The 24 Month Rule in a nutshell

[northernladuk]

Despite what you've been "told", IMO until you have a contract extension that takes you over the 24 month limit. As you're on a rolling weekly contract then it's possible you won't know until the week before the limit is hit. So I would keep claiming until then.

2 days a week at home would still mean you're on-site at least 60% of the time so you don't meet the 40% test.

I'm not so sure of this. I think it get's very complicated with locums as there is extra regulation in force isn't there and a strong (yet unproven) argument that locums are inside?

https://www.crunch.co.uk/blog/contra...oyment-status/

That aside the 24 month rule also includes time spent in a location prior to forming your LTD. So if you went from perm to contract in the same area you are already over 24 months. Your chance in employment status does not affect the clock.

Also I'd be careful around the 'told' line. The OP is on a rolling weekly contract, which has no end so there is no ended date so it is quite possible to say that they expect to be there over 24 months. I use the word expect because that is used explicitly in the HMRC's example below.

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim32084

I think the rolling weekly contract throws the whole thing out of the window. I think it's quite reasonable to expect a weekly rolling contract to extend over 24 months by the simple fact there is no end date....

Which throws up another huge doozy... If locums are under a lot of scrutiny for IR35 IMO a weekly rolling contract is very bad. Rolling contracts are bad for IR35 even for us for the reasons mentioned above. No end date so quite reasonable to assume it's more akin to employment.

With so many arguable aspects here I'd be extremely wary of thinking it's as black and white as being 'told' for that one contract.

[psychocandy]

How many more times....

a) It's about the journey, not the client and not why you are there

b) Go to the known (or anticipated) end date of your current gig.

c) Count back 24 months by the calendar.

d) If between those two dates you have spent less than 40% of your time at that location, the 24 month rule doesn't apply.

e) Reassess it weekly in case it changes to over 40%. As soon as it does the 24 month rules will apply.

OK going back 24 months. 14 months in timbuctoo, then 10 months in london.
I've now spend over 40% of my time in the last 24 months in london surely? But I can still claim here up until I know I'm going to be here 24 months.

[psychocandy]

Some clarity on the 14.4 month break in attendance…

The amount of time that must elapse before returning to the same site is entirely dependent on your circumstances – if you use the steps outlined by Malvolio at the point that you are going to return to a site then you should know whether you can make a claim.

The 14.4 months that has been quoted is the time that is necessary for the clock to reset if you have been at a single location for the entire 24 month period – if you spend 24 months at one site, 14.4 months will need to elapse at a different site (i.e. 60% of 24 months) until 40% of your time (out of the previous 24 months) was at the original site (9.6 months).

If the first claim is less than 24 months, or if you don’t expect the second claim for visiting the site to be 24 months then the 14.4 month time frame will be different.

Hope this helps!
Craig

So how long to reset if the first claim was only 3 months in length?

[kaiser78]

London is a slightly different example to most other locations as I understand. You could be working in say Canary Wharf and taking train X to get in, or working in the West End or City and taking train Y to get in. Both different journeys, different lines, different calling points and destinations.

And so the 24 month rule would re-set each time this location changed. That's how it has been explained to me before anyway.

[Old Greg]

London is a slightly different example to most other locations as I understand. You could be working in say Canary Wharf and taking train X to get in, or working in the West End or City and taking train Y to get in. Both different journeys, different lines, different calling points and destinations.

And so the 24 month rule would re-set each time this location changed. That's how it has been explained to me before anyway.

I had a 100 mile commute to London a few years back, and when I changed locations by about 10 miles (IIRC) from North London to South Central London, my journey changed completely, and I reset my clock. It was arguable (or at least argued!) the other way, I will admit.

[psychocandy]

Explain Anders - not 24 months but he can't claim any more

Example two: Anders works in human resources as a consultant and is taken on by a client who wants him to design new systems in a project which lasts 17 months. He is then needed urgently on a project in one of the client’s other offices, before returning to the previous client’s offices for 6 months in order to implement the new system, which was part of the initial contract. Because this additional period was planned from the outset, Anders initially had the expectation of working at the main client site for less than 24 months, so relief can be claimed for the first 17 month stint. He can also claim relief for the 3 months spent at the secondary site as this constitutes a separate site, however, he cannot claim for the final 6 month period as he now has the expectation of working at the same site for more than 40 per cent of his time in a 24 month period.

From NW website - not the same. Anders hasnt worked 24 months but HAS started over 24 months ago with a non-resetting break in the middle.

[malvolio]

Example two: Anders works in human resources as a consultant and is taken on by a client who wants him to design new systems in a project which lasts 17 months. He is then needed urgently on a project in one of the client’s other offices, before returning to the previous client’s offices for 6 months in order to implement the new system, which was part of the initial contract. Because this additional period was planned from the outset, Anders initially had the expectation of working at the main client site for less than 24 months, so relief can be claimed for the first 17 month stint. He can also claim relief for the 3 months spent at the secondary site as this constitutes a separate site, however, he cannot claim for the final 6 month period as he now has the expectation of working at the same site for more than 40 per cent of his time in a 24 month period.

From NW website - not the same. Anders hasnt worked 24 months but HAS started over 24 months ago with a non-resetting break in the middle.

17 + 3 + an expected 6 = 26. Always work back from the anticipated or known last date whichever is the later.

However in this case the 40% is misleading since we don't know how much time he spends on site: if it's less than 40% then he can claim regardless. As I've said before, use the 40% qualification to defeat the absolute 24 month limit if it is applicable.

End of answers. All the necessary information is in page one of this thread and I'm tired of repeating myself.

[psychocandy]

17 + 3 + an expected 6 = 26. Always work back from the anticipated or known last date whichever is the later.

However in this case the 40% is misleading since we don't know how much time he spends on site: if it's less than 40% then he can claim regardless. As I've said before, use the 40% qualification to defeat the absolute 24 month limit if it is applicable.

End of answers. All the necessary information is in page one of this thread and I'm tired of repeating myself.

Mal - I think this example disagrees with your original answers though. I think you have the right interpretation but I'm merely pointing out this appears to be a difference interpretation by NW.

In this example, Anders works 17 months at site A, 3 months at site B, then back to site A for 6 months. The answer given in the example implies that he cant claim for the last 6 months - BUT hes only ever been at (or plans to) site A for 23 months.

Its like a contractor working in Leeds for 17 months, then London for 3 months, then back in Leeds for 6 months. This example says you can't claim for the last 6 months EVEN THOUGH 24 MONTHS HAS NOT BEEN WORKED IN LONDON.

I think its a wrong interpretation though.

[Old Greg]

17 + 3 + an expected 6 = 26. Always work back from the anticipated or known last date whichever is the later.

However in this case the 40% is misleading since we don't know how much time he spends on site: if it's less than 40% then he can claim regardless. As I've said before, use the 40% qualification to defeat the absolute 24 month limit if it is applicable.

End of answers. All the necessary information is in page one of this thread and I'm tired of repeating myself.

I've updated my post on Page 1 with eek's advice that IR35 and Expenses are now associated.

[Old Greg]

Mal - I think this example disagrees with your original answers though. I think you have the right interpretation but I'm merely pointing out this appears to be a difference interpretation by NW.

In this example, Anders works 17 months at site A, 3 months at site B, then back to site A for 6 months. The answer given in the example implies that he cant claim for the last 6 months - BUT hes only ever been at (or plans to) site A for 23 months.

Its like a contractor working in Leeds for 17 months, then London for 3 months, then back in Leeds for 6 months. This example says you can't claim for the last 6 months EVEN THOUGH 24 MONTHS HAS NOT BEEN WORKED IN LONDON.

I think its a wrong interpretation though.

I think this merits a brand new thread, PC.