The 24 Month Rule in a nutshell

[malvolio]

Thanks Mal/TF.

Just to be clear, with all of this 24 month rule, are we only talking about mileage claims, to/from the temp place of work?

Or does it also bring in subsistence/accommodation claims?

Ok, am reasonably happy to forfeit mileage claims on a 'home office to place of work' basis, but if I needed overnight accom/needed to eat while away, can I still claim that? It wouldn't be a regular basis, maybe now and again.

If it's at your new permanent place of work (which it now is) you can't claim subsistence or accommodation - well you can, but it's treated as taxable income for you so there's no point. If you go to another client site, then the usual subsistence rules apply since that is still to a temporary place of work. Understand the difference between permanent and temporary work locations and it all become clear.

And don't get confused by a recent case where a doctor had in effect two permanent places of work, or the SE engineer one where each site visit was held to be a permanent work location since he didn't have a nominated permanent location. Neither apply to the standard contract model.

[SteelyDan]

Subsistence and accommodation would also not be allowable I'm afraid if you have contravened the 24 month rule

Thanks Lisa; I thought this was the case tbh, but needed some 'oracle' to advise. Thanks for confirming.
(and btw, I did try my accountant but she's on leave)...

Update: Thanks Mal, just saw your response after I'd submitted this. Cheers.

[Contreras]

Agreed. Your permanent place of work becomes your usual client office, all else is temporary (apart from home, of course...) - although strictly speaking you should deduct your normal home-to-work mileage from any such claim.

Just to be clear...

The full journey is claimable (from home to temporary workplace) unless there is a stop at the permanent workplace.

[malvolio]

Just to be clear...

The full journey is claimable (from home to temporary workplace) unless there is a stop at the permanent workplace.

You reckon...? However, since nobody takes any notice, it doesn't really matter.

[Contreras]

strictly speaking you should deduct your normal home-to-work mileage from any such claim.

Just to be clear...

The full journey is claimable (from home to temporary workplace) unless there is a stop at the permanent workplace.

You reckon...? However, since nobody takes any notice, it doesn't really matter.

Yes. It's covered in the HMRC guidance. HTH.

[SteelyDan]

Thanks all, now as clear as it can be...

[ASB]

and secondly go look up the Ramsay principle...

I know that's one of your likes (and with justification since it generally covers, potentially, an awful lot). But what I struggle to find is anywhere it has really been relevant at a tribunal. There is generally something more specific.

So, are you aware of anywhere it has actually become relevant?

edit: by relevant I mean specifically cited; it may well be reasonable to say "when they say arrangements as a whole" they are in effect citing it.

[malvolio]

I know that's one of your likes (and with justification since it generally covers, potentially, an awful lot). But what I struggle to find is anywhere it has really been relevant at a tribunal. There is generally something more specific.

So, are you aware of anywhere it has actually become relevant?

edit: by relevant I mean specifically cited; it may well be reasonable to say "when they say arrangements as a whole" they are in effect citing it.

Well that's how they use it. Basically it allows them to go to court with a case where they have selectively ignored various commercial arrangements on the basis that they have no real business justification: in this case, taking out a two month three week contract when you expect to be offered at least three months' work. Why would you be doing that other than to gain a taxation advantage that you are not entitled to? They still have to prove the arrangement to be properly artificial, but they don't have to start there, otherwise the case would never get to court.

The EBT victims are in something of the same position. HMRC aren't saying EBTs are illegal per se - some are, some aren't - but they are using Ramsay to assert that some people should not be using them as a payment vehicle. the rest of the case follows on from there.

[horrada]

Agreed. Your permanent place of work becomes your usual client office, all else is temporary (apart from home, of course...) - although strictly speaking you should deduct your normal home-to-work mileage from any such claim.

Just add complication to the 24 month rule.

My Chartered Accountant has confirmed with me than I will be hit by the 24month rule by one client once my contract is renewed in January 2015. I would have been with this specific client for 24months February 2015 onwards.
This client is based in London where I visit once or twice a week, but also offices in Birmingham where I generally visit once or twice a month.
I also have another client whom is based outside London which I visit once a week.
For my understanding the London base would still be temp work place even after 24 months as Im under the 40% location. I believe my accountant is incorrect or Im wrong.

[TheFaQQer]

Just add complication to the 24 month rule.

My Chartered Accountant has confirmed with me than I will be hit by the 24month rule by one client once my contract is renewed in January 2015. I would have been with this specific client for 24months February 2015 onwards.
This client is based in London where I visit once or twice a week, but also offices in Birmingham where I generally visit once or twice a month.
I also have another client whom is based outside London which I visit once a week.
For my understanding the London base would still be temp work place even after 24 months as Im under the 40% location. I believe my accountant is incorrect or Im wrong.

I think you are right.