2 Year Rule - Back To Original Location

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Huh?

EIM32080 - Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: limited duration, the 24 month rule

[northernladuk]

You're not taking into account the 40% rule Craig - the 24 month rule is rolling so if OP has spent more than 40% of time at same location they won't be able to claim expenses

Correct and even if he stays away long enough to say be 39% of time spent so he can start claiming he will go back over the 40% very soon.

[Pondlife]

Lisa, Does that mean that after a continuous 24 month period, you would have to work somewhere else for 15 months (60% of 24 ish) to bring you back down to an average of < 40% over a rolling 2 year period?

[Craig@Clarity]

EIM32080 - Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: limited duration, the 24 month rule

Thanks Lisa. I'm fully aware of the 40% etc The "huh??" was more to do with it being a random response.

The OP had been in SE for more than 24 months, then moved to London and wondered if the location switch back to SE office would reset the clock. I said yes based on a sufficient gap and distance between the 2 locations. The 40% is applicable if the question from the OP was different. They're not asking if they can still claim expenses at the same site over 24 months.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Thanks Lisa. I'm fully aware of the 40% etc The "huh??" was more to do with it being a random response.

The OP had been in SE for more than 24 months, then moved to London and wondered if the location switch back to SE office would reset the clock. I said yes based on a sufficient gap and distance between the 2 locations. The 40% is applicable if the question from the OP was different. They're not asking if they can still claim expenses at the same site over 24 months.

But you considered a reasonable gap to be 3 to 6 months - if the OP worked 24 months in one location had a 3 month gap and went back to a 12 month contract in the original location the 24 month rule would not re-set

[Craig@Clarity]

Lisa, Does that mean that after a continuous 24 month period, you would have to work somewhere else for 15 months (60% of 24 ish) to bring you back down to an average of < 40% over a rolling 2 year period?

That would be silly wouldn't it? The main point of the thread is someone worked at location A for 24 months so was no longer temporary but permanent workplace.

The location was then a significant distance away at a new site (location B). Assumed that they worked there for a while and then went back to location A.

The question is is moving back to location A now a temporary workplace. My short answer to this was yes based on certain assumptions.

The 40% is if they had continued working at location A for over 24 months but their time there was always less than 40% it would remain a temporary workplace, even though the 24 months had been breached.

[Craig@Clarity]

But you considered a reasonable gap to be 3 to 6 months - if the OP worked 24 months in one location had a 3 month gap and went back to a 12 month contract in the original location the 24 month rule would not re-set

Interesting view. Assuming in this example the client and contracts are not the same and the locations are at opposite ends of the country, you would still track their previous locations and tot up how long they've been there over an average period to work out 40%?

From my point of view, if a freelancer ups and leaves for a new location (client or contract being irrelevant for the purpose of temporary or permanent workplace discussion) and considers the location they have just left as not one they anticipate going back to any time soon, but then another contract takes them back to the original location after a significant gap, I would say it resets.

It would be unrealistic to monitor a period of years tracking exactly which location has been visited and occupied, if it is reasonable to assume, as a contractor, that once one location is left for an independent contract elsewhere, that breaks those ties.

[moggy]

Interesting view. Assuming in this example the client and contracts are not the same and the locations are at opposite ends of the country, you would still track their previous locations and tot up how long they've been there over an average period to work out 40%?

From my point of view, if a freelancer ups and leaves for a new location (client or contract being irrelevant for the purpose of temporary or permanent workplace discussion) and considers the location they have just left as not one they anticipate going back to any time soon, but then another contract takes them back to the original location after a significant gap, I would say it resets.

It would be unrealistic to monitor a period of years tracking exactly which location has been visited and occupied, if it is reasonable to assume, as a contractor, that once one location is left for an independent contract elsewhere, that breaks those ties.

isn't this why the 40% was mentioned, that breaking ties is far too loose and could have people taking a two week break and coming back to the original contract?

[Craig@Clarity]

isn't this why the 40% was mentioned, that breaking ties is far too loose and could have people taking a two week break and coming back to the original contract?

If it was 2 weeks, I'd agree it's simply a continuation. My point of view is that a significant gap of 3 - 6 months (longer the better) is a good start. 2 weeks is simply a holiday break.

Trouble is that there is no proper test case so a lot of this is guidance and being prepared to stand by your views and interpretations. It's like the whole "if I move from a brolly to ltd but stay at the same location, is that a 24 month clock reset" discussion. On one side you have the law which states "employment" whilst on the other side you have HMRC's guidance and interpretation. There's 2 views and ways of reading it. (p.s. let's not open this can of worms!!)

[moggy]

If it was 2 weeks, I'd agree it's simply a continuation. My point of view is that a significant gap of 3 - 6 months (longer the better) is a good start. 2 weeks is simply a holiday break.

Trouble is that there is no proper test case so a lot of this is guidance and being prepared to stand by your views and interpretations. It's like the whole "if I move from a brolly to ltd but stay at the same location, is that a 24 month clock reset" discussion. On one side you have the law which states "employment" whilst on the other side you have HMRC's guidance and interpretation. There's 2 views and ways of reading it. (p.s. let's not open this can of worms!!)

I would see that as a definite no - no questions asked, or people would just be moving brolly every two years.