24 Month Rule

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Never had to worry about this, but if I got a new gig, for a different client in a different building in a different street, but the same city, sure as hell I'd claim. Argue hard as well if an inspector didn't allow it.

Well if your journey time to the first gig was 30 minutes and the journey to the second was 29 minutes you could but I think you'd probably lose

[sirja]

The 24 month rule is quite straightforward insofar as you are either caught by it or you aren’t - if you have the expectation to remain at a site for 24 months then it is not considered a temporary workplace by HMRC. You cannot get around it this by calling your London accommodation an office, though as other posters have pointed out, if you do use part of the flat, or even your own home to carry out business admin or elements of your contract then you can claim £4 per week.

Hope this helps!
Craig

But it dose not apply if you work less than 40% of your time at the remote location


Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: example

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

But it dose not apply if you work less than 40% of your time at the remote location


Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: example

over a rolling 24 month period

[psychocandy]

Man you are a proper little prick aren't you. All you have done is have a go at me in this thread despite me pointing out, and giving you supporting evidence that the advice you have has been given is wrong. I really don't need your thanks, I do this for me but your attitude just stinks. It isn't a higher moral ground reply... it is a good business sense reply. It is very simple, your business's tax affairs are nothing to do with your client. Go in an negotiate but don't use your tax affairs as evidence.



But a big consultancy doesn't come to the table with price increases moaning about their tax going up and their inability to run their business properly. A point I just made yet you feel the need to have a go. I was just pointing out, which we have done many times to people that could have potentially gone in and done the same thing, that telling clients you want a rise because you don't get tax relief on your expenses is just shoddy.

You really need to re-think your attitude towards people that have actually provided you with some valuable answers.

And before you start crying about it being my opinion... welcome to being the 4th worst poster on the boards in one thread....

Whos in the top 3?

[northernladuk]

Whos in the top 3?

In reverse order...

5) ribble

4) ChrisPackit

3) DeludedAussie

2) backslashed

1) proggy

[Jubber]

Well if your journey time to the first gig was 30 minutes and the journey to the second was 29 minutes you could but I think you'd probably lose

Thanks for your thoughts. I would definitely claim and take the hit if they disallowed it. If it was the same client etc. then I would not.

[northernladuk]

Thanks for your thoughts. I would definitely claim and take the hit if they disallowed it. If it was the same client etc. then I would not.

And the fine, and the interest, and being on their radar for god knows how long after... If you are willing to run your company so badly why not put through all your mates receipts through your company, or just make them up? You can just take the hit if you get caught.....

Bearing in mind HMRC quote an example using a single city then your arguing hard will fall on very deaf ears. If they suspect you knew this already you could be looking at an investigation for fraud as well... all for a percentage saving on the actual numbers used?

[Jubber]

And the fine, and the interest, and being on their radar for god knows how long after... If you are willing to run your company so badly why not put through all your mates receipts through your company, or just make them up? You can just take the hit if you get caught.....

Bearing in mind HMRC quote an example using a single city then your arguing hard will fall on very deaf ears. If they suspect you knew this already you could be looking at an investigation for fraud as well... all for a percentage saving on the actual numbers used?

Thanks for your input too

[Bronco Billy]

In March this year, I finished at a client site that I had been at for about 3.5 years. My initial term was 3 months and I was never given more than a 3 month renewal. In fact, it wasn’t unusual to be given a 1 month renewal. Typically, I would only get notified that I was being renewed during my final week (a couple of times during my final day) and I also “survived” several major mass contractor “culls” and also had hours reduced a number of times. (I'm not complaining BTW, as I was one of the lucky ones who had continuous employment during this period).

As the role was based a long way from home, I spent the whole of the 3.5 years living out of a suitcase for 4 nights a week.

Needless to say, I stopped claiming expenses after 2 years.

It seems to be assumed by the rule-makers that not only is 2 years enough time to re-locate but that you will subsequently be in some kind of secure employment. Do they honestly expect you to relocate to be closer to (your now permie) place of work on the strength of a 3 month contract ?

It gets better......

Since March, I have landed a contract in my home city, 5 miles away from my house. It’s also the first time I haven’t had to stay away from home since 2001. According to the hard and fast definition of a temporary workplace being “somewhere you do not know you are going to be working for a period of 2 years” then I am currently at a temporary workplace and so can now claim expenses (lunches) and mileage. Obviously this wouldn't be much, and I wouldn't dream of trying to claim accommodation for living in my own home either.

I appreciate that this scenario may be rare, but how ridiculous is that ?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

In March this year, I finished at a client site that I had been at for about 3.5 years. My initial term was 3 months and I was never given more than a 3 month renewal. In fact, it wasn’t unusual to be given a 1 month renewal. Typically, I would only get notified that I was being renewed during my final week (a couple of times during my final day) and I also “survived” several major mass contractor “culls” and also had hours reduced a number of times. (I'm not complaining BTW, as I was one of the lucky ones who had continuous employment during this period).

As the role was based a long way from home, I spent the whole of the 3.5 years living out of a suitcase for 4 nights a week.

Needless to say, I stopped claiming expenses after 2 years.

It seems to be assumed by the rule-makers that not only is 2 years enough time to re-locate but that you will subsequently be in some kind of secure employment. Do they honestly expect you to relocate to be closer to (your now permie) place of work on the strength of a 3 month contract ?

It gets better......

Since March, I have landed a contract in my home city, 5 miles away from my house. It’s also the first time I haven’t had to stay away from home since 2001. According to the hard and fast definition of a temporary workplace being “somewhere you do not know you are going to be working for a period of 2 years” then I am currently at a temporary workplace and so can now claim expenses (lunches) and mileage. Obviously this wouldn't be much, and I wouldn't dream of trying to claim accommodation for living in my own home either.

I appreciate that this scenario may be rare, but how ridiculous is that ?

Why?