is one that trips many people up (myself included if you see above where I was dishing out nonsense). It's often interpreted as 'you can't claim once you know you'll be there for more than 24 months'. This is wrong as many people have said. It's a continual assessment to make sure that the amount of time spent travelling to a particular location does not exceed the threshold set by HMRC. Contractors in Canary Wharf, or the City, often get caught out* because they hop between different banks but essentially are making the same journey every day.


* I say 'caught out' what I mean is: a lot of FS contractors should be caught out but they're all a bunch of chancers and will wing it, relying on the chance of an investigation being low.

[Lance]

After reading this, I'm slightly concerned that my accountant doesn't understand the rules (despite me sending them several links to the legislation), as I still find the rules confusing myself hence raising the initial query with them in the first place.

Current client - was claiming expenses up until I knew I would cross the 24 month mark (this was circa 18 months), when an extension was offered.

I'm now about to start with a new client. Change of direction, so asked whether I could start up again with claiming expenses.

Advice was no problems and I can start claiming expenses for the duration of the contract (6-12 months).

Based on what has been said on here, they appear to have it completely wrong.

Have they? What bit is wrong? This is not clear in your post.

Aren't we supposed to rely on the advice from these professionals hence the answer always crops up on here "ask your accountant"

If I go along with their advice and it proves wrong later down the line, what compensation is it to me the fact my accountant got it wrong

half of the total amount of sweet **** all

and my arse is flamed, does that mean they can't be trusted with doing the other aspect of their duties?

They're accountancy experts. Not legal experts. Trust them to do the job they are qualified in.

This accountant is one that is on the recommended list on this site as well....

so what have they done wrong?

[WTFH]

Based on what you’ve told us, the issue is that you don’t like giving the facts.
When you say your new contract is a “change of direction” do you mean in terms of your business, or in terms of physical location?
Did you provide your new accountants with all the facts, or only what you wanted to tell them?
Were you more interested in finding out if your new accountants were wrong rather than trying to provide them with the facts about your contract(s) and letting them provide you with information relating to accounting?
When you challenged them, did you explain in more detail how your circumstances were different to their interpretation of them, or did you just send them links to web pages that didn’t have your specific details??

[dx4100]

* I say 'caught out' what I mean is: a lot of FS contractors should be caught out but they're all a bunch of chancers and will wing it, relying on the chance of an investigation being low.

I often wonder why this type of person bothers to pay any tax at all... I mean if your not even trying to conform then you might as well go all in

[northernladuk]

Do you think the OP has got it yet?

[BR14]

Do you think the OP has got it yet?

no

[TwoWolves]

I often wonder why this type of person bothers to pay any tax at all... I mean if your not even trying to conform then you might as well go all in

I've been ultra-careful all my contracting life but they are rolling out IR35 on me anyway. I feel betrayed.

[Lance]

I've been ultra-careful all my contracting life but they are rolling out IR35 on me anyway. I feel betrayed.

they did that in 2000. You still sore about it?