2 yr rule - am I losing out?

[TheBigYinJames]

So are you saying you work for Coy A in Kings Cross for 1 year, Coy B in Waterloo for another 6 months and then take a contract with Coy C in Canary Wharf it is classed as same site i.e. London, if you commuted from Reading for example?

I can't say for sure because the regs are pretty vague about what constitutes "susbstantially" the same journey. I'm not sure how far from London you need to be before anything in London is classed as "substantially" the same site, or even if it ever does. I suspect Reading would be OK. You may wish to ask them before going over your 2 years.

I think it's designed to stop people saying they are working at a new site when all they've done is move to the office next door, so if you've genuinely moved to other companies, they may be more lenient. But asking is safest.

[pmeswani]

Roughly - I'm not sure I've seen a legal precedent, but you won't as it's the HMRC who decide.

It's arguable either way. To get to any of those sites from Reading you'd need a travelcard, so your expenditure isn't changing.

I would find it hard to accept that HMRC would penalise contractors who work in London for 2+ years, especially when they are working in different parts of London over that time for different clients. It would effectively (even though not demonstrated in big numbers from what I can gather) drive all the contractors out of London in 2 year periods.

[youngguy]

"Up your rate" means charge the client (agency) more to cover the reduction. It doesn't mean "pay yourself more".

Thanks. The reason I said that was because for me to have the same money in my pocket means paying myself more (the more would cover the travel expenses!)

I don't think I could stay on one contract for more than 2 years anyway. My limit is usually 12 months and by then I ready to move on

Surly that's what contractings about

I haven't been in the same contract or even at the same company, but as my travel costs and rough location (same part of London) remain the same the rule kicks in.

[Beefy198]

People say IR35 is vague - I think it's pretty clear that the 2 year rule is worse.

From the overlords themselves:

An employee may change his or her workplace without that change having any substantial effect on his or her journey to work..... Sometimes it may be difficult to decide whether a change of workplace should be recognised. The basic principle is that a change in the location or the boundaries of a workplace will be recognised as a change of workplace where the change has a substantial effect on:

* the journey an employee has to make to get to work and, in particular,
* the cost of that journey.

In practice you should recognise the change of workplace in all cases except where the change has made no significant difference to the commuting journey.

So no real definition of 'substantial', but if you were to use the same monthly travelcard to go into a part of London, and I'm guessing that maybe the station you get off on doesn't matter too much, then that might not be a recognisable change (note the use of guessing and much because I don't really know)