24 Month Rule

[northernladuk]

Not sure why people think I am the bad 'un round here anyway...

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...k-cretins.html

[SueEllen]

If it is then – why am I on this list? I'm not horrible, abusive or do I moan lots. I've simply asked for some views and didn't appreciate the nature of NLUK's response - something which as an avid follower of this forum is something I don’t think I’m alone in.

I think you need to learn when you are being wound up.

In regards to posters who you don't like the reply of ignore them. (This works on a lot of forums.)

However if other posters give you the same reply realise that's likely to be a common interpretation of the law/regulations, and leave it.

[Bronco Billy]

Why?

Hi Lisa,

Well.... Maybe "ridiculous" was the wrong word. but a rule defining my current location as temporary doesn't seem quite right to me considering the fact that I actually live there.

Although the current rule is obviously quite clear, and it even seems to benefit me at the moment.

Anyway, my main reason for for posting (apart from sharing a nice little story with everyone) was to try and get a second opinion on what my accountant had already indicated. Both yourself and NLUK seem to agree with that, so thanks to both for replying.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Not sure why people think I am the bad 'un round here anyway...

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...k-cretins.html

Ahhhhh you know we all love you NLUK

[malvolio]

Not sure why people think I am the bad 'un round here anyway...

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...k-cretins.html

Amateurs... don't you just love 'em. You'll catch me up one day...

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Hi Lisa,

Well.... Maybe "ridiculous" was the wrong word. but a rule defining my current location as temporary doesn't seem quite right to me considering the fact that I actually live there.

Although the current rule is obviously quite clear, and it even seems to benefit me at the moment.

Anyway, my main reason for for posting (apart from sharing a nice little story with everyone) was to try and get a second opinion on what my accountant had already indicated. Both yourself and NLUK seem to agree with that, so thanks to both for replying.

I have re-read your post but I can't quite work out what it was that your accountant was indicating

[psychocandy]

If it is then – why am I on this list? I'm not horrible, abusive or do I moan lots. I've simply asked for some views and didn't appreciate the nature of NLUK's response - something which as an avid follower of this forum is something I don’t think I’m alone in.

Ha HA. Ribble has a point....

[knight007]

I worked for a client (A) for 15 months, took 2 months off and went to work for a different client (B) for 8 months.

Client A is hiring again. Am I right in understanding that If I accept the conract with client A, I should be ok to claim expenses for another 8 months?

Furthermore, the work at Client A is at a different site to my original contract. Which will mean a considerable change to the journey. Does this reset the 24 month clock?

[malvolio]

I worked for a client (A) for 15 months, took 2 months off and went to work for a different client (B) for 8 months.

Client A is hiring again. Am I right in understanding that If I accept the conract with client A, I should be ok to claim expenses for another 8 months?

Furthermore, the work at Client A is at a different site to my original contract. Which will mean a considerable change to the journey. Does this reset the 24 month clock?

Have you tried reading what has been said on this subject roughly every week over the last 5 years? Which bit don't you understand:

• Substantially different location
• 24 months
• 40% attendance
• Known or anticipated end date
• rolling window
• all of the above

then perhaps we can answer the question. But my initial reaction is that you are starting from square one at the new location, assuming that it's at the end of a different journey and not just two more stops on the Central line.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

I have a quick question although I think I know the answer. If you are lucky enough to have a client that has agreed to reimburse your travel expenses, then the 24 month rule is irrelevant as far as YourCo billing the client goes isn't it? You could bill them for as long as they are happy to pay, you just won't necessarily be able to be reimbursed personally by YourCo without paying tax if the 24 month rule kicks in (although you can of course take the extra profit as a dividend if you like).