Umbrella - Parasol - Travelling Costs?

[NotAllThere]

1. His home or Parasol head office. Doesn't matter much which.
2. Yes. Except possibly if he had an expectation that it would not be his one employment.

[Bluebird]

2. Yes. Except possibly if he had an expectation that it would not be his one employment.

Why ? It's still a temporary workplace regardless of what he does or his employment status afterwards.

I though the only thing to affect the "tempoary" status is the 24 month rule.

[malvolio]

Why ? It's still a temporary workplace regardless of what he does or his employment status afterwards.

I though the only thing to affect the "tempoary" status is the 24 month rule.

No, that's the problem. When exactly is it a temporary workplace?

The Hector argument is that since you clearly don't work at the Umbrella's offices and you don't have your own office, since you're an employee, then wherever you do work is your workplace. So it may not be temporary at all, hence no travel allowance.

As always there are no clear answers. No doubt the brolly has an answer, but they won't be in the firing line if the contractor gets investigated and - as has happened more than once - their expenses disallowed.

[Rialto99]

No, that's the problem. When exactly is it a temporary workplace?

The Hector argument is that since you clearly don't work at the Umbrella's offices and you don't have your own office, since you're an employee, then wherever you do work is your workplace. So it may not be temporary at all, hence no travel allowance.

As always there are no clear answers. No doubt the brolly has an answer, but they won't be in the firing line if the contractor gets investigated and - as has happened more than once - their expenses disallowed.

It would be good to get an answer / interpretation from Lisa at ContractorUmbrella. Maybe she's read my persistent requests and decided not to put her neck on the line!!!

Its easy posting answers when it's a clear cut question. This on the other hand, is somewhat of a grey area. Come on Lisa, do me proud.....

R

[malvolio]

OK, the daisy chain starts at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM32075.htm
whic defines the overall concept. If you follow the sub-references down you get to

Hector]
Section 339(5) ITEPA 2003

A period of attendance at a workplace for a limited duration does not make that place a temporary workplace if the employee attends in the course of a period of continuous work (see EIM32080) that can be expected to last for all, or almost all, of the period for which he or she is likely to hold, or continue to hold, that employment. In these cases the 24 month rule (see EIM32080) is overridden and the workplace is a permanent workplace.

(my italics) which I believe - not that I'm an expert - takes out the umbrella company definition. You are at the workplace for the duration of your contract, which meets the above definition. It's only temporary if you expect to move on to another contract with the same umbrella: proving that intention is tricky, and if you change umbrellas for the next contract your previously claimed expenses would not be allowable.

Tricky, isn't it...

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

It would be good to get an answer / interpretation from Lisa at ContractorUmbrella. Maybe she's read my persistent requests and decided not to put her neck on the line!!!

Its easy posting answers when it's a clear cut question. This on the other hand, is somewhat of a grey area. Come on Lisa, do me proud.....

R

As you say Rialto this is a grey area to a degree as the IR seem unable to agree on the issue any more than we all do. However, from a brolly perspective, contractors are 'employed' by the umbrella company and a compliant company will have what is called an over arching contract. This means that the contractor is effectively working on a series of temporary contracts for the umbrella company and therefore are entitled to claim travel.

[TheFaQQer]

OK, the daisy chain starts at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM32075.htm
whic defines the overall concept. If you follow the sub-references down you get to
(my italics) which I believe - not that I'm an expert - takes out the umbrella company definition. You are at the workplace for the duration of your contract, which meets the above definition. It's only temporary if you expect to move on to another contract with the same umbrella: proving that intention is tricky, and if you change umbrellas for the next contract your previously claimed expenses would not be allowable.

Tricky, isn't it...

That's quite an important point that I bet a lot of people miss!

[malvolio]

As you say Rialto this is a grey area to a degree as the IR seem unable to agree on the issue any more than we all do. However, from a brolly perspective, contractors are 'employed' by the umbrella company and a compliant company will have what is called an over arching contract. This means that the contractor is effectively working on a series of temporary contracts for the umbrella company and therefore are entitled to claim travel.

Or not, perhaps. As an agency worker,which is arguably what an umbrella-based contractor is, there is an additional criterion...

Where a worker provides his or her services through an agency and the agency legislation in Section 44 ITEPA 2003 applies, each agency contract is treated as a separate employment, see ESM2000 onwards. Therefore, where there is only one workplace for an agency contract that workplace will be a permanent workplace for that employment.

Section 44 is what we klnow as the Agency Regs.

[NotAllThere]

- not that I'm an expert -

But here's a comment from someone who is.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Or not, perhaps. As an agency worker,which is arguably what an umbrella-based contractor is, there is an additional criterion...


Section 44 is what we klnow as the Agency Regs.

That's it Mal - make a grey area greyer If you are going to argue from that point of view you would have to prove that umbrella company fits the definition of an agency according to the legislation which they don't