Aircon for 100% dedicated home office

[Finance Contractor]

HTH.

So you basically are resorting to playing on semantics. You haven’t actually added anything to the discussion other than that your interpretation (one that is not available, in any case) is different to what HMRC prescribe.

That is before tackling the fact that to claim WFH expenses, outside of the £6 a month, you have to have a contract that REQUIRES you to WFH. HMRC would not accept a Limited Company contractor as having that requirement as the director of that company has no say over where the work is conducted as the end client can state otherwise.

Anyway, I am out. You have not provided anything to the discussion other than your ‘interpretation’. While I accept that this is a contractor forum and tax rules are up for interpretation to the nth degree until it suits the contractor, your ‘interpretation’ just takes the biscuit. Like the guys claiming kitchens through their limited companies back in the 90s.

[MrButton]

Is it wholly and exclusively for business use? No, because the equipment is not on business premises and forms part of an individuals private residence. Is it necessary - no, because it does not create an economic benefit to the company.

So if you use something in your home office you can’t expense it? It has to be something for a business premises?

Who says it doesn’t have an economic benefit. Comfortable workers are more productive workers.

You sir have some strange “opinions”.

[Finance Contractor]

So if you use something in your home office you can’t expense it? It has to be something for a business premises?

Who says it doesn’t have an economic benefit. Comfortable workers are more productive workers.

You sir have some strange “opinions”.

HMRC say it doesn’t have an economic benefit.

Firstly, did the employee have a requirement to work from home. In the context of a limited company contractor, this requirement cannot be changed on a contract to contract basis - an employee is either required to work from home or required to attend other premises. Secondly, look up ‘necessarily’ in statute and case law. It isn’t a case of people being ‘happy’ creating an economic benefit.

These are not “opinions”. Claiming of anything above £6 a week is not available to someone for whom their employment contract does not state that home working is a REQUIREMENT. That REQUIREMENT is not available to a Limited Company Contractor.

[wattaj]

Anyway, I am out. You have not provided anything to the discussion other than your ‘interpretation’. While I accept that this is a contractor forum and tax rules are up for interpretation to the nth degree until it suits the contractor, your ‘interpretation’ just takes the biscuit. Like the guys claiming kitchens through their limited companies back in the 90s.

Ooh, get you.

[Old Greg]

So you basically are resorting to playing on semantics. You haven’t actually added anything to the discussion other than that your interpretation (one that is not available, in any case) is different to what HMRC prescribe.

That is before tackling the fact that to claim WFH expenses, outside of the £6 a month, you have to have a contract that REQUIRES you to WFH. HMRC would not accept a Limited Company contractor as having that requirement as the director of that company has no say over where the work is conducted as the end client can state otherwise.

Anyway, I am out. You have not provided anything to the discussion other than your ‘interpretation’. While I accept that this is a contractor forum and tax rules are up for interpretation to the nth degree until it suits the contractor, your ‘interpretation’ just takes the biscuit. Like the guys claiming kitchens through their limited companies back in the 90s.

I would love to see the rules determining this.

[wattaj]

HMRC say it doesn’t have an economic benefit.

Firstly, did the employee have a requirement to work from home. In the context of a limited company contractor, this requirement cannot be changed on a contract to contract basis - an employee is either required to work from home or required to attend other premises. Secondly, look up ‘necessarily’ in statute and case law. It isn’t a case of people being ‘happy’ creating an economic benefit.

These are not “opinions”. Claiming of anything above £6 a week is not available to someone for whom their employment contract does not state that home working is a REQUIREMENT. That REQUIREMENT is not available to a Limited Company Contractor.

I have a mental image of you stamping your foot and your significant other rolling their eyes. Again.

[Finance Contractor]

I have a mental image of you stamping your foot and your significant other rolling their eyes. Again.

The fact that you had to come back twice suggests otherwise.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

That is before tackling the fact that to claim WFH expenses, outside of the £6 a month, you have to have a contract that REQUIRES you to WFH. HMRC would not accept a Limited Company contractor as having that requirement as the director of that company has no say over where the work is conducted as the end client can state otherwise.

Also not true. You're doing really well here, well done.

You can only claim the £6/week as tax relief on your tax return if you are required to work from home - BUT, this rule does not apply if your employer actually pays you £6/week a week towards the additional costs of working from home. It also doesn't apply to the provision of equipment at the employee's home if it's needed to do their job.

It's always fun when people come on here thinking they know what they are talking about and go off on a massive rant when they don't really have much of a clue. It's almost as if some of us haven't been doing this for a long time...

Anyway, I'm sorry for you that you've obviously failed to claim lots of tax relief that you were probably entitled to over the years. Your donation to the tax coffers is greatly appreciated.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

I would love to see the rules determining this.

You're going to be waiting a long time...

[wattaj]

The fact that you had to come back twice suggests otherwise.

You may not have noticed, but I've been trolling you for my amusement this evening. I knew that you were incorrect in your interpretation, but it was more fun to let you wrap yourself up in yourself than to correct you.