Daily Subsistence

[Euro-commuter]

The bottom line is that if you incur an expense, then you need a reciept for it before you can even contemplate claiming for it.

You cannot claim any more than the reciepts you have.

Secondly, before you claim you need to check each reciept and judge whether you are entitled to it being reimbursed, if so claim and keep the aforementioned reciept, if not shread and bin.

Simple.

Wow! Some people are really expressing this clearly. Surely everyone gets it by now?

[Bluebird]

Wow! Some people are really expressing this clearly. Surely everyone gets it by now?

I doubt it.

[Damo1176]

Sorry I am being tretad like I am a bit thick. Believe me now I have heard enough on here and from people I trust to know that really I have no claims to subsistence,my point is that umbrellas should not be able to advertise you can in any shape or form unless you fit specific criteria. People feel that because they are away from home they can claim whereas what we're saying is you can only claim if you are out on varying sites away from your regular temporary workplace.

The grey area that is obviously evident means that people like me get disgruntled that when I go out for lunch a contarctor next to me has the big slap up meal and claims the entire lot as an expense and to date over 3-4 years of doing it he's neverbeen caught so why would he operate any differently.

Would just like the IR to make this clear to everyone in clear consise english not referig to a case of 1975 and then make the umbrellas apply proper logic rather than what they think applies, like Orange Genie and co who believe that your normal place of work is home so miealega dn subsistence can be claimed against your temporary place of work (ie where you're contract is).

[TheFaQQer]

The grey area that is obviously evident means that people like me get disgruntled that when I go out for lunch a contarctor next to me has the big slap up meal and claims the entire lot as an expense and to date over 3-4 years of doing it he's neverbeen caught so why would he operate any differently.

This is almost the same as another thread round here somewhere - just because someone is getting away with breaking the law doesn't mean that you should be disgruntled. If he was smashing windows and stealing, would you think "oh I'll do that, since he's not been caught?" (Sorry to Ardesco for stealing your example!!)

If you're really that concerned, ring Hector and let them know about it.

[Damo1176]

This is almost the same as another thread round here somewhere - just because someone is getting away with breaking the law doesn't mean that you should be disgruntled. If he was smashing windows and stealing, would you think "oh I'll do that, since he's not been caught?" (Sorry to Ardesco for stealing your example!!)

If you're really that concerned, ring Hector and let them know about it.

Thanks Fagger

The only reason I have kept going on about it is to establish without doubt who is right and who is wrong. Consider the fact that you travel to a client site therefore you can claim mileage to a temporary workplace (which means your home has been considered as your work base). Based on that fact that subsistence is based on a similar theory why does then a temporary workplace not count as being based away from your normal place of work? The argument spins the other way when you then say that travel is a requirement for getting to the place of work whereas lunch is deemed as something everyone has to do but in many cases so is travelling to work. However whilst working from home I can get a much cheaper meal than if I had to go to Tesco's etc for it. Counter argument take lunch from home!

The interpretation of the law makes it very difficult for many of us. I found this site to clarify this issue but again this is down to your interpretation of home, temporary workplace and being away from normal place of work. Would it not be fair to argue that if home is your normal place of work and you get mileage allowances to travel to your client site that subsistence should in fact apply as it is the same principle, you are away from home for a certain amount of time. Hence why umbrellas sell and sell again the allowance to claim up to a certain flat rate (receipted of course ;-) )

Does anyone understand what I am getting at or are people getting really fed up with me now. At what point do the IR turn round to someone employed under an umbrella and say I disagree with the expense you've claimed because I have evidence to suggest you work at the same site everyday and therefore cannot claim any subsistence as this is considered your normal place of work...not sure they do and very difficult to prove. Which means they then rely on good honest people like me to operate in the way I am and the rest well they might get round to catching them out.

Another chat with a humourless tax investigator to seek clear clarification. O r I might just not bother because it's only worth about £80 a month to anyway.

[Bluebird]

The problem is that you're looking for consistency where non exists.

My understanding is as follows [ although I'm not an accountant ].

If you are Ltd or Umbrella then the site you work at is NOT your normal place of work, therefore you can claim for Travel from Home to Site. This claim is based on expenses of 40p per mile which is reimbursed tax free from your co or brolly and is subject to 2 significant rules:
1. The 24 month rule
2. A maximum milage per year [ not sure what it is ]

The journey from home to work is explained as being "in addition to your normal journey, or in excess of your normal journey" and is therefore a bonafide tax free expense.

Sunsistence is split into 2:
1. Lunch
2. Overnight

No 2 is only claimable IF you stay away from home overnight in order to attend work.

No 1 Likewise.

I can see your point about you always buy luch whether you stay away from home or not, however the IR look at it this way - being away from home deprives you of the abaility to go home and have a lunch there - in other words you have no alternative apart from "buying" lunch, which you can of course claim as an expense as long as you keep the reciept.

The essense of expenses are that they are unavoidable additionally incurred has you not beeen on a site other than your normal place of work.

Does that now make sense to you ?

[Damo1176]

Not really, I am not close enough to home to go home for lunch therefore I am forced to buy lunch during my stay at the company I contract for (my temporary place of work). THis would suggest that the umbrellas are right and you can claim for lunch because its incurred because I cannot go home to get it therefore I have to pay extra for it buying it from a shop.

So it's still not hugely clear as noone can strictly define tempoary place of work and normal place of work. LOL

[Damo1176]

The problem is that you're looking for consistency where non exists.

My understanding is as follows [ although I'm not an accountant ].

If you are Ltd or Umbrella then the site you work at is NOT your normal place of work, therefore you can claim for Travel from Home to Site. This claim is based on expenses of 40p per mile which is reimbursed tax free from your co or brolly and is subject to 2 significant rules:
1. The 24 month rule
2. A maximum milage per year [ not sure what it is ]

The journey from home to work is explained as being "in addition to your normal journey, or in excess of your normal journey" and is therefore a bonafide tax free expense.

Sunsistence is split into 2:
1. Lunch
2. Overnight

No 2 is only claimable IF you stay away from home overnight in order to attend work.

No 1 Likewise.

I can see your point about you always buy luch whether you stay away from home or not, however the IR look at it this way - being away from home deprives you of the abaility to go home and have a lunch there - in other words you have no alternative apart from "buying" lunch, which you can of course claim as an expense as long as you keep the reciept.

The essense of expenses are that they are unavoidable additionally incurred has you not beeen on a site other than your normal place of work.

Does that now make sense to you ?

Have just realised what you meant....being away from home i.e. overnight!

unavoidable expense would not be I could have brought from lunch from home or gone home for it, I was forced to buy it whilst at temporary workplace.

[Ardesco]

Not really, I am not close enough to home to go home for lunch therefore I am forced to buy lunch during my stay at the company I contract for (my temporary place of work). THis would suggest that the umbrellas are right and you can claim for lunch because its incurred because I cannot go home to get it therefore I have to pay extra for it buying it from a shop.

So it's still not hugely clear as noone can strictly define tempoary place of work and normal place of work. LOL

It will always be unclear. HMRC like it to be unclear because they can use FUD on you to get more tax out of you. Look at the Arctic case for example. A case where the owners of Arctic were acting in a completely legal and proper way and then HMRC muddies the waters and throws about FUD.

Most people would have just paid up, unfortunatly they picked on the wrong people where Arctic was concerned and are now going to be made to look like idiots (at least I hope so, you never can tell when it goes to court....)

[Bluebird]

It will always be unclear. HMRC like it to be unclear because they can use FUD on you to get more tax out of you. Look at the Arctic case for example. A case where the owners of Arctic were acting in a completely legal and proper way and then HMRC muddies the waters and throws about FUD.

Most people would have just paid up, unfortunatly they picked on the wrong people where Arctic was concerned and are now going to be made to look like idiots (at least I hope so, you never can tell when it goes to court....)

I thought they were made to look like idiots when it went to court, so they challenged the interpretation of the law...

...no doubt next they'll take their case to God.