Because you intend to work there for more than 24 months you cannot claim travel expenses because it is would not be seen as a temporary place of work. If you were to claim travel expenses for more than the 24months and the HMRC found out they could demand payment for all the tax and NI on those expenses for the whole length of the assignment.
-
-
Plus interest at 8%, and then doubled just to top it off.Originally posted by Katie View Post
By the time they 'catch' you, that usually means 2.5/3.0 times the original amountComment
-
Never considered the 40% aspect before - and it's killing my few remaining brain cells to factor that in...
I started for a company in May 2007 and stayed 11 months, the last 6 was working from home, so claiming the 152 mile round trip for the first 5 months. I left for another contract for 6 months, and then went back to the first company last September. The last extension will take me to June which under my understanding meant I could no longer claim the milage...but I dont think I'm over 40% at all so should be safe to carry on claiming...very confusing!Comment
-
Oh dear! Some of you people are really, really scared of HMRC aren't you? I bet 98% of you even answered the service company question on your returns too!Originally posted by centurian View Post
Believe me, a number of accountants believe they can successfully argue where you start a new co, you can claim travel expenses for up to another 24 months.I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!
Comment
-
Don't doubt that, but it doesn't mean they actually can does it? Who will pay the bill if the accountat is wrong?Originally posted by BolshieBastard View PostStill InvoicingComment
-
Any accountant wishing to argue the case for another 24 months also needs to take into account Patten J in the case Kirkwood v Evans viz:
"Having regard to the provisions of paragraph 5 the definition of a temporary workplace is intended to encompass places of work which require the employee's attendance for a limited or temporary purpose within a course of employment (whether of limited duration or otherwise)."
The above quote refers to the original legislation - Schedule 12 FA 1998.
IF the attendance at the workplace comprises the whole of the period of the employment, or almost all of the period, or is likely to or it is reasonable to assume that it will then the workplace is permanent and the claim will fail.
Say a person takes on a contract which is expected to last 5 years - as this is over 24 months then the workplace is treated as permanent from day one. If 23 months into the contract a new company is formed with the intention of trading for 24 months the 23 months spent working for the first company will still fail as for that 23 month period the whole of the time was at the one workplace and it was known from the outset that this would be the case. The time spent with the new company will fail as it is expected from the outset that the one workplace will be attended throughout the whole of the period of the employment.
If this scenario were taken to appeal HMRC are bound to ask why one company was dissolved and a new company formed - and, of course, the reason is to avoid the restriction of the 24 month rule ..
To my knowledge this has not been tested and in my opinion likelihood of success is slim and I base this on attendance, well into double figures, representing HMRC at contentious Commissioners meetings on the new travel rules.
BobComment
-
2 year rule
Your position has been explained perfectly by Bob Jones in his post on 21/3.
I'd recommend you take your counsel from there even if it is not what you want to hear.Comment
Comment