The 24 Month Rule in a nutshell

[BoredBloke]

Actually there isn't a great deal of work around Manchester and Leeds in my skillset. That's the problem.

[kal]

Actually there isn't a great deal of work around Manchester and Leeds in my skillset. That's the problem.

Which is?

[BoredBloke]

Which is?

Excel Access VBA

[rl4engc]

Sorry for jumping on this old thread, but does anyone know how the 24 month rule would work in my situation:

a) Current and previous contracts with client don't specify a workplace
b) Depending on what project I'm working on, and manpower requirements, I could be working from any of four or five offices around the country.
c) Last 18 months has "Mainly" been in Office A (occasional stints for a few days at offices B-E)
d) For expense purposes I've just been claiming travel to and from Office A (since mileages average out).
e) Now my fingers are in more of my clients pies, I'm working for weeks at a time at offices B-E (but also A).
f) Now aware contract with this client extends a further 6 months (so 24 month rule applies).

If I now work from Office A for a day, am I caught by the 40% rule? As to my mind, all of Offices A-E are temporary workplaces, in so much as I don't know where I'll be from one week to the next, but on my expenses it looks like I've been at Office A all of the time.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Sorry for jumping on this old thread, but does anyone know how the 24 month rule would work in my situation:

a) Current and previous contracts with client don't specify a workplace
b) Depending on what project I'm working on, and manpower requirements, I could be working from any of four or five offices around the country.
c) Last 18 months has "Mainly" been in Office A (occasional stints for a few days at offices B-E)
d) For expense purposes I've just been claiming travel to and from Office A (since mileages average out).
e) Now my fingers are in more of my clients pies, I'm working for weeks at a time at offices B-E (but also A).
f) Now aware contract with this client extends a further 6 months (so 24 month rule applies).

If I now work from Office A for a day, am I caught by the 40% rule? As to my mind, all of Offices A-E are temporary workplaces, in so much as I don't know where I'll be from one week to the next, but on my expenses it looks like I've been at Office A all of the time.

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

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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