The 24 Month Rule in a nutshell

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Liiiiiiiiiissaa!!!!

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssss NLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK K?

[northernladuk]

it was allowing the ones claimed under the retained contract but not the ones under the short terms contracts as they were considered to be permanent workplaces for the purposes of determining whether tax relief was allowable. But yes, you're right, the 24 month rule doesn't apply here

Liiiiiiiiiissaa!!!!

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Looking at it again, you're right. However it is debarring the site visit in those circumstances from allowing any expenses, so the 24 month rule wouldn't apply in the first place.

It was allowing the ones claimed under the retained contract but not the ones under the short terms contracts as they were considered to be permanent workplaces for the purposes of determining whether tax relief was allowable. But yes, you're right, the 24 month rule doesn't apply here

[malvolio]

You sure this is the right one Mal? There doesn't seem to be a reference to 24 month rule specifically

Looking at it again, you're right. However it is debarring the site visit in those circumstances from allowing any expenses, so the 24 month rule wouldn't apply in the first place.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

It was on the PCG forum. Can't reproduce the summary and subsequent comment obviously, but the judgement is here

You sure this is the right one Mal? There doesn't seem to be a reference to 24 month rule specifically

[malvolio]

But presumably visits to sites B and C would still have to exceed 40% of 24 months? Would be interested in link if you have it Mal

It was on the PCG forum. Can't reproduce the summary and subsequent comment obviously, but the judgement is here

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

This came up in a recent case (can't remember where offhand, will have a look later and stick up a link). Each visit to a different site was adjudged to be a separate contract and hence each was a unique (for which read permanent) workplace in the context of that contract. Ergo, no travel costs allowable. So not as clear cut as one might assume.

But presumably visits to sites B and C would still have to exceed 40% of 24 months? Would be interested in link if you have it Mal

[malvolio]

Sorry, site A is the relevant site - travel to B and C would be allowable

This came up in a recent case (can't remember where offhand, will have a look later and stick up a link). Each visit to a different site was adjudged to be a separate contract and hence each was a unique (for which read permanent) workplace in the context of that contract. Ergo, no travel costs allowable. So not as clear cut as one might assume.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Yes but does that mean I cannot claim any travel to any of the 5 different sites? Or just not to Site A?

So if they say "We need to you to work from Site B next week, then Site C for a fortnight after that, before returning to Site A. I should be able to claim 5 journeys to B and 10 to C yes? But none to A since that is my normal place of work in the eyes of HMRC?

Thanks for the reply.

Sorry, site A is the relevant site - travel to B and C would be allowable

[rl4engc]

If, over a 24 month period, you spend more than 40% of your time at client site A then the 24 month rule will apply

Yes but does that mean I cannot claim any travel to any of the 5 different sites? Or just not to Site A?

So if they say "We need to you to work from Site B next week, then Site C for a fortnight after that, before returning to Site A. I should be able to claim 5 journeys to B and 10 to C yes? But none to A since that is my normal place of work in the eyes of HMRC?

Thanks for the reply.