24 month rule - different ends of London

[northernladuk]

Very true and I think claiming it to force the test is an acceptable situation. Throwing money away just because you are not sure isn't. Possession is 9/10ths and all that. I think the fact something like this has never been tested is really the proof in the pudding.

Not sure whether this discussion is getting tiring for you but will play devils advocate on your simple view on this for a bit of food for thought.

My client is changing. Ok... nothing arguable (or relevant) here. The rule is about location not client.
My workplace is changing. - Not significantly. 6 miles will work in their favour
My old route to London would be too lengthy and expensive to make sense for the new location. - Routes to clients isn't HMRC's problem so won't factor I don't think.
My new route is different from the moment I walk out the door. - Not significantly in the greater scheme of things. Remember they deal with people who commute the length of the country and even abroad. They just won't agree.
My new journey is significantly cheaper. - I am sorry... I just don't see £240 a month as significant in the greater scheme of things. Argue as you wish, an external organisation will simply not agree.

If you don't agree with my comments then you go for it with a clean conscience.

[Old Greg]

Very true and I think claiming it to force the test is an acceptable situation. Throwing money away just because you are not sure isn't. Possession is 9/10ths and all that. I think the fact something like this has never been tested is really the proof in the pudding.

Not sure whether this discussion is getting tiring for you but will play devils advocate on your simple view on this for a bit of food for thought.

My client is changing. Ok... nothing arguable (or relevant) here. The rule is about location not client.
My workplace is changing. - Not significantly. 6 miles will work in their favour
My old route to London would be too lengthy and expensive to make sense for the new location. - Routes to clients isn't HMRC's problem so won't factor I don't think.
My new route is different from the moment I walk out the door. - Not significantly in the greater scheme of things. Remember they deal with people who commute the length of the country and even abroad. They just won't agree.
My new journey is significantly cheaper. - I am sorry... I just don't see £240 a month as significant in the greater scheme of things. Argue as you wish, an external organisation will simply not agree.

If you don't agree with my comments then you go for it with a clean conscience.

I don't agree with your comments.

As for difference in cost:

The cost my current way is £830 + £100 parking + 250 miles per month
The cost the new way is £690 per month

The 250 miles per month works out about £100 per month. In what world is £340 per month not significant?

[northernladuk]

I don't agree with your comments.

Then, my son, go forth and claim subsistence with aplomb!

[TheFaQQer]

I wonder whether if you were hit by an HMRC investigation and found wanting, would the PCG be interested in helping your argument? Would be of benefit to many contractors to have the ambiguity cleared up.

[Old Greg]

I wonder whether if you were hit by an HMRC investigation and found wanting, would the PCG be interested in helping your argument? Would be of benefit to many contractors to have the ambiguity cleared up.

And I for one would be delighted to go to the Supreme Court to defend my position.

[Maslins]

And I for one would be delighted to go to the Supreme Court to defend my position.

I'm guessing the main reason this hasn't happened to date is that it's typically low thousands of pounds in terms of travel costs claimed, hence only hundreds of pounds of tax at stake. Not something that's worth either side getting solicitors involved for.

I wonder whether a freedom of information act request could me made to find out where HMRC had challenged on this point and what the outcome was. Eg whether HMRC/taxpayer conceded completely, or whether a settlement was agreed.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

And I for one would be delighted to go to the Supreme Court to defend my position.

Ok, you be the defense barrister and I'll be HMR&C - this could be great fun

[Old Greg]

Ok, you be the defense barrister and I'll be HMR&C - this could be great fun

Well. I think you need to demonstrate that my new workplace is not different either because:

a) the cost of my new journey is not substantially different
OR
b) because I have artificially lowered the cost of my journey to avoid tax.

Do you accept that proposition or do you think it hangs off something else?

[eek]

Well. I think you need to demonstrate that my new workplace is not different either because:

a) the cost of my new journey is not substantially different
OR
b) because I have artificially lowered the cost of my journey to avoid tax.

Do you accept that proposition or do you think it hangs off something else?

I think she hangs it off the tube stop example (a few more stops not adding much time). You can equally well use the bridge work example especially as 6 miles across London without a direct tube line can add 1 hour to your journey time.

[Old Greg]

I think she hangs it off the tube stop example (a few more stops not adding much time). You can equally well use the bridge work example especially as 6 miles across London without a direct tube line can add 1 hour to your journey time.

But the tube stop example clearly staes no substantial difference to journey or cost of journey.