The 24 Month Rule in a nutshell

[dty]

I don't see how the first post addresses this directly, otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

Here's the scenario:
1) 10 months in, say, London
2) 10 months in, say, Birmingham
3) 4 month extension in Birmingham

Following the first post:

a) isn't really a step!
b) this is the end of the extension
c) this is the beginning of the London contract
d) this is where the vagueness comes in. What is "that location"? Looking back, I have 2 locations at which I've spent 40% of my time over the last 24 months.

Does "that location" refer to the "current location"? That is, London is excluded as it's not the current location, so a business trip to London would be allowed?

What about if instead of an extension in Birmingham, I got a new contract (or moved site or whatever) in London? I imagine I can't claim travel because of the previous 10 month spell in London. But what about a day trip to Birmingham?

Essentially, what does "that location" in step d refer to? What "that"? Should/could this be clarified?

[malvolio]

I don't see how the first post addresses this directly, otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

Here's the scenario:
1) 10 months in, say, London
2) 10 months in, say, Birmingham
3) 4 month extension in Birmingham

Following the first post:

a) isn't really a step!
b) this is the end of the extension
c) this is the beginning of the London contract
d) this is where the vagueness comes in. What is "that location"? Looking back, I have 2 locations at which I've spent 40% of my time over the last 24 months.

Does "that location" refer to the "current location"? That is, London is excluded as it's not the current location, so a business trip to London would be allowed?

What about if instead of an extension in Birmingham, I got a new contract (or moved site or whatever) in London? I imagine I can't claim travel because of the previous 10 month spell in London. But what about a day trip to Birmingham?

Essentially, what does "that location" in step d refer to? What "that"? Should/could this be clarified?

It's not supposed to be difficult...

"Location" is wherever you are working. "The same location" according to HMRC is one where you make substantially the same journey to get there; for example, to the same mainline railway station, or 60 miles up the M4 then turn left at the Chiswick flyover rather than right.

Birmingham and London don't qualify under that definition. SO by your example, the longest you're likely to have been anywhere is 14 months.

[eek]

It's not supposed to be difficult...

"Location" is wherever you are working. "The same location" according to HMRC is one where you make substantially the same journey to get there; for example, to the same mainline railway station, or 60 miles up the M4 then turn left at the Chiswick flyover rather than right.

Birmingham and London don't qualify under that definition. SO by your example, the longest you're likely to have been anywhere is 14 months.

however if the order was:

London 10 months
Birmingham 10 months
London 3 months

and got a three month renewal in London you should in theory no longer claim expenses to London as you will have spent over 40% of your time in the last two years there...

[dty]

It's not supposed to be difficult...

It's HMRC. Of course it's mean to be difficult. I apologise for not understanding, for struggling to apply your rules and for generally not being as smart as you and able to grasp such seemingly obvious concepts.

"Location" is wherever you are working. "The same location" according to HMRC is one where you make substantially the same journey to get there; for example, to the same mainline railway station, or 60 miles up the M4 then turn left at the Chiswick flyover rather than right.

Birmingham and London don't qualify under that definition. SO by your example, the longest you're likely to have been anywhere is 14 months.

I understand the concepts of "location" and "same location" (insofar as anyone can understand HMRC guidance), hence why I deliberately chose two locations unlikely to be defined as "the same". I also understand that "same location" is horribly subjective, and can vary from person to person based on individual circumstance (e.g. travelling from Southampton to Canary Wharf is probably the same as travelling from Southampton to The City, but if you live in Canary Wharf then CW and The City are [probably] substantially different journeys).

Neither of those things was really the crux of my question. My question was, what is "that location" as used in step d? Does it mean "current location" (as in, location of current role)?

"That" is a pronoun used to refer to a specific thing previously mentioned, known or understood. No location has been defined or mentioned in the steps in the first post. I assume that it's understood by most readers to imply "current location", but I don't personally believe it's very clear.

Hence my question.

[dty]

however if the order was:

London 10 months
Birmingham 10 months
London 3 months

and got a three month renewal in London you should in theory no longer claim expenses to London as you will have spent over 40% of your time in the last two years there...

Right. But what about Birmingham? I've also spent more than 40% of my time there. What if my new London client wants me to visit Birmingham for that day? Can I claim that?

[malvolio]

Right. But what about Birmingham? I've also spent more than 40% of my time there. What if my new London client wants me to visit Birmingham for that day? Can I claim that?

Yes.

HTH.

[TheFaQQer]

however if the order was:

London 10 months
Birmingham 10 months
London 3 months

and got a three month renewal in London you should in theory no longer claim expenses to London as you will have spent over 40% of your time in the last two years there...

I'm not convinced.

ITEPA 2003 states

A place is not regarded as a temporary workplace if the employee’s attendance is—
(a)in the course of a period of continuous work at that place—
(i)lasting more than 24 months,

so since you haven't been there for more than 24 months, London must be a temporary place of work.

[malvolio]

I'm not convinced.

ITEPA 2003 states


so since you haven't been there for more than 24 months, London must be a temporary place of work.

...which is what the original entry says...

[PerfectStorm]

So the WHOLE of London counts as one workplace even if you're in Maida Vale one year and Wimbledon the next? Wow.

So upon the 24 months what happens - assuming you've been claiming expenses the whole time, can you just carry on but stop claiming expenses or are you compelled to quit and work in an entirely different city?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

So the WHOLE of London counts as one workplace even if you're in Maida Vale one year and Wimbledon the next? Wow.

So upon the 24 months what happens - assuming you've been claiming expenses the whole time, can you just carry on but stop claiming expenses or are you compelled to quit and work in an entirely different city?

Once the 24 months are up OR at the point you know that the contract will extend beyond 24 months you have to stop claiming expenses for travel, subsistence and accommodation but there's nothing to stop you carrying on with the contract