The 24 Month Rule in a nutshell

[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]

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]

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

[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]

Liiiiiiiiiissaa!!!!

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssss NLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK K?

[rl4engc]

So in Ratcliffe v HMRC, he came unstuck because his contract specified the site where he was required, hence it could not be classed as a "temporary workplace". He was commuting to a power station.

Just checked my contract, and for location it just says a region e.g. "Midlands". So if I have to work out of different sites within this region, these are temporary workplaces by definition no? I.e. could HMRC say "the site is irrelevant, you travel within "The Midlands" ?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

So in Ratcliffe v HMRC, he came unstuck because his contract specified the site where he was required, hence it could not be classed as a "temporary workplace". He was commuting to a power station.

Just checked my contract, and for location it just says a region e.g. "Midlands". So if I have to work out of different sites within this region, these are temporary workplaces by definition no? I.e. could HMRC say "the site is irrelevant, you travel within "The Midlands" ?

Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Your contract can say 'England' but if, in reality, you are going back to London or Birmingham everyday then that will be considered your workplace (temporary or otherwise) for these purposes. Also, the case you quoted has nothing to do with the 24 month rule and so is not relevant for your purposes

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Liiiiiiiiiissaa!!!!

What

[northernladuk]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssss NLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK K?

What

[LisaContractorUmbrella]