allowable expenses after 24 months

[Steven@Parasol]

That took me back!!! In the bad old days when I was with Parasol I had one client who used me for maybe 1 day every 6 months. When she came to book me again it turned out the old contract had expired. So to avoid this problem she changed the expiry date well into the future. This triggered Parasol to tell me I could no longer claim expenses on this contract.

Cus obviously 4 days of work in 24 months has broke the 24 month rule according to them. hahahaha

It's not our rule, we can only apply the rules set out by HMRC.

[Wanderer]

It's not our rule, we can only apply the rules set out by HMRC.

The rules set out by HMRC in EIM32080 say "The test is whether the employee has spent, or is likely to spend, 40% or more of his or her working time at that particular workplace over a period that lasts, or is likely to last, more than 24 months"

So for the somewhat unusual case of "4 days of work in 24 months", HMRC's 24 month/40% rule fails on the 40% test...

[escapeUK]

The rules set out by HMRC in EIM32080 say "The test is whether the employee has spent, or is likely to spend, 40% or more of his or her working time at that particular workplace over a period that lasts, or is likely to last, more than 24 months"

So for the somewhat unusual case of "4 days of work in 24 months", HMRC's 24 month/40% rule fails on the 40% test...

I was typing this out, but then stopped as I realised I couldnt bother arguing with them over their failure to be helpful or really understand the rules. Thank you though. I could give a few other instances of their attitude, but this would be off topic.

I dont find it unusual, Im a real contractor who has a lot of industry contacts who sometimes need me for a few months, other times a few weeks. Some even pay me £500 a day just to install a laptop for someone important (like the CEO) as they know I can be trusted with whatever information I come across.

[NotAllThere]

It's not our rule, we can only apply the rules set out by HMRC.

It's your misapplication of the rule though, isn't it.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

To be fair to Steve an umbrella company has to rely on the information that they are provided with; our systems would flag a contract that had been drafted to extend beyond 24 months. Obviously in these circumstances the 24 month rule would not have been broken due to time spent on the site but we would need to be notified of the fact to make that assertion.