24 Month Rule - what options?

[croggywhite]

My current 12 month contract ends in December and as this is the second 12 month contract with the same client, I'll have been on this gig for 24 months. As the project I am working on will continue until June 2008 there is a chance that I could get another 6 months on it. But with the 24 month rule hanging around, what are my options?

[Gonzo]

My current 12 month contract ends in December and as this is the second 12 month contract with the same client, I'll have been on this gig for 24 months. As the project I am working on will continue until June 2008 there is a chance that I could get another 6 months on it. But with the 24 month rule hanging around, what are my options?

That is a poor effort, sorry, whoever that is.

[thunderlizard]

The 24 month rule is just about the taxability of travel expenses isn't it? You don't have any options so to speak, but is that really such a big deal?

[r0bly0ns]

All it means is that where you work is now classed as your 'permanant place of work' as far as HMRC are concerned so you can no longer claim expenses for working there without them becoming BIK.

It has no other consequences whatsoever.

[Gonzo]

All it means is that where you work is now classed as your 'permanant place of work' as far as HMRC are concerned

In the case put by the OP, it was actually classed as a "permanent place of work" when the last 12 month contract was signed so travelling expenses should not have been claimed since then.

[FarmerPalmer]

In the case put by the OP, it was actually classed as a "permanent place of work" when the last 12 month contract was signed so travelling expenses should not have been claimed since then.

absolutely.

[Chugnut]

In the case put by the OP, it was actually classed as a "permanent place of work" when the last 12 month contract was signed so travelling expenses should not have been claimed since then.

Surely that would have only been the case if the last contract had exceeded the 24 months in total, and it won't have done.

[Cowboy Bob]

Surely that would have only been the case if the last contract had exceeded the 24 months in total, and it won't have done.

It's as soon as you know (not when you sign) you'll go over 24 months that's true. But the OP knows the gig goes on until June 2008. If they knew that when they signed their first 12 months then they could not have claimed travel expenses, never mind their second.

[r0bly0ns]

All it means is that where you work is now classed as your 'permanant place of work' as far as HMRC are concerned so you can no longer claim expenses for working there without them becoming BIK.

It has no other consequences whatsoever.

In the case put by the OP, it was actually classed as a "permanent place of work" when the last 12 month contract was signed so travelling expenses should not have been claimed since then.

Hence me saying "now" and not "in 2008"

[Chugnut]

It's as soon as you know (not when you sign) you'll go over 24 months that's true. But the OP knows the gig goes on until June 2008. If they knew that when they signed their first 12 months then they could not have claimed travel expenses, never mind their second.

True, it wasn't clear when the OP found out how long the project would last.

I just didn't think he would have known upfront that he would have been safely in contract for two and a half years, but I guess I assumed that since it's never been clear on any of the contracts I've taken in nine years of contracting!