Accountants liabilities?

[SueEllen]

Yes London is the city in question so by the examples I am royally screwed. But my accountant seems to think not Apparently it's another IR35 type issue where the wiggle room is so large you can give it to 4 inspectors and get 4 different outcomes.

If you have read the news you can clearly see that HMRC is targeting every group they can think of to get money out of them, so it's highly unlikely they would come to different opinions.

Either way it looks like I may have a gig lined up halfway down the M4 to fall back on for 6 months which should solve the problem.

Personally I'd rather not have to find out if I am right or not.

Hopefully you will get extended to make it 9+ months then it would be clear you aren't caught when you move back again.

[bobspud]

If you have read the news you can clearly see that HMRC is targeting every group they can think of to get money out of them, so it's highly unlikely they would come to different opinions.

Hopefully you will get extended to make it 9+ months then it would be clear you aren't caught when you move back again.

With any luck i will land the contract I have my eye on. It's a straight 12months in Reading. So that will keep me safe, but I really need to get to grips with my accountants appetite for risks

[SueEllen]

With any luck i will land the contract I have my eye on. It's a straight 12months in Reading. So that will keep me safe, but I really need to get to grips with my accountants appetite for risks

Change accountants and check the new one understands about 24 month rule and anything else you think is relevant to your situation in the coming 2 years.

[craig1]

When I was using an LLP, I was told the 24 month rule doesn't apply, since you are technically self-employed, anyone confirm/deny?

Now, that's very interesting... I contract through an LLP and I was completely under the impression that it was caught under these guidelines. Having a look at Booklet 490 though, it's very blunt on it being for employees. One for investigation!

That said, I've never got close to triggering the 24 month rule...

A question on interpretation though. If I took a six month contract at the east end of the City of London, say near the Tower Bridge part of London, and then took a six month contract at the far west end, say Shepherds Bush/Hammersmith area, is that far enough apart to constitute a break? I'm not sure myself, from my perspective it's a huge distance apart but would HMRC treat anything inside "London" as the same place?

[northernladuk]

A question on interpretation though. If I took a six month contract at the east end of the City of London, say near the Tower Bridge part of London, and then took a six month contract at the far west end, say Shepherds Bush/Hammersmith area, is that far enough apart to constitute a break? I'm not sure myself, from my perspective it's a huge distance apart but would HMRC treat anything inside "London" as the same place?

Now there is the age old argument. I am sure there is an official HMRC doc that gives an example of two places in London and confirms the clock does not reset but don't know the URL.

We have also had arguments about this where one direction a guy caught the tube and the other he could ride his bike therefor he argued that is a substantial change in the journey due to the mode of transport and so on.

Ahh here it is
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM32089.htm

Also thread on a guy that has been caught so an indepth discussion on the London issue.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ing-badly.html

To me a Londoner wouldn't consider relocation to get another job in London and would consider all of London when looking for 'local' work so you would not exect relocation expenses to reset. There are extremes but that is my take.

[Wanderer]

Now there is the age old argument. I am sure there is an official HMRC doc that gives an example of two places in London and confirms the clock does not reset but don't know the URL.

HMRC Helpsheet 490 Employee travel section 4.7 gives the example of their Julie who "works for an employer who has several offices close to each other in London. Her employer rotates staff around the offices every 18 months. Julie works at one office and is then moved to another. She travels to work using the Underground and, although she now gets off ten stops further on than previously, her journey is largely unaltered and the price of her ticket does not change. Her workplace is not considered to have changed"

Don't know if that matches the scenario here.