24 month rule again

[northernladuk]

Thanks SueEllen - that answers my question, but hypothetically...

If I finish one 23 month contract in London with ClientCo 1, and then start another in London with ClientCo 2, and my contract with ClientCo 2 is such that I invoice for travel, have I dodged the 24 month rule?

I.e. assuming an £1000 / month travel cost (£50 / day on a 20 day month), I am better off (if ClientCo 2 will agree) with a daily rate of £450 per day + using their travel booking service, than £500 per day and paying the travel personally (and not being able to reclaim it because of the BIK).

Sorry to be pedantic (or maybe I am just being stupid here) but isn't that different to the original scenario where your new location is outside London and you just travel in when required as adhoc travel? Or are you using both locations in London to make your point clearer?

[speling bee]

Sorry to be pedantic (or maybe I am just being stupid here) but isn't that different to the original scenario where your new location is outside London and you just travel in when required as adhoc travel? Or are you using both locations in London to make your point clearer?

This bit is hypothetical. I am not trying to determine whether invoicing the client for travel or using their travel system removes the 24 month rule from the occasion. Which would seem very odd to me.

[northernladuk]

This bit is hypothetical. I am not trying to determine whether invoicing the client for travel or using their travel system removes the 24 month rule from the occasion. Which would seem very odd to me.

My first impression as that this is adhoc travel and has nothing to do with permanent or temp places of work 24 month rule is irrelevant. If I was over the 24 month rule but client required me to travel to another city for meetings I would stick that in as normal? Where are the accountants of the board when you need them

[malvolio]

It's nothing to do with business travel, it's to do with personal tax liability. If someone pays you travel expenses personally, you have to consider the rules. If they don't - i.e. if they cover the cost themselves or YourCo recovers its costs via an invoice, and no money transfers to your personal bank account, then there cannot be a BIK.

[mudskipper]

It's nothing to do with business travel, it's to do with personal tax liability. If someone pays you travel expenses personally, you have to consider the rules. If they don't - i.e. if they cover the cost themselves or YourCo recovers its costs via an invoice, and no money transfers to your personal bank account, then there cannot be a BIK.

Surely it's not that simple. If myCo buys me a season ticket, I'm still subject to the 24 month rule. No money has transferred to my personal account.

[SueEllen]

Surely it's not that simple. If myCo buys me a season ticket, I'm still subject to the 24 month rule. No money has transferred to my personal account.

It is that simple.

Any employer in the UK can pay for an employee to travel to a workplace.

However if that workplace is not a temporary workplace as defined by HMRC then the cost of that travel is a BIK and the employee is taxed for it.

If a client who is not the employer decides to pay for the travel of a worker who isn't their employee then it's a business agreement and is not subject to the same tax treatment.

[TheFaQQer]

If a client who is not the employer decides to pay for the travel of a worker who isn't their employee then it's a business agreement and is not subject to the same tax treatment.

If that's the case, what's to stop my company paying the travel for my mate who is over the 24 month rule, and his paying for mine??

Sounds like a nice way to dodge the rule to me.

[speling bee]

It is that simple.

Any employer in the UK can pay for an employee to travel to a workplace.

However if that workplace is not a temporary workplace as defined by HMRC then the cost of that travel is a BIK and the employee is taxed for it.

If a client who is not the employer decides to pay for the travel of a worker who isn't their employee then it's a business agreement and is not subject to the same tax treatment.

So.... if caught by 24 months, reduce your rate and get client to pay for travel?

[TheFaQQer]

So.... if caught by 24 months, reduce your rate and get client to pay for travel?

That seems to be the implication of this thread, yes.

If you can get someone other than your employer to pay for your travel, then all bets are off, according to the knowledge in the thread. But until an accountant comments, I'd be wary.

<NLUK>Of course, you could ask your accountant and see what they say....</NLUK>

[malvolio]

So.... if caught by 24 months, reduce your rate and get client to pay for travel?

I suggest you go and look up The Ramsay Principle.

HTH